Helen Gardener 'The Scepter and the Torch': Summary and Analysis

 

Literary criticism has become a distinct discipline and a major industry in the modern times. A host of approaches and theories have been formulated by various critics down the ages. Various movements have been recognized in different ages and reactions to these movements are also traced with the passage of time. The readers and learners, thrown in the ocean of different approaches, are indeed quite confused and disturbed. 

It is at this time that Helen Gardener (1908 - 1986) came with her talk/lecture entitled as 'The Scepter and the Torch' published in 'The Profession of a Critic' in 1953. Helen Gardener was a professor of English literature at Oxford University. With her vast experience of teaching and with her long interaction with the teachers and scholars, she has brought a balanced approach to the discussion of literature and literary criticism. In this talk, she touches every school of criticism in the modern times and uses the tenderest tone when she disagrees with any approach.

PROFESSIONALISM IN CRITICISM:

Criticism, according to Gardener, has become professionalized in the modern age. Gone are the days when anyone with a taste of reading and judgment could write criticism. Today, the professional critics use a lot many technical terms which are very difficult and require the use of a dictionary of critical terms. There are lots of schools and approaches which attack on one another. The growth of historical science, psychology, sociology and linguistics has made the intellectual horizon expand rapidly. Libraries are full of bibliography and encyclopaedia. In this condition, the critic should be able to keep himself updated with the latest knowledge on the subject. Thus, criticism has become professionalized. 

While admitting that a certain amount of professionalism is inevitable, Gardener asks following questions in the beginning of her talk:

1.    What is meant by discipline of literary criticism? 

 

2.    What is the training imparted to a critic and what are the standards?

 

3.    What equipment does a critic need and what is his function? 

 

The lecture 'The Scepter and the Torch' primary deals with above mentioned questions.

THE FUNCTION OF CRITICISM:

The word 'scepter' in the title of her talk is suggestive of the function of criticism. The 'scepter' is the symbol of power as judge. The critic, according to Gardener, too is a judge. She writes:

“The primary critical act is a judgment, the decision

that a certain piece of writing has significance and value."

According to Gardener, judgment takes hold of intellect, appeals to the sense and imagination. The critic passes through the experience and this experience leads the critic to judge about the value of a work of art. The critic has to find out what it says (content), how it says (manner or form) and why or what it says is important to us (value).

GARDENER AGAINST COMPARISON:

Gardener places 'value' of the work of art at the top. But she says that the attempt to judge the level of value leads to comparison. She believes that comparison should be avoided. The act of comparing is futile. Certain judgments are accepted without question that 'King Lear' is a great play, that it is greater than 'Love's Labour's Lost'. But whether Herbert is preferable to Marvel is a matter of personal choice and the critic should stop at admiring the talent of each. She firmly says that when comparison is used to place one above the other, it leads to wrong criticism.

GARDENER AGAINST FINDING FAULTS:

Moreover, Gardener also advises the critics to leave alone the works which they like to attack. Because in a moment they attack them but after a passage of time, they would rethink and recount their own criticism. For example, T. S. Eliot severely criticized Milton and Dryden but later admitted that he had committed a very serious mistake by doing so.

ALLEGORY IN THE TITLE:

Gardener believed that time is the true judge. What was criticized in a particular time maybe discovered as a source of sheer enjoyment in the times to come. For this Gardener gives an allegory which Dr. Johnson gave in 'The Rambler'. According to the allegory, 'criticism' is the daughter of 'labour'. 'Justice' has given a scepter in her right hand and a torch in her left hand to judge the works of art. But criticism faced lot many cases at the same time and referred these cases to 'time'. Before returning to heaven, she broke her scepter, one half of which was seized by 'flattery' and the other half by malevolence'. 

Thus, through this allegory Gardener wants to suggest that poetry of the past has been judged by the present time and the verdicts on poetry of the present will have to pass the test of time in future. She does not want to set the standards by which works are to be judged. That would be an exercise in futility.

GARDENER AGAINST VARIOUS APPROACHES:

According to Gardener, the mind which approaches a work of art with some previously worked out standards and expectations cannot enjoy the peace. To train the young mind (young critic) in lines of some set standards and approaches is a serious crime. The young critic should be encouraged to read widely and voraciously. Wisdom will grow naturally and the power to judge a work of art will spring from this wisdom automatically.

THE TORCH:

Gardner is of the view that the critic should throw away the scepter and keep hold on the torch. The critic should enlighten himself first to enlighten the reader later. The critic of literature has to be able to experience a special kind of pleasure. While going through the books, he is in the company of great thoughts and feelings. His main job is to illuminate himself first and then to convey the light and joy to others. A critic who does not enjoy his work himself and who does not convey his enjoyment to his reader is not a critic at all. Moreover, the critic has no right to tress pass in a certain area which is the private property of the reader. The critic's task is to assist the reader with a torch not to obstruct or to encroach.

GARDENER'S VIEWS ON MODERN CRITICISM:

Helen gardener was much against modern criticism. In the modern times, the new critics hold the view that a work of art is autonomous. It is cut off from its author, its milieu and its time. But gardener says that art does not exist in a vacuum. She says:

"All art including contemporary art are historical objects."

 So she says that historical sense alone will help the critic to understand the work of art. She supported the view of studying art in connection with biography. She says that the modern critics study poetry just as a scientist studies the bell jar cut off from outside the world. But she says that a literary critic is not a scientist working in a laboratory; he is reader sitting in a library. Thus, gardener advocates for historical and biographical study of art. 

Gardener goes against modern critics. She states two critics particularly - I. A. Richards and T. S. Eliot. Richards conducted experiments of criticism in his classroom which he published in 'practical criticism'. As gardener puts it, the experiment proved the futility of the method. T. S. Eliot has emphasized on the impersonality of poetry. But gardener says a work of art can never escape the writer's experiences and emotions. She quoted Milton and said: 

 "A good book is the precious life blood of a masterpiece."

To treat a poem as an artefact and nothing much else, is to ignore the facts of the original experience of the author. The desire to know the poet's mind behind the poem is absolutely necessary for a reader.

 CONCLUSION:

Thus, Gardner's primary concern is with the work, not with any approach, any school of criticism or theory. The critical mills are working overtime and criticism has been done profusely. In this condition, the student of literature is in danger of getting lost in the maze. Gardener's new sympathetic approach is indeed a relief to any new learner of literature and criticism. It is indeed Gardner's greatness that she showed courage to stand up and challenge the so-called giants in the field of modern criticism.