Tennyson’s Use of Structure; an Analysis of In Memoriam
Tennyson’s In Memoriam was inspired by the tragic death of Tennyson’s close friend Arthur Hallam. Critical analysis subsequent its first publication has garnered a variety of scholarly interpretations of the meaning text. From theological, philosophical, idiosyncratic, and even psychosexual perspectives, Tennyson’s work has been the subject of a variety of critical interpretations. The structure of In Memoriam has been a consistent point of critical discussion.[1] Since Tennyson’s work was composed over the course of seventeen years, many critics argue that its disconnectedness robs the work of an aesthetic value. Discerning Tennyson’s structural choices is important, because it offers a resolution of what has been often criticized as an irreconcilably disconnected work, and ensures that the work is primarily understood as poetic. By observing the relationship between the intellectual substance of the poem and its poetic base, one can develop a more complete appreciation of the structure of the poem.
Critical reception of Tennyson’s work since its publication has often focused on its poetic structure (or, as some critics argue, lack of structure). Although Howard Felperin claims that critical reception can illuminate the social interests of the historical moment from which that criticism arose, the critical history of In Memoriam is indicative of shifts in scholarship, but it shares little in common with social history. While it cannot be said that social history is reflective of the critical reception of the text, the critical reception that this paper focuses on was certainly driven by the reaction to past criticisms (in this case, criticism concerning poetic structure). While the poem is segmented into grouped quatrains, and is framed by a prologue and an epilogue, the course of the poem’s dialogue is often disjoined. Interestingly, critical discourse before 1960 tended to treat intellectual elements of the text as necessarily disconnected from their poetic context. As a result, the poem was never fully realized from a critical interpretative standpoint (after all, one of the greatest strengths of the poem is the psychological evolution of its speaker). More importantly, however, any attempt to discern the poem’s structure was obscured. Arguably, the poetic structure of In Memoriam can only be understood by appreciating the relationship between the intellectual (or psychological) development of the speaker and the poetic structure which it both defines and is defined by.
Although Scott Slovic argues that the psychological progression of the poem (or the internal progression of the narrator) does not justify its disunity, many critics have opted rather to establish modes of unity within the structure of the poem. During the early 1960s, critical interpretation expanded to encompass a variety of more comprehensive analyses (in terms of their scope, and of their reliance on atypical modes of comprehending the poem). For instance, Marvel Shmiefsky traces motifs (such as rebirth, which he links to the heaven-hell archetype) throughout the text, and notes their recurrence as indicative of structure. His study represents the first of many critical combinations of intellectual and poetic elements in order to develop a more thorough appreciation for the poetic structure of the work. Moreover, modern critical analysis, such as that of J.C.C. Mays, observes the poem’s structure as what might be described as “process.” That is, the poetic structure is defined by various instantiations of the evolution of the speaker’s consciousness (or his understanding of the world or aspects of the human condition). This theme, although it was first well-articulated by Mays and others in the 1960s, was expanded during the 1970s to encapsulate a variety of psychological interpretations of the poem, which informed interpretations of its structure.
Understanding the poem as an intellectual or psychological “process” is convenient because it allows critics to accommodate some of the otherwise irreconcilable discontinuities of the structure of the poem. More importantly, however, understanding the poem as “process” complements the poetic quality of the work (and thus validates the work as art). According to John D. Boyd, in order to recognize the poetic (and by virtue the artistic) substance of In Memoriam (or that the work is in fact structured), one must pay particular attention to its poetic texture, or the “myriad of poetic techniques, operating together stanza by stanza, [which transforms] Tennyson’s polemics into poetry… of a high order”. Based on Oliver Elton’s observation of “logic of feeling,” Boyd determines that Tennyson’s poem is exemplary of the structural principle of a single human sensibility, “whose experience is the whole of the poem”. That is, while any particular stanza of the poem might be deemed self-explanatory, it can only be fully comprehended when understood as but a moment in the psychological consciousness of the speaker. As such, the poem becomes necessarily understood as structured insofar as the revelation of any given component of the poem is understood relative to the rest of the poem. The reader is privileged to observe the structure of the poem by participating in the psychological journey of the speaker; the structure of the work (and its literary merit) is subordinated to (but also revealed by) the psychological progression of the speaker.
Moreover, Boyd argues that the mind of the speaker, evidenced by the poem, projects a particular “dramatic logic”. The progression of Tennyson’s speaker is driven by an inherently emotional sensibility, although that motivation might not always manifest itself in expressly logical terms. The structure of In Memoriam is affected by its emotional dimension, which does not always appear to progress logically (which helps explain why Tennyson opted for a disjointed structure in In Memoriam). According to Boyd, “[i]t is because In Memoriam is intended to portray ‘the logic of feeling’ that its structure seems chaotic to anyone who reads it as a mere philosophical debate in verse”. Rather than attempting to isolate one thread of argument (which would undoubtedly appear disconnected), it is more appropriate to discern the motivation of the speaker (and to understand that motivation as being expressed in a poetic architecture). For instance, while Tennyson’s speaker’s argument about immortality might be partially motivated by logical inference, he is primarily driven by his intense desire to communicate with his friend. The speaker is not motivated by any explicit desire to convince the reader of any logical basis for his argument. Thus, Tennyson’s structure is not simply driven by an argument for faith (as expressed by his speaker). Rather, Tennyson’s structure is actually driven by the emotion of his narrator. It is only by through the ebb and flow of the emotional dimension of the poem that the reader is able to traverse Tennyson’s argument.
In a similar way that Boyd gleans the structure of In Memoriam from the psychological dimensions of the poem, Kerry McSweeney observes patterns within the psychological dynamics of the speaker in relation to structure. Although her analysis focuses on specific thematic elements, her criticism offers a more robust interpretation of the structure of the poem than Boyd. Specifically, McSweeney points to the “natural consolation” of the poem (or the separation of grief from the natural cycle of change). According to McSweeney, the progression of the poem sees the rise of a healing identification for the speaker within this cycle (by his recognition of the connection between life and death, for instance). In order to establish a sense of structure, McSweeney focuses on the sections of the poem as transitional. Specifically, McSweeney observes section XCI as the point at which the narrator recovers his sense of Hallam’s living spirit, and sections CXV and CXXI as the point of his acceptance (even celebration) of natural and human processes (and their intermingled relationship). Tennyson’s speaker’s resolution is a by-product of his disconnection from and reconnection to the cycle of human existence. Thus, McSweeney understands the structure of the poem both in terms of the psychological progression of the speaker (his opposition to, and gradual acceptance of, the natural process), and in the physical segmentation of the poem. In this way, McSweeney offers a more robust conception of the psychological as structured, because her conception recognizes the segmentation of the poem as being precisely chosen by Tennyson.
Like his predecessors, Harry Puckett understands the poem as a process wherein the speaker traverses the psychological landscape to a point of acceptance of the world, and of paradigms like life and death. Rather than interpreting In Memoriam as an artefact, or as what might be described as architectural, Puckett furthers the conception of the poem as developmental. The speaker’s assent over the course of the poem, particularly in terms of his understanding of life and death, both defines and is defined by the poem’s structure. The speaker constantly refines his conception of the world to a “higher quality of imagination at the conclusion [of the poem],” which is mirrored in the structure of the poem. In other words, it is through Tennyson’s speaker’s refinement of his will (the will to continually redefine his world) that drives the narration of the poem in a consistent and structured manner. Specifically, Puckett points to Tennyson’s use of subjunctive syntax, which allows him to slow the pace of the poem. In doing so, Tennyson ensures that each scene (or each segment of the poem) is an object of contemplation not occurrence. This is a crucial observation by Puckett, because if each seemingly disjointed section of the poem can be understood as a series of contemplative plateaus (which Tennyson expertly manipulates via the syntax of the poem), then the reader must recognise that the poem is inherently structured (insofar as it drives in a particular and edifying direction). Moreover, unlike McSweeney who selects particular passages as particularly introspective, Puckett’s analysis presumes that each passage is important because it contributes to the poem’s structural development.
Thus, the evolution of the poem (or the assent of the speaker within the bounds of the poem) is contingent on the poem evolving over its course, from a point of an imperfect understanding of the world to a more perfect (although notably incomplete) understanding of the world. The structure of the poem allows for the evolution of the speaker’s understanding of the world (and of those transcendental elements - immortality - that challenge his philosophical and psychological disposition). Interestingly, the structure of the poem actually relies on Tennyson’s use of the subjunctive because ambiguous or contradictory segments of the speaker’s perception of the world are refined in subsequent segments. Puckett’s analysis can, therefore, account for those passages that do not immediately appear to advance the speaker’s psychological progression. The resolution of the speaker’s understanding of the world actually drives the resolution of the structure of the poem itself, because without clarity the structure might never be discerned. Although Puckett tracks Tennyson’s use of the subjunctive over the course of the poem (in terms of constant refinement), he recognises that Tennyson never definitively concludes whether or not a man can achieve a higher place (and whether the poem can offer complete resolution). In fact, the final lines of the Epilogue suggest that the structure of the poem is never completely realized because even its last lines might be judged as partially inadequate.
However, Puckett’s analysis is not without its shortcomings. As a by-product of his analysis, claims Alan Sinfield, Puckett is forced to ignore instances of mystical contemplation (most evident in section XCV). While these mystical instances are crucial to the work in a poetic sense, Puckett’s interpretation necessarily deems them merely as instance of occurrence. While Alan Sinfield largely agrees with Puckett’s analysis, he interprets the function of section XCV as problematic to Puckett’s assessment of Tennyson’s use of the subjunctive. According to Sinfield, the subjunctive that is prevalent in the first two-thirds of the poem is “confronted in section XCV by a strong indicative in words which traditionally signify a mystical apprehension of absolute reality,” and the later use of the subjunctive “support[s] the poet’s positive statements about the condition and destiny of mankind”. While Puckett assumes that mystical instances cannot be interpreted as part of the overriding structure of the poem, Sinfield argues that the section “provides unrivalled evidence that there is an ordered structure to the universe… and that the human spirit may transcend death”. According to Joseph Sendry, Sinfield’s conception of the structure of the poem is not without a hierarchy; by distinguishing between dominant and subordinate elements within the poem’s framework, Sinfield offers a way of understanding the poem as a unified entity, and as one with a particularly notable artistic value. Thus, Sinfield offers a critical interpretation that more fully articulates the structure of the poem because it incorporates otherwise dismissed passages into the overarching structure of the work, thereby framing an important poetic element as an important structural element.
Discerning the poetic structure of In Memoriam is difficult. While many critics taken slightly (sometimes significantly) different approach to understanding the poetic structure and its relationship to the substance of the poem, the nexus of their interpretations offers a particularly robust structural analysis of Tennyson’s work. Although literary criticism before 1960 tended to separate the intellectual substance from its poetic base, the modern critics manage to combine the two in order to glean a more complete conception of the poem’s structure. Whether by observing its poetic texture or by its use of patterns of natural consolation, the critics of the 1960s and 70s all observe that the structure of the poem requires a more substantial reading of its subtle nuances (something otherwise ignored). Each critic recognizes that it is only by incorporating these instantiations of “process” that they can reconcile Tennyson’s structural choices in In Memoriam. Moreover, each recognizes that the poetic structure actually affects the intellectual substance of the poem, and, likewise, that the intellectual substance necessarily drives the structure. The combination of two previously disassociated elements of the work ensures that modern critics not only better recognize the structure of Tennyson’s poem, but they actually come to a have fuller appreciation of its artistic value.
[1] Structure refers to the identification of the grouping of sections of the poem (the stylistic choices) and the internal chronology of the poem as determined by its structure.
Works Cited
Boyd, John D. “‘In Memoriam’ and the ‘Logic of Feeling’.” Victorian Poetry, Vol. 10, No. 2 (Summer, 1972), 95-110.
Felperin, Howard . The Uses of the Canon: Elizabethan Literature and Contemporary Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.
McSweeney, Kerry. “The Pattern of Natural Consolation in ‘In Memoriam’.” Victorian Poetry, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Summer, 1973), 87-99.
Puckett, Harry. “Subjunctive Imagination in ‘In Memoriam’.” Victorian Poetry, Vol. 12, No. 2 (Summer, 1974), 97-124.
Sendry, Joseph. “‘In Memoriam’: Twentieth-Century Criticism.” Victorian Poetry, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Summer, 1980), 105-11.
Shmiefsky, Marvel. “‘In Memoriam’: Its Seasonal Imagery Reconsidered.” Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900, Vol. 7, No. 4, Nineteenth Century (Autumn, 1967), 721-739.
Sinfield, Alan. “ ‘That Which Is’: The Platonic Indicative in ‘In Memoriam’ XC.” Victorian Poetry, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Autumn, 1976), 247-252.
Slovic, Scott, “From Tennyson to Duncan: Structural Disunity and Human Separation.” Modern Language Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Winter, 1991), 74-98.
