Axel's Castle: A Study of the Imaginative Literature of 1870-1930 (FSG Classics)

Sylvia Plath’s boyfriend, Gordon Lameyer, gave Plath the book Axel’s Castle: A Study in the Imaginative Literature of 1870-1930, by Edmund Wilson, to read while recovering at McLean after her attempted suicide in 1953. My fellow scholars have teased me about my “crush” on Gordon. He was gorgeous, smart, into literature, and completely devoted to Plath. But this post is not about him, it’s about the book.I had been interested in Axel’s Castle for a long time, and bought a copy long ago which I finally got around to reading this week. Knowing that Joyce and Yeats were into Kabbalah/Cabala/Qabalah, and knowing that Lameyer seemed to be quite open to ideas of mysticism, as well as his being a major Joyce scholar, I knew there must be something here of interest here. In a letter, Plath thanked Lameyer for it and said it “will take me to new depths in my dearly beloved Yeats, Joyce and Eliot…” (LSP, 652)Author Edmund Wilson is dry—even Plath thought so, although in her letters she said that she mostly got it (LSP, 660). Axel’s Castle traces the origins of contemporary literature and the development of the imaginative style among six writers of a common school: Yeats, Joyce, Eliot, Proust, Gertrude Stein, and Paul Valéry. Here, I’ll review the chapters that I know interested Plath: Yeats, Eliot, and Joyce, as well as the introduction and conclusion.In Chapter One, Symbolism, Wilson discusses how this school of literature begins with Romanticism, where the writer becomes a part of the story. What we call “meta” today, although it was in the voice for its time. Romantics see “the world is an organism, that nature includes planets, mountains, vegetation and people alike, that what we are and what we see, what we hear, what we feel and what we smell, are inextricably related, that all are involved in the same great entity” (AC, 5). Yes. Wilson didn’t realize he did a fine job describing Qabalah.[The Romantic Poet] “is the prophet of a new insight into nature: he is describing things as they really are; and a revolution in the imagery of poetry is in reality a revolution in metaphysics” (AC, 5-6). Well, well! Maybe Wilson does realize this is Qabalah?It’s funny. For me, having read so much Qabalah to understand Plath, I missed the point that it can be a loose relation of things. As an author with a new approach to Plath, I have worked so hard trying to prove that this means such-and-such, when I should have just read more of what Plath read. Live and learn, right? In reality, Qabalah is an association game. Wilson explained:“To name an object is to do away with three-quarters of the enjoyment of the poem which is derived from the satisfaction of guessing little by little: to suggest it, to evoke it—that is what charms the imagination” (AC, 20). Yes, it’s time to loosen up a bit in my next books.Poets invent a special language, Wilson wrote. “Such a language must make use of symbols […] a succession of words, of images, which will serve to suggest to the reader” (AC, 21). He continued that the Symbolist movement is “principally limited to poetry of a rather esoteric kind” (22). This has been my point exactly, stressing that Plath is more Symbolist than anyone gives her credit to be.Chapter Two of Axel’s Castle focuses on Yeats, who believed that the Symbolists were the only ones doing anything new in poetry (AC, 26). Plath had been schooled thoroughly in both Yeats and Joyce, and knew all about their mysticism. She had read A Skeleton’s Key to Finnegans Wake to learn about Joyce’s Kabalistic (he spelled it with a K) endeavors, and she would soon read The Unicorn: William Butler Yeats’ Search for Reality, which is a deep discussion on his alchemy and occult activities as it shaped his work. A review of the former has already been posted, and one of the latter is forthcoming.Axel’s Castle details Yeats’ Rosa Alchemica, called by critics to be his best work of fiction, exploring Yeats’ passions for myth, legend, Irish culture, and his lifelong membership of over thirty years in the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn secret society as a practitioner of magic and alchemy. There are too many details to include here, but the subjects are: Rosicrucianism and alchemy (AC, 32-34); the Tree of Life (AC, 43); the Phoenix (AC, 44); his 1922 autobiography of occultism, The Trembling of the Veil; astrology; clairvoyants; magic; Madame Blavatsky; Theosophy; Yeats’ 1901 essay on Magic and its principles (AC, 47-48); Myths, trances, dreams and visions; mediums; and even Yeats’ interest in psychoanalysis and anthropology (AC, 48). All of these topics were of great interest to Plath and her husband, Ted Hughes.Author Edmund Wilson quotes Yeats about quarreling with AE Waite, a creator of the modern tarot and Rosicrucian leader, about magic and rationality (AC, 48-49). In Yeats’ mind, and later on in Plath’s too, there was room for both.Wilson wrote that Yeats had a firm grasp of Freud and Jung’s psychology and symbolism, as well as William Blake’s elaborate “mystical-metaphysical system” to explain psychology (AC, 49). We know Plath knew all of these writers/thinkers inside-out, so Yeats’ system would have made perfect sense to her.Next discussed is Yeats’ A Vision (1926), a book encompassing human personality, history, and the transformations of the soul—aspects Plath would incorporate in her own work, with the instruction of Yeats’ diagrams, orbits of the moon, philosophies and defined concepts such as daimons, tinctures, cones, gyres, husks and passionate bodies. Wilson says, “Yeats asserts the human personality follows the pattern of a ‘Great Wheel’” (AC, 49). Many consider this wheel to be equivalent to the Tree of Life.The author made this comment about Yeats which I related to so well when writing about Plath, trying for years to explain this Qabalistic system within Plath’s work:“and indeed one would think that to elaborate a mystical system so complicated and so tedious, it would be necessary to believe in it pretty strongly.”And yet Yeats, like Plath, did not consider himself a believer. He reverted to calling his occult endeavors merely “a background for my thought, a painted scene” (AC, 54). The author goes on to challenge that Yeats’ extreme mystical detail is no mere “background,” and I suggest the same for Sylvia Plath. These book reviews are just a small part of my proof that she learned from the masters.The chapter on Yeats discusses his wife, Georgie, as a spiritual medium, and their practice of automatic writing (AC, 55). Much like in Plath’s long poem, “Dialogue Over a Ouija Board,” there are great details of spirit sessions, sights, smells, sounds and spirit personalities. Also explored is Yeats’ study of philosophy, the prophetic books of William Blake, Swedenborg (religious mystic) and Boehme (alchemist). Yeats is quoted as saying Hermetic Initiation “had filled my head with Cabalistic imagery” (AC, 57). Yeats studied philosophy to understand the “system.” Apparently, during Yeats’ writing of the book A Vision, there was spiritual intervention when he made attempts at revision. Whether or not you believe it, it’s all fun and fascinating. It goes on with lots more about Yeats’ supernatural experiences, his Irish Catholic mysticism, and his very Plathian way of handling faith: “his realistic sense is too strong, his intellectual integrity too high, to leave it out of the picture […] He believes, but ---he does not believe.”Chapter IV discusses T.S. Eliot, and most especially The Love Song of Alfred J. Prufrock (1915) and The Waste Land (1922), a long poem as a metaphor for the myth of the Holy Grail, with pagan and Puritan themes. Wilson notes that in The Waste Land, and like we see in James Joyce’s work (and what Plath has done consistently, although no one gives her credit), Eliot “manages to include quotations from, allusions to, or imitations of, at least thirty-five different writers (some of them, such as Shakespeare and Dante, laid under contribution several times)---as well as popular songs” (AC, 110). The author observes that to credit the original sources of inspiration makes some perceive Eliot as “second-hand.” And maybe that is why Sylvia Plath scholars refuse to see the influences I have found in her work. Who can know? Wilson closes the Eliot chapter talking about the difficulty of “where the novelist or poet stops and the scientist or metaphysician begins” (AC, 119).Chapter VI covers James Joyce, and recaps how Joyce’s Ulysses is a modern Odyssey. He summarizes the story, and which of Joyce’s characters stand in for the Greek gods and goddesses. Joyce’s Ulysses is Bloom, a Dublin Jew, further reinforcing the Qabalah (or, in this case, Kabbalah) within Joyce’s Ulysses and Finnegans Wake, and in Plath’s work. Wilson walks the reader through Ulysses discussing some of the symbolism, showing how Joyce did it differently—neglecting action, narrative and drama for psychological portraiture--in comparison to other writers.“The first critics of Ulysses mistook the novel for a ‘slice of life’ and objected that it was too fluid or too chaotic,” Wilson wrote. “They did not recognize a plot because they could not recognize a progression; and the title told them nothing. They could not even discover a pattern” (AC, 211).And so it is with Plath’s work, who made a model out of James Joyce and Yeats (See my Decoding Sylvia Plath’s “Daddy”: Discover the Layers of Meaning Beyond the Brute; and Decoding Sylvia Plath’s “Lady Lazarus”: Freedom’s Feminine Fire (2017, Magi Press).Wilson draws parallels between Joyce and Yeats, and notes that Yeats was a great influence on Joyce (AC, 221). Wilson, perhaps not knowing Qabalah himself, describes Joyce’s Qabalistic structure perfectly:“Joyce’s world is always changing as it is perceived by different observers and by them at different times. It is an organism made up of ‘events,’ which may be taken as infinitely inclusive or infinitely small and each of which involves all the others; and each of these events is unique […] everything is reduced to terms of ‘events’ like those of modern physics and philosophy – events which make up a ‘continuum,’ but which may be taken as infinitely small” (AC, 221-222).There’s so much more I’d love to quote. I imagine Plath studying Joyce and all of his parallel symbols working toward one greater message. Through Joyce and Yeats (and Eliot too), Plath could fully understand Qabalah in words and pictures. Plath had mentors in these authors and their examples to emulate. Yet, she chose Yeats’ medium of poetry as the realm in which to master her spiritual arts. (Writing this, I admit that I do have notes all over a copy of The Bell Jar, identifying a Qabalistic order within that book too. I just haven’t found any layers there. Of course, I’ve barely given The Bell Jar time, as her poetry has taken me over ten years and I am not finished yet).At the time of Wilson’ writing of Axel’s Castle, Joyce was still at work on Finnegans Wake, which Wilson referred to as “Transition” (Joyce’s working title). The time and description of Transition well describes Finnegans Wake, for us to know it is the same.“A single one of Joyce’s sentences, therefore, will combine two or three different meanings, two or three different sets of symbols; a single word may contain two or three,” Wilson said, adding, “The style he has invented for his purpose works on the principle of a palimpsest: one meaning, one set of images, is written over another” (AC, 235). He writes that Joyce systematically embroiders his text with all human possibilities (AC, 235-6).Chapter VIII is the conclusion: Axel and Rimbaud. And throughout the book, I kept wondering, “Who is Axel?” Finally, we have an answer. Axel is the Count Axel of Auersburg, who studies hermetic philosophy of the alchemists, and is prepared by a Rosicrucian for the revelation of the spiritual mysteries. In his castle is hidden the lost treasures of Napoleon. This is all based on the long prose poem, “Axel,” by Villiers de I’Isle-Adams (1890).Wilson declares that there is only one of two ways to go: Axel or Rimbaud. Rimbaud is a Naturalist and only of the world, according to Wilson. The aforementioned others in Axel’s Castle, the Symbolists, incorporate everything of the world into their literary worlds. Rimbaud has no God, but the Axel’s authors create representations of God with their brilliance. “Men will no longer separate the idea of God from that of human genius, human productivity in all its forms” (292).Axel’s Castle is a great study of great literature. But even cooler than that, it’s a Qabalah handbook and Wilson didn't even know it.

excellent essays on literature by a noted critic. I enjoyed it very much and hope to order more by edmund wilson

Handy overview of the times of James Joyce --and others. Although a book that has been in print for many years, it it still useful.

Good.

This is Wilson's famous early work on Symbolism published in 1931. Mary Gordon points out in the introduction that Edmund Wilson had skill at narrative and drama. He had the facility to combine ideas with concrete detail. Wilson had utter devotion to literature and pushed beyond his natural appetites. He asserted that W.B. Yeats, James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, Gertrude Stein, Marcel Proust, and Paul Valery represented the culmination of a self-conscious literary movement. Poe by way of the translation of his work by Baudelaire influenced French literature. Poe was interested in aesthetic theory. The Symbolist movement had a self-conscious aesthetic.Valery met Mallarme in 1892. Valery, undergoing a personal crisis, ceased to write verse. Later he invented his mythological character, M. Teste. After twenty years of not writing poetry, he wrote "La Jeune Parque". Wilson describes Mallarme as a painter and Valery as a sculptor. Wilson believes Valery has been taken too seriously. He contends there is a similarity between French nineteenth century Smbolists and English seventeenth century poets. T.S. Eliot was influenced by Tristan Corbiere. He was also influenced by Jules Laforgue. T.S. Eliot's distinction is in his phrasing. He is akin, too, to the metaphysical poets. Eliot is a typical product of the New England civilization. The dramatic character of Eliot's imagination contributes to his success. Eliot said that poetry offers superior amusement. Among the critics of his time, Eliot stands out distinctly.Marcel Proust applied symbolism to fiction. Proust thought of dividing his novel into the age of names, the age of words, and the age of things. Proust was addicted to English literature. Proust, like Dickens, was a mimic. In the portrayal of Albertine and the narrator Proust provided one of the most original studies of love in fiction. Proust shows it is impossible to master the external world. Wilson finds REMBRANCE OF THINGS PAST one of the gloomiest books ever written. The greatest grief of Proust's life was the death of his mother when he was thirty-four. James Joyce's first two works had little in common with English fiction. He worked in the tradition of French fiction. Joyce uses the methods of symbolism in ULYSSES to represent consciousness. There is vitality in Joyce but little movement. ULYSSES suffers from an excess of design. When Wilson wrote his book, half of FINNEGAN'S WAKE had been written. FINNEGAN'S WAKE exaggerates qualities found in ULYSSES.Gertrude Stein studied physiology and medicine. THREE LIVES was brought out by an obscure publisher. Regarding Stein, Wilson talks about an abstract vein of generalization. Rimbaud made himself a visionary. He influenced Verlaine's poetry. In 1873 Rimbaud composed "Une Saison en Enfer".In Appendix II "Memoirs of Dadaism" by Tristan Tzara appears. This book is a serious attempt to explain modern writers. It happened to be very important in the estblishing of Wilson's critical reputation. The qualities of clarity and distinction in Wilson's writing are evident and important here.

Edmund Wilson is one of the greatest literary (and social) critics of all times. In this book, he analyzes brilliantly literary movements against the background of scientific and social (r)evolutions.Classicism, Romanticism, Naturalism, SymbolismsRomanticism was a revolt of the individual, a reaction against Classicism and its ideal of objectivity (the artist was out of the picture). In Romanticism, the author was either his own hero or unmistakably identified with him. Romantics were rebels and vindicated the rights of the individual against the claims of society (government, morals, conventions, academy or church).With new advances in science, this heroic man became a helpless animal, an accidental product of heredity and environment. For Naturalism, literature had to be a simple documentation about man and his fate (determinism).But, individualism fought back on the waves of new psychological insights under the form of Symbolism (in Germany: Expressionism). For the symbolists, the conventional language of ordinary literature cannot express individual sensations. Each author is a unique personality and has the task to invent a specially adapted language for the expression of his feelings, and more specifically, through the suggestive power of symbols.Symbolists (W.B. Yeats being the only pure one)W.B. Yeats' aim was to stand apart from the democratic and scientific world. For him, all great literature was created out of symbols. But by rejecting modern science, he cut himself off from enlightened thought and became an adept of astrology.P. Valéry sees no possibility of transmitting to someone else what is going on in one's mind. The reader should enjoy poetry like music. P. Valéry was heavily criticized by A. France. For the atter, his poetry was not more than `difficult thoughts expressed in obscure language'.For T.S. Eliot, actual human life is ignoble, sordid and vulgar. The present is very inferior to the past. As a puritan, he searched to replace sexual emotions by religious ones.For Marcel Proust, it is impossible to master the external world. All our observations are relative to the person who perceives them. His masterpiece, `A la recherche du temps perdu', is a pure dream-novel where the social hierarchy is destroyed.The characters in James Joyce's `Ulysses' are symbols, with Mrs. Bloom as the body, Stephen as the creative imagination and Mr. Bloom as the conventional, enlightened husband.With Gertrude Stein literature becomes pure rhythm through repetitions. Art becomes a sort of a game (a dead end).André Gide summarizes perfectly the Symbolist school by stating that there is a lack of curiosity about life, a renunciation of the outside world (society) for the experience of the imagination alone (solitude). But, as E. Wilson rightly states in this book: the second revolt of the individual in literature produced some of its most profound and brilliant achievements.This deep meditation and remarkable analysis is a must read for all those interested in modern literature.

Edmund Wilson published Axel's Castle in 1931. Contextually, the first phase of literary Modernism was over. Nonetheless, almost a decade after their release, The Waste Land and Ulysses were still met with incredulity by the public and aficionados alike. Wilson, however, believes these complex works (and their innumerable offspring) to be a natural progression of the fin de siècle's penchant for Symbolism. Although the Symbolist aesthetic had been spawned in France, its probing tentacles spread throughout the Anglophone world, the movement's tenets adapted by a rootless band of exiles and expatriates: James Joyce, T.S. Eliot, and Gertrude Stein.The book's introduction, 'Symbolism', gives an informative account of Modernism's roots. Literature has persistently vacillated between the objective-Classicist and subjective-Romantic methods; but, as Wilson shows, these two contrary schools of thought are interdependent: writers may react against what has gone before but they happily assimilate its outcomes. The essay's historical timeline records the ebb and flow of Classicism and Romanticism, Naturalism and Symbolism. For Wilson, though, all these different -isms have symbiotically perfected themselves in the Modernist epoch. But just who, exactly, were these modern-day Symbolists?The essays cover W.B. Yeats, Paul Valery, T.S. Eliot, Marcel Proust, James Joyce and Gertrude Stein. The articles on Eliot, Joyce and Proust are superb. He rightly describes the novels of Joyce and Proust as symphonic rather than narrative, while incisively highlighting Eliot's abilities as a poet-critic to the detriment of his mentor, Ezra Pound. Each writer is celebrated and rebuked in equal measure, but all are congratulated for revolutionising their respective genres, as they, if anyone, have tackled the polyphonic nature of Modernity and succeeded in making it new. Nevertheless, Joyce is undoubtedly the hero, for he has transformed prose into poetry (a genre Wilson presciently describes as an endangered species) and transcribed the multifariousness of everyday existence. But that is still not enough, and Wilson exhorts the modern writer to refrain from detachedly voyaging in the imagination: they must now return to reality.A minor criticism is Wilson's predilection for summarising the books under discussion, which, with a gargantuan novel like Ulysses, becomes tiresome. Yet he redeems himself by writing with an unparalleled enthusiasm. The prose is finely wrought, the metaphors succinct and illuminating. In short, Wilson is a knowledgeable teacher guiding the reader round the landmarks of Modernism, eloquently pointing out its ruins and its monuments: it is a privilege none should forgo.

On time and as described

A no doubt difficult read for today's fifth-rate scholars who imagine they are schooled when, in fact, they have no understanding or appreciation of the roots of contemporary literature. The New Yorker like so many magazines used to devote inches to literary reviews, which illuminated so much of the culture and where we were headed. All of the great publications save the Spectator and the Dublin Review - perhaps obscure others - seem to have fallen to rack and ruin, alas. Axel serves as a reminder of better days and a standard we might endeavor to meet again one day when globalist junkthink has been crushed.