Hello, and welcome back to NPTEL national program on National Technology Enhanced Learning a joint venture of Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institute of Science. As you are aware, these lectures are for students in engineering college and IITs, and the role of humanities and social sciences is quite significant in the curriculum of engineering students. I am Krishna Barua. I have been teaching literature for a decade and more and it is really an enjoyment always teaching literature to engineering students. We are presently in the lecture series language and literature. Today, we are in module 5 title literary criticism. We are in lecture 2 title liberal humanism. Well, let us have a recap of what we had done in the previous lecture. Module 1, module 5 lecture 1 classical criticism. Let us enjoy history of literary criticism a journey we are about to undertake in this module and it is not only to revisit some of the profound sources of history of literary criticism, but to locate the history within the context of main currents of western thoughts. Literary criticism is about interpretation, it is about appreciation of a text, different perspectives that you look to find meaning of a text. Literary theory in a strict sense is the systematic study of the nature of literature and the methods for analyzing literature which we had done in lecture 1. One of the fundamental questions of literary theory and literary criticism is what is literature, what is a text, what methods and conclusions and definitions are chalked out. As a consequence the word theory has become an umbrella term for a variety of scholarly approaches to reading text informed by various trends of philosophy and sociology. So, we find that only understanding literature the text itself is not enough, we have to understand the methodology in which this text are being written and it adds to the appreciation and delight of the finding meaning in a text. In lecture 1 we did classical criticism mainly all the classical theories starting with Plato to Aristotle and who Plato laid the foundations of western philosophy, especially his dialectics, the dialogue form of argument truth by how he question truth by the system of received ideas and opinions and in his theory of ideas he started specially the way the mimetic theories came into being. The mimetic orientation which we had done in lecture 1 was essentially an imitation of aspects of the universe and probably the most primitive aesthetic theory as well as poetic theory, but mimesis is no simple concept by the time it makes his first recorded appearance in the dialogue supply to. When we came to Aristotle we find we found how he worked upon this theory of mimesis and talks about defense the value of art in his poetics and his analysis of tragedy the genre of different dramatic forms and he considers poetry and product as a productive science. His poetics of Aristotle's therefore made the stand point made him tolerant towards imaginative literature. We are going to discuss today imaginative literature studying literature specially from the stand point of the human interface and we see that in the classical criticism to Aristotle had brought this emphasis upon imaginative literature. His is among the first names in the world that seriously look into the formal aspects of creative literature in a detailed manner. His poetics is singularly important document in the field of literary criticism. Just like Plato Aristotle also had admitted that all arts are forms of imitation for Aristotle imitation is not a servile copy of some eternal objects rather it is a creative process in itself it is dynamic and it is not a copy of the original. Aristotle added a structural element also to be essential for poetry like plot etcetera. So, imitation continued to be a prominent item in the critical vocabulary for a long time after Aristotle all the way through the 18th century. In fact, the systematic importance given to the term differed greatly from critic to critic. Those objects in the universe that art imitates or showed imitate were variously conceived as either action or in some sense ideal and from the first there was a tendency to replace Aristotle's action as the principal object of imitation with such elements as human character or thought or even inanimate things. So, therefore, we had seen as we had done classical criticism that there may be two common and antithetic metaphors of mine which Abraham's had talked about in Mirror and the Lamb. The one which is imitative and the other which is expressive. The polemical tradition does not abate with the end of classical antiquity. The criticism of the Italian Renaissance had its famous quarrels. So, this debate goes on which theory, which perspective, which is the term that we are going to take up. So, we are now in module 5 Litric criticism lecture to liberal humanism. Liberal humanism if you can understand the term can briefly be defined as a grand narrative which emphasizes it is also an umbrella term upon the progress and liberation of humanity from a social list perspective. They believe in a unity of totality of the system of knowledge, human age from man and from his idea of selfhood. During 1970s the term liberal humanism was valorized as an umbrella term to refer to a host of literary critics and commentators who were not politically radical and believed in an unchanging fixed condition of human nature. Of course, it has taken different meanings to indicates following when it has first started. Indeed, it may be maintained that the age of theory began as a reaction to our extension of liberal humanism. Liberal humanism is a literary theory that was invoked in the late 1800s. So, in the 19th century and early 20th century. From one point of view we can say it is the state of theory before theory. The critical approaches that came to be known as theory each with its own inflections and motives can be regarded as an implicit if not direct reaction against the new critical claims as to the autonomy, independence and objectivity of a literary text. In this sense modern theory embodies what? A series of endeavors to re situate literature within other domains and broader context which we had already done and Marxism which we will be doing Marxism, Structuralism, Feminism, Deconstruction etcetera as well as postcolonial study. Nearly all of these theories claim to oppose the complex of ideologies known as liberal humanism. But what is liberal humanism? If you see that the onset of or onslaught of theories which came in the wake of all those perspectives which had followed then we have to understand the definition of liberal humanism. It started more or less in the Ranasabh when we had talked about man as the center of the universe, man with his mind with his sense of reason with the sense of enlightenment. This is not easy to answer in the history of modern thought therefore liberal humanism has comprised the mainstream philosophies of the bourgeois enlightenment such as rationalism, empiricism and utilitarianism. So, three things which has to be taken into account it was rationalism, empiricism and utilitarianism. Hence, what was happening in literature, what was happening in the history of ideas in western thought, go ahead broadly with the general tendencies of liberal humanist bourgeois thought. It was something which was a new awakened understanding of what is creative literature. Let us go back to the enlightenment. When we go to the enlightenment we see that the birth of modern European critical tradition can be traced back to the enlightenment and in particular to philosopher Immanuel Kahn's critique of reason. And also when we talk about Descartes, Kojito Argosum I think therefore I am you find this emphasis upon rationalism, this critique of reason which is has an important part to play in the way that text, literary text can be seen. Kahn's revision of the liberal humanist tradition replaced metaphysics which was speculation about external reality with critique. Stated simply before Kahn's science described a word passively, but after Kahn's science was seen to write into the world what human categories imposed upon it. So, we find the human interface which had gone into it. For Kantian science no longer extracted knowledge from the proverbial thing in itself which remains fundamentally unknowable rather science produced knowledge of the phenomena of the world. A movement towards the relative autonomy and specialization of each discipline and aspiration what towards scientific stature, the ideals of impersonality and objectivity we will find how even Thier Sallier talks about it even though he goes into the domain of new criticism, but his humanism was something which was a disinterested impersonality and the aspiration towards universal and timeless truth. This is the core point in liberal humanism and this is where one looks into a text for timeless truth, universal timeless truth. Other features of liberal humanism in the literary sphere as expressed for example, by Matthew Arnell and F.R. Lewis when we find they go into the domain into the discipline of culture as expressed for example, Arnell and Lewis include the moral and civilizing nature of literature viewed as a broad education in sensibility and a redefined citizenship. The very essence of liberal humanist thought is non-identity. Therefore, when we look into it and how English has been taught in universities and how is it that the text reveals universal truth, we take it as a form of pedagogical enterprise truth. 2. Liberal humanism can be defined as a philosophical and literary movement in which man and his capabilities are the central concern. I had just mentioned now that the Ranaasa specially it was not only a reawakening of the human spirit also going back to the classics it was what man can do in all his capabilities and so man becomes the central concern. It can also be defined as a system of historically changing views that recognizes the value of the human being as an individual and his right to liberty and happiness. Here the critic brings the cultural religious assumption of his own time to bear upon the literary work mostly. We see that a man therefore, being a product of his culture and other assumption he brings in his understanding upon the literary work. Judging the text according to how well it fits the critic's own ethical value system. So, each person views it according to the way that he views the text trying to find out the truth behind which is inculcated in the text. At his base this approach he sprays and works of literature for the superlative expression of human kinds highest ideals and aspiration. If you take the example of Homer Shakespeare Gethe often are lauded. So, let us look at some fundamental premises on how liberal humanism works good literature is of timeless significance. So, it is universal it is of timeless significance and when a text is being studied here in relation to the classics or as a modern text we see it as a timeless universal significance. The literary text contain its own meaning within itself. We do not have to take the domain of sociological anthropological or political perspectives to understand the text. It has its own content it has its own message. The third thing that we have to understand it encourages very close study of the text. That means, you have to read line by line word by word to understand what is what the text contains. So, this close study this detailed study of the text ultimately shifts the attention to the text itself to the writer itself and what he tries to show. The text will reveal in doing so the text will reveal universal truths about human nature. Fifth point the text can speak to the inner truths of each of us because a individuality or self is something unique to each of us. So, this again saves us a attention to our own sense of individuality which was a part of the enlightenment which was a part of the Rana Savachu of Humanism. The purpose of literature therefore, is the enhancements of life and the propagation of human values. On the other hand literature should always be disinterested as sort of impersonality should be there and objective correlative as in the case of what Eliot had said. It should never have an overt agenda of trying to change someone. Next form and content the manner and the matter are fused together and are integral parts of each other. We cannot look at the structure apart and we cannot look at the theme apart form and content are fused together. A little work is also honest. It has to be honest and its sincerity has to be gorge meaning true to experience and human nature how much it is authentic and the human condition. What is valuable in literature is that it shows us our true nature. Therefore, in trying to interpret the text what do we do according to liberal humanist we are trying to see the text from what it has taught us about human experience, about human life, about our true natures and the true nature of society. And what critics do is interpret the text based largely on the words on the page so that the reader can get more out of reading the text. So, the text is the most dominant aspect in liberal humanism. Now, as we had mentioned earlier theory before theory liberal humanism is the post hoc term for the instance of English studies before criticism. The emphasis is on studying the text on the page without considering socio political or whatever literary historical or autobiographical context in which the work was created. Even here one is not determined by the background of the writer. So, you have to look into the text and when we look into the text or the creative work as it is you find meaning out of it and you find that it is a reflection of timeless values or universal values or how it reflects society, how authentic it is, how sincere it is and how honest it is. Liberal humanist distrusts theory and ideas. So, it is against even though we are doing theory or we are doing literary criticism we are showing here liberal humanism was one aspect where there cannot be any conditioning of theory. And when there is a conditioning of the mind of a dominant theory then somewhere the text is being destroyed. Liberal humanism has its roots at the beginning of English studies in the early 1800s and became fully articulated between 1930 and 1950. It was attacked by theories such as Marxism and feminism beginning in the 1960s. Liberal humanism is a world view therefore and moral philosophy that considered humans to be of primary importance. So, we had just mentioned Descartes, we had mentioned Kant and we had seen that it was a question of where you have to talk about the reach of reason and also the way that I think therefore, I am. It is a perspective common to a wide range of ethical stances that attaches importance to human dignity concerns and capabilities particularly rationality. So, let us begin how it came into the curriculum of universities. It is safe to begin the discussion on liberal humanism on relation to English studies. Since we are doing this entire program on English literature and language let us see how English studies came to came into being with the development of English studies itself in the universities and other academic platforms. The growth of English studies in the academics is described as the rise of English by Terry Eagleton. So, the higher education in England. So, what was happening there was controlled by the universities of Oxford and Cambridge in the beginning, controlled by the Anglican search and had to follow the norms prescribed by the search. So, the students had the followers of the search of England and women and students from working classes were not allowed to enter. The courses provided by the universities included classics and divinity and mathematics and other serious disciplines modeled after German universities. These universities did not consider English literature as a serious discipline for academic purpose. It was studied for language, but not for literature. Literature should always be disinterested that is what a humanism had said and it should never have an overt agenda or trying to change someone. When F. D. Moritz was appointed as a professor of English in King's College, he set an agenda to inculcate humanistic value in the middle classes, which emancipate them from the notions of habits peculiar to the age. So, that will allow them to go away from the ills of the social system. His agenda was political no doubt as he was aware of the growing discontent of the working classes. Through literature he wanted to spread a sense of belonging among all classes. This was also a growing distrust about the role religion was playing in the bonding of people and he wanted to show how literature could become a gateway or it could allow an open window to understand social ills. Literature was seen rather as a replacement of religion which losses ground in the changing age of science and cynicism. So, while we are tracing this development of how English was allowed to be studied in the curriculum of the universities, we find that reformation in the system was not possible until 1826 when university college was established in London. After a wait for two years English became available as a subject for academic perusal in the institution. It was only so late as that 1826, 1828. In 1831 King's College was established where English literature was taught. Previously literature was used only as a tool to study language. Since then from then onwards English studies were gradually identified with the study of English literature and a literary canon was established and we are doing English literature and language and we are studying literary criticism and we can trace this history back to that time when 1831 that English was studied as a literature. Terry Gilton strongly argues that a conventional way of considering English studies and the critics that propounded it has been shaped by ideological constructions. He believes it worked as a consolidation of ideological positions maybe yes, all the ideas which are taking place society as well in culture which work directly or indirectly for the benefit of ruling and powerful classes throughout various stages of development. In the beginning chapter of his literary trio re-en introduction, Gilton traces the origin of the prevailing notion of literature as a creative or imaginative writing in the romantic period. He states, the final decades of 18th century witnessed a new division and demarcation of discourse in the 18th century. What we see a radical reorganization of what might call the discursive formation of English society where people could understand the imaginative nature of text. Poetry comes to mean a good deal more than verse by the time of shalless defense of poetry in 1821 in the 19th century. It signifies a human creativity which is radically at odds with the utilitarian ideology of early industrial capitalist England. When we see the 17th century the age of prose of the Augustan age we find that what had happened was the question of decorum of rules, but here it is coming back to the the emphasis upon liberal humanities. So, let us now look at literature began therefore, to be identified with imaginative or visionary creation. We have to understand this that literature contains its own meaning and literature is studied with close analysis of the text as such right. This world of vision offered a penitent for the middle class Philistinism and profit driven mentality. Though they look like the critique of the social order these notions did not want to disrupt it only they wanted to pacify the discontents in a serene fashion. So, there were contradictions over there yes they may have gone into the study of literature, but somewhere or the other they took literature also as a tool. Poetry or creative literature were offered as an enclave where the values expunged from the face of English society by industrial capitalism or by the way that the mechanical way of looking the utilitarian way of a materialistic society could be saved gradually the literary artists who had no practical value in the world of utility created an isolated place for themselves in the name of aesthetics and vision. So, the study of the history of aesthetics the study of poetics the study of liberal humanism goes hand in hand. For Eagleton it was almost an ideology in itself which do speak about social progress, but wanted to avoid any conflict and violence. So, it was not a diet tribe it was not some matches that was dialectical or it was not something which wanted to impose their views upon the mass of people. It also offered a world where everyday ones can be forgotten and overlooked in the world of imagination. It was not an escape it was a sort of an alternate world yet reflecting on the same world realities or the happenings of everyday experience. Being gloriously useless became an advantage for the poets. So, the notions like organic order simple were generated by this liberal humanist as a relief from all term on. So, what do we see? Through Victorian period after coming from the romantics we will be doing the romantics specially Wordsworth and Coleridge, Gates and Shelley, but even then if we come to the Victorian England, England observes rhetoric of liberal humanist idea proliferated where literature was offered as an alternative to religion. So, we have on the one side religion on the other side literature. So, the alternative was literature. Matthew Arnold appeared as a strong advocate of imbibing humanistic value among the middle class through literature. Matthew Arnold one of the most remarkable exponents of liberal humanism Eccleton holds the urgent social need as Arnold recognizes is to Hellenize or cultivate the Philistine middle class who have proved unable to underpin the political and economic power with a suitably written subtle ideology well. So, therefore, the middle classes must be imbibed in the course of English literature which would refine their senses. As of the working class it would be like giving a share of the immaterial or else they would demand with menaces ecumenism of the material. Eccleton traces similar idea behind all liberal humanist critics that followed Arnold like I. A. Richards, F. L. Evans all shared an anxiety over the social situation no doubt and tried to locate an organic harmony in the written word of the page. So, they tried to find this harmony between what was happening in society and in the page of a text. The human value morality and virtue were sought to bring in the realm of criticism as it offered the final solution to the crisis of the time well. So, I hope you agree with this. So, when you look at the text you see it for what the text holds and it holds the human values the timeless universal tenets it holds things which reflects society experience in its authenticity. I hope in that way a text opens up to the reader and it becomes an epitome of truthfulness. Since the beginning of the debate whether English literature should be allowed to teach in the universities a question haunted what to be taught in the course in order to make it academically significant. Nowadays even in American universities you find this debate is still going on whether this liberal humanism is something which should be again renewed or reworked upon in the face of all the dogmatic or you can say the way that the different perspectives have taken almost over swarmed criticism. This was the argument which Freeman posited in a speech delivered in the convocation in Oxford in 1887. He said we are told that the study of literature cultivates the taste, educates the sympathies and enlarges the mind yes very true is not it. It makes us very sensitive to values it makes us very aware of what is going on in the world and experiences which are other than our own and it cultivates our taste, expands our horizons and enlarges our mind. These are things which are tenets of literature that we must always understand and why we study literature. What is poetry? What is literature? What is the text? These are excellent things only we cannot examine taste and sympathies. Examiners must have technical and positive information to examine well. So, the ten characteristics of literature in humanism theory which we had done that it will be timeless valid for all ages universally it should be logical the meaning within the text itself does not contain any background of politics history and autobiography it does not condition your mind to understand what the words say human nature is unchanging everywhere anytime isolate the text read the text itself and do not depend on sources or backgrounds individuality which we said is something should speak to unique human without inferences to the environment. As for specific tools which we find the early 20th century new humanism of Irving Babit and P.E. Moore was a new classical reaction of sorts that condemn romanticism for a hazy and lazy spirituality that was not in accord with their own ethical viewpoint indeed even Plato wanted to keep poems out of the republic you remember that because the inspiration bordered on insanity and where does a danger to the general public. This argument own favor and literature had to be taught along with language studies in search of a concrete direction I.A. Richard and his followers invented the method of close reading close analysis of the text which enable the study of literature to pose as an any itself without the burden of history or context and philology. So, we find this sometimes you find that when you study philology or the context of history or the background of the autobiographical materials which over burdened the text gets destroyed the text is diminished and therefore, this method of close reading in the way that literature course has to be taught was and current. The dominant theories of pedagogy in higher education in the current historical period are liberal humanist. In other words liberal humanist believe that individuals are free to act according to how they think will and choose. So, what are you following in engineering colleges in the IITs we are following the liberal humanist method. Aren't we we are trying to see a text we see a poem in the way that the text opens up to us how it reflects mostly the human characteristics or human experiences or things which we are not aware of well individuals and the ideas desires an action or separate from an independent of history. Therefore, individuals can move in and out of relation with history society and economy as they will and choose. I think the Marxist will not agree with that feminist will not agree with that post colonial criticism will not agree with this at all. Thus for liberal humanist debates around media representation and educational practices are foregrounded well. So, it is a strong argument to hold that the traditional humanist approach to literature and literary studies was controlled by geological formations is it not. But on the other hand it can also be said it was there was a sense of guilt about the social inequalities novels of Hardy Dickens or whatever offer a bleak picture of rampant corruption prevailing in the social practice. When you go into a text they itself will reveal it is not a question of you look into from the sociological point or from the political view point pathetic condition of the working class people will reveal itself as the text will show the traditional liberal humanist approach soft after a solution to dignify life in their given capacity. They only could not afford to call for a violent means there was no deductivism involved. There was no question of redeeming acts of how the social condition will be brought about. There was behind the teaching of early English as Peter Barry says at distinctly Victorian mixture of caste guilt about social inequalities a kind of missionary gil to spread culture and enlightenment and a self-interested desire to maintain social stability. So, this guilt was still there even though it was imaginative or you can say creative literature there was somewhere as if we wanted to spread culture and enlightenment with a goal in hand. Therefore, the term liberal humanism is applicable to a whole range of critics and commentators across different engines will be doing all these commentators and critics though they are varied in their approaches they have personal opinions yet they share certain particular interests. So, when we talk about them we talk that they we do say that they do talk about liberal humanism as such they talk about individuality they talk of rationality they talk of empirical studies yet we find that their studies differ in one way or the other. The following comments are a summary of Peter Barry's observation of the basic tenets of liberal humanism in his beginning theory and introduction to literary and cultural theory. The liberal humanist this is what he says critic maintains that great literature must possess the power to transcend barrier of time and space. So, it has to be timeless and universal literature should be studied independently without any concern to social or historical culture and context. This is what Matthew Arnold referred to as disinterestedness on the part of the critic there has to be an objective slant in the way that you look at society and human nature. Individual subject must retain its essence it transcends social or political forces human nature values and ethics are permanent in its pure form. So, in its essential form you can call it essentialist in the sense that these are values these are ethics these are core thoughts and ideas which are timeless and at the same time essential and honest and authentic. The purpose of literature is to profound progress and liberty of human race therefore, it must disseminate permanent values universal values, but it should what is the meaning of universality here it means of all ages of all times of all time, but it should not adapt any political agenda or programmatic propaganda. Form and contact would be fused together in a organic form both the creative and the creative artist as T. S. Eliot would say when he writes his as a tradition and individual talent it must maintain sincerity of intention it needs study at the same time it needs analysis of the human condition. Exponition or overt exposition of ideas must be prohibited a kind of tactile enactment or silent exposition should be adapted. So, there should not be too much of an over burdening of values over burdening of things which would ultimately burden the text. It can be discerned that many critics following their traditional approach to English studies can be said to have let us go back. Now, from the time of Philip Sidney from the time in the NASA itself poet critics like Philip Sidney call a rage words at the time of the Romantic skates all in the approach to literary outset liberal humanist approach. We are now going to the approach that they have taken it may be very different in their own conditions, but yet we can call them they fall under the group of liberal humanism, but certain critics are most influential in establishing the discipline of English studies and establishing the dominant liberal humanist tradition of criticism. Here attempt is made to review shortly the criticism and the basic view on literary art. So, let us go into this great debate which had gone on in the 16th century. During the 15th century the 70s there was a debate whether contemporary poetry and theatre was degrading in its nature. Of course, this was attack was perotten in nature and Stephen Gawson was particularly vocal about it. In a treaty published in 1579 namely the school of abuse containing a pleasant invective against poets, pipers, players, just such like caterpillars of a commonwealth Gawson argued that theatre had become a common ground for every words social elements. So, it was a invective against all creative artists. His argument expressed a common distance for every form of imaginative literature. The first reaction was that of Thomas Lodge who in his defense of poetry declared, I reason not that all poets are holy, but I affirm that poetry is a heavenly gift than which I do not know greater pleasure. It is inter interesting to note that the treaty referred here was dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney and noted poet and intellectual of the era. In a letter sent to Gabriel Harvey, Edmund Spencer showed his concern. New books are here of none, but only of one that writing a contained book called the school of abuse and dedicating it to a master Sidney was for his labor scorn if least it be in the goodness of that nature to scorn. This division occasion the response of course, from Sir Philip Sidney which is at the hearts of all liberal humanist approach to literature. We are going to the core book on the liberal humanism approach or criticism. It is ironic to know that the person called Goson is only remembered because Sir Sidney happened to write his defense of poetry or apology for poetry as a reaction to Goson's invective. So, what does this defense of poetry contain? Defense can be divided into four section Sidney, Philip Sidney offers reasons why poetry should be valued and have special attention. What is the meaning of the imaginative literature? The next part is exposition of nature and usefulness of poetry then he deals with contemporary objection against poetry and finally, closely evaluates the current state of being in poetry. So, in the beginning of the defense the antiquity of the art of poesy is traced to stress on its everlasting appeal going back to the classics. He declares poetry in the no-place nations and languages that are known had been the first light giver to ignorance and first nurse whose milk by little and little enable them to feed afterwards of taffa knowledge. So, Sir Philip Sidney we can say is the one of the key initiators of liberal humanism. Sidney then focuses upon the reverence paid to the poet. The poet has his own place niche in the place of creative literature. Sidney then focuses upon the reverence paid to the poet throughout ages and he bestows him the stature of a prophet as if he is a creator. The obligation of a poet is not to produce rhythm, but he has a greater aim to educate, to enlighten, to entertainment. So, this question on entertainment to give delight that you educate through entertainment and through pleasure. He says indeed but a parole powers being but an ornament and no cost to poetry since they have been many most excellent poets that never versified and now many versifiers that need never answer to the name of poets. For Sidney therefore, the world of poetry creates an ideal space. So, it was separate almost by arriving at the universal through the particular. So, it was inductive and deductive at the same time it was something which was universal. It is not mere imagination and fancy rather the creative energy of the poet. So, we are talking about the creative process, the creative output. We are talking about the text which gives place to imagination which is the source of imagination and also creates imagination in others. When coming to word thread and collage in the 19th century we find that the word nomenthic how they wrote in the lyrical valid what should be poetry and ununderstand of liberal humanism was practiced. Sort individual freedom and also in poetic parlance practice liberation from the what it that regulation of diction and versification. The anxiety over industrial revolution influence of French revolution acted as catalysts for this young poets. Like Sir Sidney's defense what it was what do preface to the lyrical valid is considered to be a document not only of romanticism of liberal humanism of great significance. Lyrical valid combine the four two of Coleridge and Wordsworth had specific aims one would try to illustrate a page full adherence to nature the other would go to make the familiar more unfamiliar or charming the other would try to make the unfamiliar credible. So, as Coleridge states to procure for this shadows in a lyrical preface to the lyrical valid what was their intention to procure for the shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment which constitutes poetic fate. So, one who reads a poem or reads something else a creative word will have a willing suspension of disbelief. So, it will be a elusive moment of something that is not tactile. So, it is something connected with another world for the moment which constitutes poetic fate to give the charm of novelty things of everyday and to excite the feeling analogous to the supernatural awakening the mind's attention from the lethargy of custom and directing it to the loveliness and the wonders of the world before us.  This preface was a manifesto for the romantic movement no doubt, but here we find that it adds to the way that imaginative literature had an effect upon the sentiments of the people. He believed poetry is a spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings and it originates in emotions recollected in tranquility. So, the question of space the question of silence the question of tranquility is necessary in understanding what is this emotion recollected in tranquility or the spontaneous overflow of powerful feeling. The subject matter of poetry was also looked into was to choose incidents and situations from common life to relate or describe them throughout. So, we find literary cathesism paves the way how to study literature or what are the themes that one has to choose to make it imaginative and more delightful or pleasurable. And who is a poet? The poet writes under one restriction only namely the necessity of giving immediate pleasure to the human being. This question of pleasure this question of delight is an important factor in imaginative literature. It entertains at the same time it instructs. So, it educates through entertainment through delight and through pleasure. Poetry is the breath and final spirit of all knowledge. Poetry is the first and last of all knowledge it is as immortal as the heart of man. So, what is what founded this theory of proper subjects language effects and value of poetry? We see that they are the ones who had really laid down what is poetry how a text has to be read. Almost all the major critics of English romantic generation phrase definition or key statement showing a parallel alignment for work to the poet. So, how did the poet the creator and the creative act went hand in hand. Poetry is the workflow or projection of the thought and feelings of the poet in terms of imaginative process. The way of thinking in which the artist himself becomes the major element. So, the creator the the prophet or the poet himself is to be judged called by Abraham's the expressive theory of art. So, this is different from the imitative theory of or the mimesis theory of the classical theorist. Well, when we come to the biographial literary of a colorigious criticism he says specially on the theory of imagination and fancy. He thinks that the imagination then I consider either as primary or secondary. The primary imagination is the power of perceiving the objects of sense. First primary is how you perceive the objects of sense.  It enables the mind to unify disparate things. Secondary imagination is at the heart of poetic creation. So, first it is modeled on a distinct methodology. It helps the poetic genius to dissolve, diffuse, dissipate, recreate the world of perception into artistic forms in whatever symbols you want to take. As Keats has said we distrust literature which has a palpable design upon us and it was Keats who had talked of negative capability, who had talked of beauty, shoot, shoot, beauty and we find that therefore that the thing that one looks into or the way that we understand or we want to interpret the text has its own dimension. He had said that forms should follow content, superfluous forms should be stripped away, work must be sent here, what is valued in literature is the silent showing and demonstrating of something rather than explaining or saying of it. So, there has to be layers of meaning in the way that the space is being recreated. So, there must not be a dominant intuition of dogmas or deductivism. Liberal humanism philosophical roots therefore if we go back into that we have seen the romantics, we have gone into the renasa, we have gone into the way that Kant and Hegel had also talked about different way of rationality and the way that individualism really paved the way for the way we read text.  Liberal humanism because we are talking of the enlightenment and when we talk of enlightenment this was the time when the emphasis was upon the individual about the rational way of looking at man and also at the imaginative wonders of being in the part of all phenomena. The capabilities, immense capabilities of finding of human nature. Liberal humanist philosophical thought contributes to modern beliefs in a reality that can be known directly through the senses and through the employment of rational thought. So, you have to combine these two together. The it has to be seen through the senses as well as through the employment of rational thought. Liberal humanism inspired a scientific rational world view that plays the knowing individual at the centre of history. So, he is the centre of history, man is the centre of history and viewed that history as the progress of western thought. It serves as a catalyst for the modern world's reliance on individualism, what you understand by individualism, what you understand about the modern self and belief in a common human nature. So, here we come to empiricism and rationalism informs modern reading practices through western empiricism. Though western empiricism finds its earliest inspiration in Aristotle, yes it took its modern form following the great 17th and early 18th century British thinkers like Locke, Barclay and Hume as well as all other western philosophers. Empiricism posits that all factual knowledge is based on a central experience and inner reflection. Please this is a point which you have to merge together that is there is a reality independent of the mind that can be experienced by the senses. So, the modern self comes out emerges before the Renaissance western society defined the self by its location within both the secular and divine order. Centre of pre-modern epistemology was the great chain of being in which all members of society had a proper place. With the rise of Renosa Humanism when we see how it had taken place and the enlightenment. However, the individual now becomes the centre of the universe began to be conceived as sovereign and epistemologically central. This reconfiguration of the self as you take it spurred by historical events such as the Protestant information and scientific revolution ultimately led to the systematic examination of the modern self who is the modern self. Although many participated four of the more influential theorists were Kant, René Descartes and John Locke. Well Kant asserted that the definitive characteristic of the human self was his capacity to reason proceeding from the notion of a unitary self or self-consciousness governed by capacity for reason that is unaffected by the particularities of experience. So, this is something that you will understand very well because you come from the technical stream. Kant felt that pure reason both enabled and compelled humans to construct a transcendental philosophy that articulated the structure and order of the experiential world. So, it was reconstructed a transcendental philosophy. Locke shared with Kant the belief that humans was essentially individualistic and defined by the capacity for reason. Anyway, so coming down to the meaning of self and individualism we have to understand what is individualism? If we talk about identity, if we talk of self, if we talk of the human interface, how do we look at the human self in a text? A political and social philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty no doubt about it, but it is belief in the primary importance of the individual in the virtues of self reliance and personal independence. So, this question of freedom at the same time expansion of the borders of the self in every field whether it is geographical, whether it is in the in the in cultural or in the sociological aspect embraces opposition to authority and to all manner of controls over the individual specially when exercised by the state of society. So, what Derry Gilton had said that literature from Matthew Arnold onwards is the enemy of ideological dogma. Arnold himself had believes of course, though like everybody else he regarded his own beliefs as reasoned position rather than ideological dogmas. Even so, it was not the business of literature to communicate such beliefs directly to argue openly for example, that provide private property is the bulwark of liberty. Instead, literature should convey timeless truths thus distracting the masses from their immediate commitments nurturing them in the spirit of tolerance and generosity and so ensuring the survival of private property. Well, so we come to one of the main players in the field of liberal humanism Matthew Arnold. Matthew Arnold was not only a critical poet, but he was also an academician who knew the education system well. And let me remind you that liberal humanism has a great part to play in the instruction of literature specially in higher education. His was one of the strongest voices who favored the teaching of literature in the university system. He believes his religion has been rendered ineffective. It is literature which may replace it as a consolidating force. For him, it will liberate the society from the Philistinism and narrow worldview of the middle class conscious poetry. Matthew Arnold's study of poetry published in 1880 and of the 19th century. The future poetry is immense. This is what he had written. Because in poetry, where it is worthy of his high destination, our word, our race as time goes on, we will find an ever sewerer and sewerer state. Our religion has materialized itself in the fact. In the supposed fact, it has attached its emotion to the fact and now the fact is failing it. But for poetry, the idea is everything. It is the idea which is being transforming people, transforming society. The rest of the world is a illusion of divine illusion. Poetry attaches its emotion to the idea. The idea is the fact. The strongest part of our religion today is its unconscious poetry. He believed that in the time of crisis, it is the healing power of poetry would be able to interpret, console and sustain the social values. His art of criticism in present time, especially the role of culture, the role of poetry. Arnold defined criticism in his as an endeavor in all branches of knowledge, theology, philosophy, history, art, science to see the object as in itself it really is. The critics must generate fresh ideas which are conducive for the growth of fine creation. Most importantly, the critics must maintain a kind of aloofness from the work. He must maintain disinterestedness. So, now we come from the critics, from the creative artists to the critics. The role of the critics we will find in tears earlier too, that the critic himself also becomes a creative artist in the way that he judges, that he evaluates, that he interprets a text. So, there is something which allows him to understand a text only because he has that understanding of the universalities of the creative act. Arnold's legacy therefore, in English studies is he traces great classical creation and places them in the tradition of great English writers. He evoked what was called the touchstone method by bringing to comparison the work of art in question with the classical works of Shakespeare or of such great names. Arnold's criticism and views actually established the academic discipline of English studies. So, when we go to study literature as an academic discipline, we find that his views really influence this study of as a formal discipline and method. Many critics that followed him by his spirit to propagate liberal humanism in English studies is still going on. So, what we are doing now is liberal humanism more or less. Well, so we follow one of his, we come to one of his followers, R.A. Richards in his principles of criticism. What did he give? How did he place the literary critic and the work of art or poetry? Since the beginning of the debate concerning the question of introducing English studies in the academic system, a question always haunted. Question was what to be tested in the examinations of literature. R.A. Richards tried to answer this in his approach. What he called as the practical criticism? He forwarded a close examination of the text. So, which we had already done liberal humanism insist upon close examinations or close reading of the text, avoiding the context of the poem or piece of literature concerned. This organized reading of a text would uncover an experience which the book will offer. He wanted a methodical analysis of literature. R.A. Richards was famous for this methodology of reading a text. Richards and Ogden together collaborated in another book, Meaning of Meaning. In this book, he devised language into symbolic or emotive influences functions. Then he provides a theory of symbols. He believed in a relation between the sign and reference is not direct. Ogden and Richards argued that signs are linked to psychological reactions. Naturally, when you are doing something dealing with human experience, you will be talking about the psyche. You will be talking of the mind and therefore, the psychological dimensions opens up automatically and this makes it a causal affair that can be studied scientifically as a social science document. William Amson also in his seven types of ambiguity. His interest had was many folded. He dealt in both verbal analysis as well as cultural analysis criticism. He holds that there cannot be one unitary meaning of a poem. Amson believed the machination of ambiguity are among its very roots. Amson separated appreciative criticism from analytical criticism which paved the way for a new form of critical approach known as new criticism. Yes, we are in the borderlines of new criticism as such because sense, rationality, then the way that we look into closed analysis, then we look into the cultural criticism merges into another domain altogether. The above list of liberal humanities is far from conclusive. We have not have tried to as it has already been noted many thinkers ranging from Sydney to Colorado fall into the category. It is why I did not want to over burden this lecture with all these names which were there, but I just wanted to show you how these key figures led to different dimensions of reading literature as a foothold in academics not only that and how liberal humanism paved the way for imaginative universals. The philosophers like Hegel and Kant form the also contributed growth of European liberal humanistic tradition. F.I. Levis of course, cultural and literary criticism is based on his general notion about the destruction of an organic sensibility or organic community by the advanced machine and mass culture. We had done I.I. Richard's, we had done Matthew Arnold. We are coming to T.S. Eliot just now and F.I. Levis who had also talked about tradition almost synonymous with language and literature. And when we come to Eliot we find that tradition and individual talent becomes synonymous. For him it is not mere expression of thought, but it is the upset of all precipitate of immemorial human living and embodies values, distinctions, identifications, conclusions, cartographical hints and tested potentialities. His notion of criticism F.I. Levis is forwarded in a straight fashion. The utile of criticism is to see that the created workful fields is rise on the atria that it is read understood and duly valued and has the influence it should have in the contemporary sensibility. So, this is what we have to do, do not we? We have to read text, we have to understand the text, we have to analyze the text and we have to see its influence in the contemporary sensibility. Well, we come to one of the giants in modern poetry not only in modern poetry, but also in modern criticism and he had a great role to play in liberal humanism as well as new criticism. He was most influential in bringing English studies to one great tradition of literary movements since the days of ancient Greek classics. He did not believe a great poet should remain in his individual self, rather he or she should be able to embrace him in the great tradition of literature, the question of the traditional backdrop. He regretted that many romantic poets have suffered from a great dissociation of sensibility. He urged for a fusion of thought and feeling, which found in the poems of John Dunn and other metaphysical poets. In his as he has been termed classicist in literature, royalist in politics and look Catholic in religion. He is best known as the greatest poet of the 20th century years, but beneath the infernal demi-monde of modernity, Eliot attempted to resist, resuscitate the ancient fertility rituals of sacred kingship of which he read in the golden bow phrasers and the Cambridge ritualistic, how he went back to myth, how he went back to the understanding of tradition in the creative process. Well, this was the famous line where he had said, Eliot asserts that tradition as used by the poet is not a mere repetitive of the work of the immediate past, rather it comprises the whole of European literature from Hobart to the present. This historical sense which he calls it, which is the sense of the timeless, we are talking of timeless literature just now, something which is of all universal values, is well as of the temporal and of the timeless and of the temporal together is what makes a writer traditional, what makes a critic traditional, what makes a creative poet traditional. It is in this depersonalization that art may be said to approach the condition of science. Poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, this is a famous line from his as a traditional individual talent, but an escape from emotion, it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality. So, this interestedness or this impersonality which should be there in poetry, emotion of art is impersonal and the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done. So, let us as we conclude go through Terry Gilton's new book which he has said, where he has said how to read literature. Now, we have already told you that there are different criticisms, which are the literary criticism coming from the ancient classics to the romantics to the moderns, but Terry Gilton has a different way to see. He is in his new book how to read literature, if you get a you can get this book read it, it ask students by asking you to imagine a similar conversation a group of university students discussing Emily Bront as weathering heights. Poey Gilton the problem with both conversation is the same, both discuss everything about this novels except the qualities that make them novels works of imaginative literature. People will look at the sociological aspect, people will look at the political aspect, people will look at the cultural aspect, forget to read the novel in its own context, in its own human values. What is missing from a classrooms and therefore, what Gilton says, what we feel also as teachers of English literature is discussion of the literalness of literature of what makes a poem different from a stop sign or a novel about grief different from the account of grief. As an English professor might say we are good on content not so good on form, we go straight forward the places and ignore how it says it. Therefore, literature began to be identified with imaginative or visionary creation, this is what liberal humanism aims at approaches should be there, where you have to see the value and the ethics and the human content of literature in its all its individuality in all its transformation of the self in a way that the close reading of the words of the content ultimately reveals is a revelation. This world of vision offer the penitent for the middle class Philistinism and profit driven mentality. An American movement of course, which was going on in 1910 to 1930 associative to Irving Babit and Paul Elmer Moore was an extension of this liberal humanism a reaction against the increasing hegemony of science. The new humanism urged to return to liberal education and objected to the specialization to which science and technology were giving rise. And doubt with free will human beings essentially moral agents they cannot be studied exclusively in terms of heredity and environment or any other scientific constructs. So, we have to have the literal construct we have to have a construct which is of the imaginative domain. It is not only unavoidable, but also desirable that one apply an extrinsic criteria ethical and evaluative to literature. So, the interpretation go on lastly while we are doing literary theory while we are doing literary criticism in recent years has sought to explain the degree to which the text is more the product of a culture than an individual author and in turn how those texts help to create the culture. So, therefore, we see that humanism started lose its credibility in the late 1960s liberal humanism. What happened in the 1960s pretty complicated in terms of literary and social history in a natural literary critics by asking whether this timeless universal human truths found in literature really were timeless and universal they became however sceptical or whether they were just as bound to race class gender sexuality and culture as everything else in the world. In other words they started to ask questions like is Shakespeare universal did he write as a white male or if so why did we come to reach Shakespeare as classic and timeless boxes criticism psychoanalytic all they took on different domains. So, the discussions will be as follows in this lecture what was the subsequent and continuing debates and divisions within liberal humanism as a form of academics as a form of criticism. The common feature of liberal humanism what are the tenets which are there in liberal humanism the ten tenets of liberal humanism how do we practice in the reading of text when and where did expansion of higher education take place in the first place when and where was English literature first taught what was the notion of Eliot's impersonality what does the T. S. Eliot mean by objective correlative when you find that you are completely disinterested you are in the main flow of events at the same time you are an observer looking at what is you are creating and from the new perspectives liberal humanism and the subject it produces appear to be an effect of a continuing history. So, you have to assess it whether it is static or it is dynamic whether the universals which are said are prone to change or whether there are contradiction yes modern theory embodies a series of endeavors to re-situate literature. We have seen how all these different perspectives that we will be doing Marxism structuralism feminism and liberal humanism subject to product of a specific epoch and a specific class was constructed in conflict and contradiction one of this contradiction is the inequality of freedom we have the freedom of choice at the same time there are inequalities involved in this freedom while in theory all men are equal yes men and women are not symmetrically defined we have that there are contra distinction to the objects of his knowledge and in terms of the relations of power in the economy and the state. So, the question was in contradiction contra distinction to men and in terms of the relation of power also in the family. So, for you students I think critical analysis can be fun for all these reasons it is perhaps better to say English languages, literatures, cultures as one and many vertically we can express this dynamics in different ways insist that we can look at the literary text as it is we can see it without any preconceived notions or we can see with Derrida for instance that English like any other system or structure of English is open it is incomplete always already in process or English becomes a compound of different languages, literatures, cultures, media or it becomes a hybrid and no way pure everything is acceptable and is consequently constantly reforming under the pressure of other languages. But what we are doing in literary criticism is that rather than support one theory over the other we would also argue that a multi-perspectival approach to critique is necessary in order to account for all forms of political, economic and social subjugation. So, the works cited are MS Abrams, the Miranda Lam, Harry Balmiris history of literary criticism, we have Eliot's traditional individual talent Peter Barry with a Wordsworth preface to lyrical ballads and one of the main texts we had used Terri Gilton's literary theory and introduction. Thanks.


It's a really magical place in here the little fish sometimes they're sitting on it I've seen some nibbling off the little tufts of algae yeah I think they are enjoying it it's a good sign. I was looking at a lot of restoration activities happening in the ocean being made of concrete I thought why can't you make something out of calcium carbonate surely there's a way that you can you can get it to work in this environment because shells and corals do it all the time so this is the earth marine science coral reef tank I'm testing to see what algae grow on my substrates we're trying to look at if crustose coralline algae will settle on it these are 3d printed using a ceramic 3d printer so it's printed from the base here and then it just 3d prints really slowly up through there it doesn't have any plastics or resin in it and it has a pretty low co2 footprint it's pretty cool to be able to have another a different material potentially these are just going to guide further research so they're just trying to give an indication of of where to go next and what avenues to kind of explore this is the biomaterial I've developed and at the moment I'm exploring the different possibilities of and manufacturing processes it can go through so it's made out of ingredients that are found within the reef system already that's what makes it really really interesting is that you know a fish could eat it and it will just return to the environment so we've got the first test piece out of the 3d printer I basically spent four months making failed experiments where all of my substrates were dissolving in my little test I had little test tanks it was kind of by a little bit of chance that this kind of worked it was really really exciting to kind of open the kiln and go oh this looks cool so the crustose corolline algae might take a little bit longer but at the moment we have some green turf algae growing so you can see that here little tops and yeah I think so far they're doing they're holding up pretty well it kind of the way that I'm going about the experimentation is very scientific but I'm it's also experimental in a design sense so it's kind of combining those two things it has been so much fun it's kind of this is what I love to kind of do is take something and take an idea and just experiment and manipulate and and change things and see all the different variations you can make with a very simple material


It's time for yours truly, Jimmy Powers, with another Grantland Rice story. Hello there, this is Jimmy Powers transcribed. To date, the life of Granny Rice, as depicted in his life story, The Tomb of the Shouting, has taken us behind the scenes with the greats and near-greats of sport. Not only from the present day, but also from the historical past. Right from his start with the Nashville News in 1901, after graduating from Vanderbilt University, Granny sure knew him. He collected the immortals from the world of sports as an antique dealer collects priceless curios. Today we're going to meet Granny's all-time pitching selection. So, with a salute to the every young spirit of Grantland Rice, we open the tumult and the shouting, and in first person, begin today's story.  Pitchers you might label super great. I have seen at least four other great ones.  Believe me, however, I have no special tie with the past that makes me see everything that's old as necessarily better than what's come since. If I didn't look ahead to greater deeds in this speeded-up age, I believe I would have withered away long ago. Incidentally, my own personal baseball hero was a fellow who never made the grade in the big leagues. I played baseball with him at Vanderbilt back in 1900. His name was Joe Cheryl, a 155-pound gangly sort who must have stood 6 feet 2. I was a freshman and substitute shortstop. Cheryl, a senior, was our number one pitcher, a right-hander. For a collegian, he had the poise, guts, and speed of a champion. When Cheryl graduated, he went straight to the Southern League. In his first assignment, he struck out 17 men and seven innings. Then his arm went lame. He never pitched again. He became a doctor. Had his arm remained in one piece, Cheryl would have become a pitching immortal, but that's water long since over the dam. So who are my four masters? In no special order, they are Si Young, 511 victories, Walter Johnson, 416 victories, Grover Alexander, 373 victories, and Christy Matheson with 373 victories. The four who are merely great, Rube Waddell, Bob Grove, Karl Hubbell, and Herb Pinnock. Oddly enough, the top four are right-handers, and the second four are south paws. They were all friends of mine, but I knew Matheson, one of the New York Giants, better than any of the others. I first met Matty in the 1905 World Series when we were both 25, but I didn't really get to know him well until 1911 when I came to the New York Evening Mail. Matheson was as fine a companion as I ever knew. A graduate of Bucknell University, Matty was just a little bit better at all games than anyone else, including chess, checkers, and poker. He usually drew in most of the pots. He was smart-looking and well-dressed. I also played a lot of golf with him from New York to St. Louis. We had a funny argument in Pittsburgh on one trip during the 1911 season. I had Mike Donlan for a partner against Matty and Merkel, the old, giant first baseman. I had about a three-footer on the first green when Matty spoke to Merkel just as I stroked and missed my putt. Naturally, I squawked. What's the matter? Matty asked. We play baseball with thousands yelling and cheering, yet somebody talks and you can't putt. They are entirely different games, I said. That's a lot of bunk, Merkel said. This particular match was at the Hilly-Shenley course in Pittsburgh. On the second tee, Matty was at the top of his swing when I spoke to Donlan. Matty lunged and topped his ball into the ravine. He glared at me. Merkel was also at the top of his swing when I spoke again. Merkel's ball followed Matty's into the ravine. What's this, Matty asked? A golf match or a talking duel? I thought you said it didn't matter, I replied. Both quickly agreed to keep quiet if I would. They found golf needs silence just as baseball needs noise. That night in Pittsburgh after the match, he asked me to have dinner with him at the Pittsburgh Athletic Club, where he was slated to play a chess match. He was to meet 12 opponents. After dinner, he met the 12 and, walking back and forth from table to table, he won all of his matches, as I recall. Matty had an unusual but sound idea concerning the alibi. An alibi is sound and needed in all competition, he said.   You must have an alibi to show why you lost. But keep it to yourself. That's where it belongs. Don't spread it around. Lose gracefully in the open. To yourself, lose bitterly, but learn. You can learn little from victory. You can learn everything from defeat. He was the smartest all the way around. In the 1905 World Series against the Athletics, during the six days he pitched and won three games, all by way of shutouts, Matthewson was the greatest pitcher I ever saw. In those games, Matty said later, I had everything you need, almost as much speed as Johnson, a curve that broke as I wanted it to, and perfect control. The next two years, in 1906 and 1907, he had a bad arm. He worked on his fadeaway. In 1908, he won 37 games for the Giants and saved at least 12 games, being responsible for at least 50 giant victories.  Cy Young had a puzzling delivery, four different ones plus speed and stamina. Walter Johnson had blinding speed. If he had ever been wild or had tried to brush a few hitters away from the plate, I don't believe they ever would have hit him except by luck. They were discussing Walter Johnson in various papers asking what he'd had. I wrote a piece of verse which closed with these two lines. How do they know what Johnson's got? Nobody's seen it yet. Johnson was a big, shy man who rarely had much to say. I never heard him protest to an umpire when he was pitching. Denton True, Cy Young, with his vast body, turned his back completely on the hitter with something of a swivel chair delivery. He never let the ball go until he spun back almost completely, making his pitch extremely difficult to follow. Of the four men, Grover Alexander was the keenest control artist I ever studied. He was a true alcoholic, yet he won 30 games or more for three years. His earned run average was the lowest of them all, around one, six, five year after year. Alex could throw a ball into a tin cup.  He would pitch a game in an hour and 15 minutes, rarely longer than an hour and 20 minutes. He wasted no time staring at the batter or rubbing the ball in his hands as so many pitchers do today. He pitched like Gene Sarrison plays golf, no fuss and feathers. I remember one year when he pitched 16 shutouts, working mostly in Philadelphia's Bandbox Park where a soft fly was a home run. Rube Wandel, Bob Grove, Herb Penwick, and Carl Hubbell and Plank were magnificent, but in my book, not quite like Young, Johnson, Alexander, Matheson, and Dizzy Dean. Diz was as good as anybody for a short span. He didn't pitch long enough to be rated with these others, but Dizzy had more native color than one of his native Ozark sunsets. In 1929, Paul, Diz, and Father Dean started for Texas, riding in two separate, battered, old jalapes. Diz, the true pioneer, led the way by a few hundred yards. When a freight train came by and separated us, I went on. I must have left Pa and Paul behind, Diz recall later. They finally turned around and went back home to Arkansas. I went on to Texas. We didn't see each other again for years. I joined the army and had to be bought from Uncle Sam when Ricky discovered I was the best pitcher in the country. Struck on the tow by a line drive off Earl Averill's bat in the 1937 All-Star game, Dean was cut down at 26. Favoring the tow, he pitched without his full stride and injured his shoulder. When Bersidus developed, Dean's effectiveness dimmed. One morning in 33, Babe Ruth and I had a date to play with Dizzy Dean at Belair in Clearwater. Having recently started the game, Diz was pretty wild with his woods and long irons. I got a bushel of bets riding with Dean today. Bellowed Babe, I'm giving him strokes on 10 different bets from one to 10 shots and I expect to collect on them all. Diz may be wild, but not that wild, I warned. As we reached the club, Babe spotted Pat Dean, Dizzy's handsome bride. Pat said, Babe, come on out with us this morning. The walk will do you good. Puzzled but appreciative of Babe's invitation, Pat accepted, Diz said nothing. He hit a good drive, then smothered two shots. After another sloppy shot by Diz on the second hole, Pat commented, dear, you're ducking. Ducking exploded, Dean, who asked you on this rabbit shoot anyway? Followed the fireworks, Ruth howled, Pat stalked off. Dean couldn't hit a shot the rest of the round. The Babe never collected an easier hatful. Well, that's it for today. Now this is Jimmy Powers transcribe saying, so long until next time.