Literary Criticism (From Plato to Leavis) Doctor Merin Simi Raj, Department of Humanities and Social Science Indian Insitute of Technology Madras ER. Leavis's “The Great Tradition” (Sesion 3) (Refer Slide Time: 0:16) 9 Hello and welcome to yet another session of this course literary ertcism. We eontinae our discussion of FR. Leavis! The Great Tradition It is useful wo keap in mind that FR, Leavis at that point of time (his the work writen in 1948, sis the pos audience, anew English audience, a new educated English public. He is also challenging the svar period) i addressing anew ‘prevalent trary traditions, the prevalent moral treditons which were more in vogue before the war Ther is kindof newness that he wants to bring in this idea of Tterature, to this idea of evaluation, which is why he also says atthe outset ofthis work, that what he intends t dois reassessment or re-evaluation ofthis entre oowvre of ition, He is also secking odo something Which poetry could never do, poetry was never able to challenge any kind of literary tradition, because the categories were always quite fixed, the traditions, the yardstick, were always gu fixe. ‘And in torms of drama, there is already a sort ofa hierarchy in place with Shakespeare as the ‘most supreme author, most supreme dramatic genius. So, there is a way in which no kind of readymade tradition wes avilable for fiction, Or the only kind of ditcusion which was possible bout fiction was to arange it and 2 chronological order, which is what ntl that point of time any discussion of fiction elso entailed, Here we find ER. Leavis tying to go against that gain and to establish an English tradition And there is somthing interesting ere when hei trying to callengs this prevalent cultural ethos, and when he is tying to reinstate a very evidently Enish traion, we also understand that its not entirely set of English writers that he is roping in, I we fake a look at the sot of writers that he hs in mind, the way he also locates the great trediton, we find shat most of them were langest to the English society: For instance, George Eliot is « woman trying to make her way in a man's wold. And Henry James is an American ‘who is making his home in England, and also tying to write fiction in an alien land, in that sense, And Joseph Conrad, of course, he i @ Pole, He is writing in an eequiced language. He is writing ina language in which he has ened himself very self-consciously, Dif Lawrence isnot one of those mainstream cultural leaders of hs time, om the other hand, he was e miners son, and he was profoundly opposed to be metropolitan world that England was soon emerging tobe. And if you look at FR. Leavis himself, he isa tadesman’s son, and be is working in an ancient university. He is working in Cambridge at the sie ofthe composition of this work. And tere are multiple ways in which we find that ousiders are becoming insiders ‘over here, There is anew tradition being forged. And this tration is being emphasized in such a ‘way that ousiers also become insiders. And it is with supreme magisterial authority that Leavis alka dictates these terms about what constitutes a tation, ‘We would find throughout his work tat he is very categorical, he is very authoritative i tating ‘hat tis the English tradition therein Lies the English tation. And there is no way in whit he is willing to compromise onthe kind of people that he is bringing together, or the kind of ‘yardstick thet he i using. And it salso useful to emember that he i continuing the moralistic ‘nd humanistic tradition tht Mathew Amold had propounded. There is certain way in which we finda continuity with TS, lit 8 well, Is within these moralistic and humanistic impulses that we find FR. Leavis locating his idea of the tion, iis in such «way that he is bringing together these five novelists as part ofthe great tation, Another important thing in terms of his ders to lok beyond the tical outlook is that he encourages the erties; he encourages the ‘words ona page. irate cannot be seon merely asa social document. On the other hand, it need to be about an insimate study ofthe complexities, the potentialities and the essential conditions of human natureitself. Here we find the moral compass, the humanistic compas, taking higher standard as compared to any other thing whichis associsted with the novel, O course, realist ction was the kind of fiction which vas being writen, fiom the calies times onwards, and there was an increasing tendency the form of the novel ss a socal document, Leavis encourages us f0 80 beyond that to lok at novelas literature, as pure literature, And only when you Took at novel as 2 form of literature witha particular kin ofa tradition, with a certain kindof yardstick, only then will it become available for other kinds of sorutiny as well, for other kinds of purposes which at largely related to sci consciousness, We will very briefly take Took at how he tees to locate Conead in this, because Contad seems to be # misfit in many other ways, And here is Lea English tradition. “When we come to Conrad, we cannot by way of insisting that he is indeed significantly ‘in’ the tadition— in and of i, neatly and conclusively relate him to any one trying to locate Conrad as part of this pret English novelist, Rather, we have to stress his freignnes.” There is «posular way of looking at tradition, I need not be always part of the native continuity. Tt ean aso have a certain kind of ‘orsignness and blend into whatever is seem asthe mative, This ualike the way in which he bad trod to poston Jane Austen, Conrad and Jane Austen might look like they’ are a wo ends of the spect. and the humanistic But we sce the continuity being built, largely on account of the moral impulses that Leavis continues t reiterate. “Rather, we have to stress his foeignness—that he was Pole whose frst otber language was French. I remember remarking to Andte Chevilon how surprising a choice it was on Conrad's part to wnte in English, especially seeing he was so cleanly a student ofthe French masters, And I remember the reply to the effect that twas no at all suprising, since Conrad's work could not have besn writen in French”. ‘This is another aspect of the language coming into a very dest dialogue withthe form tha is Stion, “Mr Chevrllon, with the authority of pete bilingual, eat onto explain in tems of the characteristics of the two languages why it had to be in English. Conrad's themes and interests demanded the concreteness and action—the dramatic energy—of Knglish” Look at imerestng ways in which he is locating the oot ofthe tation, the root of Englishness. "We might go further a say that Conrad chose a wit his novels in English forthe reasons that led him to become a British Master Marner: (Refer Slide Time: 7:17) Ako, he is able to praise what comes ffom outside. And remember what we mentioned at the ‘ousset of this lestre, tha this entire exercise of re-evaluating tis ration i also about making the outsiders insiders, like he himself says very directly. “Like James, he brought a great deal fiom outside, but it was of the eimost importance to him that he found a serious at of fiction ‘there in English, and that there were, in English, great novelists to study. He drew ftom English literature what he needed, and learnt in that peculiar way of genivs which is 0 diferent from imitation.” “Tradition here isnot entirely bout imitation. In fact, i is more about imbibing what i rooted in ‘the tradition, but also contributing to it ina significant way. And here, it doesnot really matter ‘whether one's origin is native or foreign, Regardless ofthat, he is very interest iy looking at the work, And this is what makes Leavis ve ferent kind ofa standard for us by not looking at the ethnicity ofthe water, by not looking st the biography of the water. On the other hand, be is focusing onthe work tat each writer has ‘produced, which is what gives him e great deal of authority as well. Hei very well versed inthe ‘works, in this body of work produced by these five great writers, whom he identifies, This familiarity with the work gives him the kind of mastery, the kind of authority, 1 pronounce Judgments sbout what tation they are part of, event the extent of saying they are the tradition and there is nothing outside of them, interesting for us aa erite. He ako lays down a“And for us, whe have him aswell as the others, there he is, unquestionably a constitutive part of the radiion, betonging in the fll sense.” Just © lot, who had to become part ofa culture, part of maton, that he was orginally not part of, we find Leavis uying to become an insider also by making others part ofthis ation, Here, the idea ofthe tation is not constituted by what one orignaly is. But onthe basis of what one hes produced reatively by way of writing fiction. And now we come to this par where Leavis is also trying to tell us why he has not been thle to include Dickens. Dickens, who has boon seen as one of the most formidable storytellers of the 19® century, one ofthe greatest storys of English Iteatue. We ind Leavis excluding Dickens eniely fom his diseussion ofthe great tradition While comparing Dickens with Joseph Conrad, this is what Leavis has to sy: “We may reasonably, oo, inthe same way see some Dickensian influence, closely related an ofthe same order, in Conrad's use of melodrama, or what would have boca melodram in Dickens fr in Conrad the end isa totlsigifienee of « profoundly serous kind” We find tis emphasis on seriousness, on morality, on this moral compass, on this high sense of investment onthe ides of ‘he morality the moralistic and the humanistic ease very sigifiantly being foregrounded, “The ‘reason for not including Dickens inthe line of great novelist is implicit in ths last phrase. The kindof greamess in question has been suflcintly defined. That Dickens was a great genius and is pemanes (Refer Side Time: 10:32) [Look atthe way in which be is also differentiating between great storytellers, Between classics, ‘aswell a this preat triton that he s trying to delineate. “That Dickens was a great genius, and is permanently among the classics is certain, but the genius was that ofa great entetsiner." That does not constitute great wadtion, “and he had, forthe most part, no profounder responsibilty as 4 creative artist than this dosripsion suggests, Praising him magnificently ina very fine eiique, Ms, Santayana, in concluding 8p: In every Englis.spesking tome, inthe four quarters of the lobe, parents and children would do well to read Dickens aloud ofa winter's evening” ‘This aoe is ight and significant, The adult mind does not asa rule ind in Dickens a challenge to an unusual and sustained seriousness. I can think of only one of his books in which hie Aisnctive creative genius iscontlled dwoughout te unifying and organizing significanes, and that is Hard Times, which soems, because ofits unasualness and comparatively smal sale, 10 dave escaped recognition forthe great thing iti. Conrad's views on i, supposing it to have ‘caught his attention, would have been intresting: he was qualified to have writen an apt appreciation." This isthe sor of positioning I find very interesting Conrad is being sen asthe successor of Dickens in a certain way. But atthe same time we find Leavis piving Dickens the credit only for writings clase shor stories, only for being @ master genius in his art of storytelling But the kind of profound seriousness that he would associate ‘vith Conrad i entiely missing in Dickens. And this ie vey interesting because iti just ikeJane Austen who has imbibed alot som the writers who have been before her, But the other writers assume significance only on account of the greatness of Jane Austen In the same way ‘ers, only ona count of Conrad's greatnss, his profound seriousness, we ind Dickens entering this discussion, (Refer Slide Time: 12:33) st a nis every extensive discussion tht Leavis carries out inthis entre work, and in most ofthese vest discussion that heen that he patakes in, These are not loose statements that he makes, he also ies t very suesintly suppor them with definitive argument fom the reading thst he has done, And he continues To come back to ‘things we find that his autority also comes ftom tl Conrad and his major quality: he is one of those creative geniuses whose distinction is ‘manifested in their being peculiarly alive in thei time-peculiany alive 1 i not “in the ‘vanguard’ inthe manner of Shaw and Wells and Aldous Huxley, but sensitive tothe stesses of ‘the changing spiritual climate as they begin to be registered by the most conscious.” Wie find the moral compass continuing to dominate. tis about being alive tthe times which re ‘being presented inthe fiction. It does not about the kind of city tht one potest, Is all ‘bout the kind of involvemeat that one has asa person. It is more bout what comes trough in ‘that work of ar, how the aiveness to cera times is being manifested, (Refer Side Time: 13:44)‘And Finally, he comes to DH Lawrence: “I thete no name late than Conrad's tobe included in the great tradition? There is, I am convinced, one." Look et the authority with which he is bringing in names, and look at the uncompromising. way in which he is plecing them side-by-side, as part of thie great tradition, “D.H, Lawrence, Lawrence, in the English language, was the great genius of our time, Tt would be difficult 9 separate the novelist off for consideration, but it was inthe novel that he commited himselt to the hardest and most sustained creative labour, and he was, as @ novels, the representative of vial and. significant, development. ‘There is kind of selection that here Leavis has very evidently made from Jane Austen to D.H. Lavirence, picking onthe kind of asst whom he thinks has imbibed the English tation in its real sense, which is also an extension of the morals beginning to look a terature as some kind ofa religion. And there isa certain sort of rigidity which is part of is tenes, snd humanistic tradition, Leavis is ‘Bur at he same tims, there i a erainabstraciness. Though he is ver authoritatively stating the yratsticks, we realize that there i certain abstraciness which one could attribute to the eligious Sfameworks as well Here Virtue of which he can truly say that what he writes must be writen ftom the depth of is religious experience, that makes him, in my opinion, so much more significant in relation othe is more direct in tha sense where e tals aout: “It is this pit, by pest and future, o much more trly creative asa technical inven language, than James Joyce 1 know thet Mr FS, Eliot has found in Joyce's wok something that recommends Joyce to him as positively religious in fendeney. But it seems plain to me that there is no organi priniple {determining informing and controlling into a vital whol, the elaborate analogical strcture, the cxtrordinary variety of technical devices, the attempts at an exhaustive rendering of ‘consciousness for which Lier i remarkable, and which got it accepted by a cosmon literary world as anew ware” ‘There is personal investment here when he i making these evaluations, And of course, he is very widely reed, and that sort of als to this mastery, al this authority with which hei able to compare and contest these diferent writers, He ie in no way demeening the other waiter. He is in no way saying thatthe others are not master storytellers. On the other hand, be is quite ‘well-versed inthe style, inthe craft that the other writers such as James Joyce or Dickens, the way they bring in thir own genius into their art of storytelling. But what makes him very distinctive is this continued focus on something profound, something serious, something very personal, something very intense, which only certain writers, he believes, are able to bring into thei tion Coming tthe end ofthis fest chapter, we Find that he is Further eitrating his im. One may choose to agree oF disagree with the many yardtcks, sort of tenets that Leavis proposes es also pethaps difficult corroborate many of the things tat he says because it is also based on his individual reading. I is also part of what he thinks is morally profound, what he thinks is ‘deeply serious and wat he thinks is morally enriching. The intensity tht identifies in these ‘works, perhaps i is also persona, I is also about how, just like Leavis, they also could become insiders of wadtion which was exclusively dominated by English Hterary writers, Coming back to the final passoge, be reiterates what e claims, right atthe outset ofthis work: “Ihave, the, ven my hostages, What I think and judge, Ihave stated as responsibly and clearly a Ian, Jane ‘Austen, George Elis, Henry James Conrad, and D.Hl Lawrence: the great tition of the English novel is there" This isa very concTusive statement. Ther is no compromise, This i avery categorical statement out what he thinks is English literary critical tion, What brings ll of these people togetheris the myriad ways in which they have been able to become part of this tradition, which was exclusively based on a ft of other things, including chnicy, And hee, we find tha none of those things are important wien one is talking about tradition, Ie etitely shout the kind of work that one produces, Becoming part of literary tration is also becoming part ofthe spit, pat ofthe profound intensity that ceriin kinds of itertue, certain kind of literary tradition has always been giving out; and he is able achieve to things hee. (One, he is able to demi an English literary critical wadition which is essentially very diferent, fiom the way in which it bas been traditionally seen, He is able to give a new definition, anew kind of understanding, # new trajectory to dition, a new yardstick 1 look at literary ertica tradition. And on the other hand, he has been able to give a ceian kind ofa baggage of tradition to novel, in rescuing it from the state tat it was before where anything writen as fiction could be part of tis larger oeuvre. There is no way to find out whats god fiction, what is part of the ‘wadiion, what is not part ofthe raditon, ocause it Was not © postr, not lke drama, There as not any set srt of template on which ane could dra, or based on which one could compare Here we find Leavis being able to do two things; one, to redefine and o reinstate triton ina diferent way altogether. And secondly, o give novel a tradition, especialy in the light oft never having a tradition in the first place. Having said th ‘nave ben challenged inthe later decades; and many find it very dificult to come to terms with his very imperialistic notions about how to locate tradition, how to identify insiders and outsiders, how fo identify something which i classic, and ow that is essentially very different Som what goes onto make the tradition. ‘many of his notions, many of his standards Many of these notions have been found to be very problematic. But what nceds 19 be remembered, atthe end ofthe day, i that, Leavis has contebuted immensely to this discipline to this ete formation of of English literature and English eriicism in avery novel sense, With tht we come tothe end of this work. I encourage you to read the remaining parts ofthis work for your own understanding, clam a separate and distinet discipline, and to this formalized study to soe how he as taken tis argument of moralistic judgment about « humanist tration, how rgument has been taken forwand to read particular works in geatr detail Wi this Thank you for you ime and Took forward to seeing you in the next Sesion. this