Literary Criticism (From Plato to Leavis) Dr. Merin Simi Raj. Department of Humanities and Social Science Indian Insitute of Techaology Madras FR Leavis, (Refer Slide Time: 00:38) Welcome fora session on FR Leavis. Today we will look at some of his works andthe concepts he had introduced, FR Leavis is ritic known for his firm standards and moralism and he is one ofthe founding editors ofa quererly journal of erticism called ‘Scrutiny’. And the other editor was Quoenie Dorothy Roth who fs became his wife. His early etal interest was in poetry and some of his works ate New Bearings in English Poctry: A Study of the Contemporary ‘Situation, evaluation: Tradition and Development in English Por His later interests shifted towards novels and some of his works are, Te Great Tradition of 1948, DIL Lawrence: Novelist, “Anna Karenina” and Other Essays. Wis preoccupation with literary criticism is constantly seen throughout his works and spanning ftom the 1950s 0 19705, Some of the most common ones are, The Common Pursuit, Education and the Universi, Literature in Our Time and the University, The Living Principle: “English” asa Discipline of Though ‘Refer Slide Time: 01:40) Leavis is seen as a successor to Mathew Amol because be alo views literary studs as form of erticism of lf, he believes, can pieece though dominant ideologies. And according to him, the field of trary studies allows the mechanical age of life to redeem set, FR Leavis and his ‘concepts or his theories mast be seen i the content ofthe 20 century. And for FR Leavis the 20 century world was purposless and aialess because World Wa {had just happened and it had destroyed almost any semblance ofthe old Victorian consciousness of England, Ongenized religion hes gone ito dcline and that is seen even daring Amolds days. And therefore religion failed fo offer sny coherent explanation for the disuptions of the war, There was a constant urs ‘of pleasure a hedonism in the 920s [And this search is supposed to illsirate the emptiness of modern life; and it 8 also 8 period ‘where there was loss of faith in any codes of regulation, especially ftom religions. Therefore, FR Leavis’ vision of literary studies must be read asa response to this moment in history. Iwas an attempt to counter the frees of popular literature and midlebrow culture. twas als t estore the coherence of contemporary life. Levis propagated literary stdes a « way of understanding the evolution of modem lie and all ts complexity. The holder ofa literary degree in 1920s and 3s became most fit fr bearing the high offices. Inthe late 1930, English became the only subject worth studying. And English as subject became a supremely cviizing pursuit and it ave the spiritual estence for social formation as understood by FR Leavis,(Refer Slide Time: 03:49) 1® Another important note to remember ‘at Leavis was always wrongly categorized inthe field of practical ritcism which is also @ product of the 20° century. However, it emphasized on lose reading and on discovering how a work of literature was self-contained and finetioned as & selfreferential, aesthetic object And itis always about the words on the page. Howeves according to Leavis, the aim ofthe literary scholar is o bring his research to bear on the social Political issues and the conduct of cultural life. though he looks at some ofthe aspects of new exitiism and practical ercism, he is no by himself a practical eiial theorist. And just like Mathew Amold, FR Leavis aso believed in touchstones that determin the high seriousness in iteraty tet For Mathew Amold, having a touchstone fo compare the fext made it possible to alter the consciousness of the Victorians and also sot standards of quality, But fr Leavis, the standards ae formed in comparison of works of the age. And Leavis also revaluated the standard practice in the course of English literature where regardless ofthe all ther tendencies, Instead, he argued for @ denser canon of work that argued propery with essential social cultural issues that reflected the society ofthat time, For hin, terture and texts of a centary wete studied, literary gues who are more intrested in frm than the content, more interested in he beauty of the language rather than the ideological uses of the text or ofthe content in the text, were less importa. ‘Refer Slide Time: 05:47) “etn tees te peepee, Soares Gisranne Sentence eee 0 sects For example, one of the critics of FR Leavis Richer (in @ very recent publication in 2007) geve an example of how he graded the authors i all his works, “Tho mel be preferred to the harsh, dificult Hopkins. The clever refeentiaity and aesthetics of Joyee tanked far below the prophetic visions and cultural radicalism of DI, Lawrence, The recherche uous Tennyson was nat to medievalism of Spenscr and the idiosyncratic religiosity of Milton, devalued them beneath Donne and Marvell” We also will se ater how D.H, Lawrence was placed ina higher standard ‘ora higher level than James Joyee who is very celebrated in their time. And some of the works I 1m using for this presentation by FR Leavis is The Great Tradition and two other articles from his journal called Seratny hich are “Literary Mind” and “Literature and Society In The Great Tradition he says thatthe great English novelists are only Jane Austin, George [ot Henry James and Joseph Conrad, Ina similar way, in his earlier works, he pronounced tht “Mitton is negligible; and he dismissed the Romantics. And he also held tet there is no post we ved to realy bother about except for Hopkins and TS Eliot. He aso says, in one of his works, thatthe only way to escape misinterpretation is never to commit onese any cial judgment ‘The only way to escape misrepesenation is neve the commit oneself to aay cial judgment that makes an impact, That is never to say anything. However, the most profitable discussion lakes place only when one is as clear as possible with oneself, and what he sees and what he ‘wants to judge, or any critique inthis Sense. And one must establish the essential discriminations inthe fold of intrest,He also say, the field of fiction isso large that there ae insidious temptations to complacent confusions of judgments and to evtcal indolence or lethargy in reading trough text. Going to the minor novelists in the Vietvian age, be says minor novelists of the Vietvin age such as Charles Reed or Henry Kingsley or Wilkie Collins inthe 1920s and 30s, thei works are brought to attention and they are publicized, more as broadcasts, suggesting them as living classes from the previous age. But then one must question what names necessarily shouldbe part of literary history and what names or what works ae significant a creative achievement, He goes on to say that the novelists must not only change the possbilies of art for she Practitioners and the readers, but they must be signiticant in tems of human awareness they promote, awareness of the possiblities of life, Most of te focal words of FR Leavis revolves ‘round life and experience; and most of his judgments on criticism ofthe works also fall onthe hhuman experience, human intelligence and ereativiy, which ‘work, The Great Tradition aga Victorian age bacause she refs the society ofthat ime, in fal back on experience. Inthe he names Jane Austen as one of the greatest writers of the ‘And he also says someting about her leaming experience that are sen through her works. And before tis, we should also see hat by naming fow bilant novelists, he does not devalue the existence of tradition, but rather provides an understanding of what tradition is, And this s where Wwe see Jane Austen because shes one ofthe early women waiters who are very much celebrated and from her works, we See the Victorian age and he livelihood ofthe Victorian age houscholds [And at the same time, her works, string many different threads that ate very common tothe Victorian age, which again are pulled out by other writers to develop somthing beter oF to develop something deeper inthe understanding of human experience. These are the words of FR Leavis about Jane Auton. ‘Refer Slide Time: 10:47) 1® Eevoromsysemnaee weenie “Jane Austen i one of the truly great writrs and herself major fct nthe background of other ‘reat writers, She read all there was to read and took all that was useful to her, which was not ‘nly lessons. In fact, Jane Austen in her indebtedness to others, provides an exceptionally illuminating study of the nature of originality. And she exemplifies beeusifilly the relations of the individual talent inthe tradition.” (Refe Slide Time: 11:14) Seairgseteerten ‘Sevtgctebrmnteae seed Sogeeenegiaarseessesare rein “Tf the influences bearing on her had not compromised something fily tobe called tation she could not have found herself an her tue direction; but her lation to waitin is acrative one She not only makes tradition for those coming afer, but her achievement has for us a retroactiveeffect. As we look beyond her, we see what went on before and because of her we see the potentialities and significances which are brought out in such away tha, for us, she eeates the tradition we soe leading down to her: Her work, like the work ofall esative writers pives a reaning to the pas. He takes an example of one of Jane Austen's works, Bouma, and continues (Refer Slide Time: 12:08) 1D ‘Semaine tom pomesceteey Sitiguacwedin mtn tenses oeeecmened He says, “As a mater of fact, when we examine the formal perfection of Emma, we find that it can be appreciated only in terms of the moral preoccupations that characterize the novel peculiar interest in life, Those who suppose it to be an “aesthetic mate “composicon” that is combined, miraculously, wih “truth to lif,” can give no adequate reason forthe view that Emma isa great novel, and no intligent account ofits perfection of farm, i in beauty of the same way trac ofthe other great English novelists” He says that when you look ata work as «creative piece and just as am aesthetic objet, you will nt be abl to se the higher purpose of the texto what the work sting to eet And that is what he says must be change inthe tera erica ld where the works are judged for what they ar, what this contents, what they ate trying to iluminate. But he does not refute the existence of an English tradition. He says, “But there is English tradition and these great classics of English fc “writes of the Victorian age will not be part of the English novela «category that pts them al mt belong to it” However, he also goes back to say that all the minor together. He says not eveything can be categorized asthe canon. He says, the English adtion talks about creating caracters and creating word. [And inthis taditon, the appreciation for Theckeray or Virginia Woolf or Trollope wil ways disappear because their work does not eflet the tradition in the content, Ou ofthe Four, the second one is George Eliot he finds to be great English novels, He says George Eliot also learns from Jane Austen an therefore there isa continuity from Jane Austen and therefore she is part ofthe tradition. He also says George Eliot admired her work and Gorge Eliot as a writer ‘whose imelleewal weight and moral camestnes strike some critics as her handicap, whose _enius and problems are necessarily vey differen, isthe hades kind of influence to define, Even when we see itt have been of the profoundest importance. Here, FR Leavis ted t say that although they all belong to different ers, what Gleonge lit learned isthe way Jane Austen weaves the irony the way Jane Austin weaves te life and the experience in her writing, which ‘doesnot throw it onthe readers fae, but is subly present. And this sublety is what Georg Eliot takes in with her and she adds tothe spin of her works, which i lot of vigor ofthe county life and ahiogether a different seting that George Eliot talks of in some of her works. For Leavis, after Joseph Conrad, the only other great novelist that can reach up to thet standard is D.H, Lawrence and he says this about his works: (Refer Side Time: 15:48) 9 Ieeathiptremtera mieten eens, pioneer ieguceeniasem my ietionranpaqmesemcaideen Fete racy a Lawrence in the English language was the great genius of his contemporary times. I mean the age or the climatic phase following Conrad’. “In his novel, he committed himself the hardestand the most sustained creative labor, and he was, asa novelist, the representative of vital and significant development. He might, ihis genius had let him, have gone on writing novels with the kind of “character creation” and psyehology that the conventional cultivated reader immediately approviates- novels that demanded no unfuiliareffor of approach, However, his tgsnias manifests afer the great success of Sons and Lovers, a8 he gave up that mode of writing and devoted himself to exhausting til of working out the new things and the developments that 1s the highly conscious an intelligent servant of lif, he saw tobe necessary.” He goes on to say that Lawrence was a most a daring and radical innovator inform and method tnd technique; and hs innovations and experiments are dictated by the most serous and urgent kind of interests in ie, This sprit by vitue of which he can tly Sy tat wht he writes must be writen from the depth ofhis religious experience that makes im so much more significant in relation to the past and the future. Lawrence belived that one must speak for hfe and growth ami al the mass destruction and disintegration. is the spirit of originality that gives his novels a disconcerting quality and also gives them significance asa work of genius ewe Leavis places the writing of DH, Lawrence within the context of Leavis" own times, which is also the rise of modernist times and thet is no center. in the times of 19208 snd 30s, where religion had declined and he neoded that faith and the belie in something to prop up. And this Was also the time where dhere was no center, there was no fi, here was no structure. And this seemed like he was going back to the pat, to ld on to tradition as the only dread that would connect the past and the future, show a diction for the authors and forthe readers, and the jponerl public who wil bein uenced by the reading of these texts, (Refer Slide Time: 18:31) We also see that Leavis constantly proposes that literary studies and English iterature must be pate of every man’s education just so thet they understand the beauty of human experience and Tite, Going back to Leavis other works, Most of his carer is charaetrized by Io of boldness in his opinions andthe originality in all ofhis opinions. An in one of his readings on how to teach led ‘reading in 1932, Leavis had pointe out thatthe eritcsm of the novel was in is infancy, ‘with shallow notions of characters who had real life extending beyond the text and who also cveated a world among themselves within the text Ina Series of articles inthe journal Serutin ho used the term “dramatic poem to indicate a formal nd structural approach wo the novel He is one ofthe pioneers of naratology but was never content to remain within the bounds of raratlogy, Characterstically, he also insisted that prose should be read ike verse, withthe ‘required attention to close details wile listening, while insisting thatthe isolated passage could not do justice to the whole. And this again is one ofthe aspects we see going back to the practical coherence this is where he develops tat fom, ivism where the sentences of the words on the page are weaved togsther in Going back to the idea of tradition, he says even in his work, The Great Tradition he never implies that de otber books that he isnot appresating is not worth reading. He says they ght touch upon the ideas of tradition, they might touch upon the aspect of tradition, but they cannot bbe part of the ‘morals that are introduced by the canonical works wil be diluted non, And if every work is being included in the Canon, the values and theWill in his review of Le a's work Revaluation, suggested that he wanted a norm to which an suthor could bring up @ work, and due tothe reply Leavis gives he is seen to be the opponent of Philosophy’ and theory in favor of untheorzed practice; because he also falls back on value system alone and the reflection of society. Leavis expresses in a reply & concept of complete reader, realizing the complex experience of ltrture as opposed to the abstr pilotophical formulation. Leavis argues not by the application of an external norm and hence are not immutable. Leavis refuses to formulate criteria. He says the next work might be diferent, Inevitably the individual exte Forms a structure based on mote constant preference ‘The structure is open to further modification by a new work which could require a diferent response on other grounds of judgment and hence certin state any kind of norms that would provide or that would be a tol forthe ert to judge the works. This is exactly why, even though he talks a lot aout the tradition, he never absolutely defines what that tation means. And he only ties to explain the waitin through the works of Jane Austen, George Eliot, or Conrad or for that mato, Lawrence, According to Leavis, eitial judgment has the for, “Thi sso isn't it?” And the nowness here modifies the sense of value, exeates another sense of value by which it isto be judged. Leavis’ eitcism rejects the ertcal wisdom of any age that provides absolutes forthe future. Judgment is aot a mater of abstraction. What one nceds is areal, an appropiate responsiveness tothe thing offered, and a fee and dicate receptivity to fesh experince. Declared values become empty husks, things formerly dated by experince, once fined, bsvome natural and automade and therefore ossses to have Tie, And here Leavis emphasizes thatthe life he means is the dovelopment that happens, is the Aectine or the improvement tht tool or a theory could have, Although he never uses the word theory, he never proposes it as theory. Another joural that existed in the times of Leavis is called The Criterion and that journal ed politcal stance or narrative lens through which it critiqued she other works. However, Criterion as opposed to Scrutiny, He also ssid wt (Criterion judges the works with a speificd politcal extra Seratinyjoumal will ony serutinizes the work 11 ill judge them as the reader or the ert reads the fext ad therefore i individual experience ofthe reading ofthe text itself: His issue with The Criterion journal stat i to an extent {judgment is too easily the applying of accepted standards, thought is too easily the moving of recognized abstractions according to rule. Leavis docs not propose that the judgments of literary itcism do not hold any exteiteray choices or decisions and he doesnot propose that any esthetic concer ofthe literary work is omy a thing of beauty, However, the relationship tothe lie thatthe text hold i ll the more important to him and this is where he connects withthe ‘ritque of Marxism and where e refites the Mar's erie He says, any judgment ot literary value mst involve extraliterary choices, in which again, he ako nludes religion and spiritualism and morality, which The Criterion he believes always loaves out. fn his work restatement for erties, he declares himself non-political indifferent. He says no hope is to be based on bloody revolution. However, he also says some form of svonomic communism is inevitable and is somet es very desta, Here he draws lines on where the ‘communism as an understanding must end. He also says intelligent working towards this end, where ‘this end’ denotes the education, denotes a ration needs 1 be saved by an ‘nonviolent way of going forward fo the fiture; not an instigation of revolution whichis violent and which e destructive He also says, the question that always remain is communism of what kind. In this regard, Leavis "wishes to foster, through education and anti-acquisitve, anti-competitive, moral depth, where he says it should pot be this or that, this political ideology over another, He believes in ‘onchegemonie working of ertcisms. He also insists on senses of completes in all the txts and he wants to cherish the senses, cherish the sense of complexities, knowing well tht to Marxists this is to play the bourgeoisie game. He, while criticizing Mares eniticsm, and r established and he cls them dead language ‘because there are certain phrases that ae repetitively used such as bourgeoisie and clas stugele Marxism itself, he criticizes the language that. [Leavis goes hack tothe commentary that Marxism isthe aleobol ofthe intellectual, warming and exating, obliterating diulies and incapacitating for elementary discrimination, so much so for the opium of the masses. He says Mariss re fusthermore too bourgeois in being like the ‘bourgeois themselves, too much the productive material environment being the ereator of the processes inthe same way of capitaliss on the possbilies ofthe progress; the Marxists” frure is vacuous. And they have too litle thought about the nature of culture tat exists though the lime And the erties of Leavis also argued that he leaned towards Marxism in some pari sens, in Some aspects however he sharply criticizes, in @ very typieal Leavis ettempl, any competing ‘stablishment of omhodoxies and concepts of hegemonies and discourses, because he believeslow fora balanced view of what «text ‘that those kinds of competing establishments will not sys. He keeps questioning i thee is human nature or if there is such ating as human nature, And he also quot what other systems or discourses determine an individual who eeads the He also goes back on the question of “Is the author dead?” In another work of Leavis ealled Literature and Society, he defend hist from the accusations that his vitcisms are isolated, individual and purely literary in value that are proposed by romanticism. However, he also betioves that specific creative gifts of aay individual will not crete @ masterpiece. And that comes withthe leamings from the tradition, that comes from its sation tothe culture and iis reflection of life and the experiences. He asserts that there ae a et of determinants othe than the atrial and economie which are enormous, but the shaping of tradition forthe critic ad the iter canbe literary as well as materia. Here is where he brings in Marcsm again, where he talks about the shaping of one's wring, shaping or one's work and the shaping of the material or the content he uses. Here, materi considerations in another sense s the sosioeconomie structures that exist. And the propagation of certain deste for another oa different kind of socioeconomic stevetre that exists inthe times where the texts being published. Thre are varying shaping systems; he then asters that there is neverthloes« measure of sisal autonomy, human intelligence, choice and will. ‘These mater with an inberent human notur, without th individual talent thre is no creation, only predestined automatism which is not Leavs's his own time but this i that of the eis Only in individual docs a society live and only in individual a culture passes through and therefore every individual creation, every individual work matters even as part of wadition, Because otherwise the tradition will not be taken forward and there would be the abrupt end of decline fo that certain tradition or that certain practice. In dealing with the products of human creativity, this fear of enti isto perceive the subiletes and complexities rather than to enforce the domination of ideas and criterion. He this is where he goes back o say saying tha any st ides wil only cur the understanding of the text i its full-ledged form and it wil not allow the creativity ofthe readers to flow an that, Would hinder the provess of lesming about life and Teming in general. Leavis also ertcizes Marxism thet by saying that there is not certain eutonomy of the human intellectual and sestetcal moral activity exprestes nt ony the cause origin and economic circumstances and therefore using clase, clause structure and clause operation as only lends on looking into literature will not only hinder the process of understanding the cultural difeences and but also the dtferencos in the experiences oF diffrent authors andthe characters inthe book However, he in the 19205 were not being received well forthe fet that bourgesie was being eriicized ‘during that time and it was inthe decline and not for any other reason. However, he says that 1 says some ofthe hooks shat were Victorian that spoke about the Vietrian era literature end criticism were always related to society and he said he always wanted to preserve a ‘erin autonomy ofthe human spirit. And his is exactly where we se again, DH Lawrence and George Flot being appreciated by Leavis where he says the vigor oftheir work, the spit of ie and their works i what makes, is one ofthe things that makes them great novelists, That are the, their novels and works reflect the spi systems modify and therefore a significant new work can change the whole stcture and one's of living. He also says systems are not absolute and previous perceptions ofthe cultural structure and also the work And this is where he again criticizes Marxism for saying that they provide clause structure as an oper hange lke just lke how the Victorian ea change the ideas of Victorian era change, so wil the in, asthe only ends which through which th texts are read or dealt with. But the mes ideas ofthe 20th century. Although inthis time James Joyous work came on one ofthe most ‘elebrated work. He believes that James Joyee's work is very unstructured and is there is no ‘enter in that txt and it does ot celebrate any form ori doesnot eelebr therefore it should not be well celebrated as that of DH Lawrence's. And fo, fr Leavis citiism any moral value and isa collaborative creative process,(Refer Slide Time: 34:19) 1® oa a And itis the itis the creative witer for him who exemplifies freedoms wh fe Tieratue isthe most significant mode of language. And therefore by, by considering eritiism a « collaborative ‘reatve process, it allows the readers fll possession ofthe text. And this we his is how be goes hack tothe question of is author dead? But here he docs not post that onthe author but onthe critic wo makes available a framework to understand the text ashe ase ws a reader understood. And it must be understood in the cultural content, but never, but a etc should never suggest that, this isthe only way itcan be read Yes, ofcourse Leavis's criticism is not devoid of theory because he dals with most ofthe critical preoccupations that were later theorized. And he also showed how the relative freedom is indeed 1 possibility while the readers feedom of, while the readers freedom to understand how a text, can be understood and wile also challenging that no dogma can remain permanent. And this is ‘throughout this, these are things that are understood throughout the 30 yours of arcs he had published in the joumal semuiny. He always negotiated between the society tradition and individual talent And he negotiated between, betweun the text and the literature and also what hasbeen already given inthe past and what isthe prospective of the new ftue Leavis understandings went into a deeine afer his death and after some of his followers stated 1 field of studies called Leavis studies, pose these questions on what is the purpose of reading Leavis in these change and sill changing circumstances. And how can the work of Leavis serve today as an itlleetwat too! for understanding and possibly changing higher education? These ‘questions fall on two basic factors. One is that Leavie's socioducational thought closely embedded in etic of specific literary tex. So the understanding is that if you take away the readers failiaity with these texts, Leavss arguments will seem to fall oF will seem to not hold and also Leavis negative verdet on mass culture And in another work he had oppose the ides of democratic mass university: However, the ‘question of what is the purpose of reading Les intlloctul, he serves for the understinding of higher education comes from some his works "where he very much emphasizes on the idea of ereasvty, which he places on the idea of laming isin the changing times and how as an and higher education and university, And the answers for those questions depend on three diferent premises. One of the premises is that Leavis isa rich source of ideas and his experiences and his understanding of experiences that dealt with the society and higher sucation, So it means that while he dismissed the mas culture, the depth and the seriousness ‘with which Leavie's posts hi questions about culture and society and education and his ‘conception of language, re always considerable force in understanding the text