Mithilesh Kumar Thakur, PhD
English literary world was shocked and saddened to know that a noted literary critic, F.R. Leavis passed away nearly forty-two years ago. His demise has caused an irreparable loss in the domain of literary criticism. Referring to Leaves’ words, it can be said that the sphere of literary criticism which he made fertile through the creation of literary works has turned out to be barren and wild. Among living literary critics no such critics are left whose literary creations like the literary creations of Leavis deserve to hold our attentions. We have felt it for a long time that no stellar figure has been left. The same situation matters to English literary criticism after the death of Leaves.
Leavis was a great literary critic. He is considered among those chosen few literary critics who represent the mainstream of English literary criticism. But there is one considerable difference between previous great critics and Leavis is that unlike previous literary critics who represent the mainstream of English literary critics, who are poets cum critics, he is a literary critic to the core. But in my opinion that does not mean that he deserves to enjoy less importance and meager stature by any means. We have not yet realized that critical talent is much more than creative talent. This statement is strongly confirmed and corroborated when we glance through the history of English literature. From meticulous perusal of the history we get to know that in every era multiple outstanding creative artists have appeared but rarely have great literary critics appeared. This historical testimony not only establishes and substantiates literary critics’ stature but also serves to refute general perception that from the importance point of view the literary critics’ position is on the margin so much so that they are nothing other than dependent on creative literature. They have no independent existence and identity of their own.
I do admit it that it was when I personally did not like Leaves. That time I held my assumption that Leavis was nothing other than mere the replica of T.S. Eliot and he was doing nothing other than just echoing the general perceptions of modern criticism. But when I examined my own assumption, I arrived at this conclusion that my disorientation towards Leavis arose from my keen interest in R.S Crane and other critics of the Chicago School of Literary Criticism because they seemed to be more distinguished and authentic than Leaves. In other words in those days new literary critics and the critics of the Chicago School of Literary Criticism left such a tremendous impact on me that I was not able to completely and generously accept Leave’s appeal for moral values But noted new critic J.C Ransom and the critic from Chicago School of Literary criticism, R.S. Crane let us know that critics with concern for morality pay attention to the aspect of morality in works of art but nobody among them emphasizes upon the importance of formal structure. Therefore, such critics go far beyond the ambit of criticism.
I still realize that Leavis is extremely indebted to T.S. Eliot but he has revised as well as augmented Eliot’s critical perspectives many times or at least he has articulated his dissent with those of his. First of all, I would like to let you know to what extent Leavis is indebted to Eliot and then I will try to explain to you what his substantial achievements are in the area of criticism. In the two noted works of Leavis, New Bearings in English Poetry (1932) and Revaluation (1936) attention has been focused on Eliot only. In the first work he has focused on the review of Eliot’s literary accomplishments and he has made it as a core subject in one hand. On the other hand, in his second work he has regarded and obtained Eliot’s all the core critical theories as the basics of his critical theories. In New Bearings Leavis himself has reviewed modern poetry of which Eliot is representative on the basis of his critical theories. Traditional standpoint drew a line of distinction between profundity and superficiality but in the viewpoint of Leaves, Eliot’s poetry refuses to accept it as a line of distinction because it leads to prove how both of them which being heterogeneous can be homogeneous and harmonious. Leavis has written: “The theories of poetics have been forgotten. It is a poet’s right to use whatever subject matter he deems to be appropriate.” This stance of Leavis in fact is similar to the views expressed in Eliot’s two essays- “Metaphysical Poets” and “Andrew Marvell”. The given statement by Leavis can be compared with Eliot’s. This particular statement made by Eliot about metaphysical poets that: “When a poet’s mind gets ready to his creative work, it keeps dissolving contradictory experiences”. Here both Eliot and Leavis repudiates Arnold’s this critical perspective indirectly that great poetry must have its sublime subject matter. No subject for poetic creation is inappropriate, importance lies not in underlying characteristics but it lies in creative intensity that transmutes subject matter into creative works of art.
Leavis has stressed upon the trait of impersonality in Eliot’s poetry along with Ezra Pound’s poetry. He writes about the noted poem, “Gerontion” by T.S Eliot that it contains the trait of impersonality that is typical of noble poem and later on talking about Eliot’s masterpiece, “The Waste Land”, he says that “in comparison to “Prufrock”, the trait of impersonality evolving in Gerontion culminates in the Waste Land.” Seldom can we think that someone can dilute and dissolve his distinguished personality to such an extent- “unleashing consciousness more.” Again, this stance of Leavis has been derived from Eliot’s celebrated essay, “Tradition and Individual Talent”. Here Leavis perhaps fails to realize that as he does elsewhere that Eliot wishes to transform not to transmute personality. In the last part of his essay on Tradition and Individual Talent, Eliot clarifies to the greatest possible extent that “those having their own distinguished personalities and emotions alone can understand what is meant to escape from these things.” Thomas Middleton, Thomas Heywood and John Ford lack their own personalities. For him the depersonalized work of art as the transformation of personality is an ideal. In this essay published in a journal Scrutiny, Leavis himself has said that “the depersonalized poetry, indeed emanates from intense individual experiences.” In his book, The Great Tradition published in 1948, in course of talking about Jane Austin, he relates this impersonality with moral position and appeal: In her novels theory of combination and theory of evolution pervade. She has profound moral concern in her own life. This very concern is primarily manifested in some such problems in the impregnate form as have occurred in her life as individual problems willingly or unwillingly. She has so much conscience and seriousness that she can let her work of art blossom as well as depersonalize her moral conflicts, become more aware of these subjects and properly understand what she should do with these issues in life’s interest.
Here it is easily noticed that previously Leavis recognized the achievement of impersonality for which no experience of any type is appropriate, at the craft level on the other hand now he has started recognizing such impersonality which is the outcome of the transformation of emphasis of morality. In his previous stage Eliot has emphasized upon this point that the point wants to formulate the experience through his poetry which must have conformity with Christianity. Here the difference between Eliot and Leavis is that on the one hand Eliot makes advocacy of Christianity. On the other hand, Leavis strongly favors the emphasis of morality.
Leavis has applied Eliot’s perspective on tradition as well. In a book New Bearings in English Poetry he himself has applied in Eliot’s poetry. Making his observations in Eliot’s masterpiece “The Waste Land”, he has written that in the external arrangement of this poem there is roughness in which its meaning can be explored. This apartment ruggedness has a very profound relation with that erudition which has left numerous readers baffled. In addition, he has cited copious quotations from various literary creations or has given indications to different episodes about whose root lies the same ruggedness. Different cultures and traditions have fused with one another and historical imaginations present the past in the contemporaneous form. There is a chapter in his book on D.H. Lawrence – “Lawrence and Tradition in which claims that Lawrence belongs to George Eliot’s tradition : In The Rainbow, there are many more things of such types as compels us to think that this creation clearly and truly speaking belongs to George Eliot’s tradition or related to that very artistic tradition.” In his book, Revaluation Leavis has set up the form of the tradition of great poets applying Eliot’s The Theory of Association of Sensibility as a base. Eliot himself has selected some of the poets to set up this tradition are Dante, English Metaphysical poets particularly Baudelaire and Laforgue. All these poets have one such common trait which is “sensuous perception of ideas”. Eliot himself has used this tradition in his poetry. Leavis himself is not a creative artist. Therefore, there does not arise any question of the application of any distinguished tradition in his own creations. Nonetheless Leavis has mentioned the tradition of great poetry in his book “Revaluation”. Like Eliot, Leavis undervalues Milton and overvalues Donne, only with difference that Leavis views the association of sensibility of in Pope and Wordsworth. His perspectives about some distinguished poets may be different but so far as the question of evaluation is concerned, both the critics; Leavis and Eliot have no difference. About the poet Shelly, the statement of Leavis echoes Eliot’s statement: in this age Shelley is to a greater extent, the representative of sheer negation of the past as well as the prime representative of that separation of ideas and feeling or discretion and sensitivity which is the typical spirit of the 19th century. “In brief Eliot’s impression about Shelley is also the same.”
In The Great Tradition, “Leavis has propounded the tradition of great novelists of English. However, the basis of his selection is different. These novelists who have given birth to this great tradition are Jane Austin, George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph Conrad (and among contemporary novelists D.H. Lawrence) among whom the common quality is this -that all of them promote human perception or in other words the perception of life-oriented possibilities.” This is the very element which has tied all of them in a single bond. It becomes apparently clear from his statement about Jane Austin how deep his insight into Eliot’s poetic theories is. Really, Jane Austin presents exceptional interpretation about other writer’s indebtedness and seminal form of originality, and beautifully demonstrates how individual talent should have relation with tradition. It is clear that this is nothing but echoing of Eliot’s statement.
When Leavis has acquired so much from Eliot, can we draw our conclusion from this that he is nothing but Eliot’s reflection? Some years ago, I had arrived at the conclusion. But I realize this now that Leavis has at least set one standard of criticism on which basis he can be recognized as a critic not distinguished from Eliot only but also from other previous critics (except Mathew Arnold) and I think this is his outstanding achievement as a critic. This standard is requisite balance between art and morality which he maintains normally. In order to understand the emphasis of Leavis on the moral values of literature properly, we should try to understand contrast between moral and morality. Between the two matters moral indicates the writer’s that direct moral objective which can be separated from poetry. On the other hand, morality is the poet’s model of that moral stance which remains all pervasive in the whole creation, and has no existence of its own when separated from creation. In one of the essays on Dr. Johnson Leavis says, “Johnson is unable to understand that works of art display evaluation of morality happening. This much is not enough that Shakespeare, on the basis of the evidence of his creations, thinks from moral standpoint and realizes from Johnson’s standpoint, morality has no existence that has not been said directly”. We know that Johnson has criticized Shakespeare on this basis that he has no interest in moral and Leavis makes counter allegation against Johnson that he fails to understand the way moral values justifies its existence as a happening in Shakespeare’s creations.
In the history of English literature, the number of such writers is not more who have maintained a balance between art and morality. The matter is not this much that there should be some sorts of moral values in creations instead the core point of the matter is that moral values must be of right type. Time and again it is noticed that moral values have become decadent such as degenerations took place amongst the creative artists of ninth and the last decades of the 19th century or such decadence is noticed among them which Leavis has directly called moral, for example in Tennyson’s creations several such instances of morals are noticeably present. In both the examples virtues have assumed the form of vices. Only in dramas like Shakespeare’s or Milton’s Paradise lost a proper balance between art and morality is noticed. If this balance is rare in a creative artist, in literary critics it is much rarer. In most of critics this balance has upset. Leavis himself has indicated this balance in Dr. Johnson’s work. On the contrary Coleridge and Wordsworth are on the other extreme of imbalances as their views about moral responsibility of poetry is extremely vague. Arnold, to a greater extent, has managed to maintain a balance between these two extremes. However, he has made his position a little confusing by regarding poetry as substitute for religion. What does he mean by moral views? Clarifying it he writes, “the question how to live a life itself is a moral view and this is such a question which holds everybody’s keen interest and for which he remains preoccupied incessantly.” The position of Leavis itself is similar to it. Eliot is somewhere between Arnold and Leaves. Unlike these two literary critics, Eliot has been unsuccessful in maintaining a balance between morality and art. His extremely critical views are noticed in his creation. The Sacred Wood where balance has upset owing to excessive importance to formal aspect. In addition, his another extremely critical views are noticed in After Strange God where balance has upset due to more emphasis on religious aspect. In his early creations, such as New Bearings in English poetry and Revaluation like Eliot, the main concern of Leavis is with the technical aspect of literature. He has written very categorically in his book, “New Bearings” criticism must in every case, focus on the technical aspect of literature”. His literary pursuits to relate techniques to moral values become possible in his later works such as The Great Tradition (1948), The Common Pursuit (1952), D.H. Lawrence, Novelist (1955) and English Literature in our Time and University (1969).
In his previous works Leavis assails such writers who regard technique as the extreme aim and are not able to relate it with particular special experience of life, such experience as receive energy from the moral standpoint. To him, these writers belong to the tradition of Flabaire in whose point of view “form” and “style” are desirable in themselves. Their main concern lies in this matter that, “any beautiful style needs to be interpreted in such a way as it may be applicable to a selected subject”. They give more emphasis on D.H. Lawrence’s this statement, “a writer writes out of moral consciousness- in a way for his entire class of writers”. Leavis wants to assure us that the power of technique is based on the power of life experience. He wishes to profound this while talking about D.H. Lawrence. He has cited an extract from Lawrence’s letter in which Lawrence admits this that, “I am an extremely religious person and my novels have arisen out of profound depth of my religious experiences.” In this course Leavis further writes: The very consciousness on whose basis Lawrence is able to say this that whatever he writes is not possible without staunch religious commitment, is in my view, that element which makes him immensely important in the context of the past and the future and as a technical pioneer ,as a innovator and, above all as a Veteran of language, more than James Joyce, much more eminent creator.”
Like Flabaire, Joyce also regards technique as an aim in itself. Therefore, among them they lack power like technique like Lawrence behind whom there is a basis of moral conviction in way Lawrence has used religion and in the meaning is extremely controversial. Therefore, I am not a be using the word over here. I do agree with Graham Hough’s this statement that Lawrence’s concept of religion is the inverted form of Christian religion. Leavis has said very emphatically that great literature is not the matter of technique only, it has its very intimate relation with life and morality. The literate which negates life and which has no moral objective cannot be great. A due balance between the excellence in technique and moral power is that element which distinguishes Leavis from other critics. Here I.A. Richards can be named. But the way Richards has interpreted the educational valuableness of literature in his terminology of psychology is extremely unbelievable. Due to this very unbelievability new critics, switching over their stance, have turned towards extremism where they have not only bypassed psychological valuableness but also have derecognized any type of moral appeal in the context of literature.
Amongst the modern critics, Leavis is the one and only critic who has thought about the nature of morality in literature and its role. He notices in D.H. Lawrence’s works the best example of his literary stance. This particular evaluation of Leavis about Lawrence can be regarded as untenable that Lawrence is the greatest creative writer of English literature of our time but there is no denying the fact that great literature is not the only accomplishment itself for the technique used in the expression of any subject. On the contrary it indicates the entire moral view of a type. Great works like Dante’s Divine Comedy, Shakespeare’s Macbeth and King Lear and Milton’s Paradise Lost are infused with this viewpoint. It is needless to say that in every writer the form of moral values will be different but so far as the maturity of experience is concerned and its expression in artistic form, we recognize them despite our personal difference.
References:
1. New Bearings in English Poetry (Harmondsworth).
2. Thought and Emotional Quality, edited by F.R. Leaves.
3. The Great Tradition (Harmondsworth).
4. D.H. Lawrence Novelist (Harmondsworth).
5. Revaluation (Harmondsworth).
6. “Johnson and Augustanism” in The Common Pursuit (Harmondsworth).
7. ‘Selected Essays’.
8. The Dark Sun.
[Dr. Thakurr is an MA and PhD in English and Associate Professor in the Department of English, Janak Hazari Vidyapith (NSU), Janakpudham, Nepal.]