“Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis was first published in 1937 in the journal Scrutiny. A cornerstone of Leavis’s critical thought, the essay emerged as a response to René Wellek’s challenge to articulate the theoretical underpinnings of his literary criticism. This seminal piece solidified Leavis’s reputation as a leading figure in English literary criticism and laid the groundwork for his subsequent influential works.
Summary of “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis
Acknowledgment of Fundamental Criticism: Leavis expresses gratitude to Dr. Wellek for his thorough critique, acknowledging that the issues raised were ones he was already aware of but did not explicitly address. He states, “I must thank Dr. Wellek for bringing fundamental criticism to my work, and above all for raising in so complete a way an issue that a reviewer or two had more or less vaguely touched on.” Leavis admits that he was conscious of these assumptions but chose not to explicitly defend them.
Assumptions in Literary Criticism: Leavis acknowledges making several assumptions in his analysis of English poetry, which he did not explicitly state or defend. Dr. Wellek points out, “I could wish that you had made your assumptions more explicitly and defended them systematically.” In response, Leavis admits, “I knew I was making assumptions… and I was not less aware than I am now of what they involve.” This recognition shows his awareness of the underlying assumptions in his work.
Distinction Between Literary Criticism and Philosophy: Leavis emphasizes the distinction between literary criticism and philosophy, arguing that they are fundamentally different disciplines. He asserts, “Literary criticism and philosophy seem to me to be quite distinct and different kinds of discipline.” He further notes, “I myself am not a philosopher, and I doubt whether in any case I could elaborate a theory that he would find satisfactory.” This highlights his belief that the two fields require different approaches and that his work in criticism is not intended to be philosophical.
The Role of the Critic: Leavis defines the critic as the “complete reader,” whose primary task is to engage deeply with the text and realize its full meaning. He argues, “By the critic of poetry I understand the complete reader: the ideal critic is the ideal reader.” He contrasts this with the philosophical approach, stating, “The reading demanded by poetry is of a different kind from that demanded by philosophy.” This distinction underlines the critic’s role in fully experiencing and understanding the work, rather than analyzing it through an abstract lens.
Evaluation in Literary Criticism: Leavis discusses the nature of evaluation in literary criticism, emphasizing that it is an intrinsic part of the critic’s engagement with the text. He rejects the notion of applying an external norm to measure poetry, arguing, “The critic’s aim is, first, to realize as sensitively and completely as possible this or that which claims his attention.” He clarifies that evaluation is a natural outcome of this process, stating, “A certain valuing is implicit in the realizing.” This approach positions evaluation as a product of deep engagement with the text rather than an external judgment.
The Critic’s Methodology: Leavis highlights the importance of a concrete and detailed approach in literary criticism. He argues that the critic should focus on thoroughly engaging with the text and avoid premature generalizations. He advises, “The business of the literary critic is to attain a peculiar completeness of response and to observe a peculiarly strict relevance in developing his response into commentary.” This approach prioritizes a full and nuanced understanding of the work, rooted in its specific details.
Criticism of Theoretical Generalization: Leavis critiques the idea of deriving abstract principles from literary criticism, suggesting that such an approach is secondary to the concrete work of the critic. He explains, “The cogency I hoped to achieve was to be for other readers of poetry—readers of poetry as such.” He continues, “Ideally I ought perhaps… to be able to complete the work with a theoretical statement.” However, Leavis argues that such theoretical work would be a separate task, not integral to his primary aim of engaging with poetry on a concrete level.
Importance of Concrete Judgment: Leavis argues for the primacy of concrete judgment in literary criticism over abstract theorizing. He insists that engaging directly with the text is more valuable than stating general principles. He notes, “My whole effort was to work in terms of concrete judgments and particular analyses.” He believes that summarizing these judgments into abstract propositions would diminish their clarity and usefulness, stating, “I cannot see that I should have added to the clarity, cogency, or usefulness of my book by enunciating such a proposition.”
Advancing Literary Theory: Despite recognizing the limitations of his approach, Leavis believes that his focus on concrete criticism has contributed to the advancement of literary theory. He reflects, “There is, I hope, a chance that I may in this way have advanced theory, even if I haven’t done the theorizing.” He acknowledges the limitations of his method but maintains that working within these constraints is essential to producing meaningful criticism, stating, “I believe that any approach involves limitations, and that it is by recognizing them and working within them that one may hope to get something.”
Literary Terms/Concepts in “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis
Concept
Definition
Concreteness
A focus on specific examples and experiences rather than abstract ideas.
The process of forming general ideas or concepts by considering specific examples.
Norm
A standard, pattern, or model against which something is compared.
Tradition
A body of cultural practices or beliefs passed down through generations.
Convention
A widely accepted practice or custom.
Contribution of “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis to Literary Theory/Theories
Contribution to Practical Criticism: Leavis’s emphasis on the detailed and concrete analysis of literary texts is foundational to the practice of Practical Criticism, a method developed by I.A. Richards and further advanced by Leavis. Practical Criticism involves a close, text-centered approach, free from external theoretical frameworks. Leavis asserts, “My whole effort was to work in terms of concrete judgments and particular analyses.” This method focuses on engaging directly with the text, thereby contributing to the development of Practical Criticism as a key approach in literary theory.
Advancement of New Criticism: Leavis’s insistence on the autonomy of the text and the importance of close reading aligns with the principles of New Criticism, a literary theory that emphasizes the intrinsic value of the text itself, independent of historical or biographical contexts. He writes, “The critic’s aim is, first, to realize as sensitively and completely as possible this or that which claims his attention.” This focus on the text’s formal qualities and the rejection of external norms are central tenets of New Criticism, to which Leavis’s work has significantly contributed.
Development of Reader-Response Theory: Leavis’s concept of the critic as the “complete reader” who fully engages with the text foreshadows ideas central to Reader-Response Theory, which emerged later in the 20th century. Reader-Response Theory emphasizes the active role of the reader in creating meaning from a text. Leavis’s statement, “By the critic of poetry I understand the complete reader: the ideal critic is the ideal reader,” highlights the importance of the reader’s subjective experience, a key element in Reader-Response Theory.
Impact on Ethical Criticism: Leavis’s work also contributes to Ethical Criticism, which explores the moral implications and responsibilities inherent in literary texts. Although Leavis does not explicitly frame his criticism as ethical, his focus on the importance of literature’s connection to “direct vulgar living” and the “actual” can be seen as aligning with Ethical Criticism. He argues, “Traditions, or prevailing conventions or habits, that tend to cut poetry in general off from direct vulgar living and the actual… have a devitalizing effect.” This suggests a belief in the moral and ethical responsibilities of literature, which is a central concern of Ethical Criticism.
Contribution to the Theory of Close Reading: Leavis’s insistence on focusing on the particularities of the text itself, avoiding premature generalizations, is a key contribution to the theory and practice of Close Reading. Close Reading is a technique central to both New Criticism and Practical Criticism, and Leavis’s approach strongly supports this method. He states, “The business of the literary critic is to attain a peculiar completeness of response and to observe a peculiarly strict relevance in developing his response into commentary.” This method has been fundamental to the development of Close Reading as a rigorous analytical approach in literary theory.
Influence on Structuralism: While not directly a Structuralist, Leavis’s attention to the internal coherence and organization of a text can be seen as an early influence on Structuralist approaches to literature, which analyze the underlying structures within texts. Leavis speaks of the critic’s task to understand “the organization into which [a text] settles as a constituent in becoming ‘placed’,” suggesting a focus on the internal systems of meaning within a work. This approach aligns with Structuralist ideas that emphasize the underlying systems and relations within a text.
Reinforcement of Anti-Theoretical Stance in Literary Criticism: Leavis’s reluctance to abstractly theorize and his preference for concrete literary analysis have contributed to an anti-theoretical stance within some branches of literary criticism, particularly in reaction to the more abstract and philosophical approaches of Structuralism and Post-Structuralism. He states, “I believe that any approach involves limitations, and that it is by recognizing them and working within them that one may hope to get something.” This has reinforced a critical approach that values the text itself over theoretical abstractions, influencing later critics who advocate for a more pragmatic and less theoretical approach to literature.
Examples of Critiques Through “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis
Work
Author
Focus (Theoretical Concepts)
King Lear
Shakespeare
Human suffering, moral complexity (Concreteness in portraying Lear’s descent into madness)
Paradise Lost
Milton
Language, theology, morality (Emphasis on the poem’s engagement with religious themes rather than abstract theological concepts)
Tess of the D’Urbervilles
Hardy
Tragic heroine, social context, realism (Rejection of a fixed moral standard in portraying Tess’s struggles)
The Waste Land
Eliot
Modernist techniques, cultural disillusionment (Importance of lived experience in capturing the fragmented nature of modern society)
Criticism Against “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis
Lack of Theoretical Rigor: Critics argue that Leavis’s refusal to explicitly state and defend his assumptions leads to a lack of theoretical rigor. By not engaging with the philosophical underpinnings of his critical practice, Leavis is seen as avoiding a deeper exploration of the theoretical foundations of his work, which some believe weakens the overall intellectual robustness of his criticism.
Anti-Theoretical Stance: Leavis’s dismissal of abstract theorizing is criticized for contributing to an anti-theoretical stance in literary criticism. This approach is seen by some as limiting the scope of literary analysis, as it discourages engagement with broader theoretical frameworks that could provide deeper insights into literary texts.
Overemphasis on the Text Itself: Leavis’s focus on the text alone, without considering external contexts such as historical, social, or authorial influences, is criticized for being overly narrow. This approach is seen as reductive, potentially missing the broader cultural and ideological forces that shape literature and its interpretation.
Neglect of Philosophical Engagement: Leavis’s clear distinction between literary criticism and philosophy has been criticized for neglecting the productive interplay between these disciplines. Some argue that his rejection of philosophical analysis in literary criticism overlooks the valuable insights that philosophy can provide in understanding literature’s deeper meanings and ethical implications.
Subjectivity in Criticism: Leavis’s emphasis on the critic as the “complete reader” is seen by some as overly subjective, leading to concerns about the consistency and objectivity of his evaluations. Critics argue that this reliance on personal response can result in idiosyncratic readings that lack broader critical validity.
Resistance to Generalization: Leavis’s reluctance to generalize from his concrete analyses is seen as a limitation by some critics. This resistance to forming broader theoretical conclusions is criticized for preventing his work from contributing more substantially to the development of literary theory as a whole.
Potential Elitism in Criticism: Some critics have accused Leavis’s approach of being elitist, suggesting that his emphasis on certain canonical texts and high standards for literary quality reflects a narrow view of literature. This perspective is criticized for potentially marginalizing diverse voices and literary traditions that do not fit within his defined norms.
Suggested Readings: “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis
Medalie, David. F. R. Leavis and the Modernist Prose Fiction Tradition. Clarendon Press, 2002.
Pole, David. “Leavis and Literary Criticism.” Philosophy, vol. 51, no. 195, 1976, pp. 21–34. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3749766. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
Joyce, Chis. “The Idea of ‘Anti-Philosophy’ in the Work of F. R. Leavis.” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 38, no. 1, 2009, pp. 24–44. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42966981. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
Kinch, M. B. “F. R. Leavis: Cultural Theorist?” The Cambridge Quarterly, vol. 22, no. 4, 1993, pp. 408–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42967294. Accessed 13 Aug. 2024.
Representative Quotations from “Literary Criticism And Philosophy” by F. R. Leavis with Explanation
Quotation
Explanation
“Literary criticism and philosophy seem to me to be quite distinct and different kinds of discipline – at least, I think they ought to be.”
Leavis emphasizes the inherent differences between literary criticism and philosophy, suggesting they demand distinct approaches and methodologies.
“The reading demanded by poetry is of a different kind from that demanded by philosophy.”
Leavis underscores the unique nature of reading poetry, positing that it requires a different kind of engagement and responsiveness compared to philosophical inquiry.
“The critic’s aim is, first, to realize as sensitively and completely as possible this or that which claims his attention; and a certain valuing is implicit in the realizing.”
This statement highlights the critic’s primary task of immersing themselves in the literary work to develop a deep and nuanced understanding that informs their evaluation.
“I do not see what would be gained by the kind of explicitness he demands (though I see what is lost by it).”
Leavis expresses his skepticism towards the need for elaborate theoretical justifications in literary criticism, arguing that excessive abstraction can hinder the appreciation of the concrete literary experience.
“There is, I hope, a chance that I may in this way have advanced theory, even if I haven’t done the theorizing.”
This concluding remark suggests that Leavis believes his concrete critical practice can contribute to theoretical understanding, even without explicit theoretical formulations.
