[lit-ideas] Leavis on "Great" poetry
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 09:30:40 -0700
Very interesting stuff on Leavis, J.L., thanks.
I've begun the second article, "Wordsworth: The Creative Conditions" from
Leavis' The Critic as Anti-Philosopher. Reading on seems to me the
quickest way to find out what Leavis, or perhaps G Singh who edited the
articles and created the book, meant by "philosophy." However, I have
struggled with the first two paragraphs of the article:
"That Wordsworth is a great poet seems to me certain. That he was in the
nineteenth century, and still in my childhood, a very important influence -
such an influence as only a great poet could be - is, I think,
unquestionable. I haven't, all the same, red any account of the nature of
the influence that I found satisfying, and I myself couldn't be glib (or
shall I say fluent?) about it. But then, here we have a major critical
datum: the greatness itself is hard to give a satisfying account of.
"Let me state the spirit of my own critical approach. If Wordsworth is a
great poet, then one ought to be able to urge convincingly that he should be
current - that is, known, frequented and approached among the cultivated -
now. I think this is true in respect of every great writer - every writer
whom one sincerely and actively believes to be great. Great literature has
its life in the present, or not at all. Where there is so much claiming
permanent value, inert concurrence in conventional valuations and
reputations is to be challenged: they get in the way of life."
I am unhappy with Leavis' use of the term "great." It doesn't seem to fit
the most noted and celebrated poets of the past. Is Dryden a "great" poet?
He was certainly thought so in his time and for some time afterward, but is
he "current"? I don't think so. I have the complete works of Dryden and
periodically pick them up because "he has been considered great," so I
should think so too, but I don't. That is I can quite readily accept the
history of him and that he was considered great during a certain period, but
I don't accept that he is current. I would say something similar about
Alexander Pope. While some of his lines, which have become aphorisms, are
still current his poetry isn't, in my opinion.
Is Chaucer "great'? I wouldn't argue with anyone who says he is, but who
reads him today? Who can read him? I have the complete works of Chaucer,
read him years ago in something that must have been a modern rendering from
the base library at Twenty-nine Palms, was ashamed of not reading him in the
original and so acquired an annotated copy and set to work. I got through a
few tales, but it was hard work and no joy. If Chaucer is still great it
isn't because he is current, IMO.
Consider Milton. I read Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained once each when
I was in college, not because they were an assignment but because they were
"great" and I want to read all the "great" stuff, but I had considerable
difficulty with the subject matter. At the time I was in my atheist phase
and struggled with it. Later I gave up being an atheist and spent time
studying theology. I decided to look at Milton once again only to learn
that he had embraced some religious sects that are decidedly not current.
Also, it is common for the purported admirers of Milton to say that they
most admire his Satan. Surely a creator of a "great" Christian poem would
be chagrined to learn that in future generations his most admired character
was Satan.
On the other hand, I reluctantly believe that Yeats is the greatest
non-dramatic poet in the English language, but I have no sympathy for his
interest in spiritism. Many of his poems fail because of it, IMO, but
others succeed despite it. And his non-current beliefs informed his poetry;
which is still "current" and "great" IMO.
Consider Shakespeare. I can and do enjoy reading him from time to time, but
I spent considerable time learning Elizabethan English, especially
Shakespeare's, and I doubt that the average "current" person will have been
willing to devote as much time to him. I have heard modern students declare
Shakespeare "over-rated" because modern people don't read him. Better to
replace him with someone "relevant"; which might imply that the word
"relevant" has replaced "great" as the determining factor, and why not if
they have read Leavis, for he seems to be saying that to be "great" a poet
must be "current" which I take to imply "relevant."
I read a bit more of Leavis' article to see if he perhaps dealt with my
concerns, but he moves in a different direction. He seems to be saying that
the Great poets created new languages for their poetry. Blake is the most
obvious "Great" poet for Leavis IMO, and yet he begins his article
"Justifying One's valuation of Blake," by writing "Blake is for me - has
long been - a challenge and a reproach. He is a reproach because the
challenge remains still untaken. To take it would mean a very ambitions
self-commitment." I am no critic and so don't reproach myself for not taken
Blake up to any degree. I don't reproach myself for not taking up
Finnegan's Wake for the same reason.
Lawrence
Other related posts:
