Liberal Humanism or Theory before Theory

Humanism is a philosophical and literary movement which has human being as its central concern. It also holds a general belief that human nature is something fixed and constant. Now, Liberal Humanism is a term which falls within the domain of literary criticism. During the 1970s, the hour of literary theory, as it was known, Liberal Humanism was a term applied to theory that came before 'theory'. The word 'Liberal' defines something it is not, that is not 'radically political' and thus evasive on political commitment, on how it is aligned. Humanism in this context also means something similar, that is something not-Marxist, not-Feminist or not-Theoretical. Liberal Humanists also believe in the fixedness and constancy of human nature as expressed in great literature. There is an implication by an influential school that if you are not a Marxist-critic or a Structuralist or a Stylistician or a Feminist critic for that matter, then you are a Liberal Humanist by default even if you recognise this or not.

Development of English as an Academic Subject

It is not possible to comprehend Liberal Humanism fully without knowing something about the history of English language, of higher education, and of the development of English as an academic subject in England. Before the 1820s, higher education was imparted on the lines set up and laid down in the middle ages. Another characteristic feature of it was its control by the Church of England. There were only two universities, Oxford and Cambridge, with a number of small colleges under their umbrella.

These colleges were run more like monastic institutions and students, all obviously men, had to be Anglican communicants. Catholics, Jews, Methodists or atheists were barred from entry. This divide between the Church of England and other faiths came to be during the reign of Henry the Eighth when England withdrew from the authority of the Roman Catholic Church. Since then most of the rulers of England propagated Protestant beliefs and this was reflected in education as well. Even the teachers had to be ordained ministers so that they were unmarried and also stayed in the colleges. The subjects available were the Classics(ancient Greek and Latin literature), Divinity, and Mathematics. Women also had no claim to a higher education, a grievance Virginia Woolf had raised in her work, 'A Room of One's Own'. Efforts were made to broaden the spectrum of education and to include practical subjects into the curriculum, but they didn't succeed. Then a major development took place 1826 when a University College was founded in London with a charter to grant degrees to both men and women of all religions or none. Thus English Studies became a discipline in 1828 and the first Professor of English was appointed in 1829. This was, however, not a study of English literature per se, but more a study of the language through literary works which provided linguistic contexts. English literature was first taught as a discipline in 1831 at King's College, London. By 19th century a number of other factors contributed to bringing English Literature into the academic arena. The chief of these was the failure of religion and literature was being eyed as a substitute for religion. F.D. Maurice who was appointed a Professor at King's College in 1840 designed a new syllabus and introduced set books. His inaugural lecture laid down some of the principles of Liberal Humanism: the study of English literature would serve 'to emancipate us ... from the notions and habits which are peculiar to our own age', connecting us instead with 'what is fixed and enduring'. For Maurice literature was the province of the middle class because the aristocracy were an international elite and the poor barely could make ends meet to think about anything beyond survival. Although English literature was being seen as a representation of the essence of

English middle class yet it performed another very important function: that of giving the English a sense of meaning in their lives, a sense of belonging to something, and thus keeping them away from thoughts of political agitation; Political agitators may ask what this can mean 'when his neighbour rides in a carriage and he walks on foot', but 'he will feel his nationality to be a reality, in spite of what they say'. Thus literature was being devised as a means of keeping revolution at bay, as had happened in France, and therefore, 'maintaining the political status quo without any redistribution of wealth'. Furthermore, reading is a solitary and contemplative activity and was thought to make people more reflective and to inspire in them a feeling of class unity. It was thought that if a person could not actually live on a vast estate he could at least dream about it. George Gordon, an early Professor of English Literature at Oxford said at this time: England is sick, and English literature must save it. The Churches (as I understand) having failed, and social remedies being slow, English literature has now a triple function: still, I suppose, to delight and instruct us, but also, and above all, to save our souls and heal the State. It is believed that this type of thinking began with Matthew Arnold in the 1850s. Attendance in Church beyond the middle class was very patchy and there was a fear of revolution especially after the Chartist Agitation of 1830s. The first courses in English were put together at this time and this gained even further momentum with the publication of the Newbolt Report on the Teaching of English in England in 1921. The report claimed English as a subject was unduly neglected and must be built into an overall educational experience. Peter Barry, however, refuses to believe that there were only ideological reasons behind this development of the inclusion of English literature as an academic subject. Says Barry, "there was, behind the teaching of early English, a distinctly Victorian mixture of class guilt about social inequalities, a genuine desire to improve things for everybody, a kind of missionary zeal to spread culture and enlightenment, and a selfinterested desire to maintain social stability."

It is for these reasons that English as a subject was first institutionalised in Mechanics' Institutes and Working Men's colleges. London University degrees were taught by external license at university colleges in the industrial cities of Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield and such. These became major universities later on. Oxford and Cambridge held out a little longer, till 1894 for the former, and 1911 for the latter and finally English was introduced as a subject at these two major universities. Efforts were made in 1887 to establish a Chair in English at Oxford, but they did not succeed. Edward Freeman, a Professor of History, at Oxford delivered a speech during the Convocation. This speech defeated those talked about efforts and also outlined some problems in English which are still believed to await resolution. He had said:

We are told that the study of literature 'cultivates the taste, educates the sympathies and enlarges the mind'. These are all excellent things, only we cannot examine tastes and sympathies. Examiners must have technical and positive information to examine.

In order to add a technical and specific component to the study of English early supporters had called for a systematic study of English language, but the early advocates of English wanted to separate the two. This did not happen and it was decided that if English had to be studied it must be done in conjunction with language. That is why the study of English at Oxford, when it was finally introduced in 1894, had a major language component viz. Anglo-Saxon, Letto-Slavonic, Middle English, Gothic etc. English really came into its own in the 1920s after the end of World War I. This happened at Cambridge and as English was introduced there in 1911 it had less weight of tradition behind it. This contributed to achieving change as a far quicker reality. The chief architects of this change were F.R. Leavis, William Empson, and I.A. Richards. This group began

teaching at Cambridge in the 1920s. They led a movement which completely changed the way English Studies was viewed. In the words of Terry Eagleton: In the early 1920s it was desperately unclear why English was worth studying at all; by the early 1930s it had become a question of why it was worth wasting your time on anything else." I. A. Richards, often labelled as the father of New Criticism, produced two major works of literary criticism. These were Principles of Literary Criticism and Practical Criticism. He introduced a whole new way of studying literature, a way that continues still. Richards wanted to free the literary text of its historical context and to concentrate on the 'words on the page'. He called for a closer reading of the text itself. One result of this was that it made 'vague, flowery, metaphorical effusion' redundant as criticism. William Empson, the second Cambridge pioneer and a pupil of I. A. Richards is known chiefly for his work Seven Types of Ambiguity which was published in 1930. Known for his eccentricity and valued by Harold Bloom for that as also for the force of his convictions, he took the idea of close scrutiny of the text to a whole new extreme. He unearthed layer upon layer of irony, ambiguity, and argumentation in some of the greatest works of literature. F. R. Leavis thought of Seven Types of Ambiguity as a rather difficult work because it used intelligence on poetry almost as it were mathematics. Empson's critical technique of 'ultra-close reading' wasn't appreciated by all the critics. The contribution of F.R. Leavis to British Criticism is thought of as historical. F.R. Leavis, who came from a background of history, and his wife Q.D. Leavis who came from a background of psychology and anthropology, were an enigmatic couple. Together they produced the journal called 'Scrutiny' in 1932. It was published for twenty one years and was about extending the method of close reading of texts, as the name suggests, to material other than poetry like novels, for instance. Peter Barry, however, lists some of Leavis' faults as a critic. They are: "... his close readings often turn out to contain lengthy quotations on which

there is surprisingly little comment. The assumption is that the competent reader will see there what Leavis sees. As has been said of him, he often gives the impression that he is analysing the text when he is really just paraphrasing it. Secondly, his approach to literature is overwhelmingly moral; its purpose is to teach us about life, to transmit humane values. His critical terms are never properly defined." Leavis also declined Rene Wellek's invitation to explain his principles more fully and it is regarded as a loss for literary studies, isolating it further. So, while English Studies successfully extricated itself from language studies, historical contexts and philosophical questions, these demarcations continued from the 1930s to the 1960s. With the rise of theory in the 1960s, however, lines of communication between English Studies and these fields it had isolated from opened once again.

Ten Tenets of Liberal Humanism

The ten tenets of Liberal Humanism are as follows: Good literature is timeless. It is 'not for an age, but for all time', said Ben Johnson. It is 'news which stays news', is how Ezra Pound has defined it.

The context in which literature is created should not be considered whether it be socio-political, literary-historical or autobiographical.

Literature should be studied closely, without expectations or pre-conditions because they interfere with what Matthew Arnold called the true business of literature which is 'to see the object as it is in itself'.

Humans are motivated and influenced by the same things throughout history. Human nature is unchanging. People can change, but they can't be transformed. There is no absolute change of heart.

The purpose of literature is to enhance life and propagate values (in a nonprogrammatic way). Keats said, "We distrust literature which has a palpable design upon us".

Form should follow content. Superfluous form should be stripped away.

Work must be sincere. Emotion in a work should follow from showing actions. It shouldn't be pointed out. Emotion should not be overinflated with language.

"What is valued in literature is the 'silent' showing and demonstrating of something, rather than the explaining, or saying, of it." Ideas are worthless until they are vested in action.

The job of criticism is to interpret the text, to guard against the intrusion of preconceived notions or theories. Criticism should guide the reader toward what is present in the text and no more.

Key Moments of Literary Theory - From Aristotle to Leavis

Critical theory was a reality long before individual works of literary criticism. Aristotle laid down his literary theory in Poetics and Rhetoric. In Poetics, Aristotle defines the nature of Tragedy, the relative importance of Plot vs. Character, the nature of the Tragic Hero, and refutes Plato's idea that poetry is only an imitation or a copy of a copy. Aristotle defined tragedy as 'an imitation of an action that is natural, complete, and of a certain magnitude, in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative, through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation of these emotions'. Thus tragedy arouses pity and fear in the audience through the fate of its protagonist, thereby causing in them a catharsis through these emotions. After Aristotle, Dante, Horace, and Longinus further added to these critical ideas, but Philip Sidney's An Apology for Poetry or Defense of Poesy was the first text in English literature to address the function of poetry. The work was occasioned by the publication of Stephen Gosson's treatise The School of Abuse which was a ruthless attack on poetry. Sidney expanded the ancient definitions of literature formulated by Ovid and Horace. While the former defined the intent of literature as 'docere delictendo' - to teach by delighting, the latter also had something similar to say when he called a poem 'a speaking picture, with this end, to teach and delight'. Sidney held poetry higher than philosophy because the latter although worthy and uplifting, is not regarded as much fun. Pleasure is defined by Sidney as the chief aim of poetry and any moral purpose is subordinate to that. Thus critical theory pre-dates practical criticism in English literature as well.

Samuel Johnson's works Prefaces to Shakespeare and Lives of the Poets further augmented the development of literary theory. In fact he's the first one to apply the principles of practical criticism to works of various poets. Before this only the Bible and sacred texts of other religions had seen such close scrutiny. Hence, this was a major development. After Johnson came the works of Romantic poets like Wordsworth, Coleridge, Keats and Shelley. Wordsworth's chief work on theory is Preface to the Lyrical Ballads which was published in 1798, and then edited in 1800 and further in 1805. Wordsworth called poetry a 'spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings' and that it is emotion 'recollected in tranquility'. His aim was to simplify the language of poetry, to make it more like the language of ordinary people, the language of prose. An important achievement, this anticipated the modern questions of the relationship between literary and ordinary language, and the difference between literature and other writings. Another important work of the Romantic Age is Samuel Taylor Coleridge's Biographia Literaria. Coleridge addressed the same questions as that of the Preface. He, however, believed that Wordsworth wrote his best poetry when he didn't adhere to his own theories. Although he had collaborated with Wordsworth on the Lyrical Ballads, they soon grew apart and Coleridge also disagreed with his view that the language of poetry must be like that of ordinary speech. He held that if the chief purpose of poetry is pleasure then that pleasure can be attained only through language. Shelley also connoted something similar in his A Defense Of Poetry. He anticipated what the Russian critics called in the twentieth century 'defamiliarisation'. Poetry, he said, 'strips the veil of familiarity from the world ... it purges from our inward sight the film of familiarity ... It compels us to feel that which we perceive, and to imagine that which we know'. This further anticipated T.S. Eliot's notion of 'impersonality' which he had put forward in Tradition and the Individual Talent.

Eliot had made a distinction between the author, the man behind the work, and the writer or the man within the work. Shelley anticipated this a hundred years prior to Eliot in his dignified prose:

the mind in creation is as a fading coal, which some invisible influence, like an inconstant wind, awakens to transitory brightness; this power arises from within, like the colour of a flower which fades and changes as it is developed, and the conscious portions of our natures are unprophetic either of its approach or of its departure.

There was also in the writings of these Romantic poets an anticipation of Freud's concepts of the conscious and the unconscious, especially in the writings of Keats who didn't formulate any formal critical theory but discussed it sustainedly in his Letters. Keats' concept of Negative Capability also privileges the idea of unconscious. He was a great admirer of Shakespeare and his reading of the Bard illustrates the genius of Shakespeare. In a letter to his brother, Keats describes this genius as 'Negative Capability': 'At once it struck me, what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormouslyI mean Negative Capability, that is when man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.' Thus Negative Capability is the ability to contemplate the world without trying to reconcile opposing and contradictory aspects of it, without trying o fit them into rational moulds. After the Romantics came the works of Victorians like George Eliot, Matthew Arnold and Henry James. There came to be two tracks in literary criticism, one that was practical criticism-led and followed from

Samuel Johnson and Matthew Arnold to T.S. Eliot and F.R. Leavis. This track was text based, following the method of close scrutiny of the text. The other track was ideas-led and followed from Sidney, Wordsworth, Coleridge to George Eliot, and Henry James. It dealt with the big questions concerning literature like, 'How are literary works structured? How do they affect readers or audiences? What is the nature of literary language? How does literature relate to the contemporary and to matters of politics and gender? What can be said about literature from a philosophical point of view? What is the nature of the act of literary composition?'. Thus, the track two preoccupations were very similar to the what the critical theorists of the 1960s believed. The concept of 'close reading' emerged from the works of Matthew Arnold, which was adopted by F.R. Leavis and given modern currency. Arnold had suggested literature as a substitute for religion. Arnold's most significant works are The Function of Criticism at the Present Time and The Study of Poetry. He called for the disinterestedness of literature and that it should not have any political commitment. He also put forward the Touchstone Method, a method to assess contemporary literary works by using aspects of literary works of the past as a touchstone. T. S. Eliot, William Empson, I. A. Richards and F. R. Leavis were the major names in literary theory in the Britain of early twentieth century. All except Eliot belonged to Cambridge and were engineers of a new approach to English Studies. Eliot's major critical ideas were 'dissociation of sensibility', the notion of poetic 'impersonality' and the notion of 'objective correlative'. Dissociation of sensibility is a literary term first used by T. S. Eliot in his essay The Metaphysical Poets It refers to the way in which intellectual thought was separated from the experience of feeling in seventeenth century poetry. Eliot used the term to describe the manner by which the nature and substance of English poetry changed between the time of

Donne or Lord Herbert of Cherbury and the time of Tennyson and Browning. In this essay, Eliot attempts to define the metaphysical poet and in doing so to determine the metaphysical poets era as well as his discernible qualities. The poets of the seventeenth century, the successors of the dramatists of the sixteenth, possessed a mechanism of sensibility which could devour any kind of experience. They are simple, artificial, difficult, or fantastic, as their predecessors were; no less nor more than Dante, Guido Cavalcanti, Guinicelli, or Cino. In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered; and this dissociation, as is natural, was aggravated by the influence of the two most powerful poets of the century, Milton and Dryden." Impersonality or the Impersonal Theory of Poetry was explained by Eliot in his essay Tradition and the Individual Talent. The central point of T.S. Eliot's Impersonal Theory of Poetry is that 'the poet, the man, and the poet, the artist are two different entities'. The poet has no 'personality' of his own. He submerges his own personality, his own feelings and experiences into the personality and feelings of the subject of his poetry. The experiences or impressions which are obviously autobiographical may be of great interest to the writer himself, but not to his readers. The more perfect the poet, the more completely separate in him will be the man who experiences and creates. So Eliot says, "poetry is not a turning loose of emotion, but an escape from emotion; it is not the expression of personality, but an escape from personality". He further states, "The emotion of art is impersonal. And the poet cannot reach this impersonality without surrendering himself wholly to the work to be done". And finally, the concept of Objective Correlative. The term was first introduced by American Painter Washington Allston in 1840, but T.S. Eliot

is the one who made it famous in his influential essay on Hamlet in 1919. What it means is that if writers, poets, and playwrights want to create an emotional response in their audience they must find a combination of images, objects, and description to evoke the appropriate emotion. Now, the most prominent literary critic in Britain prior to the theory movement was F.R. Leavis. Like Matthew Arnold, Leavis also believed in the higher function of literature because of the vacuum created by the demise of religion. Like him, again, Leavis concentrated on finding a rational method for the study of literature, just like Arnold's Touchstone. And finally, like Arnold again he didn't politicise literature and criticism. But, he also differed in some ways from Arnold. The Touchstone method takes the greatness of the past writers for granted, whereas Leavis asserted that certain reputations won't live upto their exaggerated standards when put to test under the close scrutiny method he advocated. When Leavis began he was greatly influenced by T.S. Eliot's thought, but later modified his views. Talking about I.A. Richards and William Empson, they can be taken as a pair because Empson was a pupil of Richards. Empson's work Seven Types of Ambiguity called for ultra close scrutiny of the text and this evokes the Track One tradition of British criticism which focuses on the text itself, as opposed to the Track Two tradition dealing with major issues in literature. Richards, as already mentioned, is especially remembered for his work Practical Criticism. In the 1920s he made certain experiments. He gave his students unannotated and anonymous poems to analyse. The aim of this experiment was to reduce the influence of received opinion and to establish true judgment based on first hand opinion. This text-led track was established so firmly that it became the way to go for a long time. Since then the subsequent conflict between liberal humanism and theory has been a fundamental one. Rene Wellek and other critics as well had asked Leavis to to systematically and explicitly explain his ideas, and his refusal to do so was viewed as a setback because implicit in this

suggestion was the belief that once it was done the shortcomings of liberal humanism would have become obvious and thus it would have made it possible for other approaches to have a chance to replace it.