Let us now look at another key market of literature for Leavis – it is the ability to present different human issues. The critic says how significant is ‘a kind of reverent openness before life, and marked moral intensity.’ In the eyes of Leavis; authors like Jane Austin can present in depth analysis of individuals as well as importance of life. Austin is admired for her creation of character while Eliot for her depiction of psychological matters. Henry James and Joseph Conrad equally belong to the great tradition, as both of them paid lots of attention to various aspects of human personality in their own distinctive way.
All of these authors mentioned above deal with life and human problems, however one can see clearly that each of them is handling these themes in their own innovative way. Even though they learnt from their predecessors and each other, Austin, Eliot, James and Conrad posse strong individual approach to life. As a consequence, their dissimilarity can be treated as another feature of authors who are part of the great tradition. As said by Leavis, Henry James in comparison with others, posses a natural sense of humour and is able to communicate by ‘ the finest shades of inflection and implication’. Joseph Conrad, in his works, brought up various aspects of human personality. His unique style lies in sophisticated form, techniques and background that are used for character’s scrutiny. In many Conrad’s novels, as suggested by Leavis, one can find not only ‘consciousness of dependence’, which constitutes one of his major themes but also various juxtapositions of characters facing hostile natural elemental forces. Conrad’s interests in life and human morality, made him possible to be one of the greatest authors. What is more, Leavis highlights Conrad’s skilful usage of English language. Conrad, who was of Polish origin, decided to write in English not Polish or French, which he knew fluently. Thus, he is true ‘ master of English language (…), and who was concern with art (…) is the servant of a profoundly serious interest in life.’ Conrad wrote in an innovative way and most importantly desired to show human destiny, loneliness, wickedness as well as weaknesses. One can say that such features can be treated as indicators of great tradition in English novel and carry some implication of Leavis’ definition of literature.
If we now turn to idea of ‘Englishness’ and how Leavis explored it, it is then interesting to see that two of the highly respected authors are not English. Conrad as mentioned before was Polish and James an American. It gives one the impression that the English language is something that is aspired to, as Leavis says that, ‘Conrad’s themes and interests demanded the concreteness and action – the dramatic energy – of English.’ Likewise, the idea of ‘Englishness’ suggests a certain degree of superiority (at least, in comparison to European writing), and that the English language symbolises morality and certain decorum that is very difficult to find anywhere else. In consequence, “literature” can defined exclusively as an English phenomenon. Why then Leavis picked non-English authors? One could suggest that he simply did not have a wide enough selection of English authors that personify his ideals.
It is as well crucial to look carefully at some authors who are disqualified by Leavis and do not belong to his implied definition of literature. One of the rejected one by the critic is Henry Fielding. Though he is interested in human topics, his concerns ‘are simple’ and ‘ produce an effect of anything but monotony’ according to Leavis. However, it should be mentioned that his novels provided the basis for Jane Austin’s studies and future development as an artist. That is why; Fielding narratives cannot be entirely discredited. Another example would be Richardson; as for Leavis he is unable to present relations between ‘ladies and gentlemen in a subtle way. Leavis compares Richardson with George Eliot, who is portraying characters and their relationship with great deal of erudition.
Both of the writers, Fielding and Richardson, demonstrate restrictions in their works and this being so do not conform to the implicated definition of literature set by Leavis. Moreover, such authors as Daniel Defoe and Charles Dickens did not manage to find a place in Leavis’s ‘hall of literary fame’.
Furthermore, one can notice that another example of an author’s work with early success, which however in the end followed the wrong direction, are the works of D. H. Lawrence. Leavis made it clear that such work of D. H. Lawrence can be compared to that of George Eliot as Lawrence, in his work is to be known for his approach to experience and characters’ creation within his novels, similarly to George Eliot. Nonetheless, Leavis claims Lawrence’s enthusiasm for the subject matter produces an impression of the novel being written in a rush. Leavis claims that some of his novels are not “sufficiently building into a whole.”, such as “Women in Love” and “Rainbow”. Whether my points are true or not, it is fair to say they are examples of the critics idea of literature which represents particular form of it, still showing his personal elaborate explanations of his definition of literature.
In addition to the previous paragraph, we can see that F. R. Leavis has put together a highly selective, distinctive method of putting literature into categories. Works of authors such as Jane Austen, George Eliot, Henry James and Joseph Conrad, Leavis would classify as classical examples of traditional literature. Novels by the above authors contain specific characteristics of what Leavis describes and defines as a literature. These characteristics are: authors’ interest in life, distinctive form as well as style, a particular depiction of moral issues and the idea of Englishness. Chris Baldwick conveys the reasons behind Leavis’ categorisation, the major point being that literature has a certain moral function within society. Furthermore, to remember ‘past experience with the use of the portrayal of life, to preserve culture, and to maintain the language within.’
Overall The Great Tradition celebrates English language and certainly encourages the reader to take pride in English Literature, but on the other hand one could say that it unfairly excludes the wide range of world literature that have plenty to offer. One thing is for certain, whether or not one agrees with Leavis, his influence in defining what “literature” is continues to be held with great esteem.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baldick, Christoher. ‘The Leavises: Armed Against the Herd’, The Social Mission of
English Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983.
Eagleton, Terry. ‘The Rise of English’, Literary Theory: An Introduction. Oxford:
Blackwell, 1983.
Jefferson, Ann And David Robey. Modern Literary Theory: A Comparative Introduction. London: Redwood, 1997
Leavis, Frank Raymond. The Great Tradition. London, Chatto & Windus, 1948.
Online Literature, ‘Joseph Conrad’,
Online Literature, ‘Henry James’, james/
Victorian Web, ‘George Eliot’, http://www.victiorian web.org/authors/eliot/eliotv.html
F. R. Leavis, The Great Tradition, London 1960, p.3
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition, ( London: Chatto & Windus 1948), p
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition p 4
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition, p 16
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition, p 18
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition p 17
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition, p 4
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition, p 4
F.R Leavis, The Great Tradition, p 26- 27
Baldick, Christoher. ‘The Leavises: Armed Against the Herd’, The Social Mission of
English Criticism. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983 p 165
