OUR WAY WITH WORDS - The Coming of Literary Theory

Literature and the academics

It has been claimed, by John Carey, that literature is unique as an art form because it is the only one that can be 'self-critical' - be the vehicle for its own critical appraisal. Language gives birth to new thoughts by presenting an argument or an emotion; by expressing a mathematical or scientific concept. Words act like windows on the world.

The idea of there being Two Cultures could only appear after science itself grew into a healthy aggressive infant, and as noted earlier, it was C P Snow who first brought attention to this in the 1950s. It is interesting that, for the last 150 years, or so, the teaching of English has passed through a phase in which it has been subjected to intense academic scrutiny, not reaching a peak, some might claim, until the 1980s. So it must be with other widely used languages.

Although it is not my intention to become too immersed in this activity and work of that time - not least because I am not well qualified to do so - it is necessary, I feel, to dip in a toe, just to get some idea of what happened. There is no doubt that how literature is generally seen today is still very much the product. of these recent events - certainly of how it was taught. One could speculate just how much of this will survive in the long term, but certainly the present day attitudes surrounding the role of language, and the present day flush of novel writing and criticism, have been strongly influenced by these events. In the 1970s the term 'liberal humanism' was adopted as a term describing what had happened up to that time. The word 'liberal' implied, broadly, a non-political approach, and the word 'humanism' that there was something called human nature that was absolute, and which great literature uniquely expressed.

Literary Humanism

Some of the following facts will show the general nature of higher education and of English teaching in this country during the last hundred and fifty years , or so. In the early part of the 19th century, higher education was very much a monopoly of the Church of England. The colleges of Oxford and Cambridge were run as monastic institutions, and the teachers were ordained, unmarried ministers of the church. The Vice-Chancellors seemed to be accountable to no one. Nor their proctors, those senior members of the academic staff, usually professors who, in Cambridge for example, roamed the town regularly in pairs, especially in the less salubrious parts, looking for young ladies of the district whom they would promptly apprehend and temporally incarcerate in a local house of correction, fondly known as The Spinning House, in order to protect the morals of their young undergraduates. It was one indication of just how closely the Church and State operated to maintain law and order throughout most of the country.

In 1826 University College London was founded with a charter to award degrees to men and women of all religions, or of none. In 1829 English was first offered as a subject, and a Professor appointed, and the teaching of literature, as opposed to linguistics, arrived. Kings College London followed this lead in 1831, but this was still a college with strong church affiliations. In 1840 FD Maurice was appointed Professor at Kings and in his inaugural lecture he laid down some of the principles of what became liberal humanism; the study of English literature 'that would serve to emancipate us from the notions and habits which are peculiar to our own age, and connect us instead with what is fixed and enduring'. Maurice regarded literature as the particular property of the middle class and the expression of their values, and was well aware of the political dimension to these ideas. The study of English literature was being used as a sort of substitute for religion, an attitude that is still echoed today by some writers.

Despite these early developments, Oxford and Cambridge still remained suspicious of this new subject of English language, and held out until 1894 and 1911 respectively. However, Edward Freeman, Professor of History at Oxford 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.'

It would seem, at first thought, that the first sentence above embodies views that would still be acceptable by many today. Also that they are very close to the central theme of this site; that no abstract thought is possible without language, but that would be a mistake, I feel.

Nevertheless the influence of Cambridge flourished, and the names of IA Richards, W Empson and FR Leavis were to become the pillars of the literary establishment. Interestingly, Leavis criticised Empson's attitude to verbal analysis of poetry because it used intelligence on poetry' as if it were mathematics ' - the ultimate condemnation in his eyes, and a revealing reflection. Leavis and his wife - QD Roth - went on to found an important journal in 1932 called Scrutiny, which continued for twenty-one years extending what they termed the 'close reading' method beyond poetry to novels, and other material. Leavis himself was known for avoiding any opportunity for clarification, apparently preferring to encourage a sort of Masonic secrecy about the principles by which he operated and thought.

This brief history of how language as a subject 'arrived' is relevant evidence to how literature is still viewed today in some respects. It should be emphasised that whatever qualities are now seen to be so 'absolute' in the values of language have, in fact, only recently been disclosed. Science, has a provenance earlier by at least 300 years. But the fact that it had not existed before that , to when man first began his cultural adventure, means that today our thinking is still seriously skewed towards those values, They were mostly religious - or at least 'spiritual' - and had become well established, but some of which are now in serious contention with more scientific thinking. Science finds itself still confronted by 'the soul'.

We should now examine how language has become inseparable from the general artistic activity of the human race. It is sometimes difficult to separate the intrinsic merits, or properties, of art from those imagined, or hoped for by the artist who creates it.