The Personal Heresy

Jack’s “Personal Heresy”: The Politics of Poetics [http://www.pseudobook.com/cslewis/?p=59]

Summary

"The Personal Heresy" is a series of articles, three each by C.S. Lewis and E.M.W. (Eustace Mandeville Wetenhall) Tillyard, first published on April 27, 1939 by Oxford University Press and later reprinted, also by Oxford University Press, in 1965. The book has been reprinted in 2008 by Concordia University Press with an Introduction by Lewis scholar Bruce L. Edwards and a new Preface by the editor, Joel D. Heck. The central issue of the essays is whether a piece of imaginative writing, particularly poetry, is primarily a reflection of the author's personality (Tillyard's position) or is about something external to the author (Lewis's position). The two positions may be summarized briefly as the subjective position (Tillyard) and the objective position (Lewis). In general, Lewis attempts to keep poetry within the reach of the common person, while Tillyard thinks of the poet as a person who is "a cut above the common person."

History

In the fifth essay in "The Personal Heresy", Lewis implied that the personal heresy started when the romantic critics, such as Wordsworth, diverted our attention away from the fruitful question, "What kind of composition is a poem?" to the barren question, "What kind of man is a poet?" ("The Personal Heresy", 86). In 1923 Lewis addressed the Martlets, an undergraduate Oxford literary society to which he belonged, arguing that the personal life of author James Stephens, a popular Irish author, had little to do with understanding his works. In 1930 Lewis addressed the Martlets, this time as an Oxford Don, developing his thinking more fully. In that same year, E.M.W. Tillyard published a major work on John Milton, in which he wrote, "All poetry is about the poet's state of mind." To understand "Paradise Lost" correctly, he stated, one must read it as an "expression of Milton's personality." Then, on June 14, 1932, Lewis wrote to his brother Warren about the virtues of Thackeray vs. Trollope after having just finished rereading Thackeray's "Pendennis". While he thought of Thackeray as a genius, he also thought that Trollope wrote the better books, books that don't knock you down with their power and depth. He stated, "What I don't care twopence about is the sense (apparently dear to so many) of being in the hands of 'a great man'--you know; his dazzling personality, his lightning energy, the strange force of his mind--and all that. So that I quite definitely prefer Trollope--or rather this re-reading of "Pendennis" confirms my long standing preference" ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 82).

The first three essays of "The Personal Heresy" were originally published in the journal "Essays and Studies", a periodical of the English Association, in 1934, 1935, and 1936. The first was entitled "The Personal Heresy in Criticism," the second "Rejoinder," and the third "Open Letter to Dr Tillyard." Then three additional essays were added, along with a concluding note by Lewis and a Preface by both authors, and together they comprise "The Personal Heresy". The controversy was concluded with a live debate at Magdalen College, Oxford, on Feb. 7, 1939 ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 248, n. 24). Of this debate, former student John Lawlor wrote, "There was a memorable occasion when in the Hall at Magdalen Dr Tillyard met him to round off in debate the controversy begun with the publication of Lewis's indictment of "The Personal Heresy." I am afraid there was no debate. Lewis made rings round Tillyard; in, out, up, down, around back again--like some piratical Plymouth bark against a high-built galleon of Spain" ("C. S. Lewis: Memories and Reflections", 4). Lewis's position in this work reflects his conviction that objective values are resident in people, places, events, and things, rejecting the relativistic mindset of that age and subsequent ages. Lewis's position was further developed in "A Preface to Paradise Lost" (1942) and reached its culmination in his 1961 work "An Experiment in Criticism".

Some of Lewis's letters provide us with additional perspective on this controversy, showing Lewis to be aware of the potential for a negative view of him, but also showing Lewis to be congenial towards Tillyard himself. Lewis seems to discuss his first essay in a letter of April 5, 1935 to Paul Elmer More, aware that he might be pushing More if he sent him a copy of his essay. In a letter to Joan Bennett, February 1937, Lewis jokingly referred to this controversy by calling himself a "professional controversialist and itinerant prize-fighter" ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 210). Interestingly, there seemed to be no acrimony between the two men, for Lewis wrote about joining Tillyard in contributing chapters for a Festschrift to Sir Herbert Grierson ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 211, a letter dated March 8, 1937), and on Jan. 25, 1938, Lewis wrote to Frank P. Wilson about meeting Tillyard in London and lunching together there ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 222). There is evidence that Lewis considered the heresy over, shortly after the publication of "The Personal Heresy".

On July 23, 1939, about two months after the publication of the book, Lewis wrote to Owen Barfield, "I quite agree that the Personal Heresy is not important--"now"! But it was rapidly becoming so. I was just in the nick of time . . ." ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 260). On Sept. 12, 1940, Jack wrote to Eliza Marian Butler, a University of Manchester professor at the time, stating that the kernel of "The Personal Heresy" was "Don't attribute superhuman qualities to poetry unless you really believe in a superhuman subject to support them" ("Collected Letters", Vol. II, 443).

Chapter by Chapter Summary

Chapter One

Lewis begins the first chapter by lamenting the publisher who thinks that he can offer insights from "young soldier poets" that those soldiers never told their fathers, sweethearts, or friends. This is a reflection of the current belief, now growing, that poetry is the expression of personality. Lewis cites a poem by Robert Herrick, which begins, "Whenas in silks my Julia goes," as an example of a poem that is about Julia and silk, not about Herrick. He cites De la Mare, Wordsworth, Isaiah 13:19-22, and Keats in further support. To be appreciated, the words of the poem must be about that which is public, common, impersonal, and objective. Personality is found in the words, but it is only a starting point and not the result. One does not learn anything about the poet until one has thought about the poetry, so perception of the poet is twice removed from the poetic experience.

Chapter Two

In chapter two, Tillyard thinks that the personal heresy is "slightly shop-soiled," i.e. not particularly new. He does not like Lewis's implication that "personal" includes every trivial detail about an author. He cites the Delphic Charioteer as "like no other statue on earth," thus implying a connection between the sculpture and the sculptor's personality. Personality is not trivial details, but a mental pattern. He agrees that mixing biography and criticism is dangerous; one can use biography as a shortcut to the mental pattern of the poet. He asks Lewis what poetry is about, and he suggests that Lewis puts too much value on "things" and not enough value on characters in poetry.

Chapter Three

Lewis begins chapter three by expressing appreciation for Tillyard's "rational opposition." Tillyard apparently has four objections to Lewis's position. First, Tillyard distinguishes between trivial accidents in a personality and a mental pattern. Second, Tillyard thinks that the poet is most himself when he is least himself. Third, Tillyard thinks that Lewis confuses the means of communication with that which is communicated. Fourth, Tillyard objects to Lewis's preference of things to people. In regarding to the first objection, Lewis says that the issue of what we see through a personality remains. It matters little whether we include little things in personality or not. Against the second objection, Lewis argues that Tillyard confuses individuality with personality. Of course, the Delphic Charioteer is unique. So also is every other statue. Lewis denies the third charge, stating that he simply provided the impersonality of the means and then moved to the impersonality of the content. He did not confuse the two. And against the fourth objection, Lewis blames himself for the impression Tillyard reached. He did not intend to contrast things with people. People have the chief place in imaginative literature. He goes on to suggest that Poetolatry, the idolatry of poetry, offends against personality by taking on religious characteristics. We need to keep poetry within the reach of the common person.

Chapter Four

Chapter four begins with Tillyard indicating that he didn't mean to suggest that the personal was the only concrete, nor did he think Lewis oblivious to Julia. He thinks it satisfying at times to explain the author's state of mind. He withdraws his third charge, i.e. that Lewis confused the means of communication with that which is communicated. He admits that he was vague regarding the uniqueness of the Delphic Charioteer. Then he writes about three different types of uniqueness--that which is not repeatable, that which is unified, and that which has a uniqueness combined with kinship and recognition. He then argues that the little things count for much in a person's mental pattern. He says that the dead poet can do something for us by setting an example and thereby bringing comfort and courage. So personality has two functions in literature: (1) sharing and (2) as an example. For Lewis, personality has connotations of the details of living, the individual, while for Tillyard personality is more vague and generalized, more of a group consciousness. He asks if he and Lewis can resolve their dispute as a matter of terminology and what poetry expresses in Lewis's opinion.

Chapter Five

In chapter five Lewis states that he does not find Tillyard's three senses of the word "unique." He agrees that the poet's personality has an exemplary function, but he says that it's not the normal function of poetry or the poet. He agrees that sharing is a function of personality in literature, which is exactly Lewis's view. We share the poet's consciousness and look with his eyes, but not in reciprocity (as in mutual love), but in sympathy or "feeling together," looking at the same thing that the poet looks at. We share his human experience, not his idiosyncratic experience. There are two kinds of poetry: (1) poetry about common experiences that all people have, and (2) poetry about new and nameless sensations that enrich one. Lewis then offers a theory of poetry. Poetry is an art or a skill, "a trained habit of using certain instruments to certain ends." Poetry uses concrete language to meet what we meet in life, while philosophical and scientific language uses abstract language. Poetry is the skill of concrete utterance. He describes the great poet as poetry by great men. He concludes by arguing that we shouldn't use terms such as "sincerity" or "bogus" or "sham" to describe poetry because those terms are only emotive noises offered from ignorance and say nothing about the poetry itself.

Chapter Six

In chapter six Tillyard retains his two kinds of sharing, that of sharing with authors and that of sharing with nature and animals. He agrees that the exemplary function is not inherent to the poet, and he welcomes Lewis's two kinds of poetry. He agrees when Lewis attacks the Romantics for concentrating on the poet rather than the poetry, and he agrees that poetolatry damages poetry. But not all Romantics put poets into a class part. Neither Landor nor Shelley did. Since Lewis did not say much about what poetry is about, Tillyard concludes that he must offer to answer that question. Poetry is about rendering (1) personality, or a mental pattern, as an author's object, (2) large general states of mind, universal ideas such as anger or hatred, (3) areas of feeling, (4) something very new, and (5) something very old.

In the concluding note, Lewis attempts to explain the lack of connection between his first and fifth essays. In the first essay he was writing about the creative function of poetry, i.e. a new mode of consciousness, while in the fifth essay he was writing about the recording function, i.e. recording the common experience of humanity.

Significance

On Sept. 12, 1940, Jack wrote to Eliza Marian Butler, a University of Manchester professor at the time, stating that the kernel of The Personal Heresy was “Don’t attribute superhuman qualities to poetry unless you really believe in a superhuman subject to support them.”

Lewis’s position in The Personal Heresy reflects his conviction that objective values are resident in people, places, events, and things, rejecting the relativistic mindset of that age and subsequent ages.

This book also teaches us that good teaching is about two things in particular: the subject matter of the course of study (Lewis’s primary concern) and the passion resident in the personality of the teacher (Tillyard’s primary concern).

Another lesson from "The Personal Heresy" is for the pride of the poet, and everyone else’s pride, to be held in check, but, correspondingly, to realize that we are made in the image of God. Lewis both challenges the elitism of some poets and elevates the cause of the common man.

In his Introduction, Bruce Edwards says that reading this book is like taking a tutorial with Lewis (xi). If you ever wished you could have had Lewis for a teacher, you can . . . by reading this book.

Another thing about the book’s significance is its tone. The book is subtitled “A Controversy.” In the original Preface, we read that the authors, both Lewis and Tillyard, thought that “a revival of the art of Controversy would be a good thing.” They stated that this style was preferable to one of backbiting and abuse (xi). As you read the book, you will note the kind and generous statements that both Lewis and Tillyard make towards one another.

Notes and Quotes

* Some suggest that Tillyard is the model for Eustace Scrubb in "The Voyage of the "Dawn Treader" and "The Silver Chair", since Tillyard's first name was Eustace. This, however, is not likely, given the respect with which Lewis treated Tillyard in this exchange on the personal heresy.

* Lewis wrote in the first chapter, "I ... maintain that when we read poetry as poetry should be read, we have before us no representation which claims to be the poet, and frequently no representation of a "man", a "character", or a "personality" at all" ("The Personal Heresy", 5).

* Again Lewis wrote, "I look with his eyes, not at him. He, for the moment, will be precisely what I do not see; for you can see any eyes rather than the pair you see with, and if you want to examine your own glasses you must take them off your own nose. The poet is not a man who asks me to look at "him"; he is a man who says 'look at that' and points; the more I follow the pointing of his finger the less I can possibly see of "him" ("The Personal Heresy", 11).

* "I must make of him not a spectacle but a pair of spectacles" ("The Personal Heresy", 12).

* Chapter Three: "Some time ago Matthew Arnold prophesied that poetry would come to replace religion ... the cult of poetry is taking on some secondary religious characteristics--notably the worship of saints and the traffic in relics" ("The Personal Heresy," 54).

* Chapter Five: "...there is no essential qualification for criticism more definite than general wisdom and health of mind" ("The Personal Heresy," 96).