In what way did Leavis contribute to the making of a Literary canon, different from that of C.S. Lewis ?
In what way did Leavis contribute to the making– The making of a literary canon — the selection of works deemed to possess the highest cultural and artistic value — has always been a subject of debate in literary criticism. Among the most influential twentieth-century critics who shaped the modern idea of the canon were F.R. Leavis and C.S. Lewis. Both were deeply committed to the moral and intellectual value of literature, yet they represented two profoundly different approaches to what constituted great literature and why it mattered.
F.R. Leavis, through his journals Scrutiny and his seminal works such as The Great Tradition (1948), built a canon grounded in moral seriousness, realism, and the life of feeling, emphasizing the role of literature in sustaining cultural and ethical standards. C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, in works like An Experiment in Criticism (1961) and The Allegory of Love (1936), advanced a more inclusive and imaginative approach to literary value, focusing on pleasure, myth, and human imagination as the hallmarks of true reading.
This essay examines how F.R. Leavis contributed to creating a literary canon that differed sharply from C.S. Lewis’s, exploring their critical principles, moral philosophies, and respective views on literature’s cultural purpose.
1. The Intellectual and Cultural Background
Both Leavis and Lewis wrote in the early to mid-twentieth century — a period marked by rapid industrialization, two world wars, and the breakdown of traditional social structures. They were responding to what they saw as a crisis of culture: the erosion of moral values, spiritual depth, and intellectual seriousness in modern life.
However, their responses to this crisis differed in orientation.
-
F.R. Leavis represented the Cambridge school of moral criticism, emphasizing the role of literature in cultivating moral and cultural discipline.
-
C.S. Lewis, a scholar at Oxford and later Cambridge, drew on Christian humanism and imaginative criticism, viewing literature as a bridge to spiritual and mythic truth rather than a vehicle for social or moral correction.
Thus, while both sought to defend literature against the decay of modern values, their visions of what literature should do were different — and this shaped their distinct canons.
2. F.R. Leavis and the Canon of Moral Seriousness
In what way did Leavis contribute to the making- F.R. Leavis’s contribution to the literary canon cannot be overstated. He redefined what counted as “great literature” in English and reshaped the study of English literature in universities. For Leavis, literature was not merely aesthetic entertainment — it was a moral force, a record of the finest human sensibility and ethical awareness.
In The Great Tradition (1948), Leavis identified a lineage of English novelists who, in his view, represented the highest achievements of moral and artistic seriousness: Jane Austen, George Eliot, Henry James, and Joseph Conrad. He excluded many popular or celebrated authors — including Dickens, until he later revised his opinion — because he felt they lacked the same depth of moral inquiry and disciplined realism.
Leavis’s canon was built on moral discrimination: the ability of literature to engage deeply with “the complexities of life,” particularly the moral and emotional nuances of human relationships. His notion of “life” and “felt experience” became central critical criteria.
He also viewed literature as an antidote to mass civilization, which he saw as corrupting genuine sensibility through commercialism and vulgarity. Thus, for Leavis, the canon was exclusive, representing works that sustained cultural vitality and resisted the shallowness of modern mass culture.
3. Leavis’s Method: The “Close Reading” and “Moral Response”
Leavis’s method was rooted in close reading, influenced by the earlier New Critics but driven by a moral purpose. He believed that careful attention to tone, rhythm, and diction revealed the writer’s moral vision. His criticism was not detached or objective; it was deeply evaluative and judgmental — grounded in the conviction that some works are simply “better” because they express finer moral awareness.
For Leavis, literature existed not just to delight but to refine the reader’s sensibility. His canon was therefore a canon of cultivation — a guide for producing an educated, morally alert, and culturally responsible readership.
In short, Leavis’s canon was a moral and cultural hierarchy, privileging works that reflected the seriousness of life and the integrity of the author’s vision.
4. C.S. Lewis and the Canon of Imaginative Pleasure
In what way did Leavis contribute to the making– C.S. Lewis, by contrast, approached literature from a more inclusive, imaginative, and spiritual standpoint. His critical philosophy stemmed from his love of reading and his belief in literature as a way of experiencing other worlds and consciousnesses.
In An Experiment in Criticism (1961), Lewis proposed a revolutionary idea: instead of judging books as “good” or “bad,” we should judge readers by the kind of reading they do. According to him, a “good book” is one that invites disinterested reading — reading for the sake of experience, not use — and allows the reader to “receive” rather than “use” literature.
Unlike Leavis, who emphasized the moral seriousness of realism, Lewis valued imagination, myth, and wonder. His canon included medieval romance, fantasy, allegory, and religious poetry — genres Leavis largely dismissed. Lewis’s literary universe stretched from Homer and Virgil to Dante, Spenser, and Milton, as well as modern authors like George MacDonald and Tolkien.
His approach was democratic: he saw beauty and moral truth not only in high art but also in works of myth and fantasy that spoke to universal human experience.
5. Theological and Philosophical Differences
Their differences were also rooted in distinct philosophical worldviews.
Leavis, though moralistic, was secular. His values came from the humanistic and ethical traditions of English culture, not from religion. He believed literature embodied moral wisdom through human experience — not divine revelation.
C.S. Lewis, however, was a Christian apologist, and his criticism was informed by a belief in the transcendent and the spiritual. For him, great literature revealed universal truths about the human soul’s relationship with God, the cosmos, and moral good.
Thus, while Leavis’s canon sought to preserve cultural and ethical seriousness within a secular framework, Lewis’s canon sought to restore spiritual imagination in an age of materialism.
6. Canon Formation: Exclusivity vs. Inclusivity
In what way did Leavis contribute to the making- The most striking difference between the two critics lies in their attitudes toward canon formation.
-
Leavis’s Canon: Selective, hierarchical, and restrictive. He emphasized a small number of authors and works that met his stringent criteria of moral and artistic integrity. His canon functioned as a standard of excellence for serious readers and scholars.
-
Lewis’s Canon: Expansive and inclusive. He found value in works across genres, periods, and forms — from epic to fairy tale, from allegory to science fiction. For Lewis, the test of a great work was not its conformity to cultural norms but its capacity to enlarge human experience.
Where Leavis excluded works that failed to meet his standard of moral realism, Lewis included works that awakened wonder, empathy, and a sense of transcendence.
7. Reception and Legacy
Leavis’s influence was profound in shaping academic literary criticism. His journal Scrutiny (1932–1953) trained generations of critics in rigorous textual analysis and moral seriousness. For decades, the Leavisite canon dominated English departments, defining “serious literature” as that which cultivated moral and intellectual sensitivity.
However, critics later accused Leavis of being elitist and narrow-minded, ignoring genres like fantasy, satire, and popular fiction.
C.S. Lewis, on the other hand, influenced both scholars and general readers. His criticism, while less dominant in academia, reached a wider audience. His defense of imagination and his Christian humanism inspired later movements like reader-response theory and myth criticism.
In modern literary studies, Leavis’s strict hierarchy has waned, while Lewis’s inclusive approach aligns more with today’s pluralistic, reader-oriented criticism.
8. Key Points of Contrast
| Aspect | F.R. Leavis | C.S. Lewis |
|---|---|---|
| Critical Focus | Moral seriousness, realism | Imagination, myth, spirituality |
| Approach to Canon | Selective, elitist, prescriptive | Inclusive, experiential, reader-oriented |
| Purpose of Literature | Moral cultivation and social responsibility | Spiritual enrichment and imaginative freedom |
| Worldview | Secular humanism | Christian humanism |
| Method | Close reading and evaluative criticism | Reader response and mythic analysis |
Conclusion
In what way did Leavis contribute to the making– In what way did Leavis contribute to the making Both F.R. Leavis and C.S. Lewis were defenders of literature in an age of cultural crisis, but they envisioned its purpose in radically different ways.
Leavis saw literature as a moral institution, the guardian of civilization’s finest values — hence his canon was exclusive, disciplined, and ethically demanding. Lewis saw literature as a spiritual journey, expanding human imagination and empathy — hence his canon was open, diverse, and celebratory.
In the end, the Leavisite canon represents the ethics of reading, while the Lewisian canon represents the joy of reading. Together, they remind us that literature is both a mirror of human responsibility and a window to transcendent wonder — two dimensions that continue to shape our understanding of the literary canon today.
