The Personal Heresy

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.On 14 February 1923 Lewis recorded his own comment that was made in a conversation with a friend, George Arnold Rink, "I suggest that the object of a work of art is not to be criticized but to be experienced and enjoyed" (All My Road Before Me, 197).It is almost enough to prove R. Graves’ contention that an artist is like a medium: a neurotic with an inferiority complex who gets his own back by attributing to himself abnormal powers.And indeed I have noticed in myself a ridiculous tendency to indulge in poetical complacency as a consolation when I am ill at ease thro’ managing ordinary life worse than usual" [3] In 1930 Lewis addressed the Martlets, this time as an Oxford Don, developing his thinking more fully.Tillyard published a major work on John Milton, in which he wrote, "All poetry is about the poet's state of mind."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.Lewis summarized Abercrombie's position as one that preferred the effect of Chaucer's Troilus on us now over that which it had on its original medieval audience.Lewis’ response demonstrated his conviction that much of the medieval age was closer to the world of universal ideas than the Renaissance was and, therefore, to be preferred and disagreeing with Abercrombie that we must first understand what a text said to its original audience before applying it to our situation today.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 7 February 1939 (Collected Letters, Vol.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.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.On 23 July 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!On 12 September 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.More than two decades later, Lewis would write (posthumously in 1964), "Even today there are those (some of them critics) who believe every novel and even every lyric to be autobiographical" (The Discarded Image, 213).Lewis ends the chapter by arguing that the personal heresy comes from an inability of most modern people to decide between a materialist and a spiritual theory of the universe.Tillyard begins his Rejoinder in chapter two by saying that he thinks the personal heresy is not a sign of modernity, but a bit shop-soiled.A certain cook's style might be seen in his preference for some foods, his use of parsley to decorate a plate, a preference for certain side dishes or colors, or other things, as Lewis and Tillyard would both probably agree, but Lewis would insist that the dinner is still primarily about the good food that satisfies the palate and the stomach of the eater rather than being about the cook's personality, even though that is present.Another thing that Tillyard begins to do in this chapter is to suggest that the poet is a cut above the average person, for example, by writing about “the superior penetration of poetic genius” (38); later he will call Wordsworth “a superior person” (68) and Milton one “who is truly virtuous.” He will say that Milton “has inhabited heavens and hells unbearable by the ordinary man” (74) and that Shakespeare “reached a sanity richer than the normal” (75).“Well, you only say that because you’re a man (or a woman).” Or, “You’re one to talk about relationships; you can’t even get along with your next door neighbor.” Statements like that don't address the issue, Lewis says; they obscure it.The cult of poetry, Lewis says, is taking on two religious characteristics: (1) the worship of saints (such as biographies of Keats and Lawrence) and (2) traffic in relics.“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption.” Lewis was constantly on the watch for possible gods and goddesses that became a corruption, and poetry was a candidate for that status.He wonders if he and Lewis can resolve their dispute into a matter of terminology, especially a different definition of the word "personality."Lewis then implies that the personal heresy started when the romantic critics, such as William Wordsworth, diverted our attention away from the fruitful question, "What kind of composition is a poem?"Poetry is "a skill or trained habit of using all the extra-logical elements of language—rhythm, vowel-music, onomatopoeia, associations, and what not—to convey the concrete reality of experience" (89).Then Lewis writes about reviewers, stating that the only essential qualifications for criticism are "general wisdom and health of mind" (96).Second, “poetry is concerned with large general states of mind” (114), universal ideas like anger and hatred.So, in a sense, Tillyard agrees with Lewis's plea for the Common Reader and for poetry to be seen as something that anyone can appreciate, although he still thinks the poet a higher person than the rest.Winsomely and imaginatively, Tillyard concludes his last chapter with this sentence about Lewis: “He is, indeed, the best kind of opponent, good to agree with when one can, and for an enemy as courteous as he is honest and uncompromising, the kind of opponent with whom I should gladly exchange armor after a parley, even if I cannot move my tent to the ground where his own is pitched” (119).By the way, there is a five-page Note that Lewis appends to the end where he deals with the question, “Does poetry carry a creative or a recording function?” And he concludes that it does both.