THE SHORT OXFORD HISTORY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE

396 Pages·2001·2.19 MB·English

THE SHORT OXFORD HISTORY OF ENGLISH LITERATURE

sred nwaeSrdnA

S SNEO RDPN E•RDARL OCFXO
1994

y ,t ns i, osdstdterrerlroeeoa PfvhfW2xiSxXOnOOUPD6
dro fwxeO NoktrnooYroT
Delhi Bombay Calcutta Madras Karachi
alauK rupmu LeropagniS gnoH gnoKykoT o
i br o amr eDainspaawealNoCaTS
Melbourne Auckland Madrid
and associated companies in
Berlin Ibadan

Oxford is a trade mark of Oxford University Press

dehsilbu Pni eht detinsUetatS
yb drofx OytisrevinU sserP ,.cnI weNkroY

49 9s1redn awSerd n©A

All r ights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press.
nih tseinhW ot die,etrKwpaU oe tlcnclxieaepsfeor any fair dealing for the
purpose of research or private study, or criticism or review, as permitted
under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, or in the case of
cihpargorper noitcudorper ni ecnadrocca htiw eht smret fo ehtsecnecil
deussi yb eht Copyright Licensing Agency. Enquiries concerning
noitcudorper edistuo eseht smret dna ni rehto seirtnuoc dluohseb
tnes ot eht sthgiR ,tnemtrapeD drofxO ytisrevinU,sserP
ta e hstseredvdoaba

This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, b yyam
f,eoedsa i rewr tbrotenhetloer - sold, hired out or otherwise circulated
without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover
other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition
including this condition being im desop rn eotsna eheuchqrteuspbus

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
.w e,rsdrneAdnaS
The short Oxford history of English literature/Andrew Sanders.
Includes bibliographical r . x sededncnanierefe
1. English literature - History and criticism. I. Title.
62S.38 RP 4991
820.9 - dc20 93 - 32330
oNBSI - rg - 8rszoz - 5oNBSI - rþBrrzor -)kb P7(
Typeset by Joshua Associates Ltd, Oxford
Printed in Great Britain
no dica eer frepapyb
Bookcraf t Ltd.
Midsomer Norton, Bath

ailice Cdn aseng AroF

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I ma tsom lufetarg ot eht gniwollof sdneirf dna seugaelloc ohw edam ,esolc ,lufpleh ,gnigaruocne dnan etfo
indispensable comments on various aspects in this History : lebosIortsmrA ng, Sandra Clark, Robert Inglesfield, Peter
,drofduM maharG ,yrraP naJ ikswejezrdeJ ylremrof( fo eht ytisrevinU fo ,zdoL won fo eht ytisrevinU fo, )retslU
Chantal Cornut - ellitn eyGcrA’D fo( eh tytisrevinU fo ,)azo gaalreaaZhi MaimirI fo( eh tytisrevinU fo Bucharest), and
Anita Weston - olledraliB fo( eht ytisrevinU fo .)aigureP I ma ,osla fi ssel ,yltcerid lufetarg ot eht ynams uomynona
sreda esfrnooit cfeos tp iesderhtesc tnlosy eihulemawnlrmt aaeoe.tmrwcdlse uonefmevpgol be,Ahlla I dlu oewkil ot
thank my patient wife, Edwina Porter, for bearing the strains of composition and for offering immediate critical
tnemmoc no segap tsurht ni tnorf fo .reh yelrihS yveL dedivorp tahw I dedeen nehw I saw tsom tuo fo ym: htped
ylluferac deredisnoc noitcerid dnaeton s rof eht retpahc no laveidem .erutaretil I ma osla lufetarg ot ym seugaelloc ni
eht hsilgnE tnemtraped ta kcebkriB egelloC rof owt smret fo thgil‘ ’gnihcaet revo aruof - raey doirep hcihw delbane
me to complete certain parts of the text without significant interruption (except for examination scripts!). My final
sknaht era eud ot miK ttocS nywlaW ohw derettalf em otni gnitirw siht ,koob ot werdnA ttekcoL ohw dexaocd na
degaruocne ti otni sti tneserp ,ecnetsixe ot nosaJ nameerF ohw wasrevo sti ssergorpuorht gh the press and to Michael
d e fdypooa.lltoetserriuhpol uy p ldus tnrronaceh esgwoiostRap

Andrew Sanders
egel lkocCebkriB
March -3 9r9e1botcO

STNETNOC

A eto Nno ehttxeT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... ix
Introduc tion : Poets’ Corners: The Development of a Canon of English Literature ................................ ...................... 1
1. O LD E HSILGN L ERUTARETI ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .16
fluwoeB
The Battle of Maldon and the Elegies
sl mad e cn moeiaeaPhl heTbfTr ioDeBdhotoR
2. M LAVEIDE L ERUTARETI 1066 - 1510 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 28
The Church, Church Building, and Clerical Hi storians
Early Middle English Literature
e’vyolLt r yudronlCaa‘vihC
English Romances and the Gawain - teoP
Fourteenth - Century England: Death, Disruption, and Change
Langland and Piers Plowman
recua hyCerffoeG
evelcc od Hn,aetagd y,LrewoG
Poetry in Scotland in the Fifteenth Century
etaL laveideMamarD
tsiuroWig illaevRe iedteaML ing
Malory and Caxton
3. R DNA ECNASSIANE R EFORMATION : L ERUTARETI 1510 - 1620 ................................ ................................ ............... 83
I IyI r Vtnfre o uHyetorhaCtteoP
An Educated Élite: More, Elyot, and Ascham
The Literature of the English Reformation
Early and Mid - Sixteenth - Century Drama
ehT ecnefeD dna eht ecitcarP fo :y rmtaehonPettu Pdna ehtsyendiS
Sixteenth - and Early Seventeeth - n yoerisutotcrniPeFC
This Island and the Wider World: Hi ,yro t,syhpargorohC dnayhpargoeG
Ralegh, Spenser, and the Cult of Elizabeth
Late Sixteenth - eysrruetVneC
ewolraMna d Shakespeare as non - citamarDsteoP
Theatre in the 1590s: Kyd and Marlowe
s ysa’lePraepsekahS
yro tsdscniiaHtiloP
Tragedy and Death
yde m donnCeamoW
Ben Jonson and the Comic Theatre
Jonson and the High Roman Fashion
d’hcuabeD‘ dna :’tnelovisrevid ,neM ,nemoW dnaydegarT
4. R DNA NOITULOVE R NOITAROTSE : L ERUTARETI 1620 - 1690 ................................ ................................ ............... 186
ehT tnemecnavdA fonraeL ing: Francis Bacon and the Authorized Version
Andrewes and Donne
’lacisyhpateM‘ suoigileR :yrteoP ,trebreH ,wahsarC dnanahguaV
Secular Verse: Courtiers and Cavaliers
s e ,bdebnn oaw,Honro Bt:rsueBimotanA
l aecsiotr iPfloo Pe hltiv irdCaoWireP
otliM n
Marvell
htnee t, nnde ynv,laeseSyvpEeP - Century Autobiographical Writing
seiteiraV fo suoigileR gnitirW ni eht noitarotseRdoireP
etavirP seirotsiH dna cilbuP :yrotsiH ,yerbuA ,tarpS dnanodneralC
nr eeddtnysar eD:hdc ooniRori etyP ar ertf hoeoeTtohsPteR
Women’s Writing a nd Women Writing in the Restoration Period
‘Restoration’ Drama
5. E IGHTEENTH - C ENTURY L ERUTARETI 1690 - 1780 ................................ ................................ .............................. 273
Jonathan tfi wS
y ry eu r dpty ftenonleoehaPerhotCatPE
Thomson and Akenside: The Poetry of Nature and the Pleasures of the Imagination
Other Pl easures of Imagination: Dennis, Addison, and Steele
Gay and the Drama of the Early Eighteenth Century
lev oe Nhf’toesi Re ‘hd tneaofeD
The M id - Century Novel: Richardson, the Fieldings, Charlotte Lennox
Smollett and Sterne
Sensibility, Sentimentality, Tears, and Graveyards
The Ballad, the Gothic, the Gaelic, and the Davidic
Goldsmith and Sheridan: The New ‘Comedy of Manners’
Johnson and his Circle
6. T HE L THE OF ITERATURE R OMANTIC P ERIOD 1780 - 1830 ................................ ................................ .................. 333
,eni a,PniwdoG dna eh t’nisbtoscialJe‘voN
cihtoGnoitciF
Smith and Burney
Cowper, Blake, and Burns
htrowsdroW
,y e,edhebntgbaudaoirSrCeloC
Austen, the ‘Regional’ N t ,tdlonecavSo
, ysde tnl,aalneeoKhrSyB
st s’icyi atesnhsaTEmoR‘
eralC dnattebboC
7. H HGI V ICTORIAN L ERUTARETI 1830 - 1880 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 398
‘The Condition of England’: Carlyle and Dickens
‘Condition of England’ Fiction
,yaluacaM ,yarekcahT dnaepollorT
The Brontë Sisters
Tennyson and the Pre - setteiolPeahpaR
The Brownings
The Drama, the Melodrama, and the ‘Sensation’ Novel
ehT weN noitciF fo eht :s0681 htidereM dnatoilE
The ‘Strange Disease of Modern Life’: Mill, Arnold, Clough, and Ruskin
The ‘Second Spring’ and Hopkins
Coda: Carroll and Lear
8. L ETA V DNA NAIROTCI E NAIDRAWD L ERUTARETI 1880 - 1920 ................................ ................................ ............. 457
’ cneiohtiTstocni gFfAo‘ eht etyarLutneC
‘The Letter Killeth’: Hardy, Gissing, and Moore
nosne v,dernteaS k,oet lSny ao:nDyorCo tydsrnieaHtsyM
‘Our Colonial Expansion’: Kipling and Conrad
‘Our Theatre in the 90s’: London and Dublin
The Edwardian Age
The Edwardian Novel
yrt eeohPT
9. M ODEIRTANSNI DS M A SEVITANRETL : L ERUTARETI 1920 - 1945 ................................ ................................ ........ 505
hca r:tdSno yd’enybarubsmoolB‘ dleifs nd,anfMal o,oyWe
Richardson and Lawrence
Old and New Writing: Practitioners, Promoters, and the ‘Little Magazines’
Eliot, Firb ank, and the Sitwells
ecyoJ
Inter - War Drama: O’Casey, Coward, Priestley, and Sherriff
s e:dvy narlaroaGmcJ eitMr codetnpsasioHrteR seno
s0 3 d9sn10a 2 es9fht1otsile v w oee:NhNyTtei c do’nSyateicoS‘
thgir Bgnuo YsgnihT dna evarB weN :,sedslur oo,hWhegduoaWW dnayelxuH
The Auden Circle
‘Rotten Elements’: MacDiarmid, Upward, Koestler, and Orwell
Looking at Britain at War
10. P TSO - W DNA RA P TSO - M ODERN L ERUTARETI ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 577
Dividing and Ruling: Britain in the 1950s
The New Theatre
s0 5 e9sfh1totsile v woeeNhNT
0 5e9c 1nyirsteoP
ehT weN‘ :’ytilaroM ehT s0691 dnas0791
Female and Male Reformulations: Fiction in the 1960s and 1970s
Drama since the 1950s
et afsLoet oeNm o:Selcè iensdiF - yrutneCnoitciF
YGOLONORHC ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 641
Index
T EX ENTEAHOOTTN

od teheeostcrhteisutbco vsa ne eodIvinate h aeN etsIfhoaotucq larly texts available. In most instances this has meant
that the spellings have not been brought into line with modern usage, though where I have quoted from the plays and
niatrec smeop fo eraepsekahS dna sih seiraropmetnoc I evah dewollof eht nommocotide rial practice of accepting a
modernized spelling. I apologize if these anomalies offend certain readers. I hope that the quotations in the text give
some sense of the development of the English language and English usage over the centuries.

NOITCUDORTNI

Poets’ Corners: The Development of a Canon of English Literature

nroe o tsShfi tahra ee0nbd0i o 4et r1h c ye tyOddcseeou arcba fwfahnoflCiope Gt asbemdo ot n mnie rleesh titfsaoae
the north transept of Westminster Abbey, the coronation church of the h.ssiglng inekEH saw d eors uetosonunoahceb
eh saw eht rohtua fo The Canterbury Tales , tub esuaceb eh dah ylremrof dleh eht tsop fo krelC fo eht s’gniK skroW
dna esuaceb eh dah neeb gnivil ni eht stcnicerp fo eht yebbA ta eht emit fo sih .htaed eH ,saw ,revoerom yltnatsid
detcennoc ot eht layor ylimaf hguorht sih efiw .appilihP nehW nhoJ rewoG deid emos thgie sraey retal eh saw derretni
in the Priory Church of St Mary Overie in Southwark (now Southwark Cathedral). Gower, who had retired to the
Priory in sih dlo ,ega deviecer a raf erom etarobale ,bmot eno hcihw demialcorp mih ot eb Anglorum Poeta
celeberrimus eht‘( tsom suomaf teop fo eht hsilgnE )’noitan dna eno hcihw dewohs mih ni ygiffet ahwemos
uncomfortably resting his head on his three great works, the Vox Clamantis , the Speculum Meditantis , and the
Confessio Amantis .
ehT evitcepser senutrof fo eht lairub setis fo eseht owt ,daed‘ ,etihw elam ’steop si ot a tnacifingise erged
indicative of how a distinct canon of English literature has emerged over t he centuries. Although St Mary Overie’s,
renamed St Saviour’s in the sixteenth century, later housed the tombs of the playwrights John Fletcher (d. 1625) and
pilihP regnissaM .d( )0461 dna fo pohsiB tolecnaL sewerdnA ohw( deid ta eht ybraen retsehcniWsuoH e in 1626), it
reven devorp sa suoigitserp a hcruhc sa eht yltcnitsid citarcotsira retsnimtseW .yebbA roN did eht ydob for ewoG
evorp ot eb sa lufrewop na tcejbo fo citeop noitarenev sa taht fo .recuahC nI 6551 salohciN ,mahgirB a tnemnrevog
laiciffo htiw nairauqitna ,setsat detcere a ,wen tub ylevitavresnoc ,cihtoG tnemunom revo s’recuahC .senob siH tca fo
national piety was a tribute to Chaucer’s acknowledged status as, to use Edmund Spenser’s term, the ‘pure well head
fo .’eiseoP tI saw nihtiw teef fohC aucer’s grave that Spenser himself was buried in 1599, his mural monument,
detcere emos ytnewt sraey ,retal gnicnuonorp mih ot eb eht‘ ecnirP fo steoP ni sih .’emyT suhT yllaiceps detarcesnoc
to the Muses, this corner of a royal church later contained the sehsa fo leahciM ,notyarD ohw degnahcxe‘ sih lleruaL
n o ’s’n, e n ee1rrneofyB3 oainJor 6ffrwoa1o‘olrGC

[p. 2]

ohw deid ni ,7361 dna fo maharbA yelwoC ohw deid ni .7661 stI egitserp saw ylmrif dehsilbatse htiw eht lairub fo
nhoJ nedyrD ni 0071 dna yb the subsequent construction of an elegant funerary monument which seems to guard the
entrance to the aisle.
Writing in The Spectator ni ,1171 hpesoJ nosiddA derrefer ot siht ydaerla detarbelec trap fo eht yebbA sae ht‘
poetical Quarter’. Its name was gradu ally transmogrified into the familiar ‘Poets’ Corner’. The seal was set on its
function as a place where English poets might, and indeed ought, to be commemorated, regardless of their actual
place of interment, in the middle years of the eighteenth century . ,ereH ni tahw saw yldipar gnimoceb ssel ekiln a
ylevisulcxe layor hcruhc dna erom ekil a lanoitan ,noehtnap saw na aera ylegral detoved ot ehts uomuhtsop
celebration of writers. Here distinguished citizens, and not the state, decreed that, with the Dean fo s’retsnimtseW
permission, men of letters might rest or be sculpturally remembered in the ancient Roman manner. In 1721 the
architect James Gibbs designed a fine mural tablet in memory of Matthew Prior. In 1737 William Benson, a
ruessionnoc foerutaretil dna ehtreyevruS - General of Works, paid for the setting - ftos usbuomuhts osp’kcarbs yfpRou
John Milton (d. 1674) and, three years later, a spectacular mural cenotaph, carved by Peter Scheemakers, was erected
to the honour of William Shakespeare (who had been buried in provincial Stratford 124 years earlier). The
,tnemunom ylduorp debircsni htiw eht sdrow romA sucilbuPtiusoP ehT‘( s’cilbup evol decalp ti ,)’ereh sawe ht
emoctuo fo na laeppa rof sdnuf edam yb a eettimmoc hcihw dedulcni droL notgnilruB dna Alexander Pope. Although
epoP flesmih detubirtnoc ylbaton ot eht s’yebbA gnidnapxe noitcelloc fo citeop ,shpatipe eh reven deviecer neve eht
tsom tsedom fo slairomem ni ’steoP .renroC ehT ruonoh ,saw ,revewoh dedrocca ot semaJ nosmohT ni ,2671o t
Thomas Gr ay in 1771, and to Oliver Goldsmith in 1774. In 1784, to affirm the Abbey’s status as a national pantheon,
the much respected Samuel Johnson was interred in the floor of the south transept at the foot of the monument to
Shakespeare.
Edmund Spenser’s consci ous construction of a literary tradition, in which he was associated in life and death with
the poetic example of Chaucer, had therefore been instrumental in establishing the significance of Poets’ Corner in
eht sdnim fo esoht ohw thguos ot enifed a enilo f succession in national literature. In common with many other self
appointed arbiters of public taste, however, the Abbey authorities were singularly behindhand in recognizing the
marked shift in literary fashions in the first two decades of the nineteent h .yrutnec elihW ylevitaler ronim steop hcus
as William Mason (d. 1797) and the author of the once celebrated weN htaBediuG , Christopher Anstey (d. 1805),
erew detaromemmoc ni llaw - ,stelbat eht wen noitareneg fo ,steop ynam fo mohw deid ,gnuoy erew aitini yll
suoucipsnoc rof rieht .ecnesba ,ylsuoirotoN ni 4281 eht ’larommi‘ droL noryB saw desufer a bmot yb eht naeDf o
,retsnimtseW a lasufer dednuopmoc neves sraey retal yb eht noitcejer fo s’nesdlavrohT elbram eutats fo eht evisnep
enoissim myolclaic etpesop s’nor y fBpouo r yagdb

[p. 3]

.sdneirf A lairomem bals ot noryB saw ta hywledmeocs adfeelmlaahtssni ylno ni .9691 staeK dna ,yellehS htob deirub
in Rome, equally had to wait until the mid - hteitnewt yrutnec rof na yebbA .tnemunom yB eht ylrae nairotciVp eriod,
,rev ehwto ohclb ianlcobi iutd npsediamnpieaoseed ltcic ereporp ot s utoc mesurthestusbo p efgodir e.ldo(C )4381 dna
yehtuoS .d( )3481 dna a eutats fo eht detaes htrowsdroW .d( ,)0581 lla fo meht yltnacifingis deretsulc ni eht evitcetorp
fwoodahs Shakespeare.
The enlightened Victorian Dean of Westminster, Arthur Stanley (1815 - 81), a former pupil of Dr Arnold’s at
Rugby, was instrumental in allotting the already over - occupied south transept its most visited grave, that of Charles
Dickens (d. 1870). s’ yneolinsaitcSed ot yru bsnekciD ni eht yebbA si elbaton rof ow t:snosaer eh e dso’rsrneevkociD
express desire to be buried in Rochester, and he also, for the first time, included a novelist amongst its eminent
literary dead. The privilege had already be en denied to Thackeray (d. 1863) and Elizabeth Gaskell (d. 1865) and was
ton dednetxe ot eht citsonga egroeG toilE .d( )0881 hguoht( ti dah neeb detseggus ot yelnatS taht ehs saw a‘ namow
esohw stnemeveihca erew tuohtiw lellarap ni eht suoiverp yrotsih fo womankind’) or to the singularly ‘churchy’
ynohtnA epollorT .d( .)2881 retfA s’yelnatS ,emit ,revewoh eht seitecin fo suoigiler feileb dna feilebnu erew ylegral
tes edisa sa eht sevarg fo ,gninworB ,nosynneT ,ydraH dna gnilpiK yllautriv dellif ehtlbaliava e ecaps dna evag eht
entire transept its popular, if narrow, character as a Who was Who of English letters. When one says ‘English’ letters,
ti dluohs eb derebmemer taht nairotciV ssenevisulcni detsisni no eht noitidda fo stsub fo riS retlaW ttocS dnaeboR rt
,snruB no eht noitaromemmoc fo eht naciremA wollefgnoL dna fo madA yasdniL ,nodroG eht teoP‘ fo. ’ailartsuA
ecniS eht htneetenin ,yrutnec yraretil seiteicos dna lamrofni erusserp spuorg evah yllacitametsys thguorb tuobae ht
noitazinonac yb telbat foeht particular objects of their admiration. Thus women writers (Jane Austen, the Brontës,
dna egroeG )toilE evah deviecer detaleb .eciton ehT ecno dekoolrevo ro ylbaton tnesba won evah riehts tsub
yarekcahT( yb ,ittehcoraM ekalB yb ,)nietspE rieht larumelbat ts (Ruskin, Matthew Arnold, Clare), or their engraved
roolf sbals ,nomdæC( ,snikpoH drawdE ,raeL siweL ,llorraC ynohtnA ,epollorT yrneH ,semaJ .D .H ,ecnerwaL nalyD
Thomas, John Masefield, T. S. Eliot, W. H. Auden, and an muinmomurehtag e vso rthfeewosop d in the First World
War).
Poets’ Corner has always commemorated a surprisingly arbitrary selection of writers and, like any parallel attempt
to draw up a canon or a list, generally represents the opinions of what a certain group of influential people have
wanted to believe mattered to them and to their times. What the memorials in Poets’ Corner represent is a loose series
fo ,snoisiced lla fo ,meht ni rieht ,emit deredisnoc ,snoisiced hcihw evah yltneuqesbus neeb deterpretni sa lacirogetac
and canonical. T sih si woh tsom snonac emoc otni .gnieb ehT elbuort htiw snonac si taht yeht ton ylnoe moceb
dewollah yb ,noitidart yeht osla ecrof.nneoitidart

[p. 4]

nI sti lanig i,reosnes eht aedi fo a non adcedulcni ton tsuj eht lacilb isbko odbevorppa sa a ecruoso eeyhnbtirt cfod
,hcruh Ctub osla eht tsil fo stni aessoh wsema ndluoc eb dekovni ni reyarp dna ot mohw a eerged f onoit odvleudoc eb
.detcerid erehT evah syawla neeb sretirw ohw evah thguos ot etaicossa sevlesmeht htiw a raluces nonac dna a raluces
tsopa olic succession as earnestly as the Christian Church hallowed its Scriptures and looked to its history in order to
yfitsuj sti deunitnoc .ecnetsixe recuahC saw suoixna ot evorp sih slaitnederc sa na evitavonni hsilgnE teopy b
appealing to ancient authority dna yb gniyalpsid sih egdelwonk fo nredom hcnerF dna nailatI .sretirw emoS 051 sraey
later, Spenser insisted not only that he had drunk deeply at the well of Italian poetry, but also that he was nourished
by a vernacular tradition that he dated back to Ch aucer. Milton, in his turn, claimed to be the heir to the ‘sage and
’suoires .resnepS nI eht htneetenin yrutnec hcus snoitacovni fo a noitidart erew detnemelppus yb a ecnerevery lno
marginally this side of idolatry. In the third book of The Prelude , Willia m htrowsdroW debircsed sih esnesf o
intimacy as a Cambridge undergraduate, with the spirits of Chaucer, Spenser, and Milton, and the dizzy ‘libations’
knurd ot eht yromem fo eht rebos notliM ni eht s’teop remrof egdol‘ dna .’yrotaro retaL ni efiltrowsdroW h insisted to
his nephew that he had always seen himself as standing in an apostolic line: ‘When I began to give myself up to the
noisseforp fo a teop rof ,efil I saw desserpmi htiw a ,noitcivnoc taht ereht erew ruof hsilgnE steop mohw I tsum evah
continua eyrlol fe emsbe lspamaxe - Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser and Milton.’ These four poets he claimed to have
yllacitametsys deiduts dna detpmetta ot lauqe‘ if I could ’. John Keats treasured an engraving of Shakespeare and
deicnaf taht eht draB saw a doog‘eG ’suin gnidiserp revo sih .krow eH desop ni tnorf fo eht eraepsekahS rof sih nwo
portrait, and, when composing, was apt to imagine ‘in what position Shakespeare sat when he began “To be or not to
.’”eb riS retlaW ttocS dah a tsac fo s’eraepsekahS droftartS monument placed in a niche in his library at Abbotsford
and hung an engraving of Thomas Stothard’s painting of Chaucer’s Canterbury Pilgrims over the fireplace in his
study. In 1844 Charles Dickens had a copy of the same engraving hung in the entrance hall at 1 Devonshire Terrace
and gilt - framed portraits of his friends, Carlyle and Tennyson, prominently displayed in his library. When he acquired
Gad’s Hill Place in Kent in 1856 he was so proud of its loose Shakespearian connection that he had a framed
insc ription proclaiming the fact placed in his hallway. Before the privations of his career as a Jesuit began, the
undergraduate Gerard Manley Hopkins asked for portraits of Tennyson, Shelley, Keats, Shakespeare, Milton, and
etnaD ot etaroced sih smoor taofxO rd. The grace of the literary tradition stretched even to the death - .deb ,nosynneT
ohw dah neeb gnidaerer s’eraepsekahS syalp ni sih tsal ,ssenlli saw deirub gnipsalc a ypoc fo Cymbeline dna denworc
htiw a htaerw fo lerual dekculp morf s’ligriV .bmot nevE in the anti - cioreh hteitnewt yrutnec siht gninraey ote b
associated with an established tradition seems not to have diminished. Amidst the plethora of his own images which
eess c ’uttnsdwoao eirahytr ahASwaenSa grLeretoBaerGoced

[p. 5]

erihsdroffatS yrettop erugif fo ;eraepsekahS dniheb atiVellivkcaS - West’s writing table in her sitting - room at
Sissinghurst hang portraits of the Brontë sisters and Virginia Woolf; according to one of his recent biographers, T. S.
toilE deriuqca a hpargotohp fo ’steoP Corner, with Dryden’s monument prominent in the foreground, soon after his
arrival in England.
nA ssenerawa fo eht ,ecnacifingis sa llew sa eht evitaroced ,eulav fo eht hsilgnE yraretil noitidart saw yb on snaem
confined to literary aspirants to that tradi .noit yB ehtdim - eighteenth century English porcelain manufacturers were
marketing paired statuettes of Shakespeare and Milton, designed to stand like household gods on refined middle - ssalc
yenmihc - .seceip ehT eraepsekahS saw delledom no eht srekameehcSts euta ni retsnimtseW ,yebbA eht notliM gnieb
nevig a ralimis flah nmuloc no hcihw ot tser a elip fo skoob dna sih tnagele tfel .woble esehT ,sledom htiw ,snoitairav
remained current until well into the Victorian era, being imitated in cheap Staffordshire po yrett hcus( sa smees retal
to have appealed to Shaw) and in more up - market biscuit and Parian ware. The phenomenal popularity of high -
quality Parian china in the mid - nineteenth century meant that there were at least 11 different versions of busts or
statue sett er afeops enkoahS elas ot a ss acm i.lsbr u emper orusretufhco Taiefrruaenvwa mosla emos 6tc nsiltesdiodm
elbaliava fo ,notliM 7 fo ,ttocS 6 fo ,snruB 5 fo ,noryB 4 fo ,snekciD 3 fo ,nosynneT dna eno hcae fo, naynuB
,nosnhoJ ,htrowsdroW ,yellehSworB ning, Thackeray, and Ruskin. The pairing of Shakespeare and Milton as
yenmihc - ornaments, in Parian china and in other cheaper materials, was reflected for Scots and Scotophiles by
parallel figures representing Scott and Burns. It is interesting to note, de spite political arguments to the contrary, how
easily a popular view of the literary tradition seems to have assimilated both establishment and anti - establishment
figures. Much as it balanced the ‘classical’ Milton against that ‘Gothic’ warbler of native w setondoo, dliw
,era eopssek at hisSme e eso stdi eoe tp v fpreaeoeerhhct at cnee dnauhptnaot s sacc)e eiiekewllmah(abuhtyusSopsrear
Milton. So too, it balanced the Tory Scott and the radical Burns. Although this decorative art may have sprung from a
hero - gnippihsrow ,eslupmi ti saw ylecracs .lanoitatnorfnoc ehT aedi fo gnissessop snoitatneserper fo suomaf sretirw
,ro( lli t,ssyadawon fo )sresopmo cyam evah ne edbetalumits yb a erised ot wohs ffo na noitarips a,ot ro n anoitisiuqca
,fo na ’etilé‘ ,erutlucb .e v moyoblraefvisu ldcexse o npy n omleesiirbea hesas patof ort nputniac
ehT erised ot etaromemmoc a enil fo tnempoleved dna ot yfingid niatrec evitatneserper sretirw ;did ,revewoh evah
a yltcnitsid ylnameltneg ,tnedecerp eno taht tnew htiw ehtoissessop n of a library, or rather with the luxury of a room
tes edisa rof skoob dna etavirp .yduts enO fo eht tsom elbakramer snoitcelloc fo hsilgnE yraretil stiartrop ot evivrus
outside the National Portrait Gallery is that assembled in the 1740s by the fourth Ea lr dfloeifre4t9s6e1h(C - 1773) and
won ni eht noissessop fo eht ytisrevinU fo nodnoL .yrarbi LdleifretsehC thguob serutcip morf eht selas fo owt reilrae
sro tsdcnneoalrltofacop

[p. 6]

literature - drawdE ,yelraH dnoces lraE fo drofxO dna selrahC,ugatnoM lraE foxafilaH - dna osla denoissimmoc wen
images of his own. The paintings were installed in the library of his grand house in Mayfair in 1750 with the portrait
fo eraepsekahS won( nidroftartS - upon - )novA ni edirp fo ecalp revo eht .eceipletnameifretsehC s’dl noitcelesf o
srohtua yam evah ylegral dedneped no tahw detniap segami erew elbaliava ot ,mih tub eht seires fo stiartropl lits
represents a sound guide to what his contemporaries would have regarded as the major figures in English writing up
to their nwo .yad trapA morf ,eraepsekahS eht noitcelloc dedulcni segami fo ,recuahC ,yendiS ,resnepS, nosnoJ
,mahneD ,roirP ,yelwo C,reltuB ,yawtO ,ne d,yyreDlrehc y,Wewo R,evergn o,Ctfiw S,nosiddA dna epoP eht( tsal owt
painted expressly for his library). Chester dle iofs ldae n s w ytdoolie wnameterucktsn arsootoatspim eb f onot leinMo(
is now believed to show Edmund Waller, the other the minor dramatist, William Cartwright). Chesterfield’s
lacinonac noitceles dluow ylbaborp ton edicnioc yltcaxe htiw a tsil nward pu ybyl laacissalc - minded modern scholar
foerp - eighteenth - yrutnec .erutaretil neviG sti noisulcxe fo tsom laveidem ,steop tsom nahtebazilE dnan aebocaJ
dramatists, and all the disciples of Donne, it would almost certainly clash with how most other twenti eth - yrutnec
. dyo r ifeoe romthyeastrp siaeh r sw eoeoedtt hoilisthvulrcoewdaer
ehT gniward pu fo snonac dna eht gnikam fo stsil si syawla a thguarf ,ssenisub eno denoitidnoc ton ylno yb etavirp
setsat dna tneisnart cilbup snoihsaf tub osla yb tahweccus sross era ylekil ot ees sa lartsecna .aipoym tuB ,neht eht
tneserp si syawla denilcni ot daer eht tsap yllacitpelorp sa a snaem fo gniyfitsuj sti nwo secidujerp dna .sesahpme ehT
late twentieth century has not proved able to liberate itself from an inherit ed inclination to catalogue, calibrate, and
,ezirogetac tel enola morf na yltnetsisni tsivissergorp weiv fo .yrotsih nehW nredom srehsilbup yllacidoirep ward pu
stsil fo eyht tn, e’twss Ttegh‘sB nsiruilooteYivro BNfo eht ne T ,‘t ’snserrBee dtroioMrWehw y lsdrreu psnabpaswen
tpmetta ot enimreted ohw evah neeb eht dnasuohT‘ srekaM fo eht hteitnewT ,’yrutneC yeht era ylnog niwollof
oduesp - scientific habits of mind formed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We are more conditioned by
naeanniLsmetsys fo thguoht naht ew netfo esoohc ot .ezingocer ehThtneetenin - century European habit of inscribing
famous names on public buildings, of placing busts in architectural niches, and of enhancing cornices with the statues
of the great is a case in point. The h tiba dewollof morf eht aedi taht sgnidliub dluoc eb read and it represented an
tpmetta ot yfirtep a ralucitrap weiv fo larutluc .yrotsih tI saw ylbaborp dellik ton yb a elaselohw noisiver fo larutluc
history but by a reaction against representation and sym cilob tra ni eht s0291 dna yb eht lautriv noitilobaf o
larutcetihcra erutplucs ni eht .s0591 fI eht seman fo flah nettogrof sresopmoc llits etaroced eht sedaçaf foarepo -
sesuoh dna eht sllaw fotrecnoc - halls throughout Europe, certain prominent British bui ldings also proclaim the
ecnacifingis fo ’lanoitan‘ .erutaretil ,nehW rof ,elpmaxe a layoR noissimmoC saw dehsilbatse ni 1481 ot eesrevo eht
y e,httnemai l srfeaos P uewefomehoHen thecvsitaroced

[p. 7]

denimreted taht eht stcejbus rof socserf rof ehti sroiretn dluohs eb nward ylevisulcxe morf hsitirB yrotsih dna morf eht
skrow fo eerht hsilgnE :steop ,resnepS ,eraepsekahS dna .notliM enoN fo eht sngised yllanigiro desoporp emaco t
,noitiurf ,hguoht ni eht ylrae ,s0581 a seires fo yraretil socserf sawxe detuce ni eht reppU gnitiaW ,llaH eht stcejbus
gnieb nekat morf eht skrow fo thgie :sretirw ,recuahC ,resnepS ,eraepsekahS ,notliM ,nedyrD ,epoP ,noryB dna .ttocS
sihT sserts no lanoitan yrteop ni a gnidliub ylbisnetso detacided ot eht sgnikrow foairotciV n ycarcomed si ton yllaer
surprising. Literature was seen not only as an identifiable achievement of the British nation, but also as an expression
of the unity and of the continuity of the institutions of that same nation (the inclusion of Scott amongst th ese thgie
steop ,saw ni ,trap na tnemegdelwonkca fo s’dnaltocS ecalp ni eht ;noinu na hsirI tnelaviuqe saw yltnedive tluciffid ot
find). Only three English writers, Chaucer, Shakespeare and Milton, appeared on the south front of the plinth of the
treblAeM ,lairom dehsinif ni ,7681 tub neht yeht dah ot eltsoj rof ecnenime ni eht tceles ynapmoc foytriht - six other
European poets and musicians. Where one might have expected international, or at least European reference, in the
demodgnidaeR - mooR fo ehthsitirB ,muesuM a tsil fo seman fo ylevisulc xhesitirB sretirw saw nesohc ni 7091 ot eb
debircsni ni eht ytpme slenap evoba eht .ecinroc gnivaH ,dedaf yeht erew detaretilbo ni .2591 ereH ni yraropmet tlig
splendour the names of Chaucer, Caxton, Tyndale, Spenser, ,eraepsekahS ,nocaB ,notliM ,ekcoL ,nosiddA, tfiwS
,epoP ,nobbiG ,htrowsdroW ,ttocS ,noryB ,elylraC ,yaluacaM ,nosynneT dna gninworB dewodahsrevo eht sruobal fo
the latter - yad sredaer dna srelbbircs .woleb ehT tcaf taht eht seman erew ton decalper si aruf ther illustration, if one
se sts eatfn . l p os,nauomlud omtelo eenrtaifdraott oeecfan eeweyhntrtneovc
Several distinguished modern commentators have argued that the most important attempt to fix a canon of English
literature was that made in the late ni htneeten yrutnec yb esoht ohw decudortni hsilgnE sa a ytisrevinu .tcejbus sA .D
.J ,remlaP sirhC ,kcidlaB yrreT ,notelgaE nairB ,elyoD reteP ,rekoorB dna reteP noswoddiW evah y lsuoirav
suggested, in England, at least, ‘English’ arrived belatedly and with a n ulterior motive. 1 ,sihT sa treboR drofwarC sah
yltnecer ,devresbo saw s’dnalgnE.ylamona 2 In Scotland, it seems things had been ordered differently, or at least
ordered so as to direct the attention of aspirant Scots to their proper place within a United Kingdom and a
substantially united literature. The tradition of teaching rhetoric and belles - lettres , dehsilbatse ta eht seitisrevinu fo
Edinburgh and Glasgow in the mid - eighteenth century, was

[p. 8]

dengised ot ecudortni stneduts ot eht desoppusnifer stneme fo eht scissalc dna ot eht roirepus seiticilef fon redom
English stylists as a means of weaning them away from narrowly provincial preoccupations. The teaching of English
began, therefore, with some clear ideological intent. In attempting to suppres s a certain ‘Scottishness’ this programme
remained distinctively Scottish by the very fact of its aim of shaping Scottish intellectuals in an enlightened European
mould. Contemporary Edinburgh was reconstructed as an Athens, and not a London, of the North.
The English language as used by British, and not exclusively English, stylists, was seen in Scotland as an
essentially unifying and progressivist force. When the teaching of English literature and history was introduced to the
isrev i wn eeUsfhneotgelloc yt fo nodnoL ni eht s0381 ti dah ayl thcsniittts oi.cdsS ahigbuohtl Aeht t srroisfsefor Pfo
English at both University and King’s College, the Reverend Thomas Dale, was a Cambridge graduate, the pattern of
lectures and undergraduate study that he devised erob a dekram ecnalbmeser ot eht sesruoc ni cirotehr ydaerla
established in Scotland. By the late 1850s, when the first part of the London BA examinations included an obligatory
paper in English language, literature, and history, the teaching of English ha e ml oalyas crllaseoe tabmwnnae ddive
ideological exercise. As the emphatically Christian Handbook of English Literature h d p5e ne6hyis8sbo1i Jlbup
Angus, MA DD, ‘Examiner in English Language, Literature and History to the University of London’, stress ,se
however, the grandly imperial idea of England and its culture had come to embrace all aspects of the written literature
of the island of Britain. English literature, Angus writes, was ‘the reflection of the national life, an exhibition of the
principle , g er oln ymootlienifhakrat waaeecpnse i :res ecsfapieoxor evgm doohsn rd ca eopeeirwtewhurowof
willing to hear’. ‘No nation’, he adds, somewhat chauvinistically, ‘could have originated it but in circumstances like
those of England, and no nation c na eviecer dna emoclew ti tgunoihctuidworp enri sti efil eht egami fo ruo ’.nwo
Although Angus warns his readers of the dangers of much modern prose fiction (‘ mentally , habitual novel reading is
evitcu rftose dl a;erruog id,vnyallar otmi ev isticurtosed f real kindness’), his book is generally thorough, broad -
minded, and wide - ranging. He deals with early literature, with poetry, drama, and prose from the mid - htneetruof ot
the mid - nineteenth century, and he includes subsections on historical, philosophical , theological and, somewhat more
warily, rationalist writing. His main fault lies in his largely unrelieved dullness, a dullness which very probably
devired morf sih dna sih s’ytisrevinu yltcirts lautcaf dna lacigolonorhc hcaorppa ot eht wen .tcejbussugnA s eonn ifed
restrictive canons, no patterns of saving literary grace, and no theories of literature. All he can do at the end of his
Handbook si ward eht emal snoisulcnoc taht yduts snedaorb eht ,dnim taht a s’tneduts elyts dluoc eb devorpmi htiw
ecnerefer to established models, that history has a tendency to repeat itself, and that literature ideally ought to be
‘studied under the guidance of Christian truth’.

[p. 9]

A more restrictive and prescriptive line of argument is evident in Thomas Arnold junior’ s Manual of English
Literature (1862, expanded and reprinted in 1868 as recuahC ot :htrowsdroW A trohS yrotsiH fo hsilgnE ,erutaretiL
From the Earliest Times to the Present Day ). Arnold (1823 - )0091 dah neeb detnioppa rosseforP fo hsilgnE erutaretiL
tamweN an’s Catholic University in Dublin in 1862; he later held the chair at its successor institution, University
,egelloC .nilbuD siH Manual seganam ot mialcorp htob eht yllarebil tsivissergorp seutriv detsisni no yb sihy lmrif
Protestant father and, to a less er degree, the Catholic sensibility that he himself had espoused (and which his
ytisrevinu .)deidobme ,sselehtreveN s’dlonrA yduts si htob ylevil dna .gnigagne eH sees nahtebazilE ,dnalgnE htiw sti
desopmi ,msitnatsetorP sa llits gniganam ot yojne a‘uoyoj s, sanguine, bustling time’; it was an age ‘in which the
tnemevom saw lla ,drawrof dna eht dloc edahs fo noitcaer dah ton sa tey .’deraeppa eH sdnif eht etalh tneethgie
,yrutnec yb ,tsartnoc a doirep fo mid‘ dna lamsid ,’thgiliwt a thgiliwt deveiler ylnob y the blazing lights of the

1 See D. J. Palmer, The Rise of English Studies ,kc i sd;i l)r,a5 hsB6yCs9te1irsPr edv ri:onnfUox dOnoL( The Social Mission of
English Criticism 1848 - 1932 ,note ly gr;ar)E e3,T8s 9sy1etriPsre vdir no:UfdxrOo fxO( Literary Theory: An Introductio n :drofx O(
, l;l) e3n w8a, k9ienc1rl oaByei loht,BDTn ’’efhvos nidIln garrneeEtk eo ,Podn rn oeBarsr ew u,toAt ’ed‘ardPdroniefaWtligLnE
in Robert Collis and Philip Dodd (eds.), Englishness, Politics and Culture 1880 - 1920 ,9)86 8,9m1 lmeoH o:rnCodn oL( -115 , 116 -
.36 eeS osla naI ,leahciM ehT gnihcaeT fo hsilgnE morf eht htneetxiS yrutneC ot0781 ,ystsies rrePegvd ii:nreUbgmdai CrbmaC(
1987).
2 ,dro ft wraerbCoR Devolving English Literature :dr onfoxdOn(er a,lsCserP.)2991
emergent Romantic poets, ‘young men full of hope and trust, and fresh untried vigour, whose hearts and imaginations
were most powerfully acted upon by the great moral and political eruption in France’. Although Arnold ends his
s urvey with these same poets, and although he warns in his Preface of the dangers of ‘confounding the perishable with
the enduring’ in judging all modern writing, he firmly believes in the future potential of both English literature and of
eht yduts folgnE ish literature. The last sentence of his Short History srefer yllacitehporp kcab ot ,drofxO sihn wo
Alma Mater: ‘A century hence, Englishmen will scarcely believe that England’s most ancient and important
ytisrevinu saw llits tuohtiw a riahc detoved oteht citametsys yduts fo eht lanoitan ,erutaretil ni eht raey foe carg
1868.’
fI eht ycnednet ot weiv hsilgnE erutaretil sa fi ti erew a lacirotsih noissergorp fo yhtrow srohtua denimreted eht
ytisrevinU fo nodnoL suballys litnu llew otni eht hteitnewtyrutnec , the ancient English universities, once they got
dnuor ot gnihsilbatse sriahc dna neht sesruoc fo ,yduts tlef degilbo ot ekam hsilgnE elbatpecca yb gniredner ti, yrd
demanding, and difficult. The problem began with the idea that English was a parvenu subj ty cldeeegtriau lso tlaicos
and intellectual upstarts (a category which it was assumed included women). In order to appear ‘respectable’ in the
company of gentlemanly disciplines such as classics and history, it had to require hard labour of its students. In the
ytisrevinU fo drofxO ni ,ralucitrap eht sixa fo tahw saw nekat ot eb eht deviecer ydob fo hsil genrEutaretil saw detfihs
yllacitsard .sdrawkcab ehT ralupop noitpecrep fo a esool ,nonac ekil ,s’dlonrA hcihw dehcterts morf recuahCo t
htrowsdroW ro(l reta ,)nosynneT saw deretnuoc yb a ,wen dna raf ssel ,yrartibra eciohc fo stxet htiw a tnanimod sserts
on the close study of Old and Middle English literature. Beyond this insistence on a grasp of the earliest written forms
of the English language, the Oxf dro suballys yllautriv denoogard sti stneduts otni a citametsys noitaredisnoc foa
seires fo latnemunom citeop ,stxet lla fo hcihw erew nettirw erofeb eht trats fo eht nairotciV .ega nI eht yadyeh fo eht
unreformed syllabus, in the 1940s, the undergraduate Philip Larkin was,

[p. 10]

according to his friend Kingsley Amis, driven to the kind of protest unbecoming to a future university librarian. Amis
sllacer gnikrow sih nwo yaw ylluftneser hguorht s’resnepS Faerie Queene ni na noitide denwo yb sih egelloc library.
At the foot of the last page he discovered an unsigned pencil note in Larkin’s hand which read: ‘First I thought
suliorT dna edyesirC saw eht tsom boring poem in English. Then I thought Beowulf was. Then I thought Paradise
wI o.Ns atwsoL wonk tha t The Faerie Queene is the dullest thing out. Blast it .’
tI saw ni noitcaer tsniaga sesuballys hcus sa esoht desived yb eht seitisrevinu fo nodnoL dna ,drofxO dna tsniaga
ehtllew - derb ssensuoucav fo eht tsrif gniK drawdE IIV rosseforP fo hsilgnErutaretiL e at Cambridge, Sir Arthur
Quiller - hcuoC3681( - 1944), that F. R. Leavis (1895 - 1978) defined his own ideas and his own canon. Although
Quiller - Couch had defended the study of English against charge of ‘easiness’ and against the narrow oppressions of a
stric t dna ralucitrap tces fo ,stsilaveidem sih dehsilbup serutcel tseggus eht tnetxe ot hcihw eh ylerem detic etiruovaf
books rather than interrogated or scrutinized them. Amid his classical tags and his elegant blandness he attempted to
reffo setadidnac roft eh wen hsilgnE eerged decudortni( ni )7191 a dnarg weivrevo fo eht ,tcejbus gnitseggus ta eno
point that students might ‘fasten on the great authors’ whom he lists in select little groups (Shakespeare; Chaucer and
;nosyrneH ,resnepS ,ewolraM ;ennoD ,nocaB ,notliM ,nedyrD ;epoP leumaS ,nosnhoJ ;ekruB ,egdireloC ,htrowsdroW
Keats, Byron, Shelley; Dickens, Browning, Carlyle). With the reform of the Cambridge English Tripos in 1926, and
with the appointment of Leavis as a probationary lecturer a year later, a f ra erom suorogir hcaorppa ot eht yduts fo
English began to emerge. In his own lectures, Leavis took a malicious delight in citing examples of what he
deredisnoc ’dab‘ ,yrteop detcartxe morfrelliuQ - Couch’s once standard anthology, The Oxford Book of Englis hesreV
(1900), expatiating on them as reflections of the anthologizer’s standards and taste.
Leavis’s influence was not, however, confined to Cambridge lecture halls or to his intense tutorial interaction with
his personal students. In 1932 he founded the journal Scrutiny sa a elcihev rof eht rediw noitanimessid fo sih saedi
and it was through Scrutiny taht eh dna sih selpicsid yllacitametsys derolpxe a seires fo evitacovorpl acitirc
stnemegduj desab no tahw eh demeed ot ebefil - enhancing principles. From siht larom ,sisab dehsilbatse yb sivaeL
dna sih devorppa ,srotubirtnoc ereht devlove a wen nonac fo sretirw ohw erew nees sa trap fo a noitidart tahts aw
‘alive in so far as it is alive to us’. Out went the non - critical, annalist, historical approach that de t sahiitvciaowesLsa
the Victorian critic, George Saintsbury (1845 - ;)3391 ni emac a yllacitam gdoednifed seires fo senil‘ fo .’tnempoleved
In Revaluation: Tradition and Development in English Poetry ,)6391 (devired morf syasse tsri fdehsilbup ni Scrutiny ,
eht ecneulfni fo .T .S s’toilE lacidar tsetorp tsniaga s’notliM elyts del sivaeL ot na evitanretla sserts no a enil‘ fo ’tiw
gnihcterts morf ennoD ot .llevraM yellehS oot saw ot eb degarapsid sa eno ohw dednah yrteop revo ot a‘ ytilibisnes
that has no mo re dealings with intelligence than it can help’. The Great Tradition

[p. 11]