The Personal Heresy: A Controversy

by C.S. Lewis, E.M.W. Tillyard

A repackaged edition of the revered author’s set of dueling critical essays with fellow scholar E. M. W. Tillyard in which they debate the role of an author’s biography in the critical appraisal of literature.

C. S. Lewis—the great British writer, scholar, lay theologian, broadcaster, Christian apologist, and bestselling author of Mere Christianity, The Screwtape Letters, The Great Divorce, The Chronicles of Narnia, and many other beloved classics—challenges fellow scholar E. M. W. Tillyard on one of the most intriguing questions involving writers and writing. Is a work of imaginative literature primarily influenced by the author or by the subject matter?

Lewis argues that the author’s own personality and biography has little to no impact on the writing, while Tillyard contends the opposite: that the author’s own imagination and story have an indelible influence on a piece of work. Clever, erudite, and enlightening, their debate may not definitively settle the issue, but it does offer invaluable insight and intellectual delight for all dedicated readers.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, Poetry, Literary Criticism, Writing, Literature

192 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1939

About the author

Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the Goodreads database with this name.

Clive Staples Lewis was one of the intellectual giants of the twentieth century and arguably one of the most influential writers of his day. He was a Fellow and Tutor in English Literature at Oxford University until 1954. He was unanimously elected to the Chair of Medieval and Renaissance Literature at Cambridge University, a position he held until his retirement. He wrote more than thirty books, allowing him to reach a vast audience, and his works continue to attract thousands of new readers every year. His most distinguished and popular accomplishments include Mere Christianity, Out of the Silent Planet, The Great Divorce, The Screwtape Letters, and the universally acknowledged classics The Chronicles of Narnia. To date, the Narnia books have sold over 100 million copies and been transformed into three major motion pictures.

Lewis was married to poet Joy Davidman.
W.H. Lewis was his elder brother]

Reviews

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this debate between C.S. Lewis and E.M.W. Tillyard, even when both of them were way over my head. I don't mind tagging obscure writers who are obscure because they are blowing smoke, but here you have the feeling that two brilliant scholars are talking about something three stories up. There were times when I felt like a frog starting at the Mona Lisa, and making heavy weather of it. But I enjoyed all of it.

[Brenton · Rating 4 out of 5]

An intriguing argument about literary theory from two literary critics in the 30s. A basic question: can we know the author through the poem we are reading? Pretty fun to read, and I find it hard to come to a particular conclusion on every point. Though I have read C.S. Lewis' opening chapter a few times, I've only read the whole book twice. Joel Heck has an introduction to the book: http://www.joelheck.com/resources/The.... And an outline: http://www.joelheck.com/powerpoint-ou....
I have come to 3 conclusions:
1. Lewis has contributed more to lit theory than commonly recognized.
2. I don't think he is fully right here, nor does he stay committed to this particular position. But in going through this process, he develops more clearly his basic approach.
3. Almost everyone who studies Lewis commits the Personal Heresy.

[Justin Wiggins · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book, which was published in 1939, was a challenging, entertaining and fascinating debate between Lewis and E.M.W.Tillyard about their views on how to interpret a work of literature. Reading this debate between these two brilliant scholars reminded me that a debate should not be a shouting match, but respectful, and fruitful.

[Sarah Calvis · Rating 5 out of 5]

So good! I think I am beginning to understand what poetry is a little bit!!

“In space and time there is no such thing as an organism, there are only animals and vegetables. There are no mere vegetables, only trees, flowers, turnips, &c. There are no ‘trees’ except beeches, elms, oaks, and the rest. There is even no such thing as ‘an elm’. There is only this elm, in such a year of its age at such an hour of the day, thus lighted, thus moving, thus acted on by all the past and all the present, and affording such and such experiences to me and my dog and the insect on its trunk and the man a thousand miles away who is remembering it. A real elm, in fact, can be uttered only by a poem. The sort of things we meet in poetry are the only sort we meet in life—things unique, individual, lovely, or hateful.”

[Bob · Rating 3 out of 5]

Summary: A discussion of whether the personality of the author should enter into the criticism of a work of poetry.

In 1934 C. S. Lewis published an article in Essays and Studies to defend this assertion:

In this paper I shall 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 article was written for anyone to take up. E. M. W. Tillyard published a response in the following year that led to two more rounds of responses between Lewis and Tillyard, resulting in this book in its present form.

In a nutshell, the controversy between the two men concerned whether, in poetry, we have access to the personality or mind of the poet in some degree (Tillyard) or whether poetry is about something in the world (Lewis). Lewis contends that in poetry, the poet is saying "look at that" and not "look at me."

Tillyard proposes that in a poet's work, we encounter a certain "fixed state of mind." What makes the reading of and reflection upon poetry worthwhile is contact with particularly perceptive minds, and that in literary criticism, to attempt to discern the character of the poet's mind, as well as what that mind perceives is a valuable part of the critic's contribution to understanding a work.

What both strenuously object to is "poetolatry," and particularly using the biography of the poet as some kind of critical shortcut to understanding a work of poetry, without doing the hard work of study and reflection upon the poem itself. The subsequent discussion then is a back and forth between Lewis, who thinks personality does not enter in any important way in the understanding of a poem, and Tillyard, who tries to find various arguments and approaches and examples to persuade Lewis, and the reader, otherwise.

It is of a piece with works like The Abolition of Man, in Lewis's defense of the objective against the incursions of relativism and subjectivism. While I find myself in agreement with Lewis, and particularly with the slipperiness of assertions about an author's personality, I also recognize that the style and perception of different writers does reflect something of their unique personalities. The problem, it seems is saying just what this is, and in this case, I think we are wiser to stick with Lewis's approach, because the work, and what the poet has said in it about something is really all we have. Anything else seems largely a speculative venture, at least in my own critically untrained opinion!

One of the delights in reading this is to see two scholars sharpening each other's thoughts in dialogue, while respecting the person with whom they are in disagreement. It also strikes me as characteristic of many academic dialogues I have observed--while ideas are sharpened and clarified, positions rarely change, at least within the frame of such a discussion. The ground of disagreement may diminish, the areas of common agreement are more clearly articulated, but usually some fundamental disagreement remains. Even if you do not understand all the terms of the argument, this is a glimpse of the academic world at its best, as these closing words of E. M. W. Tillyard suggest:

...Mr. Lewis is an admirable person to disagree with; and I incline to admire his arguments as much when they seem wrong as when they seem right. 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 armour after a parley, even if I cannot move my tent to the ground where his own is pitched.

Would that the university world, and our public discourse were marked more by this kind of spirit!

[Jenny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Two men debating through letters on the role of the poet/author in literary criticism. Very engaging, lovely, and thought-provoking. We could learn something about gracious disagreement from these two gentlemen.

[Crystal Hurd · Rating 5 out of 5]

This astute exchange about the "intrusion" of assumed biographical interpretion is a brilliant little read. Bruce Edwards's insightful and prodigious introduction is well worth the price of the book. HOLY COW, do I miss Bruce. 😟

Casual fans may find this a bit of a slog (I don't mean this condescendingly), but this is essentially a literary argument. It isn't as practical as the Signature Classics. STILL, if you wish to mine Lewis's genius, this--like all of his books--is a proper illustration of Lewis's intellectual prowess.

[Beau Stucki · Rating 5 out of 5]

If nothing else this book serves as an example of how thoroughly a rebuttal can incite deeper understanding - and how fortunate we are when a rebuttal is not the final word.

But this book has a lot else, its theme touches poetry and idolatry, life and literature, music and Muses. In addition to being very much about its niche subject, it also ends up being about very much else.



Note
Unless you've had a classical education, some of the references or the liberal sprinklings of Latin and Greek will not be fully understood, but this does little to obscure the thrust, or even the nuance, of the presented arguments - it should not discourage reading.

[Tommy Grooms · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Personal Heresy is a debate between C.S. Lewis and E.M.W. Tillyard over (to put it very simply) to what extent criticism should attempt to discern the personality of a writer, and to what extent a writer’s works reveal that personality. I felt like both authors were in substantial agreement on most points, and that the main difference in their argument is that Lewis was trying to (presciently) prevent abuses that result from “the personal heresy” while Tillyard was trying to defend a mode of criticism that could yield valuable insights. The arguments and examples used are fascinating and the respectful tone in which they are presented is admirable and worthy of emulation.

[Todd Miles · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I guess everyone has to have a least favorite CS Lewis book, and this one is it for me. The book is a collection of essays, written by Lewis and EMW Tillyard where they debate how much of the author is revealed in a work of literature. I thought it would be an interesting study in hermeneutics, but it just did not capture me. No doubt, the authors are both brilliant writers. All of the examples were from poetry. That might be the best literary genre from which to debate the topic, but I was not familiar enough with their examples.

[Cameron Barham]

“We must go to books for that which the book can give us - to be interested, delighted, or amused, to be made merry or to be made wise. But for the proper pleasure of personality, that is, for love, we mist go where it can be found - to our homes or our common rooms, to railway carriages and public houses, or even (for you see I am one of the vulgar) to the ‘land of lobelias and tennis flannels’.”, p. 82-3

[Jeremy]

See Lewis's Poems (p. viii in Hooper's preface) for more on the personal heresy.

[Noah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wish it had gone on longer. Really just makes
me want to read a whole book from Lewis on poetry
and story theory.

[Abigail · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed reading the first few essays, but I felt that the clear lines of argument got blurred in the latter essays so that I was left with a hazy idea of the significance of the controversy.

[Lynnette · Rating 4 out of 5]

After starting it on 3 different occasions, I finally finished it. this is not long or hard but heady and best read in one or two sittings to get the most out of it. I'm fairly certain I agree with Lewis, but that Tillyard's views have conquered our society as a whole. As a musician, I couldn't help but apply this to song lyrics and realized the personal heresy has captured pop musicians and listeners so that a song is not fully appreciate unless we know the authors intent and that we can know an artist purely based on their music. Overall, it was a very insightful read for me and probably one I will pick up again in a few years.

[Leandro Dutra · Rating 5 out of 5]

A probe into what is poetry, and thus art. Went over my head sometimes, not only because of cultural references I lack. Hope to read it again when I am better read.

[Jeffrey · Rating 2 out of 5]

I found two of the six essays in this exchange compelling, both of those written by C.S. Lewis. Those were the first and the fifth essays of the book. The first essay argues that the perception of personality in a poem is at least "twice removed from the essential poetic experience." The personality of the poet, if it can be detected, would be a result of unpoetic reflection rather than the imaginative apprehension that should more properly guide one's gaze as the reader allows himself to look with the poet's eyes to that which he points, not at him or his temperament.

That there could be "poetry without a poet" is an idea that we take for granted today. We don't talk or write about what Wordsworth says in his poem, we more often talk about what "the speaker" says. To compose poetry is to accomplish a dramatic act. But in 1934, when Lewis first published the first essay in this exchange, 'the speaker' was not yet conceived, let alone commonplace. In a superb personal essay originally published in the Hudson Review and later collected in Ron Koury's marvelous anthology Literary Awakenings, Clara Clairborne Park goes in search of the poem without a poet and finds its genesis in the criticism of William Empson, and especially Cleanth Brooks.

That Park passed by Lewis and his 1934 essay The Personal Heresy is curious. The argument here is for me clearly a forebear to the postmodern detachment we feel today when we read a poem. And I'm certain that were one to investigate the genetics of our contemporary speaker, at least one thread would duly lead back through, or even begin, with Lewis. For a critics not often considered a modern, so to speak, I find this rather interesting.

As for the fifth essay of this book, I find it most interesting for Lewis's use of the term "naturalism", which he says is a function of the critic seeking out 'natural' qualities in the poet, personality traits such as tenderness, enthusiasm, and sensibility. This search for the natural is part of a larger move in which Romantic critics in the early 19th century turned their attention from the poem ('What kind of composition is a poem?) to the poet ('What kind of man is a poet?). But such 'natural' qualities "are no more connected with literary composition than with many other activities" and so the displacement is a dead-end, says Lewis.

Naturalism used in this way is quite a bit different than the more commonly understood naturalist movement in French letters in the 1800s and in American letters from the beginning of the 1900s. It's curious that Lewis has chosen to borrow that term. One suspects that a bit of forensic analysis might somehow connect a distaste for the naturalism of the 30s, when he was writing and when naturalism was often allied with a godless communism or sociological criticism, and his own Christian apologetics. But that is not a question that could be answered from this brief series of essays alone. It might, however, be just reason enough to read A.N. Wilson's biography of Lewis.

I tend to agree with Lewis and in general I do not find Tillyard's essays convincing nor constructive. What I do enjoy from both, though, is the sense of decorum that governed their exchange. It feels like something out of a lost world, when the school men still took seriously the idea that dialogue, even contradictious, could advance understanding. It feels like such a far cry from our own ideas about what constitutes reasoned debate, so wrapped up are we in a culture of soundbites and social media. (C) Jeffrey L. Otto, October 10, 2021

[Liz Busby · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me a while to work through this because it's more difficult to find time to sit down and parse the book. Lewis's academic writing was a bit more difficult to parse through than his apologetics (and to be fair, this is at the beginning-ish of his career before he developed his characteristic readable style).

But once I got into the swing of things, I found the conversation via essay between Tillyard and Lewis riveting. I loved the congenial tone: as they try to tear each other's arguments, they make sure the reader knows that they are only arguing because they really respect the other person's writing. That conception of engagement as respect is missing from a lot of internet discourse today and we could use more of it.

As for the central argument about whether we can get to know an author through their work, I found value on both sides. I side heavily with Tillyard in believing that certain works could only have been produced by certain authors because their unique interests and thought process. Lewis really overstated the extent to which poetry (and other writing) draws on universal values versus individual experiences. I did appreciate that Tillyard acknowledges that biographical criticism is almost always the weakest kind of criticism and that it's better if we can engage written work directly rather than as an inevitable result of a person.

However, Lewis convinced me of the danger of "poetolatry," or the idoloization of the writer as a special human being with special sensitivities and innate talents. It makes it harder for us to teach writing by setting a high barrier to entry (much like the idea of "math people or not math people" does for math instruction) and it sets up an inability to question the work of admitted masters rather than forcing the writing to stand on its own.

[Michael Kelley · Rating 5 out of 5]

This debate is excellent. Yes, it is incredbily scholarly, and often both Lewis's and Tillyard's points went over my head, but it was still a joy to read, partly because of the genial attitude that both writers extended to the other. I probably lean more toward Lewis's view that a work of poetry ought to stand on its own irrespective of the author, but Tillyard made many good points, such as on page 97 in which Dr. Tillyard provides the great illustration: "Mr Lewis would have it that good sunset-gazing mainly concerns the sunset alone; I, on the other hand, distinguish between solitary gazing and gazing in company. In both acts there will be a heightened apprehension; and both will be good, but not in the same way." I really love this, but to advocate for Lewis, it must be noted that the sunset remains the same sunset whether it's done alone or in company. It is the experience that is subjective, not the subject-matter.

[Roy · Rating 4 out of 5]

As with many of C.S. Lewis's literary works, this book is an intense study in a theory of literature. Add to that the thinking of another notable (though less popular) scholar in E.M.W. Tillyard and the reader is challenged to think. It has been well documented that Lewis was both well read and had near-full recall of all that he had read. It appears that Tillyard had the same gift. The book includes many references to literature throughout centuries that today's reader will likely not understand. That said, the curteous nature of the debate between these two great minds is both a pleasure to read and a way to expand one's own thinking. People would do well to simply learn how to debate and still be kind -- this book provides an excellent example of how to disagree and remain agreeable.

[Jay Wright · Rating 2 out of 5]

The heresy of C. S. Lewis was that he believed you had no need to know the personality of the Poet to understand his poetry. The debate goes far afield and does not stay to the topic and it requires concentration because the two authors knowledge of the subject is immense. Why the low rating? It is the tempest in a teapot. It does not influence the "common reader" but it may be important to the "perfect reader." (Sorry I did not use the Greek, they do). I must agree somewhat with Lewis. I know when I like poetry and I know when I don't. I think Keats is a whiner and I like Wordsworth whom apparently is not in the first echelon. This is because I am a "common reader." (But I guess since I love Shakespeare, Eliot, and old works like the Aeneid, I have some redeeming qualities)

[Wes Young · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is a wonderful debate between two scholars on the importance of the author (his "person" and "personality") in the interpretation of his work. Very interesting. Much of it surely went over my head, and I imagine many general readers can relate, but I will offer this bit of encouragement in that arena: it's worth the whole book to get to Lewis's commentary on "Mr. A" and "Mr. B" in the fifth chapter. That particular illustration needs to be shouted from the rooftops till it reverberates through the whole land of literature--especially the regions of poetry.

[Sarah Abbey · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars
What I enjoyed most about this book was reading Lewis and Tillyard disagree and debate so graciously and respectfully. What a breath of fresh air! Their joint preface on why they decided to publish their disagreements states, "It has also seemed to us that a revival of the art of Controversy would now be a wholesome thing. A dangerous habit is growing up among critics of disagreeing without ever meeting face to face. "
This book should be required reading for politicians and all social media users on the art of kind and articulate disagreement.

[halina mae · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another book I read for Literary Criticism.

I think that the reason this book was such a struggle for me was because it was so dense. I understand why it is, but I think that, though reading these essays in their original form is beneficial, the amount of information and back and forth misunderstanding between the two as they argue distracts from the actual arguments they're making, and so it does detract from the actual writing. So a more concise compilation of the more important snippets of these essays would be a bit more understandable and comprehensible for the average reader.

[Melissa · Rating 4 out of 5]

I enjoy any from CS Lewis. This is fairly “intellectual”, so it may not be something everyone would enjoy reading. Even though it’s short, I read it over 3 days to really comprehend what they were debating. That being said, if you enjoy poetry and writing, there’s something for each of us to learn through this conversation.

[Mary Foxe · Rating 4 out of 5]

I, as many readers before, have come to the same conclusion to the argument of the importance of the individual poet's personality on a work: I don't know. It was enjoyable to see two minds have a discussion where they were clearly having fun together hashing out ideas, even if they didn't agree with each other.

[Lara Giesbers · Rating 3 out of 5]

The one idea that comes to mind while reading this book is the banter back and forth between "frenemies". It was very interesting to read this book, as it is set up as a debate back and forth. Here we get a taste of the level C.S. Lewis was on in the literary world. A serious student of poetry would benefit from reading this book.

[Collin · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is probably one of my favorite academic works by Lewis for the central reason that it is a genuine back and forth that gives one a rounded concept of the topic. Great stuff. Will definitely re-read this down the road.

[M. Stevens · Rating 5 out of 5]

Lewis, people. As always, brilliant. I love his point that not only is the artist's work an extension of himself, it is also an impartial view of the world.

[Jerry · Rating 3 out of 5]

Fun to read two gentlemen with superior minds sparring. I think I understood more than half of the material!