Peter Leithart's Books on Literature

Daniel Ritchie · #1 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 08:07 PM

Is it worth reading Peter Leithart's books on Jane Austin, William Shakespeare, ancient and western literature etc.?

py3ak · #2 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 08:43 PM

I don't think so. I while back I got his book on Shakespeare out of the library, and these were my thoughts at the time.

Quote:

I read 2 of his “guides” --the guide to Henry V and to The Taming of the Shrew, since I am currently without my Shakespeare and those are the two he treats with which I have the greatest familiarity. It is not a wholly bad book, although there is not a lot of useful information. On the whole, my impression is that this sort of literary criticism comes about more than anything because people feel this odd urge to teach Shakespeare, instead of reading him; and the incessant demand for the production of rotten secondary literature in the form of essays creates a demand for bad secondary literature in the form of guides, etc. The great thing is that the little quotes from Shakespeare motivate one to read the plays again. But there was a rather grave methodological mistake exemplified in his discussion of The Taming of the Shrew, which, as it bears on other points as well, I would like to draw out a little more thoroughly.
On pp.225,226 we find this revealing statement: “We find in Scripture and history the same principle at work: First there is a reality, whether for good or ill, that exists only in word, and then the word remakes the world. First God justifies—pronounces righteous—the ungodly;then the ungodly are sanctified—made righteous. In the beginning, always, is the word; then the word becomes flesh and dwells among us.” I seize upon this statement, not for its doctrine, but for its method. Clearly the statement “the word was made flesh” does not relate to a word creating the reality spoken in it (note again: I am not denying his point, I am denying that his text makes it). Now I am quite confident that Leithart knows this, and is aware of the proper interpretation and primary referent of John 1:14. But if this is so, then it does show a certain willingness to make accomodatory uses of Scripture: to “bend” a text to one's purpose, knowingly. Now this same willingness to adapt Scripture is shown towards Shakespeare.
On pp.234,235 he has quoted Petruchio's speech from Act 4, Scene 1 where he explains how he intends to keep Katherina from sleep. There are three lines critical for this discussion:
Ay, and amid all this hurly I intend
That all is done in reverent care of her.
(...)
This is a way to kill a wife with kindness.
Petruchio is spelling out in this speech (as is obvious in the section that Leithart quotes) that he is going to pretend that his taking away Katherina's sleep is done to care for her –as he did with the meal and the clothing earlier. So kindness is defined by reverent care of her. Now on p.237 Leithart turns himself to this phrase and makes these comments:

Quote:

“Killing her with kindness” seems an odd way to describe Petruchio's treatment of Katherina. “Killing” sounds right, but “kindness”? This phrase, however, highlights two fundamental elements of the taming. First, Petruchio, as we have seen, will not be satisfied with a superficial transformation, with a change of clothing. He knows that if wild Katherina is to become a household Kate, the old Katherina must die to make room for a new creature. Depriving Katherina of food and sleep leads her through a kind of death and toward a renewing resurrection. The entire episode in Petruchio's home is like a descent into hell; Kate is forcibly separated from her family, forced to travel through freezing weather, deprived of comforts and basic necessities. As in Dante's Divine Comedy, the passage through hell is a necessary part of the journey toward Paradise. Second, however cruel Petruchio's antics, it is still true that he loves his bride. It would hardly be loving for Petruchio to permit Kate to continue in her original destructive and self-destructive course, a course that has isolated her from her father and sister and from the whole community of Padua. Making allowance, as we always must, for the comic, fairy tale, tone of the play, Petruchio's method is well described as “tough love,” as “severe mercy.”

Now here again, Leithart's comments are true enough: undoubtedly Katherina needs a profound transformation; undoubtedly also, mercy is sometimes severe and must be –but is not for that reason any less mercy. Yet again, Leithart's text will not support his doctrine. He adapts Shakespeare as freely as he did John; and in neither case was there an acknowledgment that his use of them, was in fact, an adaptation. Perhaps many things could be said in defense of adaptation: but adaptation ought not be confused with interpretation. In the case of the Gospel allusion it is inconceivable that a minister should not know that John does not teach what he illustrates by adapting the text: but it is our assumption and our knowledge about Leithart, rather than something in his text, that prevents us from concluding that he is not thus wildly misunderstanding the Gospel text, but rather accommodating it to his own purpose: in the case of the Shakespeare a similar confidence is not to be had: it is not an allusion, it is a discussion of that specific phrase: and so one can not rule out a misreading. But in any case, we must either conclude that Leithart misunderstood or that (to a target audience of high school students, no less –p. 21, who perhaps are not to be expected to pick up on these nuances, at least not without some hints) he accommodated Shakespeare in a misleading way, presenting an acontextually taken phrase in order to make a point. He is either wrong in his understanding of Shakespeare, or willing to twist Shakespeare's meaning for his own ends (though one would think that in a Christian guide to six Shakespeare plays that at least part of the purpose might be to promote the understanding of Shakespeare). Perhaps the kindest thing is to conclude that Leithart applies interpretive maximalism to Scripture and to Shakespeare; but even interpretive maximalism has certain limits imposed by context, nicht wahr? In any case, this willingness to adapt and accommodate (without indicating that this is being done; and speaking to an audience whom one might expect not to have a very high degree of sophistication) is not a reassurance that godly, stable interpretation can also be expected. The adapter may be a fine rhetorician and a persuasive speaker; but none of this means that he is a competent reader or interpreter.

In my view criticism has been going down a fruitless path, in that most criticism is agenda-driven. You see it very clearly in the case of homosexuals (dating at least from Wilde with his gaseous nonsense about Shakespeare's dark secret) attempting to claim all sorts of authors (even, absurdly, Katherine Mansfield). You can see it in the stupid psychoanalysis of Dickinson's "I started early, took my dog", or the people who will continue to insist that The Lord of the Rings is about World War II. But Christians are not free from these failings: with a pious or a polemical or perhaps merely a pretentious interest we too are guilty of imagining that an author says what we want him to say: and that is what is thought of as literary criticism. But although great authors do not object to us perceiving meanings and connections they may not have intended (C.S. Lewis and Stephen Donaldson have both made similar remarks), it is another thing to pretend that our imaginations are the author's deliverances. I think it is safe to say that most criticism now-a-days is more about the critic than about the author. You'd be better off with C.S. Lewis, with the Oxford History of English Literature, with George Orwell's essays on literature, or with Samuel Johnson.

See also Samuel Johnson, for a sober restraint on critical flights, and Coleridge for an explanation of why people can't help importing grotesque nonsense into what they read..

armourbearer · #3 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

See also Samuel Johnson, for a sober restraint on critical flights

Very good. Especially this:

Quote:

It is possible, says Hooker, that by long circumlocution, from any one truth all truths may be inferred. Of all homogeneous truths at least, of all truths respecting the same general end, in whatever series they may be produced, a concatenation by intermediate ideas may be formed, such as, when it is once shewn, shall appear natural; but if this order be reversed, another mode of connection equally specious may be found or made.

In other words, literary critics should,

Read what is written
and learn other's views;
Else you'll be smitten
By self-styled virtues.

Kevin · #4 (**permalink**) 06-09-2008, 11:33 PM

uhmm...I liked it...

Ducking now to avoid the rotten fruit being tossed my way...

Daniel Ritchie · #5 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

In other words, literary critics should,

Read what is written
and learn other's views;
Else you'll be smitten
By self-styled virtues.

Judging by Ruben's post, this is the problem with Peter Leithart's books; I still would like to read them though.

Ivanhoe · #6 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 08:06 AM

I am going to score a lot of heresy points for this, but I liked them.

Everyone bashes his Shakespeare book, but that is the weakest one. His one on Dante is good. A lot of people liked his Jane Austen one.

His one Deep Comedy is one of the best books I have ever read, hands down.

a mere housewife · #7 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 08:40 AM

I don't think Ruben's point is whether or not his literary criticism is good reading, but whether or not it is good literary criticism. The title of his work on Austen betrays that however good a book it may be, it is not going to be literary criticism. A critic evaluates something not for what applications they can make of it but for what it is. Leithart may make some great Christian applications and this may be a good way to redeem literature, but he fudges about what things really are. This is not the way to redeem the field of literary criticism.

a mere housewife · #8 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 09:18 AM

(just wanted to add that though it of course, isn't a matter of heresy as regards Jane Austen etc, not being intellectually careful enough to distinguish accommodations of a thing from the thing itself or approach it first and foremost for what it actually is has more consequences when it comes to Scripture and to theology. -another reason I'm not a fan of the method of interpretation that takes The Merchant of Venice as a fable about redemptive history.)

py3ak · #9 (**permalink**) 06-10-2008, 11:51 PM

Bad literary criticism isn't heresy; it doesn't promote good habits of thought, though. And bad literary criticism is a sort of plague, a creeping malaise obscuring the virtues and benefits of literature. Read The Discarded Image, or Serendipities: Language and Lunacy.

Ivanhoe · #10 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 08:12 AM

I said heresy points because I was promoting Leithart's book, a man who on this board has been called a heretic in the past.

Daniel Ritchie · #11 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 01:52 PM

I ordered his book Deep Comedy: Trinity, Tragedy & Hope in Western Literature from a UK bookseller today for very little money (along with Solomon Among the Postmoderns).

It's always best to go to the horses' mouth, though I will bear in mind the comments made here.

py3ak · #12 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 07:39 PM

Yes, I know. I think you'll collect more points for saying "heresy points" than for mentioning his name, though!

Daniel, does that mean you'll go directly to Jane Austen as well?

Daniel Ritchie · #13 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Yes, I know. I think you'll collect more points for saying "heresy points" than for mentioning his name, though!

Daniel, does that mean you'll go directly to Jane Austen as well?

I need to read more literature; this might provoke me to do more reading of that genre. I studied English Literature as part of a course to get me into University a few years ago (it was a course for over 21s), but have done little since.

py3ak · #14 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 07:44 PM

Well, if you are going to read criticism, I would think you'd want to read some of the substance being criticized as well. I am very thankful that the only literature courses I ever took were short, obviously stupid, and mostly dealt with books I had already read. If my first exposure to Hamlet had been in my paltry high school literature book, I really would be much poorer. You should read Lewis Carroll.

Davidius · #15 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 08:08 PM

It encourages me to see a Christian in academia working on literature. The only other I know of is Philip Ryken. As a Classics student, I thoroughly enjoyed Deep Comedy. It touched on some of my own research interests.

Daniel Ritchie · #16 (**permalink**) 06-11-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

It encouraged me to see a Christian in academia working on literature. The only other I know of is Philip Ryken.

What about Leland Ryken; haven't he and Phil done a literary study Bible? Have either of them written anything significant on literature from a Christian perspective outside of that?

Ivanhoe · #17 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 08:20 AM

Leithart's book on Dante--Ascent to Love is much better per literary criticism. The charges of Christianizing a text do not apply on this one. He is dealing with medieval liteature and it's okay to do that.

Davidius · #18 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

It encouraged me to see a Christian in academia working on literature. The only other I know of is Philip Ryken.

What about Leland Ryken; haven't he and Phil done a literary study Bible? Have either of them written anything significant on literature from a Christian perspective outside of that?

I think so, although maybe I was thinking of Leland. I searched for Philip Ryken on Amazon and found some books on art and culture, but nothing specifically on literature. I don't have time to search more thoroughly right now (honeymoon and all...we're getting ready to go to Disney's Animal Kingdom!), so let me know what you come up with.

Daniel Ritchie · #19 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davidius

It encouraged me to see a Christian in academia working on literature. The only other I know of is Philip Ryken.

What about Leland Ryken; haven't he and Phil done a literary study Bible? Have either of them written anything significant on literature from a Christian perspective outside of that?

I think so, although maybe I was thinking of Leland. I searched for Philip Ryken on Amazon and found some books on art and culture, but nothing specifically on literature. I don't have time to search more thoroughly right now (honeymoon and all...we're getting ready to go to Disney's Animal Kingdom!), so let me know what you come up with.

If you check out Leland Ryken's stuff on Amazon there seems to be a number of books on literature from a Christian persepective (with stuff on John Milton and CS Lewis, among others). Enjoy the film.

py3ak · #20 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 06:56 PM

Jacob, I haven't read Leithart on Dante: of making many books there is no end, and having read what should be enough of his stuff to reward me if it were going to profit me, I'm not highly motivated to try. But if a man sees redemptive history where is it not, is there any guarantee that he won't see other things where they are not? If redemptive history is his consuming passion, then maybe that is the only place where he projects. But I have to wonder: does he read Italian? Does he have an ear (for instance, could he figure out how to pronounce an unfamiliar and metrically ambiguous word by the demands of the meter?)? If not, how can he be competent to observe the effects that Dante produces and explain how they are produced?

Ivanhoe · #21 (**permalink**) 06-12-2008, 07:10 PM

I know he can read Latin. I dont know about Italian. I have emailed him a few times on other subj3cts, but the server was down. He doesn't read redemptive history into Dante. He knows too much of medieval theology/history to do that.