SIR,—As an undergraduate, I should like to protest against the
ill-considered abuse in the Leavis-Snow controversy.
The letters make no constructive suggestions, and they accuse Dr. Leavis's lecture of being barren— 'There is not a single' constructive thought in his lecture.' The truth is that the strictures arise because Snow, as representative of a force that commands attention and invites suspicion, has been measured against a positive ideal. It is not an ideal which has been vaguely apprehended and exists only in phan- tom insubstantiality, but an ideal clearly conceived, which Dr. Lcavis defines concretely in the climax of his lecture, and which he has himself realised. What can one do with critics who arrogantly confess their incomprehension and who wilfully persist in con- demning the lecture as obscure and sterile, but wave the lecture in their faces till they read it? Dr. Leavis's last paragraph but three could be quoted in full as an illustration of this proposition: Dr. Leavis moves clearly, calmly, fairly and logically from the diminu- tion of Snow through the relevant universal asser- tions and their justifications to a description of the specific alternative he offers.
Perhaps this letter will be dismissed by many as a proof of M. S. Deol's contention that undergradu- ates are 'notoriously susceptible to showmanship.' (We arc not susceptible to Lord Boothby.) But I am not claiming that Dr. Lcavis's words should be accepted as Revealed Criticisms. I am claiming that they deserve intelligent and serious consideration be- cause they represent profound thought formulated with care and precision. If the majority of your cor- respondents had really read the lecture, this sugges- tion would not need making. But, manifestly, it does need making.
Previous page
