The Just and Unjust
THE MAN OF LETTERS IN THE MODERN WORLD. By Allen Tate. (Thames and Hudson, 12s. 6d.) CRITICAL APPROACHES TO LITERATURE. By David Daiches. (Longmans, 25s.) THESE two books are at opposite ends of the critical spectrum. Dr. Daiches's is historical, systematic, academic; starting in effect with the Symposium and ending with The Cocktail. Party. On the whole Professor Tate claims attention first. These essays of his have been selected from a period of nearly thirty years, some have appeared in his earlier volumes, and a few ('Tension in Poetry,' for example), are likely to be familiar to readers of criticism. But still, it is an ambitious volume. If Dr. Daiches is serving as universal usher this time, and modestly wearing his gown, Professor Tate is reaching out, anyhow, for the prophet's mantle. The man of letters, in his view, is not in the modern world for his health.
And the world's health? Professor Tate's death-bed-side manner is a joy to undergo, and the most impressive thing in this book is undoubtedly the contact it offers with him at work as he wrote the pieces in it. It is a distinctive experience, this gruff, abrupt perspicacity, portentous, yet self-apologetic, yet massive, yet witty. 'How witty's ruin,' Donne wrote: Professor Tate's crackles, across his gloomy picture, bring it to mind. Above all, he is a perhaps unrivalled master of the rate at which to release an argument to the reader; he convinces him that he is rolling through all things toward some overwhelming answer. This is already to say much in Professor Tate's favour. Some- times, though, there is some splendid rolling, and no arriving. The doctor's manner was perfect, but he left an empty bottle. This is true in effect of 'Is Literary Criticism Possible?', in which the author disclaims knowledge of the nature of criticism and of literature too. Elsewhere, we have the mixture as before. Pound may have done more than any other modern writer `to regenerate the language'; but what was it? (Admittedly this is a short occasional piece : but still, it has been reprinted.) 'I feel that the pictorial technique has not been quite dramatic enough . .', Professor Tate says of Keats's 'Ode to a Nightingale.' But the question is, does this feeling deserve to be shared?—And Professor Tate does not say.
As a matter of fact, some of the ideas which underlie these essays are now wearing a little thin. One of these is that (wsthetics and history apart) criticism is simply 'analysis of literary language.' Another, perhaps, is that the imaginative writer's peculiar power lies just in complexity created through metaphor. A third certainly shows in the words 'there is literally no end to . . . dissociations, fragmenting of the western mind,' which Professor Tate writes just after he has shot down nine dissocia- tions in rapid firing. To be sure, Hart Crane will justify this account if any one will, and elsewhere in the book Professor Tate makes the most of him in what is easily the best of a number of essays on American authors. Critical Approaches to Literature comprises a detailed his- torical survey of some major discussion as to the nature of literature or poetry (the best part of the book, and particularly good on Dryden and Wordsworth); a more restricted examination of various critics discussing individual works; and finally several chapters on criticism in relation to psych- or other -ologies. Throughout the book the author groups his own argument around long extracts (of up to 5,000 words) from the original texts. Those who give university lectures on these matters will be glad when their own favourite snippets are in, and sorry when they are out : and their feelings will alternate rapidly. The book is clearly one for students, and within limits will serve them well. Two things define these limits. One is that Dr. Daiches's list of critics is a conventional one (Plato, Aristotle, Sidney, and so on). Perhaps he was right to omit the interesting less obvious writers like Daniel and Young and Hopkins and Fenellosa: though how he resisted the temptation I do not know. But why omit James, perhaps the most potent of the sires of modern criticism? —And why omit Yeats, whose memorable body of criticism is so mistakenly neglected? Besides this, though, Dr. Daiches is a little too sympathetic and obliging all round. He even speaks of the 'scientific rigour' of the argument in Richards's Principles. Some of the approaches that he throws into his perspective-glass for us have been merely silly or effete. He knows a blind alley when he sees one, that emerges all right; but he still takes his readers through all the hoops down it. This is a pity. The need from time to time is that rough justice should not only be done, but be seen to be done.
JOHN HOLLOWAY
Previous page
