1

AFTERSTRANGEGODS

APRIMEROFMODERNHERESY

THEPAGEBARBOURLECTURESATTHEUNIVERSITYOFVIRGINIA1933

BYT.S.ELIOT ' .,' Oedipus Rex: 1. 460-462. To ALFRED and ADA SHEFFIELD Das Chaos in der 'Literatur', die mit vagen Grenzen zwar, aber immer noch deutlicher ein Gebiet fr sich ist; sie, die in gesunden Zeiten ein relativ reiner, geflliger Spiegel aller herschenden Dinge und Undinge ist, in kranken, chaotischen ein selber trber all der trben Dinge und Ideen, die es gibt, ist zur cloaca maxima geworden. Jegliche Unordnung im Humanen, im Menschen selber ich sprach von dem dreifachen Gesichtspunkt, unter dem sie betrachtet werden kann, dem Primat der Lust, dem Primat der Sentimentalitt, dem Primat der technischen Intelligenz - an Stelle der einzig wahren hierarchischen Ordnung, des Primates des Geistes und des Spiritualen - jegliche Unordnung findet ihr relativ klares oder meist selber noch neuerhch verzerrtes Bild in der Literatur dieser Tage. THEODOR HAECKER: Was ist der Mensch? p. 65.

2

PREFACELemondemoderneavilit.Italsoprovincialises,anditcanalsocorrupt.

The three lectureswhich followwere not undertaken as exercises in literary criticism. If the readerinsistsuponconsideringthemassuch,Ishouldliketoguardagainstmisunderstandingasfaraspossible.Thelecturesarenotdesignedtosetforth,eveninthemostsummaryform,myopinionsoftheworkofcontemporarywriters:theyareconcernedwithcertainideasinillustrationofwhichIhavedrawnupontheworkofsomeofthefewmodernwriterswhosework Iknow. Iamnotprimarilyconcernedeitherwiththeirabsolute importanceortheir importancerelativelytoeachother;andotherwriters,who inany literarysurveyofour timeought tobe included,areunmentionedorbarelymentioned,becausetheydonotprovidesuchfelicitousillustrationofmythesis,orbecausetheyarerareexceptionstoit,orbecauseIamunacquaintedwiththeirwork.IamsurethatthosewhomIhavediscussedareamongthebest;andformypurposethesecondratewereuseless.TheextenttowhichIhavecriticisedtheauthorswhosenamesfindplace,isaccordinglysomemeasureofmyrespectforthem.Idaresaythatadetachedcriticcouldfindanequallyrichveinoferrorinmyownwritings.Ifsucherroristhere,Iamprobablythelastpersontobeabletodetectit;butitspresenceanddiscoverywouldnotcondemnwhatIsayhere,anymorethanitsabsencewouldconfirmit.

There is no doubt some curiosity to knowwhat anywriter thinks of his contemporaries: a curiositywhichhas lesstodowith literarycriticismthanwith literarygossip.Ihopethatareaderwhotakesupthis essay in that expectation will be disappointed. I am uncertain of my ability to criticise mycontemporariesasartists;Iascendedtheplatformoftheselecturesonlyintheroleofmoralist.

Ihavenotattempted todisguise,but ratherhavebeenpleased to remind the reader, that thesearelectures; that they were composed for vocal communication to a particular audience. What theFoundation requires is that the lectures shal1 be published, not that a book shall subsequently bewritten on the same subject; and a lecture composed for the platform cannot be transformed intosomethingelse.Ishouldbegladifthereadercouldkeepthisinmindwhenhefindsthatsomeideasareputforwardwithoutafullaccountoftheirhistoryoroftheiractivities,andthatothersaresetdowninanabsolutewaywithoutqualifications.IamawarethatmyassertionoftheobsolescenceofBlasphemymightthusbesubjecttostricture:butifIhaddevelopedtherefinementsandlimitationswhichpresentthemselvestothemindoftheChristianenquirer,Ishouldhaveneededatleastthespaceofonewholelecture;andwhat IwasconcernedtodowasmerelytoexplainthatthechargeofblasphemywasnotoneofthosethatIwishedtopreferagainstmodernliterature.Itmaybesaidthatnoblasphemycanbepurelyverbal;and itmayalsobesaid thatthere isaprofoundermeaningof theterm 'blasphemy', inwhichsomemodernauthors(including,possibly,myself)maypossiblyhavebeengravelyguilty.

Insuchmatters,asperhapsineverything,Imustdependuponsomegoodwillonthepartofthereader.Idonotwishtopreachonlytotheconverted,butprimarilytothosewho,neverhavingappliedmoralprinciples to literaturequiteexplicitly perhapsevenhavingconscientiouslybelieved that theyoughtnottoapplytheminthiswayto'worksofart'arepossiblyconvertible.Iamnotarguingorreasoning,

3

orengagingincontroversywiththosewhoseviewsareradicallyopposedtosuchasmine.Inourtime,controversyseemstome,onreallyfundamentalmatters,tobefutile.Itcanonlyusefullybepractisedwherethereiscommonunderstanding.Itrequirescommonassumptions;andperhapstheassumptionsthat are only felt are more important than those that can be formulated. The acrimony whichaccompaniesmuchdebateisasymptomofdifferencessolargethatthereisnothingtoargueabout.Weexperiencesuchprofounddifferenceswithsomeofourcontemporaries,thatthenearestparallelisthedifferencebetween thementalityofoneepochandanother. Ina society likeours,wormeatenwithLiberalism,theonlythingpossibleforapersonwithstrongconvictions istostateapointofviewandleaveitatthat.

IwishtoexpressmythankstoProfessorWilburNelsonandthePageBarbourLectureshipCommittee;totheActingPresidentandthemembersoftheFacultyoftheUniversityofVirginiawhohelpedtomakemy visit to Virginia a very pleasantmemory; tomy hosts, Professor andMrs. Scott Buchanan; toProfessorBuchanan for conversationsand suggestionsoutofwhich these lecturesarose;and to theRevd.M.C.D'Arcy,S.J.,andMr.F.V.Morleyfortheircriticisms.Itisapleasuretometothinkthattheselectures were delivered at one of the older, smaller and most gracious of American educationalinstitutions,oneofthose inwhichsomevestigesofatraditionaleducationseemtosurvive.Perhaps Iammistaken:but ifnot, Ishouldwishthat Imightbeabletoencouragesuch institutionstomaintaintheircommunicationswiththepast,becauseinsodoingtheywillbemaintainingtheircommunicationswithanyfutureworthcommunicatingwith.

T.S.E.

London,January1934.

4

ISomeyearsago IwroteanessayentitledTraditionandthe IndividualTalent.Duringthecourseofthesubsequent fifteen years I have discovered, or had brought to my attention, some unsatisfactoryphrasingandatleastonemorethandoubtfulanalogy.ButIdonotrepudiatewhatIwroteinthatessayanymorefullythan Ishouldexpecttodoaftersucha lapseoftime.Theproblem,naturally,doesnotseemtomesosimpleasitseemedthen,norcouldItreatitnowasapurelyliteraryone.WhatIproposetoattemptinthesethreelecturesistooutlinethematterasInowconceiveit.

Itseemedtomeappropriatetotakethisoccasion,myfirstvisittoVirginia,formyreformulation.Youhavehere,Iimagine,atleastsomerecollectionofa'tradition',suchastheinfluxofforeignpopulationshasalmosteffacedinsomepartsoftheNorth,andsuchasneverestablisheditselfintheWest:thoughitishardlytobeexpectedthatatraditionhere,anymorethananywhereelse,shouldbefoundinhealthyand flourishinggrowth. Ihavebeenmuch interested,since thepublicationa fewyearsagoofabookcalled I'llTakeMyStand, inwhat issometimescalledtheagrarianmovement intheSouth,and I lookforwardtoanyfurtherstatementsbythesamegroupofwriters.

May I say thatmy first, and no doubt superficial, impressions of your country I speak as a NewEnglanderhavestrengthenedmyfeelingofsympathywiththoseauthors:noone,surely,cancrossthePotomacforthefirsttimewithoutbeingstruckbydifferencessogreatthattheirextinctioncouldonlymeanthedeathofbothcultures.Ihadpreviouslybeenledtowonder,intravellingfromBostontoNewYork,atwhatpointConnecticutceasestobeaNewEnglandstateand istransformed intoaNewYorksuburb;buttocrossintoVirginiaisasdefiniteanexperienceastocrossfromEnglandtoWales,almostasdefiniteastocrosstheEnglishChannel.Andthedifferenceshere,withnodifferenceoflanguageorrace to support them,havehad to survive the immensepressure towardsmonotonyexertedby theindustrialexpansionofthelatterpartofthenineteenthandthefirstpartofthetwentiethcentury.TheCivilWarwascertainly thegreatestdisaster in thewholeofAmericanhistory; it is justascertainlyadisasterfromwhichthecountryhasneverrecovered,andperhapsneverwill:wearealwaystooreadytoassumethatthegoodeffectsofwars,ifany,abidepermanentlywhiletheilleffectsareobliteratedbytime.Yet Ithinkthatthechancesforthereestablishmentofanativecultureareperhapsbetterherethan inNewEngland.YouarefartherawayfromNewYork;youhavebeen less industrialisedand lessinvadedbyforeignraces;andyouhaveamoreopulentsoil.

My local feelingswerestirredverysadlybymy firstviewofNewEngland,onarriving fromMontreal,and journeyingallonedaythroughthebeautifuldesolatecountryofVermont.Thosehillshadonce, Isuppose, been coveredwith primval forest; the forestwas razed tomake sheep pastures for theEnglishsettlers;nowthesheeparegone,andmostofthedescendantsofthesettlers;andanewforestappearedblazingwiththemelancholygloryofOctobermapleandbeechandbirchscatteredamongtheevergreens; and after this procession of scarlet and gold and purplewilderness you descend to thesordorofthehalfdeadmilltownsofsouthernNewHampshireandMassachusetts.Itisnotnecessarilythose landswhicharethemostfertileormostfavoured inclimatethatseemtomethehappiest,butthose inwhicha long struggleofadaptationbetweenmanandhisenvironmenthasbroughtout the

5

bestqualitiesofboth;inwhichthelandscapehasbeenmouldedbynumerousgenerationsofonerace,andinwhichthelandscapeinturnhasmodifiedtheracetoitsowncharacter.AndthoseNewEnglandmountainsseemedtometogiveevidenceofahumansuccesssomeagreandtransitoryastobemoredesperatethanthedesert.

I know verywell that the aim of the 'neoagrarians' in the Southwill be qualified as quixotic, as ahopeless stand foracausewhichwas lost longbefore theywereborn. Itwillbe said that thewholecurrentofeconomicdeterminism isagainst them,andeconomicdeterminism is todayagodbeforewhomwefalldownandworshipwithallkindsofmusic.Ibelievethatthesemattersmayultimatelybedeterminedbywhatpeoplewant;thatwhenanythingisgenerallyacceptedasdesirable,economiclawscanbeupset inordertoachieve it;that itdoesnotsomuchmatteratpresentwhetheranymeasuresputforwardarepractical,aswhethertheaimisagoodaim,andthealternativesintolerable.Thereare,atthepresentstage,moreseriousdifficultiesintherevivalorestablishmentofatraditionandawayoflife,whichrequireimmediateconsideration.

Traditionisnotsolely,orevenprimarily,themaintenanceofcertaindogmaticbeliefs;thesebeliefshavecometo taketheir living form inthecourseofthe formationofatradition.What Imeanbytraditioninvolvesall thosehabitualactions,habitsandcustoms, from themost significant religious rite toourconventionalwayofgreetingastranger,whichrepresentthebloodkinshipof'thesamepeoplelivinginthesameplace'.Itinvolvesagooddealwhichcanbecalledtaboo:thatthiswordisusedinourtimeinanexclusivelyderogatorysenseistomeacuriosityofsomesignificance.Webecomeconsciousoftheseitems,orconsciousoftheirimportance,usuallyonlyaftertheyhavebeguntofallintodesuetude,asweareawareof the leavesofa treewhen theautumnwindbegins toblow themoff when theyhaveseparatelyceasedtobevital.Energymaybewastedatthatpoint inafranticendeavourtocollecttheleavesastheyfallandgumthemontothebranches:butthesoundtreewillputforthnewleaves,andthe dry tree should be put to the axe.We are always in danger, in clinging to an old tradition, orattemptingtoreestablishone,ofconfusingthevitalandtheunessential,therealandthesentimental.Ourseconddangeristoassociatetraditionwiththeimmovable;tothinkofitassomethinghostiletoallchange; to aim to return to some previous conditionwhichwe imagine as having been capable ofpreservation inperpetuity, insteadofaimingtostimulatethe lifewhichproducedthatcondition in itstime.

Itisnotofadvantagetoustoindulgeasentimentalattitudetowardsthepast.Foronething,ineventheverybest livingtraditionthere isalwaysamixtureofgoodandbad,andmuchthatdeservescriticism;and for another, tradition is not amatter of feeling alone.Nor canwe safely,without very criticalexamination,digourselves instubbornlytoafewdogmaticnotions,forwhat isahealthybeliefatonetimemay,unless it isoneof the few fundamental things,be aperniciousprejudice at another.Norshouldweclingtotraditionsasawayofassertingoursuperiorityoverlessfavouredpeoples.Whatwecando is touseourminds, remembering thata traditionwithout intelligence isnotworthhaving, todiscoverwhatisthebestlifeforusnotasapoliticalabstraction,butasaparticularpeopleinaparticularplace;whatinthepastisworthpreservingandwhatshouldberejected;andwhatconditions,withinourpowertobringabout,wouldfosterthesocietythatwedesire.Stabilityisobviouslynecessary.Youarehardlylikelytodeveloptraditionexceptwherethebulkofthepopulationisrelativelysowelloffwhere

6

itisthatithasnoincentiveorpressuretomoveabout.Thepopulationshouldbehomogeneous;wheretwoormoreculturesexistinthesameplacetheyarelikelyeithertobefiercelyselfconsciousorbothtobecomeadulterate.1What isstillmore important isunityofreligiousbackground;andreasonsofraceand religion combine tomakeany largenumberof freethinking Jewsundesirable.]Theremustbeaproper balance between urban and rural, industrial and agricultural development. And a spirit ofexcessive tolerance is to be deprecated.Wemust also remember that in spite of everymeans oftransportthatcanbedevisedthe localcommunitymustalwaysbethemostpermanent,andthattheconceptofthenationisbynomeansfixedandinvariable.2Itis,sotospeak,onlyonefluctuatingcircleofloyaltiesbetween the centreof the family and the local community, and theperipheryofhumanityentire.Itsstrengthanditsgeographicalsizedependuponthecomprehensivenessofawayoflifewhichcan harmonise partswith distinct local characters of their own.When it becomes nomore than acentralisedmachinery itmayaffectsomeof itspartstotheirdetriment,ortowhattheybelievetobetheirdetriment;andwegettheregionalmovementswhichhaveappearedwithinrecentyears.Itisonlya law of nature, that local patriotism, when it represents a distinct tradition and culture, takesprecedenceoveramoreabstractnationalpatriotism.ThisremarkshouldcarrymoreweightforbeingutteredbyaYankee.

SofarIhaveonlypronouncedafewdoctrinesallofwhichhavebeendevelopedbyotherwriters.3Idonot intend to trespassupon their fields. Iwished simply to indicate the connotationwhich the termtraditionhasforme,beforeproceedingtoassociate itwiththeconceptoforthodoxy,whichseemstomemorefundamental(withitsopposite,heterodoxy,forwhichIshallalsousethetermheresy)thanthepairclassicismromanticismwhichisfrequentlyused.

Asweusethetermtraditiontoincludeagooddealmorethan'traditionalreligiousbeliefs',soIamheregivingthetermorthodoxyasimilarinclusiveness;andthoughofcourseIbelievethatarighttraditionforusmustbealsoaChristiantradition,andthatorthodoxyingeneralimpliesChristianorthodoxy,Idonotproposetoleadthepresentseriesoflecturestoatheologicalconclusion.Therelationbetweentraditionandorthodoxy inthepast isevidentenough;as isalsothegreatdifferencetheremaybebetweenanorthodoxChristianandamemberoftheToryParty.ButConservatism,sofaras ithaseverexisted,sofarasithaseverbeenintelligent,andnotmerelyoneofthenamesforhandtomouthpartypolitics,has

1Orelseyoumaygetacastesystem,basedonoriginaldistinctionsofrace,as in India:which isaverydifferentmatter fromclasses,whichpresupposehomogeneityof raceanda fundamentalequality.But socialclasses,asdistinctfromeconomicclasses,hardlyexisttoday.2ToplacetheredemptiveworkoftheChristianFaithinsocialaffairsinitspropersetting,itisnecessarytohaveclearly inmind at the outset that the consciousness of "the nation" as the social unit is a very recent andcontingentexperience. Itbelongstoa limitedhistoricalperiodand isboundupwithcertainspecifichappenings,theoriesofsocietyandattitudestolifeasawhole.V.A.Demant,God,ManandSociety,p.146.3Ishouldnotliketoholdanyoneofthemresponsibleformyopinions,however,orforanythatthereadermayfind irritating. I have inmindMr. Chesterton and his 'distributism',Mr. Christopher Dawson (The Making ofEurope),Mr.DemantandMr.M.B.Reckittandtheircolleagues.IhavealsoinmindtheviewsofMr.AllenTateandhisfriendsasevincedinI'llTakeMyStand,andthoseofseveralScottishnationalists.

7

beenassociatedwiththedefenceoftradition,ideallyifnotofteninfact.Ontheotherhand,therewascertainly,ahundredyearsago,a relationbetween theLiberalismwhichattacked theChurchand theLiberalismwhichappeared inpolitics.Accordingtoacontemporary,WilliamPalmer,theformergroupofLiberals

'wereeagertoeliminatefromthePrayerbookthebelief intheScriptures,theCreeds,theAtonement,theworshipofChrist.TheycalledfortheadmissionofUnitarianinfidelsasfellowbelievers.Theywouldeviscerate the Prayerbook, reduce the Articles to a deistic formulary, abolish all subscriptions oradhesionstoformularies,andreducereligiontoastateofanarchyanddissolution.Thesenotionswerewidelyspread.Theywereadvocatedinnumberlesspublications,andgreedilyreceivedbyademocratic,thoughtlesspublic. . . .Christianity,as ithadexisted foreighteencenturies,wasunrepresented in thisturmoil.'4

It iswell to remember that this sort of Liberalismwas flourishing a century ago; it is alsowell torememberthatitisflourishingstill.NotmanymonthsagoIreadanarticlebyaneminentliberaldivinefromwhichIhavepreservedthefollowingsentence:

'Wenowhaveathandanapparatuswhich,thoughnotyetabletodiscoverreality,isfullycompetenttoidentifyandtoeliminatethedisproportionatemassoferrorwhichhasfoundlodgmentinourcreedsandcodes.Thefactualuntruthandthefallaciousinferencearebeingsteadilyeliminatedfromthehereditarybodyofreligiousfaithandmoralpractice.'

And, inordernot to limitmy instances to theology, Iwillquote from another contemporary Liberalpractitioner,aliterarycriticthistime:

'Aidedbypsychoanalysis,whichgavethemnewweapons,manyofthepoetsanddramatistsofourdayhave dug into themost perverse of human complexes, exposing themwith the scalpel of a surgeonratherthanthatofaphilosopher.'

At this point Imay dowell to anticipate a possiblemisunderstanding. In applying the standard oforthodoxy to contemporary literaturemy emphasiswill be upon its collective rather than its staticmeaning.Asuperficialapprehensionofthetermmightsuggest theassumptionthateverythingworthsayinghasbeensaid,andthatthepossibleformsofexpressionhaveallbeendiscoveredanddeveloped;the assumption that novelty of form and of substance was always to be deprecated. What isobjectionable,fromthepointofviewwhichIhaveadopted,isnotnoveltyororiginalityinthemselves,but their glorification for their own sake. The artist's concern with originality, certainly, may beconsideredas largelynegative:hewishesonlytoavoidsayingwhathasalreadybeensaidaswellas itcanbe.ButIamnothereoccupiedwiththestandards,idealsandruleswhichtheartistorwritershouldsetbeforehimself,butwith theway inwhichhiswork shouldbe takenby the reader;notwith theaberrationsofwriters,butwiththoseofreadersandcritics.Toassertthataworkis'original'shouldbevery modest praise: it should be no more than to say that the work is not patently negligible.Contemporaryliteraturemayconvenientlybedividedasfollows.Thereisfirstthatwhichattemptstodo

4QuotedinNorthernCatholicism,p.9.

8

what has already been done perfectly, and it is to this superfluous kind of writing that the word'traditional'iscommonlyapplied:misapplied,fortheworditselfimpliesamovement.Traditioncannotmeanstandingstill.Ofcourse,nowritereveradmitstohimselfthathehasnooriginality;butthefactthatawritercanbesatisfiedtousetheexactidiomofapredecessorisverysuspicious;youcannotwritesatire inthe lineofPopeorthestanzaofByron.Thesecondkindofcontemporarywritingaimsatanexaggerated novelty, anoveltyusually of a trifling kind,which conceals from the uncritical reader afundamentalcommonplaceness.Ifyouexaminetheworksofanygreatinnovatorinchronologicalorder,youmayexpecttofindthattheauthorhasbeendrivenon,stepbystep,inhisinnovations,byaninnernecessity, and that the novelty of form has rather been forced upon him by his material thandeliberatelysought.It iswellalsotorememberthatwhatanyonewritercancontribute inthewayof'originality'isverysmallindeed,andhasoftenapitifullysmallrelationtothemassofhiswritings.

Asforthesmallnumberofwriters,inthisoranyotherperiod,whoareworthtakingseriously,Iamveryfarfromassertingthatanyoftheseiswholly'orthodox'oreventhatitwouldberelevanttorankthemaccordingtodegreesoforthodoxy. It isnotfair,foronething,to judgethe individualbywhatcanbeactual only in society as awhole; andmost of us are heretical in oneway or another. Nor is theresponsibilitysolelywiththeindividual.Furthermore,theessentialofanyimportantheresyisnotsimplythat it iswrong: it is that it ispartly right. It is characteristicof themore interestingheretics, in thecontextinwhichIusetheterm,thattheyhaveanexceptionallyacuteperception,orprofoundinsight,ofsomepartofthetruth;aninsightmoreimportantoftenthantheinferencesofthosewhoareawareofmorebut lessacutely awareofanything. So farasweareable to redress thebalance,effect thecompensation,ourselves,wemayfindsuchauthorsofthegreatestvalue.Ifwevaluethemastheyvaluethemselvesweshallgoastray.Andinthepresentstateofaffairs,withthelowdegreeofeducationtobeexpectedofpublicandofreviewers,wearemorelikelytogowrongthanright;wemustremembertoo,thatanheresyisapttohaveaseductivesimplicity,tomakeadirectandpersuasiveappealtointellectandemotions,andtobealtogethermoreplausiblethanthetruth.

Itwillalreadyhavebeenobservedthatmycontrastofheresyandorthodoxyhassomeanalogytothemore usual one of romanticism and classicism; and I wish to emphasise this analogymyself, as asafeguardagainstcarrying ittoofar.Iwouldwish inanycasetomakethepointthatromanticismandclassicismarenotmatterswithwhichcreativewriterscanafford tobotherovermuch,orwithwhichtheydo,asarule,inpracticegreatlyconcernthemselves.Itistruethatfromtimetotimewritershavelabelledthemselves'romanticists'or'classicists',justastheyhavefromtimetotimebandedthemselvestogetherunderothernames.Thesenameswhichgroupsofwritersandartistsgivethemselvesarethedelightofprofessorsandhistoriansofliterature,butshouldnotbetakenveryseriously;theirchiefvalueis temporary and political that, simply, of helping tomake the authors known to a contemporarypublic;andIdoubtwhetheranypoethaseverdonehimselfanythingbutharmbyattemptingtowriteasa 'romantic'orasa 'classicist'.Nosensibleauthor, inthemidstofsomethingthathe istryingtowrite,can stop to considerwhether it is going to be romantic or the opposite.At themomentwhen onewrites,one iswhatone is,and thedamageofa lifetime,andofhavingbeenborn intoanunsettledsociety,cannotberepairedatthemomentofcomposition.

9

Thedangerofusing terms like 'romantic'and 'classic' thisdoesnothowevergiveuspermission toavoid themaltogether doesnotspringsomuch from theconfusioncausedby thosewhouse thesetermsabouttheirownwork,asfrominevitableshiftsofmeaningincontext.Wedonotmeanquitethesame thingwhenwe speakofawriteras romantic,aswedowhenwe speakofa literaryperiodasromantic.Furthermore,wemayhaveinmind,onanyparticularoccasion,certainvirtuesorvicesmoreorlessjustlyassociatedwithonetermortheother,anditisdoubtfulwhetherthereisanytotalsumofvirtues or of vices which may be arrogated to either class. The opportunities for systematicmisunderstanding,andforfutilecontroversy,areaccordinglyalmostideal;anddiscussionofthesubjectisgenerallyconductedbyexcitementofpassionandprejudice,ratherthanbyreason.Finallyandthisisthemost important point the differences represented by these two terms are not such as can beconfinedtoapurelyliterarycontext.Inusingthem,youareultimatelybringinginallhumanvalues,andaccordingtoyourownschemeofvaluation.Athoroughgoingclassicistislikelytobeathoroughgoingindividualist, like the late IrvingBabbitt;so thatoneshouldbeonguard, inusingsuch terms,againstbeingthoroughgoing.

Whenwepresssuchatermtoanexactnesswhichitwillnotbear,confusionsareboundtooccur.Such,forinstance,istheassociationsometimesmadebetweenclassicismandCatholicism.Itispossibleforaman to adhere to both; but he should not be under the delusion that the connexion is necessarilyobjective:itmayspringfromsomeunitywithinhimself,butthatunity,asitisinhim,maynotbevalidfortherestoftheworld.Andyoucannottreatonthesamefootingthemaintenanceofreligiousandliteraryprinciples.Ihavesaidthatyoucannotrestricttheterms'romantic'and'classical',asprofessorsofliteratureconvenientlydo,totheliterarycontext;butontheotherhandyoucannotwhollyfreethemfromthatcontexteither.There issurelysomethingwrongwhenacriticdividesallworksofartneatlyintoonegroupandtheotherandthenplumpsfortheromanticortheclassicalasawhole.Whicheveryou like intheory, it issuspicious ifyoupreferworksaltogetherofoneclass inpractice:probablyyouhaveeithermadethetermsmerelynamesforwhatyouadmireandforwhatyoudislike,oryouhaveforcedandfalsifiedyourtastes.5Hereagainistheerrorofbeingtoothoroughgoing.

Imayaswelladmitatthispointthat inthisdiscussionoftermsIhavemyown logtoroll.Someyearsago,intheprefacetoasmallvolumeofessays,Imadeasortofsummarydeclarationoffaithinmattersreligious,politicaland literary.The facilitywithwhich this statementhasbeenquotedhashelped torevealtomethatasitstandsthestatementisinjudicious.Itmaysuggestthatthethreesubjectsareofequal importance tome,which isnot so; itmay suggest that I accept all threebeliefson the samegrounds,which isnotso;and itmaysuggestthatIbelievethattheyallhangtogetherorfalltogether,whichwouldbethemostseriousmisunderstandingofall.ThatthereareconnexionsformeIofcourseadmit,butthese illuminatemyownmindratherthantheexternalworld;andInowseethedangerofsuggesting tooutsiders that theFaith isapoliticalprincipleora literary fashion,and thesumofalladramaticposture.

FromanotheraspectalsoIhaveapersonalinterestintheclearingupoftheuseofthetermswithwhichIhavebeen I concerned.My friendDr.PaulElmerMore isnot the first critic to callattention toan

5Forinstance:twoofmyownfavouriteauthorsareSirThomasMaloryandRacine.

10

apparentincoherencebetweenmyverseandmycriticalprosethoughheisthefirstwhoseperplexityon this accounthas causedme anydistress. Itwould appear thatwhile Imaintain themost correctopinionsinmycriticism,Idonothingbutviolatetheminmyverse;andthusappearinadouble,ifnotdoublefaced role. I feelno shame in thismatter. Iamnotof course interestedby those criticswhopraisemycriticisminordertodiscreditmyverse,orthosewhopraisemyverseinordertodiscreditmyopinionsinreligiousorsocialaffairs;Iamonlyinterestedinansweringthosecriticswho,likeDr.More,havepaidmethecomplimentdeservedornotdoesnotherematterofexpressingsomeapprovalofboth.Ishouldsaythatinone'sprosereflexionsonemaybelegitimatelyoccupiedwithideals,whereasinthewritingofverseonecanonlydealwithactuality.Why,Iwouldask,ismostreligiousversesobad;andwhydoesso littlereligiousversereachthehighest levelsofpoetry?Largely, Ithink,becauseofapious insincerity.Thecapacity forwritingpoetry israre;thecapacity forreligiousemotionofthe firstintensity is rare;and it is tobeexpected that theexistenceofbothcapacities in the same individualshouldberarerstill.Peoplewhowritedevotionalverseareusuallywritingastheywanttofeel,ratherthanastheydofeel.Likewise,inanagelikethepresent,itcouldonlybepoetryoftheverygreatestrankthatcouldbegenuinelywhatDr.Morewouldbeobligedtocall'classical';poetsoflowerabilitythatisallbutsuchashalfadozenperhaps in theworld'shistory couldonlybe 'classical'bybeingpseudoclassical;bybeingunfaithfulanddishonesttotheirexperience.Itshouldhardlybenecessarytoaddthatthe'classical'isjustasunpredictableastheromantic,andthatmostofuswouldnotrecogniseaclassicalwriterifheappeared,soqueerandhorrifyinghewouldseemeventothosewhoclamourforhim.

Iholdinsummingupthatatraditionisratherawayoffeelingandactingwhichcharacterisesagroupthroughout generations; and that itmust largely be, or thatmany of the elements in itmust be,unconscious;whereasthemaintenanceoforthodoxy isamatterwhichcalls fortheexerciseofallourconscious intelligence. The two will therefore considerably complement each other. Not only is itpossible to conceive of a tradition being definitely bad; a good tradition might, in changingcircumstances,becomeoutofdate.Traditionhasnot themeans to criticise itself; itmayperpetuatemuch that is trivial or of transient significance as well as what is vital and permanent. And whiletradition, being amatter of good habits, is necessarily real only in a social group, orthodoxy existswhetherrealisedinanyone'sthoughtornot.Orthodoxyalso,ofcourserepresentsaconsensusbetweenthelivingandthedead:butawholegenerationmightconceivablypasswithoutanyorthodoxthought;or, as by Athanasius, orthodoxymay be upheld by oneman against the world. Traditionmay beconceivedasabyproductof right living,not tobeaimedatdirectly. It isof theblood, so to speak,ratherthanofthebrain:itisthemeansbywhichthevitalityofthepastenrichesthelifeofthepresent.Inthecooperationofboth isthereconciliationofthoughtandfeeling.Theconceptsofromanticandclassicarebothmore limited inscopeand lessdefinite inmeaning.Accordinglytheydonotcarrywiththem the implicationofabsolutevaluewhich thosewhohavedefendedoneagainst theotherwouldgivethem:itisonlyinparticularcontextsthattheycanbecontrastedinthisway,andtherearealwaysvaluesmore importantthananythateitherofthesetermscanadequatelyrepresent. Ipropose inmysecondlecturetoillustratethesegeneralreflexionsbysomeapplicationtomodernEnglishliterature.

11

IIIhopethatitisquiteclear,bothforthesakeofwhatIhavesaidalreadyandforthesakeofwhatIhavestilltosay,thatthesenseinwhichIamusingthetermstraditionandorthodoxyistobekeptdistinctlyinmindasnotidenticalwiththeuseofthesametermsintheology.Thedifferenceiswidestwiththetermtradition,for Ihavewishedtousethewordtocovermuch inour livesthat isaccountedforbyhabit,breedingandenvironment. Ishouldnotontheotherhand liketohave itsupposedthatmymeaningswerearbitrarilychosen.ThattheybeararelationtothemoreexactmeaningsIhavenowishtoconceal:iftheydidnot,mydiscussionofthesematterswouldloseallsignificance.Butthetwotermshavebeensofrequentlyandsosubtlyexpoundedbymorephilosophicalwriters,thatIwouldguardagainstbeingthought toemploy, ina looseand inexpertmanner, termswhichhavealreadybeen fullyandsharplydefined.Withtheterms intheirtheologicaluse Ishallpresumenoacquaintance;and Iappealonlytoyourcommonsense:or,ifthatwordsoundstoocommon,toyourwisdomandexperienceoflife.Thatanacceptanceof thevalidityof the two termsas Iuse themshould leadone todogmatic theology, Inaturallybelieve;but Iamnothereconcernedwithpursuing investigation in thatpath.Myenquiriestake'theoppositedirection:letusconsiderthedenialorneglectoftraditioninmymundanesense,andseewhatthatleadsto.

Thegeneraleffect in literatureof the lackofanystrong tradition is twofold:extreme individualism inviews, and no accepted rules or opinions as to the limitations of the literary job. I have spokenelsewhere6of poetry as a substitute for religion, and of kinds of criticismwhich assumed that thefunctionofpoetrywastoreplacereligion.Thetworesultsarenaturallyconcomitant.Whenoneman's'viewoflife'isasgoodasanother's,allthemoreenterprisingspiritswillnaturallyevolvetheirown;andwhere there isnocustom todeterminewhat the taskof literature is,everywriterwilldetermine forhimself,andthemoreenterprisingwillrangeasfarafieldaspossible.ButatthispointIshoulddeveloponedistinctionbetweentheusualsenseof 'orthodoxy'andthat inwhich it ishereused.Idonottakeorthodoxytomeanthatthereisanarrowpathlaiddownforeverywritertofollow.Eveninthestricterdiscipline of the Church,we hardly expect every theologian to succeed in being orthodox in everyparticular, for it isnota sumof theologians,but theChurch itself, inwhichorthodoxy resides. Inmysenseoftheterm,perfectorthodoxyintheindividualartistisnotalwaysnecessary,orevendesirable.Inmany instances it ispossible thatan indulgenceofeccentricities is the conditionof theman's sayinganythingatall.Itisimpossibletoseparatethe'poetry'inParadiseLostfromthepeculiardoctrinesthatitenshrines;itmeansverylittletoassertthatifMiltonhadheldmorenormaldoctrineshewouldhavewrittenabetterpoem;asaworkof literature,wetake itaswefind it:butwecancertainlyenjoythepoetryandyetbefullyawareoftheintellectualandmoralaberrationsoftheauthor.Itistruethattheexistenceofarighttradition,simplybyitsinfluenceupontheenvironmentinwhichthepoetdevelops,will tend torestricteccentricity tomanageable limits:but it isnotevenby the lackof thisrestraininginfluencethattheabsenceoftraditionismostdeplorable.

6InTheUseofPoetry.

12

What isdisastrous is that thewritershoulddeliberatelygiverein tohis 'individuality*, thatheshouldevencultivatehisdifferencesfromothers;andthathisreadersshouldcherishtheauthorofgenius,notinspiteofhisdeviationsfromtheinheritedwisdomoftherace,butbecauseofthem.

What happens is not, to be sure, always justwhat the author intends. It is fatally easy, under theconditions of themodernworld, for awriter of genius to conceive of himself as aMessiah.Otherwriters, indeed,mayhavehadprofound insightsbeforehim;butwereadilybelievethateverything isrelativetoitsperiodofsociety,andthattheseinsightshavenowlosttheirvalidity;anewgenerationisanewworld,so there isalwaysachance, ifnotofdeliveringawhollynewgospel,ofdeliveringoneasgoodasnew.Orthemessiahshipmaytaketheformofrevealingforthefirsttimethegospelofsomedeadsage,whichnoonehasunderstoodbefore;whichowingtothebackwardandconfusedstateofmen'smindshaslainunknowntothisverymoment;oritmayevengobacktothelostAtlantisandtheineffablewisdomofprimitivepeoples.Awriterwhoisfiredwithsuchaconvictionislikelytohavesomedevoted disciples; but for posterity he is liable to become,what hewill be for themajority of hiscontemporaries,merely one amongmany entertainers.And the pity is that themanmay have hadsomethingtosayofthegreatestimportance:buttoannounce,asyourowndiscovery,sometruthlongknowntomankind,istosecureimmediateattentionatthepriceofultimateneglect.

Thegeneraleffectupon readers mostof themquiteuneducated isquitedifferent fromwhat theseriousmessiahintends.Inthefirstplace,nomodernmessiahcanlastformorethanageneration;itistacitlyassumedthattheleadersofthepreviousgenerationareasuselessasthesoldierswhodiedinthefirstyearofahundredyearswar(andalas,theymostlyare);thosewhoenjoythenormalspanof lifemay be sure of surviving their popularity. Secondly, as the public is not very well qualified fordiscriminatingbetweennostrums,itcomestoenjoysamplingall,andtakingnoneseriously.Andfinally,inaworld thathasasnearly lostallunderstandingof themeaningofeducationas itwellcan,manypeople act upon the assumption that themere accumulation of 'experiences', including literary andintellectualexperiences,aswellasamorousandpicaresqueones,isliketheaccumulationofmoneyvaluable in itself.So thata seriouswritermay sweatbloodoverhiswork,andbeappreciatedas theexponentofstillonemore'pointofview'.

Itistoomuchtoexpectanyliteraryartistatthepresenttimetobeamodeloforthodoxy.That,asIhavesaid,issomethingtodemandonlyinaspiritofindulgentcriticismatanytime:itisnottobedemandednow.Itisaverydifferentthingtobeaclassicalauthorinaclassicalage,andtomaintainclassicalidealsinaromanticage.Furthermore,IaskthesamecompassionformyselfthatIwouldhaveyouextendtoothers.Whatwecantrytodo istodevelopamorecriticalspirit,orrathertoapplytoauthorscriticalstandardswhicharealmostindesuetude.OfthecontemporaryauthorswhomIshallmention,Icannotrecallhavingseenanycriticisminwhichthesestandardshavebeenemployed.

Perhapsitwillmaketheforegoingconsiderationsappearmorereal,andexoneratemefromthechargeofdealingonly inabstractions,offeringonlyakindofunredeemablepapercurrency, ifat thispoint Igivetestimonyintheformofthreecontemporaryshortstories,allofverygreatmerit.ItwasalmostbyaccidentthatIhappenedtoreadallofthesestoriesinrapidsuccessionduringthecourseofsomerecentworkatHarvard.OneisBlissbyKatherineMansfield;thesecondisTheShadowintheRoseGardenbyD.

13

H.Lawrence,andthethirdTheDeadbyJamesJoyce.7Theyareall,Ibelieve,fairlyyouthfulwork;andallturnonthesamethemeofdisillusion.InMissMansfield'sstoryawifeisdisillusionedaboutherrelationswith her husband; in the others a husband is disillusioned about his relations with his wife.MissMansfield'sstoryitisoneofherbestknownisbrief,poignantandinthebestsense,slight;Mr.Joyce'sisofconsiderablelength.Whatisinterestinginthethreetogetheristhedifferencesofmoralimplication.InBliss,Ishouldsay,themoralimplicationisnegligible:thecentreofinterestisthewife'sfeeling,firstofecstatic happiness, and then at the moment of revelation. We are given neither comment norsuggestionofanymoral issueofgoodandevil,andwithin the setting this isquite right.The story islimitedtothissuddenchangeoffeeling,andthemoralandsocialramificationsareoutsideofthetermsofreference.Asthematerialislimitedinthiswayandindeedoursatisfactionrecognisestheskillwithwhich the authorhashandledperfectly theminimummaterial it iswhat Ibelievewouldbe calledfeminine.InthestoryofLawrencethereisagreatdealmorethanthat;heisconcernedwiththefeelingsofbothhusbandandwife;andas the tempo ismuch slower (no storyofany considerable structurecouldmoveas rapidlyasMissMansfield'sdoes) there is time for thoughtaswellas feeling,and forcalculatedaction.Anaccident, trifling in itself,but important in the twistwhichLawrencegives to it,leadsorforcesthewifetorevealtohercommonplace lowermiddleclasshusband (nowriter ismoreconsciousofclassdistinctionsthanLawrence)thefactsofherintriguewithanarmyofficerseveralyearsbefore theirmarriage. The disclosure ismadewith something nearly approaching conscious cruelty.Thereiscruelty,too,inthecircumstancesinwhichshehadmetherformerlover:

'"And I saw him today," she said. "He is not dead, he'smad."Her husband looked at her, startled."Mad!"hesaidinvoluntarily."Alunatic,"shesaid.'

Of thisalarmingstrainofcruelty insomemodern literature Ishallhavesomethingmore tosay later.What Iwishchieflytonoticeatthispoint, iswhatstrikesme inalloftherelationsofLawrence'smenandwomen:theabsenceofanymoralorsocialsense.Itisnotthattheauthor,inthat

Olympian elevation and superior indifference attributed to great artists, and which I can onlyimperfectlyunderstand,hasdetachedhimselffromanymoralattitudetowardshischaracters;itisthatthecharactersthemselves,whoaresupposedtoberecognisablyhumanbeings,betraynorespectfor,orevenawarenessof,moralobligations,andseemtobeunfurnishedwitheventhemostcommonplacekindof conscience. InMr. Joyce's story,which isverymuch longerandwhich incidentallyemploysamuchmoreelaborateandinterestingmethod,thewifeissaddenedbymemoriesassociatedwithasongsung at an evening partywhich has just been described inminute detail. In response to solicitousquestionsbyherhusband,sherevealsthefactthatthesonghadbeensungbyaboysheknewinGalwaywhenshewasagirl,andthatbetweenthemwasanintenseromanticandspiritualisedlove.Shehadhadto go away; the boy had risen from a sick bed to come to say goodbye to her; and he had inconsequencedied.Thatisalltherewastoit;butthehusbandrealisesthatwhatthisboyhadgivenherwassomethingfinerthananythinghehadtogive.Andasthewifefallsasleepatlast:

7FromvolumesentitledBliss,ThePrussianOfficer,andDublinersrespectively.

14

'GeneroustearsfilledGabriel'seyes.Hehadneverfeltlikethathimselftowardsanywoman,butheknewthatsuchafeelingmustbelove.Thetearsgatheredmorethicklyinhiseyesandinthepartialdarknessheimaginedhesawtheformofayoungmanstandingunderadrippingtree.Otherformswerenear.Hissoulhadapproachedthatregionwheredwellthevasthostsofthedead.'

Itisimpossibletoproducethefullvalueofevidencesuchasthiswithoutreadingthestoriesentire;butsomethingofwhat Ihave inmind shouldnowbeapparent.Wearenotconcernedwith theauthors'beliefs,butwithorthodoxyofsensibilityandwiththesenseoftradition,ourdegreeofapproaching'thatregionwheredwell thevasthostsof thedead'.And Lawrence is formypurposes,analmostperfectexampleoftheheretic.AndthemostethicallyorthodoxofthemoreeminentwritersofmytimeisMr.Joyce.IconfessthatIdonotknowwhattomakeofagenerationwhichignorestheseconsiderations.

ItrustthatIshallnotbetakenasspeakinginaspiritofbigotrywhenIassertthatthechiefcluetotheunderstanding of most contemporary AngloSaxon literature is to be found in the decay ofProtestantism. IamnotconcernedwithProtestantism itself:andtodiscussthatweshouldhavetogobacktotheseventeenthcentury.ImeanthatamongstwriterstherejectionofChristianityProtestantChristianity is therulerather than theexception;and that individualwriterscanbeunderstoodandclassifiedaccordingtothetypeofProtestantismwhichsurroundedtheir infancy,andtheprecisestateofdecaywhich ithad reached. I should include those authorswhowere reared in an 'advanced'oragnostic atmosphere, because even agnosticism Protestant agnosticism has decayed in the last twogenerations.Itisthisbackground,Ibelieve,thatmakesmuchofourwritingseemprovincialandcrudeinthe major intellectual centres of Europe everywhere except northern Germany and perhapsScandinavia; it is thiswhich contributes the prevailing flavour of immaturity.Onemight expect theunlovelierformsofthisdeclinetobemoredeeplymarkeduponAmericanauthorsthanuponEnglish,butthere isnoreasontogeneralise:nothingcouldbemuchdrearier(sofarasonecanjudgefromhisown account) than the vague hymnsinging pietismwhich seems to have consoled themiseries ofLawrence'smother,andwhichdoesnotseemtohaveprovidedherwithanyfirmprinciplesbywhichtoscrutinisetheconductofhersons.But lestIbesupposedtobeconcernedprimarilywiththedecayofmorals (and especially sexualmorals) Iwillmention thenameofone forwhosememory Ihave thehighestrespectandadmiration:thatofthelateIrvingBabbitt.

It is significant to observe thatBabbittwas saturatedwith French culture; in his thought and in hisintercoursehewasthoroughlycosmopolitan.Hebelieved intradition;formanyyearshestoodalmostalone inmaintaining against the strong tendency of the time a right theory of education; and sucheffectsofdecadenceasaremanifest inLawrence'sworkheheld inabomination.Andyettomymindtheverywidthofhisculture,his intelligenteclecticism,are themselvessymptomsofanarrownessoftradition, intheirextremereactionagainstthatnarrowness.HisattitudetowardsChristianityseemstomethatofamanwhohadhadnoemotionalacquaintancewithanybutsomedebasedandunculturedform: I judge entirely on his public pronouncements and not at all on any information about hisupbringing.Itwouldbeexaggerationtosaythatheworehiscosmopolitanismlikeamanwhohadlosthiscompletbourgeoisandhadtogoaboutinfancydress.Butheseemedtobetryingtocompensateforthe lackof livingtraditionbyaherculean,butpurely intellectualand individualeffort.Hisaddictiontothe philosophy of Confucius is evidence: the popularity of Confucius among our contemporaries is

15

significant. Justas Idonot seehowanyone canexpect really tounderstandKantandHegelwithoutknowingtheGermanlanguageandwithoutsuchanunderstandingoftheGermanmindascanonlybeacquired in the society of living Germans, so a fortiori I do not see how anyone can understandConfuciuswithoutsomeknowledgeofChineseanda longfrequentationofthebestChinesesociety. Ihavethehighestrespect fortheChinesemindand forChinesecivilisation;and IamwillingtobelievethatChinesecivilisationat itshighesthasgracesandexcellenceswhichmaymakeEuropeseemcrude.ButIdonotbelievethatI,forone,couldevercometounderstanditwellenoughtomakeConfuciusamainstay.

Iamledtothisconclusionpartlybyananalogousexperience.TwoyearsspentinthestudyofSanskritunderCharlesLanman,andayearinthemazesofPatanjali'smetaphysicsundertheguidanceofJamesWoods,leftmeinastateofenlightenedmystification.AgoodhalfoftheeffortofunderstandingwhattheIndianphilosopherswereafterandtheirsubtletiesmakemostofthegreatEuropeanphilosopherslook like schoolboys lay in trying toerase frommymindall the categoriesand kindsofdistinctioncommontoEuropeanphilosophyfromthetimeoftheGreeks.MypreviousandconcomitantstudyofEuropeanphilosophywashardlybetterthananobstacle.AndIcametotheconclusionseeingalsothatthe 'influence' of Brahmin and Buddhist thought upon Europe, as in Schopenhauer, Hartmann, andDeussen,hadlargelybeenthroughromanticmisunderstandingthatmyonlyhopeofreallypenetratingtotheheartofthatmysterywouldlieinforgettinghowtothinkandfeelasanAmericanoraEuropean:which,forpracticalaswellassentimentalreasons,Ididnotwishtodo.AndIshould imaginethatthesamechoicewouldholdgoodforChinesethought:thoughIbelievethattheChinesemindisverymuchnearertotheAngloSaxonthan isthe Indian.China is orwasuntilthemissionaries initiatedher intoWesternthought,andsoblazedapathforJohnDeweyacountryoftradition;Confuciuswasnotborninto a vacuum; and a network of rites and customs, even if regarded by philosophers in a spirit ofbenignant scepticism,make aworldofdifference.ButConfuciushasbecome thephilosopherof therebellious Protestant. And I cannot but feel that in some respects Irving Babbitt, with the noblestintentions,hasmerelymademattersworseinsteadofbetter.

ThenameofIrvingBabbittinstantlysuggeststhatofEzraPound(hispeerincosmopolitanism)andthatof I. A. Richards: it would seem that Confucius is the spiritual adviser of the highly educated andfastidious,incontrasttothedarkgodsofMexico.Mr.PoundpresentstheclosestcounterparttoIrvingBabbitt.Extremelyquickwitted and very learned,he is attracted to theMiddleAges, apparently,byeverything except thatwhich gives them their significance.Hispowerful andnarrowpostProtestantprejudice peeps out from themost unexpected places: one can hardly read the erudite notes andcommentary to his edition of Guido Cavalcantiwithout suspecting that he finds GuidomuchmoresympatheticthanDante,andongroundswhichhave littletodowiththeirrespectivemeritsaspoets:namely,thatGuidpwasvery likelyaheretic, ifnotascepticasevidencedpartlybyhispossiblyhavingheldsomepneumaticphilosophyandtheoryofcorpuscularactionwhichIamunabletounderstand.Mr.Pound,likeBabbitt,isanindividualist,andstillmorealibertarian.

Mr.Pound'stheologicaltwistappearsbothinhispoetryandhisprose;butasthereareothervigorousprosewriters,andasMr.Poundisprobablythemostimportantlivingpoetinourlanguage,areferencetohispoetrywillcarrymoreweight.AtthispointIshallventuretogeneralise,andsuggestthatwiththe

16

disappearanceoftheideaofOriginalSin,withthedisappearanceoftheideaofintensemoralstruggle,thehumanbeingspresentedtousbothinpoetryandinprosefictiontoday,andmorepatentlyamongtheseriouswritersthan intheunderworldof letters,tendtobecome lessand lessreal. It is infact inmoments of moral and spiritual struggle depending upon spiritual sanctions, rather than in those'bewilderingminutes'inwhichweareallverymuchalike,thatmenandwomencomenearesttobeingreal.Ifyoudoawaywiththisstruggle,andmaintainthatbytolerance,benevolence,inoffensivenessandaredistributionor increaseofpurchasingpower,combinedwithadevotion,onthepartofanlite,toArt,theworldwillbeasgoodasanyonecouldrequire,thenyoumustexpecthumanbeingstobecomemoreandmorevaporous.ThisisexactlywhatwefindofthesocietywhichMr.PoundputsinHell,inhisDraftofXXXCantos. It consists (Imayhaveoverlookedoneor two species)ofpoliticians,profiteers,financiers, newspaper proprietors and their hiredmen, agents provocateurs, Calvin, St. Clement ofAlexandria,theEnglish,vicecrusaders,liars,thestupid,pedants,preachers,thosewhodonotbelieveinSocialCredit,bishops, ladygolfers,Fabians,conservativesand imperialists;andall 'thosewhohavesetmoneylust before the pleasures of the senses'. It is, in itsway, an admirableHell, 'without dignity,withouttragedy'.Atfirstsightthevarietyoftypesforthesearetypes,andnotindividualsmaybealittleconfusing;but I think itbecomes a littlemore intelligible ifwe see atwork threeprinciples, (1) theaesthetic,(2)thehumanitarian,(3)theProtestant.AndIfindoneconsiderableobjectiontoaHellofthissort: that a Hell altogether without dignity implies a Heaven without dignity also. If you do notdistinguishbetweenindividualresponsibilityandcircumstancesinHell,betweenessentialEvilandsocialaccidents,thentheHeaven(ifany)impliedwillbeequallytrivialandaccidental.Mr.Pound'sHell,forallitshorrors, isaperfectlycomfortableone for themodernmind tocontemplate,anddisturbing tonoone'scomplacency:itisaHellfortheotherpeople,thepeoplewereadaboutinthenewspapers,notforoneselfandone'sfriends.8

Anequallyinterestingexampleofthemodernmindisthatoftheotherimportantpoetofourtime,Mr.WilliamButlerYeats.Fewpoetshavetoldusmoreaboutthemselvesmore,Imean,ofwhatisrelevantandofwhatweareentitledtoknowthanMr.Yeats inhis 'Autobiographies',adocumentofgreatandpermanentinterest.Mr.Yeatshadstillgreaterdifficultiestocontendwith,Ishouldsay,thanMr.Pound.Hewasbornof IrishProtestant stock, andwasbroughtup in London; Irelandwas forhis childhoodrather a holiday country, towhich his sentiment attached itself; his father adhered tomidcenturyRationalism,butotherwisethehouseholdatmospherewasPreRaphaelite.InTheTremblingoftheVeilhesayssignificantly:

'Iwasunlikeothersofmygenerationinonethingonly.Iamveryreligious,anddeprivedbyHuxleyandTyndall,whom Idetested,of the simpleminded religionofmy childhood, Ihadmadeanew religion,almostaninfalliblechurchofpoetictradition,ofafardelofstories,andofpersonages,andofemotions,inseparablefromtheirfirstexpression,passedonfromgenerationtogenerationbypoetsandpainterswithsomehelpfromphilosophersandtheologians.'

Thus, inYeatsat theageofsixteen (orat least,as inretrospectheseems tohimself tohavebeenatsixteen) isoperativethedoctrineofArnold,thatPoetrycanreplaceReligion,andalsothetendencyto

8ConsultTimeandWesternManbyWyndhamLewis.

17

fabricateanindividualreligion.Therationalisticbackground,thePreRaphaeliteimagery,theinterestintheoccult,theequallyearlyinterestinIrishnationalism,theassociationwithminorpoetsinLondonandParis,makeacuriousmixture.Mr.Yeatswas insearchofatradition,a littletooconsciouslyperhaps likeallofus.Hesoughtfor it intheconceptionof Irelandasanautonomouspoliticalandsocialunity,purgedfromtheAngloSaxonpollution.Hewishedalsotofindaccesstothereligioussourcesofpoetry,as,alittlelater,didanotherrestlessseekerformyths,D.H.Lawrence.Theresult,foralongperiod,isasomewhatartificially inducedpoeticality.JustasmuchofSwinburne'sversehastheeffectofrepeateddosesofginandwater,somuchofMr.Yeats'sverseisstimulatedbyfolklore,occultism,mythologyandsymbolism,crystalgazingandhermeticwritings.

WhowillgodrivewithFergusnow,Andpiercethedeepwood'swovenshade,Anddanceuponthelevelshore?Youngman,liftupyourrussetbrow,Andliftyourtendereyelids,maid,Andbroodonhopesandfearsnomore. Thisistomeverybeautifulbuthighlyartificial.Thereisadeliberateevocationoftrance,ashevirtuallyconfessesinhisessayonTheSymbolismofPoetry:

'Thepurposeofrhythm, ithasalwaysseemed tome, is toprolong themomentofcontemplation, themomentwhenwearebothasleepandawake,whichistheonemomentofcreation,byhushinguswithanalluringmonotony,while itholdsuswakingby itsvariety, tokeepus in that stateofperhaps realtrance,inwhichthemindliberatedfromthepressureofthewillisunfoldedinsymbols.'

Thereisagooddealoftruthinthistheory,butnotquiteenough,anditspracticeexposesMr.YeatstothejustcriticismofMr.I.A.Richards,asfollows:

'After a drawn battlewith the drama,Mr. Yeatsmade a violent repudiation, notmerely of currentcivilisationbutof life itself, infavourofasupernaturalworld.Buttheworldofthe"eternalmoods",ofsupernalessencesandimmortalbeingsisnot,liketheIrishpeasantstoriesandtheIrishlandscape,partofhisnaturalandfamiliarexperience.Nowheturnstoaworldofsymbolicphantasmagoriaaboutwhichheisdesperatelyuncertain.Heisuncertainbecausehehasadoptedasatechniqueofinspirationtheuseof trance,ofdissociatedphasesofconsciousness,and therevelationsgiven in thesedissociatedstatesareinsufficientlyconnectedwithnormalexperience.'

Itis,Ithink,onlycarryingMr.Richards'scomplaintalittlefurthertoaddthatMr.Yeats's'supernaturalworld'wasthewrongsupernaturalworld.Itwasnotaworldofspiritualsignificance,notaworldofrealGoodandEvil,ofholinessorsin,butahighlysophisticatedlowermythologysummoned,likeaphysician,tosupplythefadingpulseofpoetrywithsometransientstimulantsothatthedyingpatientmayutterhis lastwords. In itsextremeselfconsciousness itapproachesthemythologyofD.H.Lawrenceon itsmoredecadentside.WeadmireMr.Yeatsforhavingoutgrown it;forhavingpackedawayhisbibelotsand resignedhimself to live inanapartment furnished in thebarest simplicity.A few fadedbeautiesremain:Babylon,Nineveh,HelenofTroy,andsuchsouvenirsofyouth:buttheausterityofMr.Yeats's

18

laterverseon thewhole,shouldcompel theadmirationof the leastsympathetic.Though the tone isoftenofregret,sometimesofresignation:

'Thingssaidordonelongyearsago,OrthingsIdidnotdoorsayButthoughtthatImightsayordo,Weighmedown,andnotadayButsomethingisrecalled,Myconscienceormyvanityappalled.' andthoughMr.YeatsisstillperhapsalittletoomuchtheweatherwornTritonamongthestreams,hehas arrived at greatness against the greatest odds; if he has not arrived at a central and universalphilosophyhehasatleastdiscarded,forthemostpart,thetriflingandeccentric,theprovincialintimeandplace.

Atthispoint,havingcalledattentiontothedifficultiesexperiencedbyMr.PoundandMr.Yeatsthroughnofaultoftheirown,youmaybeexpectingthatIshallproduceGerardHopkins,withanairoftriumph,as the orthodox and traditional poet. Iwish indeed that I could; but I cannot altogether share theenthusiasmwhichmany critics feel for thispoet,orputhimona levelwith thosewhom Ihave justmentioned.Inthefirstplace,thefactthathewasaJesuitpriest,andtheauthorofsomeverybeautifuldevotional verse, is only partially relevant. To be converted, in any case, while it is sufficient forentertainingthehopeofindividualsalvation,isnotgoingtodoforaman,asawriter,whathisancestryandhiscountryforsomegenerationshavefailedtodo.Hopkinsisafinepoet,tobesure;butheisnotnearlysomuchapoetofourtimeastheaccidentsofhispublicationandthe inventionsofhismetrichave ledus to suppose.His innovations certainlyweregood,but like themindof theirauthor, theyoperateonlywithinanarrowrange,andareeasily imitatedthoughnotadaptableformanypurposes;furthermore, they sometimes strikemeas lacking inevitability that is to say, they sometimes comeneartobeingpurelyverbal,inthatawholepoemwillgiveusmoreofthesamething,anaccumulation,ratherthanarealdevelopmentofthoughtorfeeling.

ImaybewrongaboutHopkins'smetricandvocabulary.ButIamsurethat inthematterofdevotionalpoetryagooddealmoreisatissuethanjustthepurityandstrengthoftheauthor'sdevotionalpassion.Tobea'devotionalpoet'isalimitation:asaintlimitshimselfbywritingpoetry,andapoetwhoconfineshimself toeven thissubjectmatter is limitinghimselftoo.Hopkins isnotareligiouspoet inthemoreimportantsenseinwhichIhaveelsewheremaintainedBaudelairetobeareligiouspoet;orinthesenseinwhich IfindVillontobeareligiouspoet;or inthesense inwhich IconsiderMr.Joyce'sworktobepenetrated with Christian feeling. I do not wish to depreciate him, but to affirm limitations anddistinctions.Heshouldbecompared,notwithourcontemporarieswhosesituationisdifferentfromhis,but with theminor poet nearest contemporary to him, andmost like him: GeorgeMeredith. ThecomparisonisaltogethertoHopkins'sadvantage.TheyarebothEnglishnaturepoets,theyhavesimilartechnical tricks, andHopkins ismuch themore agile.AndwhereMeredith,beyond a few acute andpertlyexpressedobservationsofhumannature,hasonlyarathercheapandshallow'philosophyoflife'tooffer,HopkinshasthedignityoftheChurchbehindhim,and isconsequently inclosercontactwithreality.Butfromthestruggleofourtimetoconcentrate,nottodissipate;torenewourassociationwith

19

traditionalwisdom;toreestablishavitalconnexionbetweenthe individualandtherace;thestruggle,inaword,againstLiberalism:fromallthisHopkinsisalittleapart,andinthisHopkinshasverylittleaidtoofferus.

WhatIhavewishedtoillustrate,byreferencetotheauthorswhomIhavementionedinthislecture,hasbeen the crippling effect upon men of letters, of not having been born and brought up in theenvironmentofa livingandcentral tradition. Inthe following lecture Ishallbeconcernedratherwiththe positive effects of heresy, and with much more alarming consequences: those resulting fromexposuretothediabolicinfluence.

20

IIIIthinkthatthereisaninterestingsubjectofinvestigation,forthestudentoftraditions,inthehistoryofBlasphemy,andtheanomalouspositionofthatterm inthemodernworld. It isacurioussurvival inasocietywhichhasforthemostpartceasedtobecapableofexercisingthatactivityorofrecognisingit.Iampersuadedthatprettygenerally,whenthattermisusedatall,itisusedinasensewhichisonlytheshadowoftheoriginal.Formodernblasphemyismerelyadepartmentofbadform:justas,incountrieswhichstillpossessaCrown,peopleareusually(andquiterightly)shockedbyanypublic impertinenceconcerninganymemberoftheirRoyalFamily,theyarestillshockedbyanypublicimpertinencetowardsa Deity for whom they feel privately no respect at all; and both feelings are supported by theconservatismofthosewhohaveanythingtolosebysocialchanges.Yetpeoplenowadaysareinclinedtotolerateandrespectanyviolationwhichispresentedtothemasinspiredby'serious'purposes;whereastheonlydisinfectantwhichmakeseitherblasphemyorobscenitysufferableisthesenseofhumour:theindecent that is funnymay be the legitimate source of innocentmerriment, while the absence ofhumourrevealsitaspurelydisgusting.

I do notwish to be understood as undertaking a defence of blasphemy in the abstract. I am onlypointingout that it isaverydifferent thing in themodernworld fromwhat itwouldbe inan 'ageoffaith';justasamagistrate'sconceptionofblasphemywillprobablybeverydifferentfromthatofagoodCatholic,andhisobjectionstoitwillbeforverydifferentreasons.Thewholequestionofcensorshipisnowofcoursereducedtoludicrousinconsistency,andislikelytoremainsoaslongasthemoralsoftheStatearenotthoseoftheChurch.Butmypoint isthatblasphemy isnotamatterofgoodformbutofrightbelief;noonecanpossiblyblaspheme inanysenseexceptthat inwhichaparrotmaybesaidtocurse,unlessheprofoundlybelievesinthatwhichheprofanes;andwhenanyonewhoisnotabelieveris shocked by blasphemy he is shockedmerely by a breach of good form; and it is a nice questionwhether,being inastateof intellectualerror,he isor isnotcommittingasin inbeingshockedforthewrong reasons. It is certainly my opinion that firstrate blasphemy is one of the rarest things inliterature, for it requires both literary genius and profound faith, joined in amind in a peculiar andunusualstateofspiritualsickness.IrepeatthatIamnotdefendingblasphemy;Iamreproachingaworldinwhichblasphemyisimpossible.

Mynextpointisamoredelicateonetohandle.Onecanconceiveofblasphemyasdoingmoralharmtofeeble or perverse souls; at the same time onemust recognise that themodern environment is sounfavourable to faith that it produces fewer and fewer individuals capable of being injured byblasphemy.Onewouldexpect,therefore,that(whatever itmayhavebeenatothertimes)blasphemywouldbe lessemployedby theForcesofEvil thanatanyother time in the last two thousandyears.Whereblasphemymightoncehavebeenasignofspiritualcorruption,itmightnowbetakenratherasasymptomthatthesoul isstillalive,oreventhat it isrecoveringanimation:fortheperceptionofGoodand Evil whatever choice we may make is the first requisite of spiritual life.We should do well,therefore, to look elsewhere than to the blasphemer, in the traditional sense, for themost fruitfuloperationsoftheEvilSpirittoday.

21

Iregret,formypresentpurposes,thatIhavenotamoreintimate,accurateandextensiveknowledgeofthe English novelists of the last hundred years, and that therefore I feel a little insecure of mygeneralisations.Butitseemstomethattheeminentnovelistswhoaremorenearlycontemporarytous,havebeenmoreconcernedthantheirpredecessorsconsciouslyornottoimposeupontheirreaderstheirownpersonalviewoflife,andthatthisismerelypartofthewholemovementofseveralcenturiestowards the aggrandisement andexploitationofpersonality. Idonot suggest that 'personality' is anillicit intruder; I imaginethattheadmirersofJaneAustenareallfascinatedbysomethingthatmaybecalledherpersonality.Butpersonality,with JaneAusten,withDickensandwithThackeray,wasmorenearlyinitsproperplace.Thestandardsbywhichtheycriticisedtheirworld,ifnotveryloftyones,wereat leastnotof theirownmaking. InDickens'snovels, for instance, the religion isstillof thegoodoldtorpideighteenthcenturykind,dressedupwithaprofusionofhollyandturkey,andsupplementedbystrong humanitarian zeal. These novelistswere still observers: however superficial in contrast, forinstance,toFlaubertwefindtheirobservationstobe.Theyareorthodoxenoughaccordingtothelightoftheirday:thefirstsuspicionofheresycreepsinwithawriterwho,atherbest,hadmuchprofoundermoralinsightandpassionthanthese,butwhounfortunatelycombineditwiththedrearyrationalismoftheepochofwhichsheisoneofthemostcolossalmonuments:GeorgeEliot.GeorgeEliotseemstomeofthesametribeasalltheseriousandeccentricmoralistswehavehadsince:wemustrespectherforbeingaseriousmoralist,butdeploreher individualisticmorals.What Ihavebeen leadingup to isthefollowingassertion:thatwhenmoralsceasetobeamatteroftraditionandorthodoxy that is,ofthehabitsofthecommunityformulated,corrected,andelevatedbythecontinuousthoughtanddirectionof the Church andwhen eachman is to elaborate his own, then personality becomes a thing ofalarmingimportance.

The work of the late Thomas Hardy represents an interesting example of a powerful personalityuncurbedbyanyinstitutionalattachmentorbysubmissiontoanyobjectivebeliefs;unhamperedbyanyideas,orevenbywhatsometimesactsasapartialrestraintuponinferiorwriters,thedesiretopleasealargepublic.Heseems tome tohavewrittenasnearly forthesakeof 'selfexpression'asamanwellcan;and theselfwhichhehad toexpressdoesnotstrikemeasaparticularlywholesomeoredifyingmatter of communication. He was indifferent even to the prescripts of good writing: he wrotesometimesoverpoweringlywell,butalwaysverycarelessly;attimeshisstyletouchessublimitywithouteverhavingpassedthroughthestageofbeinggood.Inconsequenceofhisselfabsorption,hemakesagreat deal of landscape; for landscape is a passive creaturewhich lends itself to an author'smood.Landscape is fittedtoo forthepurposesofanauthorwho is interestednotatall inmen'sminds,butonly in theiremotions;andperhapsonly inmenasvehicles foremotions. It isonly, indeed, in theiremotionalparoxysmsthatmostofHardy'scharacterscomealive.Thisextremeemotionalismseemstomeasymptomofdecadence; it isacardinalpointof faith ina romanticage, tobelieve that there issomethingadmirableinviolentemotionforitsownsake,whatevertheemotionorwhateveritsobject.Butitisbynomeansselfevidentthathumanbeingsaremostrealwhenmostviolentlyexcited;violentphysicalpassionsdonot in themselvesdifferentiatemen fromeachother,but rather tend to reducethemtothesamestate;andthepassionhassignificanceonlyinrelationtothecharacterandbehaviourof theman at othermoments of his life and in other contexts. Furthermore, strong passion is onlyinteresting or significant in strong men; those who abandon themselves without resistance to

22

excitementswhichtendtodeprivethemofreason,becomemerelyinstrumentsoffeelingandlosetheirhumanity;andunlessthere ismoralresistanceandconflictthere isnomeaning.Butasthemajority iscapableneitherofstrongemotionnorofstrongresistance, italways inclinestoadmirepassionfor itsown sake, unless instructed to the contrary; and, if somewhat deficient in vitality, people imaginepassion to be the surest evidence of vitality. This in itselfmay go towards accounting for Hardy'spopularity.

Whatagainandagain introducesanoteof falsity intoHardy'snovels is thathewill leavenothing tonature,butwillalwaysbegivingonelastturnofthescrewhimself,andofhismotivesforsodoingIhavethegravestsuspicion.InTheMayorofCasterbridgewhichhasalwaysseemedtomehisfinestnovelasawhole he comes the nearest to producing an air of inevitability, and ofmaking the crises seem theconsequencesofthecharacterofHenchard;thearrangementbywhichthehero,leaningoverabridge,findshimselfstaringathiseffigyinthestreambelowisamasterlytourdeforce.Thissceneishoweverasmuchbyarrangementaslesssuccessfulonesinwhichthemotiveintrudesitselfmorevisibly;asforinstancethesceneinFarFromtheMaddingCrowdinwhichBathshebaunscrewsFannyRobin'scoffinwhich seems tomedeliberately faked.Andby this Imean that the author seems tobedeliberatelyrelievingsomeemotionofhisownattheexpenseofthereader. It isarefinedformoftortureonthepartofthewriter,andarefinedformofselftortureonthepartofthereader.Andthisbringsmetothepointofthislecture,forthefirsttime.

Ihavenotsofarmade itapparentwhatrelationthedocumentsconsidered inthis lecturebeartothesubjectmatterofthe last. Iwasthereconcernedwith illustratingthe limitingandcripplingeffectofaseparation from tradition and orthodoxy upon certain writers whom I nevertheless hold up foradmiration for what they have attempted against great obstacles. Here I am concerned with theintrusionofthediabolicintomodernliteratureinconsequenceofthesamelamentablestateofaffairs;and itwas for this reason that I took thepainsat thebeginning topointout thatblasphemy isnotamatterwithwhichweareconcerned.Iamafraidthatevenifyoucanentertainthenotionofapositivepowerforevilworkingthroughhumanagency,youmaystillhaveaveryinaccuratenotionofwhatEvilis,andwillfind itdifficulttobelievethat itmayoperatethroughmenofgeniusofthemostexcellentcharacter.IdoubtwhetherwhatIamsayingcanconvey:verymuchtoanyoneforwhomthedoctrineofOriginal Sin isnot a very real and tremendous thing. I canonly ask you to read the texts, and thenreconsidermyremarks.AndoneofthemostsignificantoftheHardytextsisavolumeofshortstories,indeedofmasterlyshortstories,whichhasneverreceivedenoughexaminationfromthatpointofview:Imean AGroup ofNobleDames.Here, for one thing, you get essentialHardywithout theWessexstaging;without the scenery dear to the AngloSaxon heart or the period peasants pleasing to themetropolitanimagination.Notallofthesestories,ofcourse,illustratemypointequallywell;thebestformypurpose,towhichIreferyou,ratherthantakeupyourtimebysummarisingtheplot,isBarbaraoftheHouseofGrebe.This isnotrealism; it isasHardycatalogues it, 'romanceand fantasy'withwhichHardycandoexactlywhathewantstodo.Idonotobjecttohorror:(dipusRexisamosthorribleplotfromwhich the lastdropofhorror isextractedby thedramatist;andamongHardy'scontemporaries,Conrad'sHeartofDarknessandJamesTurnoftheScrewaretalesofhorror.Butthereishorrorintherealworld;and intheseworksofSophocles,ConradandJamesweare inaworldofGoodandEvil. In

23

BarbaraoftheHouseofGrebeweareintroducedintoaworldofpureEvil.Thetalewouldseemtohavebeenwrittensolelytoprovideasatisfactionforsomemorbidemotion.

Ifindthissamestrain intheworkofamanwhosemorbidity Ihavealreadyhadoccasiontomention,andwhom Iregardasaverymuchgreatergenius, ifnotagreaterartist,thanHardy:D.H.Lawrence.Lawrencehasthreeaspects,anditisverydifficulttodojusticetoall.Idonotexpecttobeabletodoso.The first is the ridiculous: his lack of sense of humour, a certain snobbery, a lack not somuch ofinformation as of the critical facultieswhich education should give, and an incapacity forwhatweordinarily call thinking. Of this side of Lawrence, the brilliant exposure byMr.Wyndham Lewis inPaleface is by far the most conclusive criticism that has been made. Secondly, there is theextraordinarilykeensensibilityandcapacityforprofoundintuitionintuitionfromwhichhecommonlydrewthewrongconclusions.Third,thereisadistinctsexualmorbidity.Unfortunately,itisnecessarytokeepalloftheseaspectsinmindinordertocriticisethewriterfairly;andthis,insuchcloseperspective,isalmost impossible.Ishallnodoubtappeartogiveexcessiveprominencetothethird;butthat,afterall,iswhathasbeenleastsuccessfullyconsidered.

I have already touched upon the deplorable religious upbringing which gave Lawrence his lust forintellectualindependence:likemostpeoplewhodonotknowwhatorthodoxyis,hehatedit.Withthemore intimate reasons,ofheredityandenvironment, foreccentricityof thoughtand feeling Iamnotconcerned:toomanypeoplehavemadethemtheirbusinessalready.AndIhavealreadymentionedtheinsensibilitytoordinarysocialmorality,whichissoalientomymindthatIamcompletelybaffledbyitasamonstrosity.Thepoint is that Lawrence started lifewholly free fromany restrictionof traditionorinstitution,thathehadnoguidanceexcepttheInnerLight,themostuntrustworthyanddeceitfulguidethateveroffereditselftowanderinghumanity.ItwaspeculiarlysoforLawrence,whodoesnotappeartohavebeengiftedwith the facultyofselfcriticism,except in flashes,even to theextentofordinaryworldlyshrewdness.Ofdivineillumination,itmaybesaidthatprobablyeverymanknowswhenhehasit,butthatanymanislikelytothinkthathehasitwhenhehasitnot;andevenwhenhehashadit,thedailyman thathe ismaydraw thewrongconclusions from theenlightenmentwhich themomentarymanhasreceived:noone, inshort,canbethesole judgeofwhencehis inspirationcomes.Aman likeLawrence,therefore,withhisacutesensibility,violentprejudicesandpassions,and lackof intellectualandsocialtraining,isadmirablyfittedtobeaninstrumentforforcesofgoodorforforcesofevil;oraswemightexpect,partlyforoneandpartlyfortheother.AtrainedmindlikethatofMr.Joyceisalwaysawarewhatmasteritisserving;anuntrainedmind,andasouldestituteofhumilityandfilledwithselfrighteousness,isablindservantand.afatalleader.ItwouldseemthatforLawrenceanyspiritualforcewasgood,andthatevilresidedonly intheabsenceofspirituality.Mostpeople,nodoubt,needtobearoused to the perception of the simple distinction between the spiritual and the material; andLawrencenever forgot,andnevermistook, thisdistinction.Butmostpeopleareonlyvery littlealive;andtoawakenthemtothespiritualisaverygreatresponsibility:itisonlywhentheyaresoawakenedthat they are capable of real Good, but that at the same time they become first capable of Evil.Lawrencelivedallhislife,Ishouldimagine,onthespirituallevel;nomanwaslessasensualist.Againstthelivingdeathofmodernmaterialcivilisationhespokeagainandagain,andevenifthesedeadcouldspeak,whathesaidisunanswerable.Asacriticismofthemodernworld,FantasiaoftheUnconsciousis

24

a book to keep at hand and reread. In contrast to Nottingham, London or industrial America, hiscapering redskinsofMornings inMexico seem to represent Life. So theydo;but that isnot the lastword,onlythefirst.

Theman's vision is spiritual, but spiritually sick. The daemonic powers found an instrument of fargreaterrange,delicacyandpowerintheauthorofThePrussianOfficerthanintheauthorofAGroupofNobleDamesandthetalewhichIusedasanexample(TheShadowintheRoseGarden)canbematchedbyseveralothers.Ihavenotreadallofhislateandhisposthumousworks,whicharenumerous.Insomerespects,hemayhaveprogressed:hisearlybeliefinLifemayhavepassedover,asareallyseriousbeliefinLifemust,intoabeliefinDeath.9ButIcannotseemuchdevelopmentinLadyChatterleysLover.Ourold acquaintance, the gamekeeper, turns up again: the social obsessionwhichmakeswellborn oralmost wellborn ladies offer themselves to ormake use of plebeians springs from the samemorbiditywhichmakesotherofhisfemalecharactersbestowtheirfavoursuponsavages.Theauthorofthatbookseemstometohavebeenaverysickmanindeed.

Thereis,Ibelieve,averygreatdealtobelearnedfromLawrence;thoughthosewhoaremostcapableofexercisingthejudgementnecessarytoextractthelesson,maynotbethosewhoaremostinneedofit.That we can and ought to reconcile ourselves to Liberalism, Progress andModern Civilisation is apropositionwhichweneednothavewaited forLawrence tocondemn;and itmattersagooddeal inwhatnamewecondemnit.IfearthatLawrence'sworkmayappeal,nottothosewhoarewellandabletodiscriminate,buttothesickanddebileandconfused;andwillappealnottowhatremainsofhealthinthem,buttotheirsickness.Norwillmanyevenaccepthisdoctrineashewouldgiveit,butwillbebusyafter their own inventions. The number of people in possession of any criteria for discriminatingbetween good and evil is very small; the number of the halfalive hungry for any form of spiritualexperience,orwhatoffers itselfasspiritualexperience,highor low,goodorbad, isconsiderable.Myowngenerationhasnotserved themverywell.Neverhas theprintingpressbeensobusy,andneverhavesuchvarietiesofbuncombeandfalsedoctrinecomefrom it.Woeuntothefoolishprophets,thatfollowtheirownspirit,andhaveseennothing!OIsrael,thyprophetshavebeen likefoxes inthewasteplaces. . . .AndthewordoftheLORDcameuntome,saying,Sonofman,thesemenhavetakentheiridolsintotheirhearts,andputthestumblingblockoftheiriniquitybeforetheirface:shouldIbeinquiredofatallbythem?

Iwishtoaddafewwordsofretrospectandsummary,partlyasareminderofhowlittle,inthespaceofthreehours,onecanundertaketosayaboutsuchaserioussubjectasthis.Inanageofunsettledbeliefsandenfeebledtraditionthemanof letters,thepoet,andthenovelistare inasituationdangerousforthemselvesandfortheirreaders.Itriedtosafeguardmyself,inmyfirstlecture,frombeingtakentobemerely a sentimental admirer of some real or imaginary past, and from being taken as a faker oftraditions.Traditionby itself isnotenough; itmustbeperpetually criticisedandbroughtup todateunder the supervision of what I call orthodoxy; and for the lack of this supervision it is now thesentimental tenuity thatwe find it.Most 'defenders of tradition' aremere conservatives, unable to

9IamindebtedtoanunpublishedessaybyMr.E.F.W.Tomlinforthesuggestionthatthisisso.

25

distinguishbetweenthepermanentandthetemporary,theessentialandtheaccidental.ButI leftthistheoryasabareoutline,toserveasabackgroundformy illustrationofthedangersofauthorshiptoday.Wherethereisnoexternaltestofthevalidityofawriter'swork,wefailtodistinguishbetweenthetruthofhisviewoflifeandthepersonalitywhichmakesitplausible;sothatinourreading,wemaybesimplyyieldingourselvestooneseductivepersonalityafteranother.Thefirstrequisiteusuallyheldupbythepromotersofpersonalityisthatamanshould'behimself';andthis'sincerity'isconsideredmoreimportantthanthattheselfinquestionshould,sociallyandspiritually,beagoodorabadone.Thisviewofpersonality ismerelyanassumptiononthepartofthemodernworld,and isnomoretenablethanseveralotherviewswhichhavebeenheldatvarioustimesand inseveralplaces.Thepersonalitythusexpressed,thepersonalitywhichfascinatesusintheworkofphilosophyorart,tendsnaturallytobetheunregenerate personality, partly selfdeceived and partly irresponsible, and because of its freedom,terribly limitedbyprejudiceandselfconceit,capableofmuchgoodorgreatmischiefaccordingtothenaturalgoodnessorimpurityoftheman:andweareall,naturally,impure.AllthatIhavebeenabletodohereistosuggestthattherearestandardsofcriticism,notordinarilyinuse,whichwemayapplytowhatever isofferedtousasworksofphilosophyorofart,whichmighthelptorenderthemsaferandmoreprofitableforus.

26

APPENDIXIhaveafter somedeliberation called thisessayaprimerofmodernheresy:hinting that it isofferedprimarily to thosewhomay be interested in pursuing the subject by themselves. I had thought ofsupplementing itby a graduatedExerciseBook,beginningwith very simpleexamplesofheresy, andleadingup to thosewhichareverydifficult to solve;and leaving the student to find theanswers forhimself. My chief reason for abandoning this project is perhaps the overwhelming abundance ofelementaryexercises,comparedwiththepaucityofthosewhichcantaxtheabilitiesofthereallyquickand proficient student. I therefore content myself with four examples. No. I is very elementary:countlessspecimensofthesamekindmightbefound.No.IIisslightly,butnotmuch,moreadvanced.Nos. Illand IVareamongthemostadvancedthat Icanfind.Areallysatisfactoryexercisebookwouldrequirethecooperationofaboardofeditors.Iamnotwellenoughread;andIfindtomydiscomfiturethatmost of the examples that occur tome hardly rise above the simplicity of No. I. Numerousadvancedexercisesarepossibletothosewhopossessafamiliaritywithforeignlanguages.

I 'Thebarbaricsenseoftheexceedingsinfulnessofsin,withthemoralhatreditcarried,isgivingwaytoamorenaturalattitude.Viceoffendsmore from itsugliness than from its sinfulness.Goodnesshas itsappealinmoralbeautyratherthaninvirtue.

~JOHNA.HOBSON:TheMoncureD.ConwayLecture1933.

II 'Attheendofmylifeasateacher...Iamconvincedthatitispersonalitythatcountsalwaysandallthetime... .

'This question of Latin is a part, and only a part, ofwhat I think is themost important educationalquestion that is now before the country. It is a question which is engaging the attention of theConsultativeCommitteeoftheBoardofEducationatthepresentmomentthequestionofwhatistheright education to give pupils between the ages of 1 and i6,whose education is not going to becontinuedbeyondthatpoint.Arewegivingtherighteducationatthepresenttime?Iamprettycertainthatwearenot.

'IwouldgiveaboyfirstasoundeducationbasedonEnglishculture,Englishgeography,Englishhistory,andEnglish literature, lessmathematics,adifferentkindofscience,and Iwouldnotattempttoteachhimmorethanoneforeignlanguage.Iwouldalsotrytogivehimathoroughphysicaleducation,andathoroughtrainingofthehand,eyeandear,andIwouldseektomakethatas importantashis literaryeducation.InhislastyearsatschoolIwouldseektobuildonthatfoundationsomeunderstandingofthemodernworld,why it is,how itworks,andwhathisplace is in it.InthateducationIdonotthinkthat

27

therewillberoomortimeforLatin,butatpresentwehavenotformulatedanythinglikethat.Itisstillanideal.'

~ DR. CYRIL NORWOOD, addressing the Conference of the Incorporated Association of PreparatorySchoolsattheHotelGreatCentral,Marylebone(TheTimesnewspaperofDecember21,1933.)

III 'Character, in short, isan impersonal idealwhich the individual selectsand towhichhe sacrificesallotherclaims,especiallythoseofthesentimentsoremotions.Itfollowsthatcharactermustbeplacedinoppositiontopersonality,whichisthegeneralcommondenominatorofsentimentsandemotions.Thatis, indeed,theopposition Iwishtoemphasise;andwhen Ihavesaidfurtherthatallpoetry, inwhich Iwishtoincludealllyricalimpulseswhatever,istheproductofthepersonality,andthereforeinhibitedinacharacter,Ihavestatedthemainthemeofmyessay.'

~HERBERTREAD:ForminModernPoetry,pp.1819.

IV 'Anyseriouscriticismofcommunistphilosophymuststartbydeclaringopenlyhowmuchofitstheoryisacceptedby the critic. Imust thereforeprefacemy criticismby saying that I accept the rejectionofidealismandtheprincipleoftheunityoftheoryandpracticeinthesenseinwhichIhaveexpoundedit.Andsincethisisthetrulyrevolutionaryprinciple,suchanacceptanceinvolvestakingone'sstandwithinthe tradition of thought which derives from Marx. The negative implications of accepting thisfundamentalprinciplegoverydeep.Theyincluderejectionofallphilosophyandallsocialtheorywhichdonotacceptthisprinciple,notbecauseofparticularobjectionstotheirconclusions,butbecauseofacompletebreakwiththeassumptionsuponwhichtheyarebasedandthepurposewhichgovernstheirdevelopment.Theyinvolvethebeliefthatalltheorymustseekverificationinactionandadaptitselftothepossibilityofexperiment.Theymakeacleansweepofspeculativethoughtonthegroundsthatthevalidityofnobeliefwhatever iscapableofdemonstrationbyargument.They involvea refusalatanypointtomakeknowledgeanendinitself,andequally,therejectionofthedesireforcertaintywhichisthemotivegoverningspeculativethought.'

~JOHNMACMURRAY:PhilosophyofCommunism,pp.6263.