18
PARTISAN REVIEW
ities of a writer while relating them to his social
milieu.
These are
stupendous tasks involving a host of very delicate and complex prob-
lems, and they cannot be disposed of in a few syllogisms or by a
flourish of rhetoric. Still, it is only in outlining the scope and the
tasks of the Marxist method that we can decide its value for literary
criticism.
Above all, the Marxist philosophy would alter the prevailing
conceptions of the nature of literature and the function of criticism.
And it is largely these conceptions which lie behind the resistance to
a Marxist criticism--except, of course, when it is merely a matter
of one's reactionary politics.
The chief objection comes from the fear that an all-embracing
system of thought would do violence to the privacy of art and would
fail to explain why one work is better than another. And it is a natu-
ral one-does not each artist express a personal vision in a personal
style, thus transcending the influences at work on him? This was
indeed the very criticism Sainte-Beuve made of Taine's sociological
method: "This is the essential point which M. Taine's method and
procedure do not touch. . . . The thing which is called individuality
of talent, genius, remains always on the outside, escaping all the
meshes of the net, however finely they may be wrought. And in gen-
eral there is but one soul, a particular form of the mind to produce
this or that masterpiece. When historical testimonies are in question,
I can imagine equivalents: I know none in matters of taste. Suppose
a man of great talent wanting, suppose the 'mold or rather the tragic
mirror of a single true poet broken in the cradle at his birth, another
will never be met with which will be exactly the same or will replace
it. There is but one exemplar of every true poet." Yet Sainte-Beuve,
like many critics who today seek some
rapprochement
with Marxism,
was not unaware of Taine's contributions to criticism and he sought
in some way to combine them with his own esthetic and intimate
researches-realizing, however, that as he conceived the task, a union
of two absolutes, it was hopeless. "The day," writes Sainte-Beuve, "on
which the critic shall arrive possessing a profound historic and vital
sentiment of letters like M. Taine, spreading like him his roots to
the very source, while, on the other hand, shooting forth his green
branches beneath the sun, and who at the same time shall not sup-
press, I may even say, who will continue to respect and respire the
sober flower, with the delicate perfume, of Pope, of Boileau, of Fon-
taine, on that day the complete critic will have been discovered; the
reconciliation between the two schools will have been effected. But
I ask for an impossibility; one easily sees that this is a dream."
Here, indeed, is the difficulty, and as Sainte-Beuve testifies, it is
