AFurther Note On Myth
William Troy
,-
IN THE LAST
issue of
PARTISAN REVIEW
James Burnham
lists
what
he believes to
be
no fewer than three "false and dangerous" conten–
tions in an essay on Thomas Mann that I recendy contributed to
these pages. Nobody likes to be accused of "false and dangerous"
ideas, and this in itseH would
be
a sufficient reason for making a reply.
But I sincerely believe that the confusion that Mr. Burnham reveals
in
his
communication raises several problems of enough importance
and enough general interest to justify a rather close examination.
If
this
note departs from that etiquette which demands that no answer
should exceed in length the occasion that provoked it, it is with this
apology.
(I)
Myth and Method.
Quite righdy, in my opinion, Mr.
Burnham
begins
with an attempt to define the critical method that
I adopted in this particular essay. But to understand his objections it
will
be
necessary to look at some of his own assumptions concerning
the nature of literature stated elsewhere in his communication. "What
we
call
works of literature," Mr. Burnham explains, "are material
objects, produced by the conscious will of men, enjoyed in various
ways by other men, their conditions of production and enjoyment
limited by social and historical circumstances as well as by the psycho–
logical
traits of authors and readers. Thus, as the context changes,
works of literature figure variously, as psychological, anthropological,
IOCiological, economic phenomena."
Here at least is a full and clean-cut statement-if only one had
the time to inspect all of its closely packed assumptions. Is literature
a "product" in the same sense as sewing-machines or mineral oils, and
if
so of
what
is it the product? Mr. Burnham mentions the "conscious
will,"
but he can hardly mean that the will can generate works of
Jitcrature out of itseH. At the most he can claim no more than that
the
will
is somehow inv.olved
in
the production. It will be perhaps
limplest here to recommend to attention certain remarks of William
95
