116
PARTISAN REVIEW
The reason for the violence of the
Times's
writer's feelings,
as of those of Mr. Brooks, must remain unknown.
If
either of
them was anything of a sociologist, he might have been interested
in not merely denouncing modern art, but in enquiring
why
it is
what it is. The attack is not made precisely on literary grounds,
nor precisely on moral grounds, but upon grounds which are a
confusion of the two. For the
Times
writer the virtues despised by
the highbrows are "such as endurance, unselfishness and disci·
pline"; for Mr. Brooks "the great themes are those by virtue of
which the race has risen
[what
race?],
courage, justice, mercy,
honour and love." I do not like to be led to held to underrate or
despise these virtues: but (unless by "love" Mr. Brooks means
charity
in the theological sense) they are the natural, rather than
the Christian virtues; and
justice,
we now know, can mean very
different things to different peopie. Mr. Brooks further employs
terms-"the biological grain," "the life-drive," "race-survival"–
which are depressingly reminiscent of a certain political version of
biology: his literary criterion seems to be conduciveness to race
survival "on what might further be called the best possible terms"
-what these terms are is not stated.
Literature has at some times and in some places been con·
demned for infraction of laws of religious orthodoxy*; . in some
places at some times it has been condemned for infraction of laws
of political orthodoxy: but in such a situation we can at least know
where we are; and religious and political criteria need not be con·
fused with literary and artistic criteria. In Britain and America
we are not likely to find our issues defined so clearly as that: what
is more likely is that democracy will be attacked in the name of
democracy; that culture will be attacked in the name of culture,
literature in the name of literature-even, perhaps, religion in the
name of religion. I do not suppose for a moment that Mr. Brooks
is aware of these possibilities, or of the tendencies which his views
may encourage: but there was never a time when it was more
important to think clearly and to define one's terms.
T.
s.
ELIOT
London
January 5, 1942.
•Mr. Brooks, by the way, confuses heterodoxy with blasphemy.
