<462
PARTISAN REVIEW
In
this way, by one of the curious and persistent logical leaps which
are characteristic of the
rhetoric
of literary criticism, it is suggested that
Gide shows how wrong, limited, and defective were Joyce, Mann,
Proust, Kafka, T. S. Eliot, and practically every modernist author.
Now even if Gide had been a collaborationist, which he certai!1ly
was not, neither his creative work nor that of his compeers would be
in the least impugned. Thomas Mann appears to be a misguided and
well-meaning author who "collaborates" with Stalinism, while during
the first World War he apparently was a confused reactionary or a
German patriot, one or the other, depending on the reader's own bias,
benevolence, or malevolence. The Joseph books and
The Magic Moun–
tain
remain masterpieces, despite the author's fool1sh political opinions.
It
is unfortunately true that political insight does not coincide with
literary genius; and although we may venture to think that, since the
knowledge of reality which literature requires is in part a knowledge of
politics, ultimately literature has serious political meanings, nevertheless
this is not at all the same kind of knowledge of political reality which
is necessary at the ballot-box or when France has just been occupied
and conquered by Germany. Again, to use a second example, T. S.
Eliot is a self-confessed reactionary and he is a very great poet and
there is a good deal of political and social feeling in his poetry. But we
can't conclude, as some have, that he is not a great poet because he is a
reactionary any more than we can conclude, as others have, that since
he is a great poet, political reaction is justified.
It
would be quite
pleasant if life, literature, and politics were simple enough to allow for
these easy judgments and connections, but they are not as simple as
all that; they are clearly very complicated.
Gide was a very complicated human being, and his journal shows
how for fifty years he wrestled with the labyrinthine complications of his
being, self-doubting, self-questioning, self-tormented and above all
honest. During the occupation of France, immediately after the Vichy
regime had been installed, he was naturally despondent about the future
of his country. But he had as always the courage of his confusion. On
the 14th of June 1940 he wrote in his journal that Petain's speech was
"admirable," because Petain praised effort and discipline, and con–
demned the arrogance of victory involved in the Treaty of Versailles. On
the 24th of June 1940, his journal entry reads: "Yesterday evening we
heard with amazement Petain's new speech on the radio. Can it be?
Did Petain himself deliver it? Freely? One suspects some infamous
deceit. How can one speak of France as 'intact' after handing over to
the enemy over half of the country? How make these words fit those
