BOOKS
597
reality which renders it intelligible." It can hardly escape the alert
reader's attention that several fallacies and perhaps even a heresy or
two are hidden away in this seemingly innocent statement-Mr. Elton
should clean up such little inconsistencies in future editions.)
Nonetheless, in his
fallacy
entries, Mr. Elton has scored an import–
ant point, even if through the cruelty of satire: that the "new critics,"
while philosophically antagonistic to what they call "scientism," are
themselves fatally contaminated by that which they abominate, for
they are disposed to make of criticism a system, perhaps even a science,
in which the personal act of reading counts for a minimum.
Mr. Elton is also very good at minor touches. In his introduction
he notes that such terms as "richness" and "fullness" are no longer ser–
viceable to criticism, and in his glossary he offers instead
density;
the
superiority of the substitute is immediately clear. And even in his own
style Mr. Elton mimics the tone of sandy gravity which is one object
of his attack. Consider this sentence: "Although Ransom has thus far
failed in his attempt to find an
ontological
critic, i.e., one who is
equipped to do justice to the unique nature and epistemology of the
poem, it is difficult to conclude that Brooks and Warren, on a non–
philosophical level, have not been of immense service, practically, in
directing concentration on the text of the poem itself." Note the cun–
ning
with
which he achieves the effect of orotund weightiness in the
use of
both
"a non-philosophical level" and "practically"; the touch of
grave reflectiveness, recalling the ambassadorial style of Joseph Davies,
in the "it is difficult to conclude that ... have not been" formulation;
and the skillful simulation of hesitancy, charmingly just this side of
human, suggested by "practically" in its ambush of commas.
Satire necessarily involves injustice to its subject, and Mr. Elton
occasionally fails through composing so broadly that the subject is no
longer recognizable. He has omitted everything about the "new critics"
that makes them interesting and valuable-their occasional passion be–
fore the work of art, their lively bias of temperament; all that is in–
dividual and indivisible in their work. Instead, he has attacked them
at their weakest point: their heel of jargon. I suppose that if Mr. Elton
were to direct his satiric talents against any other group of critics-say,
the critics of the "liberal imagination"-the results might be equally
cruel. None of us is safe now, and before the possibility of another com–
pendium all must tremble. One would therefore like very much to know
what is going on inside Mr. Elton's mind, but here I desist lest I suc–
cumb myself to
(cf.
the intentional fallacy).
Irving Howe
