BOO KS
371
Empson sees how "fusion" in metaphor, "identification" in prim–
itive thought, and the copulative "is" in epigrams conceal a variety
of logical implications; when these are correctly defined under the
forms provided by
Complex Words
they make a good deal more sense,
both of a logical and an emotive kind. Empson is gratefully aware of
his indebtedness to
I.
A.
Richards in all this, but he develops the leads
Richards gave him in a way that shows the inadequacy of some
of Richards' most influential ideas, ideas that have been used in one
direction by positivist semanticists and in another direction by the
New Critics with the effect of reducing or misstating the human and
social implications of imaginative literature.
Some of the formulae which Empson uses for his demonstrations
look pretty barbarous. In his interpretation of "wit" in the
Essay on
Criticism,
Empson represents one of Pope's twists of thought by the
equation 3c
+
?
2
=
la-.l
$1.
This repellent formula-and there are
many such-is not reductive, however. Quite the contrary.
It
is a way of
examining the elaborate complex of specific elements, social and
psychological as well as logical and literary, that may be implied in
the use of a single word. And in the thirteen primarily literary essays
of this generous volume such implications are developed in non-mathe–
matical terms with a wonderful wealth of original perceptions and
recondite information, all fascinating in its own right.
Occasionally the writing of
Complex Words
is a little crabbed and
crowded, as if Empson was making notes while he talked to himself,
but it is usually modest, straightforward and witty, without pretentious–
ness of any kind. Empson is interested in seeing as much as possible
in what he examines, and getting relations and values straight. He is
amused by logical positivists, hedonistic calculators and other critics
of ethical theory who "recommend a low view with such pomp," who
put out sentence after sentence implying "there is nothing in the world
but knee-jerks" but all in a style which implies, "I'm not in the world
myself because I'm God." But he is equally unsympathetic with con–
verts to the new religiosity who seem to him to argue: "Men rot with–
out lies, and the lies are rotting, and therefore it is my duty to tell
half-rotten lies."
Young critics, trying to outdo Empson in complicating the mean–
ing of single words, as they tried to outdo him in ambiguity-hunting,
will undoubtedly produce some intolerably niggling and quibbling
articles for the quarterlies as a result of reading this book. But if many
people work through it, come out the other end, and comprehend it
as a whole, it ought to have a very welcome and healthy effect, not
only in literary criticism but in the whole interdisciplinary discussion
of values.
Robert Gorham Davis
