ART. T RA 0 1T ION. AND T RUT H
21
disciplined scrutiny! And what incredible histrionics have here be–
come part of the work! The same is true of Plato's dialogues. Rilke
is vastly different from Shakespeare, and Nietzsche from Plato; yet
they all face the same problem. It is rooted in the poetic impulse
which is as eager to express as it is reluctant to exclude. Most phil–
osophers do not know this plight; but that is because, unlike Plato
and Nietzsche, they are no poets.
v
The relation of great poetry to "the time" and to truth
deserves further reflection. Comparing Shakespeare with Dante, T. S.
Eliot says: "It is
equally
great poetry, though the philosophy behind
it is not great." Eliot is another critic who knows what is real and
praiseworthy and true, without the benefit of any reading of Shake–
speare. As if Shakespeare might not affect one's notions of great
philosophy. In this instance, however, Shakespeare receives a dispen–
sation: "it was his business to express the greatest emotional intensity
of his timc, based on whatever his time happened to think." It is one
of the central themes of Eliot's essay on "Shakespeare and the Stoic–
ism of Seneca," which we have quoted, that critics should not read
themselves into Shakespeare; but surely Eliot is thinking of himself
when he suggests that the shortcomings of the poet must be blamed
on his time.
As
if "his time" thought anything in particular. Shake–
speare's, like ours, abounded in ideas.
Nevertheless I agree that the truth of beliefs is not relevant to
the greatness of poetry. Once more I shall use Heller as a foil. He
argues that Rilke's poetry expresses beliefs, that these beliefs happen
to be false (as Eliot would say: "the philosophy behind it is not
great"), and that (as Eliot would not say) Rilke's poetry is worse for
that. Rilke expressed Nietzsche's philosophy in verse, and this may
well have been as great a philosophy as "his time" offered him; but
if
Rilke's beliefs had been Christian-this standard is suggested
throughout Heller's book- his poetry would be that much better.
The argument that to Heller's mind "finally proves" the rele–
vance of the truth of beliefs to the greatness of poetry is this: "There
are ideas and beliefs so prosaic, outlandish or perverse in their inner–
most structure that no great or good poetry can come from them;
