268
RICHARD WOLLHEIM
actionary in content seemed to spring from a very superficial conception
of
art,
according to which the non-utilitarian or autonomous aspects
of the subject get regarded as superficial adjuncts. Finally, Snow gave
no unambiguous indication of what was the true ground of his interest
in the cultural problem. What exactly was it that was threatened by
the "Cultural divide?" Civilization; material progress; the cause of the
West in the Cold War-all these appear momentarily in ' Snow's lecture
as candidates for being the ultimate object of his concern. None of
them is settled for unconditionally, nor did the lecturer indicate how
in his historical imagination they are linked.
In most respects Leavis's lecture might be described as the mirror–
image of Snow's. Whatever was confused in the original work remained
so in the latter one, simply with the labels of approbation or disapproba–
tion neatly reversed. The tone, which is not agreeable in "The Two
the "Cultural divide?" Civilization; material progress; the cause of the
Significance of C. P. Snow," as it dipped into repetitive abuse. It is
therefore not surprising that apart from affirmations of loyalty and
friendship made by supporters of one or other of the two protagonists-–
for neither could exactly be described as "a lone figure"-little or no
serious discussion should have centred round the two rival texts, and
that the interest of the controversy should have been found to reside
largely in the way in which what could and should have been a serious
issue has been totally obfuscated by a fog of personality and publicity.
If,
as is said, Sir Charles has been very wounded by the scurrilous note
of Leavis' attack, this is sad. But then is it not all also symptomatic
of the whole campaign, fought, one feels, with an eye fixed on well–
situated audiences in places like Berkeley or Moscow, that the
criticis~
that should have been found most devastating is the one where it
is
the reach of the voice, not the effectiveness of what it says, that is
distinctive?
From the point of view of Leavis, "The Significance of C. P.
Snow" might most charitably be described as a biographical curiosity.
It
certainly coincides with the low-water mark of someone who has been
a formidable critic of literature and a very significant, often very
bene~
ficial, influence upon social criticism in general. All that really remains
in this lecture of Leavis's old intellectual standards is a reiterated belief
in the importance of argument, which only makes the absence of the
thing itself more felt.
But in one important respect, which is linked with what I wrote
about earlier on, Leavis fails not only himself but a large body of thought
today that, knowingly or unknowingly, draws its sustenance from
him
