641 / 676
BOOKS
643
work as a whole, it also assumes an irrevocable subjectivity in the
relationship between critic and poet and thus postulates the singularity of
criticism. One can copy Curtius, or Spitzer, or even Bachelard, but to
copy Poulet is to betray him. Miller never does so; yet the presence of
some of Poulet's frames of reference and structural devices as well as,
on the negative side, the avoidance of certain historical and fonnalist
techniques, give to Miller's book a very distinctive character. Although
his manner never becomes mechanical or systematic in the bad sense
of the tenn, it points to its own method with obvious and legitimate
pride and wears it, so to speak, for all to behold. As a result, the similarity
in approach with European critics of the same generation who have
also been influenced by Poulet is very apparent. Nothing in method or in
quality sets aside Hillis Miller's book from those of Jean-Pierre Richard,
for instance, or Jean Starobinski, or Jean Rousset, except for the ir–
reducible originality which this way of dealing with literature demands.
Joseph Frank, on the other hand, remains eclectic and varied, reminiscent
at times of Ransom and Tate in a relaxed mood, frequently resorting
to straightforward exposition, without even seeming to apply in practice
the very interesting speculations on spatial fonn that are indicated in his
first essay.l And yet, something similar is taking place
in
both essays
that sets them apart from other current American criticism.
It is best put negatively: neither of these studies is historical
or New Critical, and both-each in its own way-deal with the rejection
of the concepts of fonn and of history that have been at the basis of
much contemporary work. The great contribution of New Criticism
had been to retrieve the autonomy of the literary work and to preserve
the delicate equilibrium of its structure from the onslaughts of crudely
deterministic systems. This allowed its practitioners to acquire a flexible
and subtle exegetic skill, still without equivalence in Europe. But it also
had grave drawbacks: by setting up works of literature as if they were
a priori given entities susceptible of being described and analyzed in
themselves, it made false assumptions about the nature of poetic language.
Much was gained by separating the temporal and spatial organization
of literary language, as it crystallizes in rhythm and imagery, from the
experience of time and space. But even more was lost by ignoring the
highly problematic and intentional nature of these entities. Since they are
made of invented space and invented time, they cannot possibly be
1.
An interesting encounter with Poulet's work nevertheless occurs in Joseph
Frank's case also. In his recently published essay on Proust,
L'espace proustien
(Gallirnard, 1963), Georges Poulet refers to Mr. Frank's early article on
Proust which dates from 1945, and indicates the
similarity
of their
views
on
Proust.