BOOKS
635
a nd movement o f Stevens's poetry and expo unds it with subtl e argu–
menL , ri ch deta il , and prodig iou s learning. The grea tes t contribution
o f the book is to ground thi s a pproach tho roughl y in litera ry traditio n
and inLell ec tua l hi story. Bl oom 's reading recogni zps and conta ins the
di scursive materi a l in th e poetry. Hi s Steven s is no t a poet of ideas, a
philosophi ca l poet. On the conLrary, Bl oom spea ks of " the long
traditi on o f th e po lemi c o f philosoph y aga in st poetry, in which
rheto ri c h as been a t on ce th e fo ught-over fi eld and the weapons depot
for bo th sides. "
It
is no t the epistemo logica l, "concept-thinking"
rhetori c of the philosoph ers th rough whi ch Stevens can be understood.
Ra ther we must understa nd Steven s in terms o f a persuas ive, antitheti–
ca l rh eto ri c in th e sophi sti c tradition . Bloom speaks of Go rg ias as "a
poet leadin g soul s th rough incanta ti on to the rela tivity of a ll truth , and
do ing thi s th ro ug h an antith eti ca l style, one whi ch o ffered contras ts
a nd a ltern a tives for every definitio n venLured , in contras t to the
Socra ti c mode o f a rri vin g a t supposedl y a bsolute truth. " Thi s, it seems
to me, captures th e ton e o f Steven s precise ly. Such a rh etori c is
con cenw d with emo ti on a l surviva l ra ther than truth , and so Bloom
ca ll s fo r a rev ivifi ca ti on of " th e an cienL idenLity between rhetori c and
p sycho logy," whose a ren a wo uld be the reader's inLern al di scourse, as
well as th e poe t's.
I am, of course, mi sreading Bloom, and leavin g out a great deal of
hi s thes is. But thi s seems to me wha t is semina l in hi s stan ce with
rega rd to Steven s, from whi ch one mi ght move in man y different
d irec ti on s. It should a lso be no ted tha t, as Deni s Donoghue points out
in hi s admirabl y ba la nced rev iew in
Th e New York R eview of Books,
the strong focu s whi ch Bloom 's full criti ca l appa ra tu s provides on
some asp ects o f Steven s's wo rk a lso inhibits in ves ti ga ti on o f oth er
asp ects whi ch do no t ha ppen to be relevant to Bloom 's theori es. Thi s
favors my own sen se th a t Bloom is mos t useful as a criti c if one doesn ' t
ta ke him se riou sly, a rema rk whi ch I don ' t intend to be demeaning. On
the cOnLra ry, there is an element of pl ay in Bl oom 's writin g whi ch
keep s it on th e edge of ba lance and poses a LOn e of liveliness and
surpri se aga in st its more ponderou s qua liti es. Bl oom 's criti cism is, like
Stevens's poetry, itse lf th e reco rd o f a mind in mo ti on . It is an
antith eti ca l criti cism , sophi sti c, full o f p a radox a nd un expected turns.
It
compri ses, in fact, wha t Bloom ca ll s fo r in th e course of hi s
argument , th a t is, a "di achroni c rheto ri c." One therefore canno t take
anyone ph ase o r term in Bl oom 's evolving th eory with a bsolute
seri o u sn ess. Wh a t Bl oom is p resenting to us is the intri guing exampl e
o f a cr iti ca l int elli gence in p rocess of thinkin g like a poeti c intelli-
