Evening star., 1939-12-17

clude all non-political methods OF
evaluating phenomena. Mr.. Hicks.
however, having adopted his faith
for himself and abided by it, does
not insist on repeating its tenets
overmuch. This is a self-resuraint
which is conspicuously lacking from
the observations Of most OF his
school of thought.
The only example Of arbitrarily
political criticism which the book
contains is found in the chapter on
Victorianism There Mr.. Hicks out
lines two opposing schools Of social
thought-the Benthamite and the
Coleridgean-as follows:
On the one hand science, belief in
progress and a tendency toward
democracy, coupled with the glorifl-
cation of self-interest and a theo-
retical defense Of a very practical
indifference to human suffering; on
the other hand, sympathy for the
oppressed and labor on their behalf,
as we'll as emotional warmth and
poetic richness, coupled with reac-
tionary politics, paternalism in labor
relations, and the opposition to
growth of science"
He then goes on to say: Mean
while, though few workers and even
fewer individuals in other classes
knew it, the intellectual needs and
the material demands of the work.
ing class had, at last, been systemat-
ically formulated. Moreover, the
paradox involved in the conflict be-
tween Benthamites and Coleridg-
cans had been solved. In 1867
Karl Marx . = published
the first volume of Capital
Marx not only reconciled the scien-
tific method of the laissez-faire
economist with the humanitarian
impulses of the interventionists; he
also reconciled what was sound in
18th century materialism with what
was sound in Hegelianism. BY shift
ing his basis, SO to speak, from the
upper classes to the working class,
he solved the conflicts that divided
British thought throughout the
greater part of the 10th CEN
tury. ="
This is, as said, arbitrary. If you
believe it, you believe it. If you
do not, it remains untenable to you
as critical axiom. The reviewer
holds the position that criticism
of literature should-and can-be
based on literature alone. To base
it only on politics-of any kind
SENS to her as much beside the
point as to base it on the rules of
horse-racing. And this is true of
political literature, too. Literature
is the record of human life. 1t is
not study of human institutions
any more than it is a study of
human dress, and characters in lit
erature of all ages have gone, in
some fashion or other, clothed We
find in Homer institutions which
for long have been held in execra-
tion-slavery, human sacrifice, in
Vulnerable brutalities. We do not
Judge Homer by these. Nor do we
read him as source of information
on Greek customs. We read him
for the humanity which we readily
recognize in him, humanity which
is independent of fashions in
thought.
It is very hard for a critic to
hold this high detached standard of
judgment today, when in most writ
ing the woods and the trees are in
distinguishable. The critics of Mr..
Hicks general school have solved
the difficulty in their own way.
There are no woods, they tell us.
There are only trees. Or, if you
wish. there are no human beings
there are only examples of classes
engaged in class struggle. Now no
one will say that there are no classes
and no jealousy between class men,
bers. But can say with certainty
that that is not the whole of life,
and cannot, therefore, be the whole
Of literature. Criticism which oc-
cupies itself with class questions
consequently is criticism Of . very
limited kind. But, within those
limitations, Mr.. Hicks has done q
perfectly acceptable Job.