Lyricality in English Literature by Daniel Albright (review)

BOOK REVIEWS DANIEL ALBRIGHT. Lyrieality in English Literature. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1985. 276 p. Both at the beginning and at the end of this book, Professor Albright notes the difficulty in settling on a "satisfying list" of criteria to use to identify a lyric (259). Consequently, he chooses to examine it as a "mode" that can appear in a variety of genres. He rests his analysis on Auden's suggestion that "every poem exists in a state of tense equilibrium between two competing tendencies, . . . Ariel and Prospero, the spirit of unearthly fantasy and the spirit of unflinching truth" (2). He seldom mentions Prospero, since Ariel is "the presiding genius of lyrieality" (3). Responding to Joyce's allusions to The Tempest in the "Proteus" section of Ulysses, Albright does add that figure as a "low avatar of Ariel" (47), for "the lyrical mode is properly divided into areas ruled by Ariel and by Proteus — the former an implacable swerving into a single perfect image . . . the latter an endless shifting from one shape into another" (152). The idea of the lyrical is based on paradox in Albright's analysis. He lists five, perhaps six essential paradoxes in chapter 1, "Lyrieality as a Mode," in making the point that the lyric "often treats the breakdown of discursive categories" (4). The book's pervading paradox, implicit throughout, is that lyrical expression, magical utterance, both causes and is a reflection ofthe metamorphic tenuousness of lyricist and subject. Albright's point: the nature of things includes the lyrical power of metamorphosis. Since the lyrical impulse pushes toward the dissolution of distinctions, Albright has set himself a paradoxical task, i.e., distinguishing the features of the indistinct, whether it be indistinct because ofits distance from human imperfection or because ofits all-too-complete participation in the mundane world's chaos. This task reveals something audacious, even playful, in Albright's intentions. Certainly "Ariel" and "Proteus" are not conventional critical categories, for example. Audacity and playfulness do appear throughout Lyrieality in English Literature and lend themselves to gaining a positive response from the reader, with frequent success. Consistent with the paradox, this is a substantial book about insubstantiality. One should take its conclusions seriously despite the temptations the author deliberately provides not to do so. After the initial examination of the "mode," Albright devotes a long chapter each to the consequences oflyrieality for the writer regarding himself, nature, and society. In the comparatively brief last chapter, Albright examines connections between the lyrical and the musical. (The point of connection seems to be that both involve indefiniteness.) As the book's title im277 278Rocky Mountain Review plies, the author alludes to all of English literature in the context of his concerns, drawing parallels from other literatures and arts as well. Each subdivision of each chapter calls single poets, movements, or eras to the fore. These are not examined in chronological order, however. Along with Shakespeare, Eliot and Yeats receive the most analysis throughout the book. Albright seldom cites academic scholarship , even in the bibliography, preferring instead to cite the critical as well as the poetical, the minor as well as the major works of the poets. As has been suggested, Albright's study cannot be categorized as strictly conventional , despite the solid research and valid logic that it manifests. It is as if the subject of lyrieality led him to deliberately avoid or modify the more prosaic dimensions of academic writing. For example, one consequence of his playfulness and audacity is humor, as when he explains the origin of the book to be his attempt and failure to answer the question he had used for years to disconcert degree candidates during their orals, "what is a lyric?" (xii-xiii). A rather antic style also allows humor to defuse too great a sobriety. One stylistic trait is the use of farfetched or irreverent figures: "Eliot seems to think of the stuff poetry is made on as a tapeworm or tubal pregnancy" (16) or "FOr Yeats such speculations belong to his project of affiliating himself as intimately as possible with an exterior anima mundi, the warehouse of symbols" (18). Another is his use of divergent levels of diction: "satirical...