Humanities: Literary Studies

400 LETIERS IN CANAI)A: 1965 figures constituting part 2, that of D. G. Rossetti is by far the most comprehensive. It must be virtually complete. Other figures are ·given selective bibliographies, the severity of the selection depending on their centrality and importance to the movement. Part 3 is a bibliography of the Pre-Raphaelite movement, including not only general studies of the movement, but editions and studies of the primary documents, specialized studies of particular aspects, representations of Pre-Raphaelites in fiction and on the stage, caricatures, parodies, and attacks, collections of poetry and of reproductions of art. The final part, a bibliography of Pre-Raphaelite illustrations, attempts to "catalogue all the PreRaphaelite illustrations for books and periodicals which it has been possible to locate." As this brief descripiton suggests, the bibliography is extraordinarily comprehensive; it is difficult to imagine any sort of concern with any of the Pre-Raphaelites or Pre-Raphaelitism which would not find here invaluable guides to research combined with useful critical comment. That every topic and every person cannot be given the same fulness of treatment is a consequence of the intention of the work as much as an evidence of human limitations. Ideally, perhaps, one would like to have a catalogue of all Pre-Raphaelite stained glass, a catalogue of all PreRaphealite works in private hands, and complete details of all the private collections. But apart from the physical difficulty, the virtual impossibility, of making an absolutely complete inventory and an exhaustive bibliography , it seems doubtful whether these would have been compatible with Mr. Fredeman's main purpose, which is critical. His _intention, to provide "a critical reference guide to the whole subject," demands a clear emergence of his definitions, of his assessments; of his judgments of relations and relevances. As he says in his preface, the commentary and the bibliography are designed to complement one another. With the present balance, they do this admirably. It would be unjust to end this review without a compliment to the Harvard University Press. To produce anything but a handsome book on this· subject would be an embarrassing irony; this volume, well printed, well illustrated, and attractively bound, is worthy of its theme. (F. E. L. PRIESTLEY) Contemporary prejudice generally assumes that only a major critic is capable of discussing a major literary figure; that the lesser critic tacitly accepts the fact that he knows his place when he confines himself to the HUMANITIES 401 obscure and the peripheral. Yet it is not difficult to find impressive evidence to the contrary. Virginia Woolf demonstrated the de1ights that can be gleaned from a resuscitation of Parson Woodforde or the Duchess of Newcastle. Sir Herbert Grierson brought the neglected Metaphysicals to our attention. We owe a debt of thanks to Robert Bridges for his championing of Gerard Manley Hopkins. Literary taste, a capricious thing at best, can be moulded by the intelligent enthusiasm of a supporter who proudly displays new wares or who persuades us that we are depriving ourselves by ignoring the unjustly forgotten. Professor W. J. Keith, in Richard Jefferies: A Critical Study ( Unic versity of Toronto Press, pp. 199, $6.00), examines a nineteenth-century writer on rural themes, wisely refuses to apologize for devoting intense attention to a writer who he blandly admits belongs to "that indistinct no-man's land that skirts the boundaries of creative literature." His own enthusiasm for Jefferies he considers sufficient justification for a sustained analysis and evaluation of his writings. Moreover, he demands a thorough knowledge of his subject's work as a prior condition to reading his study. In Professor Keith's belief, Jefferies has been neglected partly because his widely varied writings have defied classification. It seems more probable that Jefferies has been neglected because all his work is so deeply rooted in the countryside, a preoccupation which strikes a modern reader as quaintly old-fashioned. Professor Keith emphasizes that Jefferies had a wider knowledge of rural life than Hardy. This is undoubtedly true but Hardy's novels would not be greater if he had included more detailed descriptions of rur~l life. Hardy is simply a greater writer than Jefferies for all the intangible reasons...