Supreme Fictions: Studies in the Work of William Blake, Thomas Carlyle, W.B. Yeats and D.H. Lawrence by Brian John (review)

404 LETTERS IN CANADA Schafer tells us a good deal about the extreme romantic view of music as the 'ideal metaphor for the mysterious spirit of nature, the divine essence which pervaded all things' (p 8), 'a reverberation from the profound and secret depths of some Urzeit before the creation of the world' (p 157), and 'the mystical Sanscrit of nature' (p 137)' Schafer's prose, expressive and often scintillating, occasionally, however , becomes unidiomatic and extravagant. I quote only a few examples (italicizing of English words mine): 'the Kenner ... may have moved the parts in holy procession through the odd counterpoint exercise' (p 130); 'German resthetic theorizing ... regarded a work of art in the pure state of antisepsis' (p 141); 'If music is ... the one truly "romantic" art, why mustit be disclosed through the veil of verbal and visual euphemism' (p 155); 'Silence is rarely provoked by the romanticists' (p 157). On the whole the translations are fine, free recreations, with many inventive touches. I wonder, however, why Schafer chose to translate 'Kammergericht' by 'Supreme Court of Judicature' (p 26); and'all clocks, even those that were late' (p 145) for 'AIle Uhren, selbst die tragsten' is decidedly off-target. I found only one obvious typographical error ('sings an aria Crescentini's opera,' p 176), but insufficient care in proof-reading may account for one or two other textual oddities. (GORDON L. TRACY) Brian John, Supreme Fictions: Studies in the Work of William Blake, Thomas Carlyle, _ W.B. Yeats and D.H. Lawrence. Montreal & London: McGill-Queen's University Press 1974, xiv, 318, $13.50 The inevitable approach to a book promising to compare the work offour such forceful but diverse figures is one of interest mingled w-ith trepidation . The academic industries devoted to Blake, Yeats, and Lawrence, if not Carlyle, have so flooded the market with individual studies of varying merit that any opportunity to consider these writers within a larger inter-relating context is refreshingly attractive. At the same time, there have been a number of rather arid comparative treatments of Blake and Yeats, Carlyle and Lawrence, and other permutations; it is so easy particularly when, as here, the crossing of genres is involved - to lower the denominator (in Carlylean phrase) and reduce each writer to a series of moral and ethical viewpoints without any consideration of his uniquely literary qualities. The dangers are numerous. Fortunately, Professor John picks his way cautiously and tactfully through this critical minefield, and emerges on the other side with a helpful and cogent book. His concentration falls, rightly, upon instinctive attitudes rather than. philosophically-buttressed intellectual positions. He finds stimulating common-ground in the doctrine of vitalism which sees 'the principle of Force - which Blake called Energy - running through all things, cosmic HUMANITIES 405 and individual.' The advantage of such a procedure is that it proves essentially flexible. Vitalism takes many forms, and although it seems (ironically) to encourage the erection of systems, it does not dictate sameness. As a result the critic is able to offer some thought-provoking interconnections without recreating, say, Lawrence in Blake's image. Moreover, vitalism becomes the Ariadne-thread that keeps both critic and reader from losing their bearings in a complex labyrinth. John approaches his chosen quartet sympathetically but by no means uncritically. He proceeds warily but firmly through Carlyle'S writings, neither ignoring what needs to be rejected nor (the more serious temptation nowadays) underestimating the wisdom of his unfashionable discriminations . He is bold enough, given the current literary climate, to assert that Lawrence's 'pollyanalytics' are 'as intellectually suspect as Yeats's Vision,' and even his unusually positive response to The Plumed Serpent does not neglect the weaknesses of that novel. On the other hand John is careful not to prejudge the issues in the way that vitiated, for example, John Harrison's The Reactionaries. Supreme Fictions is, of course, a book about ideas and attitudes embodied in literature and runs all the risks that such an approach entails. At times John gets entangled in the detailed complexities of individual texts which threaten to blur the generally clean lines of his book - but then, has any Blake commentator avoided the fate...