Page:The Journal of English and Germanic Philology Volume 18.djvu/41

 Creek 35 nothing more, he is satisfied with the momentary pleasure. But he may withold judgment in order to learn whether or not the thrill of the particular work criticized is a permanent possibility for himself or for others, and by the observation of signs may be able to form tentative judgments without the direct appeal to aesthetic feeling. Nevertheless, such judgments must yield in the end to the imme- diate judgment of aesthetic feeling. 23 To the ordinary person, no one view is likely to seem wholly true or wholly false. He does not wish to surrender either im- pressionistic or objective criticism. He believes there is truth and value in both romanticism and classicism. And he is likely to find truth also in each interpretation of literature. Professor Woodberry, in his brilliant essay on "Aesthetic Criti- cism" 24 has shown that each person who approaches and appre- ciates a work of art is himself a creator, so that a Paradise Lost may mean one thing in the century in which it came into existence and another in the twentieth century, may mean one thing to one individual and something else to another individual in either the seventeenth or twentieth century. And yet most people will feel that communication is an important element in all literature. The poem or essay which is for the author alone is almost inconceivable. It is true that numberless poems and essays are never read by any- one except the writer, and that numberless poems and essays are not written with the expectation that anyone will ever see them. Yet an element in the psychology of composition is the feeling of 23 Remy de Gourmont's very stimulating book, Le Probleme du Style, in- sists on the aesthetic element in literature in contradistinction to the moral, "L'art est incompatible avec une preoccupation morale ou religieuse; la beau ne porte ni a la piete, ni a la contrition, et la gloire de Dieu delate principale- ment en des ouvrages de la mentalite la plus humble et de la rhStorique la plus mediocre." (p. 48). At another place the same writer remarks that one who feels the literary beauty of a sermon of Bossuet will not be touched religiously and one who weeps for the death of Ophelia does not have the aesthetic sense. Beside these statements should be placed the following: "C'est peut-etre une erreur de vouloir distinguer la forme et la matiere " (p. 152). The thinker who, like Lord Haldane and Gourmont, makes a sharp distinction between art and the rest of life naturally will find it difficult to distinguish matter from form. However, it should be added that for practical purposes Gourmont does make the distinction, insisting that style should be supported by vigorous thought. Professor Spingarn says in reference to the new criticism: "We have doi with all moral judgment of literature. " 24 Two Phases of Criticism, pp. 39 ff.