Forum on Criticism Ends; Mobilization Is Next Topic

The largest and most enthusiastic audiences to fill Sanders Theatre this summer testified that although the conference on "The Philosophical Bases of Literary Criticism" arrived at no remarkable conclusions, it was the most remarkable of the three to date.

Under the chairmanship of Perry G. E. Miller, professor of American Literature, talks that were supposed to last 40 minutes lasted 40 minutes, rather than an hour. Commentary was commentary--not an independent speech. Distinctions were well drawn, the participants kept close to the issues, and there were no heated exchanges with the suggestion of blows to follow.

"Can't Reproduce Itself"

Allen Tate, poet and critic now teaching at New York University, started the evening session Monday night by asserting ten propositions concerning the relation of criticism to philosophy.

"Literary criticism," he began, "is not an autonomous activity. It cannot reproduce itself."

Professor Richard V. Chase of Columbia, second main speaker of the evening, discussed the role of naturalistic philosophy in the study of poetry and contrasted two stereotyped images of the critic as "the man of letters" and "the man of vision and spirituality."

Pierre Emmanuer, French poet and Summer School instructor, highlighted his commentary by taking issue with both the speakers. Opposing the idea that the critic must adopt a philosophical theory of truth, he asked, "Is not truth in the hands of the philosophers like a work of art in the hands of the critics?"

The critic cannot take a detached attitude, Emmanuel felt. "He must take the chance of being utterly wrong if he wants to be utterly right." The critic who becomes a mere professional reader of books is worn out and useless, Emmanuel concluded.

Discusses Arnold

Opening the Tuesday evening session, John Crows Ransom, editor of the Kenyon Review and visiting Summer School professor, discussed the relationship of the works of Matthew Arnold to recent work in criticism. Ransom stressed the error of destroying poetry in attempting to reduce it by analysis into its prose equivalent.

Dean William R. Dennes of the University of California Graduate School denied that there was any philosophical way to knowledge other than science and common sense and felt that no advance in philosophy could lead to any means to defend value judgments by argument. Since values are "acts of love," he held that any attempt to establish philosophical rules for art would be indefensible. Sible.

Professor Elliott Coleman of Johns Hopkins provided the commentary.

Closed sessions were held in Lamont Tuesday and Wednesday afternoons