LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE PHILIPPINES [: this paper, the term “literary criticism” refers only to the criticism of poetry. I deliberately omit the criticism of prose, because it is my conviction that in this field we already have men who can competently undertake it. Although they do not actually do so, for some reason or another, the fact remains that these men are capable of it; that is to say, intelligently capable of it, with sufficient background to work upon, and with an awareness of the proper literary virtues. They are no longer fumbling but have a cognizance of the valid and the significant, and can distinguish these from the meretricious. I have only to mention the names of Manuel E. Arguilla, Federico Mangahas, A. B. Rotor, S. P. Lopez, A. V. H. Hartendorp, and a few others. Any divergence they may have from each other, and any dissension I may have with them, would only be in the matter of degree but to the same qualitative circle.' The case, however, changes drastically in the realm of poetry. Here these critics and I are no longer speaking of the same thing when we say the word poetry: the qualitative principals are altogether opposed and different. Natu- This essay, found among Villa’s folders, is alluded to in Villa’s essay for 1940. As it was left unfinished, the reader should probably read it with reservations. 1. Villa's typescript at this point shows signs of multiple revisions. In all likelihood this was what happened: Villa originally typed, “Any divergence they may have from each other, and any dissension I may have with them, would not much alter the qualitative principal.” He then replaced “would not much alter the qualitative principal” with “would only be tangential but to the same qualitative circle,” typing x's over his original phrasing. He then crossed out (by hand) “tangential” and scribbled “in the matter of degree.” He apparently wanted to end the sentence with that phrase, but sensing perhaps that he should prepare the reader for the phrase “qualitative principals” in the next paragraph, he did not cross out “but che same qualitative cirle,” thereby leaving the sentence vague. He probably intended to return to the passage after writing the rest of the essay but did not. 288re LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE PHILIPPINES rally both cannot be right; but one must be right and the other wrong. Here Tam put into the hard and ungracious position of having to assert that they are wrong and that J am right, But, as the English philosopher I. A. Richards wisely says: “If the competent are to refrain because of the antics of the unqualified, an evil and a loss which are neither temporary nor trivial increase continually. It is as though medical men were all to retire because of the impudence of quacks. For the critic is as closely occupied with the health of the mind as the doctor with the health of the body... “The expert in matters of taste is in an awkward position when he differs from the majority. He is forced to say in effect, ‘I am better than you. My taste is more refined, my nature more cultured, you will do well to become more like me than you are,’ It is not his fault that he has to be so arrogant. He may, and usually does, disguise the fact as far as possible, but his claim to be heard as an expert depends upon the truth of these assumptions.” This of course is merely a repetition of my position ten or twelve years ago, when I was arguing for intelligence in the short story. At that time, editors thought me not only presumptuous but with a warped view of litera- ture, as I was inculcating honesty and sincerity in writing, and in my own work delving into the psychological study of character and for the amorality of any literary work, Naturally these stories were rejected with such state- ments as “The character is fit only to live in an insane asylum,” or where, as in my story “Given Woman,” a dramatic situation arose which was not ac- cording to moral conventions, it was simply “immoral” and therefore un- printable. Mr. Hartendorp turned down this story in 1929 on this ground. The story could not be printed at all in the Philippines. In 1940, howeves, eleven years later, we find Mr. Hartendorp enlightened enough to publish Delfin Fresnosa’s “Child Wife,” a story which if compared to “Given Woman,” on the same “moral grounds” would be found to be triply violative of so- called decency: for whereas in “Given Woman,” a man merely gets tired of his wife and gives her over to another man, in Mr. Fresnosa’s story we find a child of fourteen or thereabouts being handed over by her own parents to a married man, and with the sublime approval of the man’s wife!”, .. But of 2. Delfin Fresnosa, “Child Wife,” Philippine Magazine, June 1940, 233-34. Read, however, Hartendorp’s take on the matter: “He [Villa] sent me stuff from time to time, but I did not think it was up to his best and rejected it. One of his best stories ‘Footnote to Youth’ appeared in the Philippines Herald. When I asked him why he did not send that to me, he said, ‘Oh, would you have published it?’ ‘Of course,’ I said, ‘and I would have been glad of the chance.’ He looked surprised. He does not seem to know which of his own work is the best, but that is true of many writers” (“Four O'clock in the Editor’s Office,” Philippine Magazine, October 1932, 227). 289LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE PHILIPPINES course eleven years later is eleven years later—the point, however, is that eleven years ago I had already liberated the Filipino short story from false, pseudomoral shackles, and I add, done the same for Filipino poetry, even though it landed me in court. II Now, if, as I have stated, we have men now competent enough to be critics of prose, whence arises their inadequacy as critics of poetry? First, let me point out what are and what should be the essentials of a true critic, whether of prose or of poetry. The first requisite in a true critic should be critical intuition. This is his foundation stone. He must respond instinctively and intuitively to a work of art, even before he goes into any analysis of it. He must be able to grasp it at a glance in toto, and either accept it or reject it. Like the creative artist, the true critic attains a comprehension of the whole by the vigor and delicacy of his intuition. He has this extrasensory antenna which tells him immediately whether he is in true presence or not, before the real or the false. Immediately he perceives whether the genetic idea is valid or not. This genetic idea—idee generatrice—is the es- sence of the work, and it is not necessarily an idea, for in poetry it may be an image, an emotion, or simply a mood. If a man has not this faculty, his critical sense is not native, but simply adventitious. That is the reason why a great critic is a rare apparition. The second requisite for the critic is that he should possess a back- ground; that is, he must have special knowledge of the branch of art he is undertaking to be a critic of. This is, naturally, specialised learning, whereby he studies intensely and extensively all the best that has been done and thought in his special branch, and what is being done. The critic who has a knowledge only of the past is an inadequate critic, for then he will judge only by the accepted strictures, whereas art is always endeavouring to renew itself: the forms of art change, although its essence remains the same. It follows also that a man who merely has a general knowledge of art is not a critic. Now, to explain why men who can be competent critics of prose can also be false critics of poetry. The reason is that there is a great basic difference between prose and poetry, however the two may sometimes interlap. Our crit- ics, reared in prose, approach poctry with a prose mind, a prose point-of-view: that is, they expect and demand of poetry what they expect in prose. Naturally they judge etry as prose, except that it is versified. Whereas poetry being poetry should be approached from a poetry point-of-view, and thus should not be 290e- LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE PHILIPPINES approached with a prose-mind. It is like a sculptor demanding of a paint- ing that it have the solidity of sculpture, or vice versa—a painter de- manding a piece of sculpture that it have the flatness of a painting. In this paper I am not undertaking to discuss the difference between prose and poetry, since Tam undertaking a work on poetics, in which this is eluci- dated at length. But perhaps it would help clear the matter greatly if I state this difference in brief: The essence of prose is substance. The essence of poetry is not substance, but magic and magic of utterance. Any substance in poetry is merely of secondary importance, The purer the poem the less it has of prose-substance. I’m not however saying that poetry cannot have substance, though the h[illegible} of poetry is definitely not substance. Why have not our so-called critics realized this? We go back to the two requisites that I have discussed. Although these men have enough of these two qualities to give them a competence in prose criticism, it is alas true that poetry is the highest and most difficult of the literary arts, and therefore its making and its criticism must perforce be harder than that of prose. Our critics who pose as critics of poetry are simply naive enough to think that because they can tackle prose they are as well qualified to tackle poetry. Their prose intuition and their prose learning however do not avail. The intu- ition necessary for the discernment of true poetry is at the very opposite of that intuition which they have for prose; as I have said, prose tends to sub- stance, whereas poetry tends to the purification from substance, or to nullifi- cation of substance. Aside from this lack of the first requisite they also lack the foundational background, that specialised study in poetry. Their main reliance is that college course on poetry. But that is merely general knowledge and grossly and insultingly insufficient for the proper criticism of poetry. That is why I validly say that there is nobody in the Philippines who 1s educated enough in poetry, and when these people pose as critics of poetry they ate simply fools who will not keep quiet. The cultured in prose become the cultured vulgarians in poetry. II At present our practitioners of poetic criticism fall into two groups: (I) the moron as intellectual, and (2) the intellectual as moron. The moron as intellectual is of course the “critic” who is.essen- tially moronic and pose as an intellectual. The stupendous example is Mr. Cornelio Faigao, who presents us with an annual [illegible]. He is not alone however. There is also the poetry critic of the Free Press. With these people, as Dryden would say, “And if they rhymed and everything rattled, all was well.” 291ST LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE PHILIPPINES The second group, the intellectual as moron, is essentially respectable, but in its avidity to show off or perhaps to be versatile, dons the poetry-critic tobe and utters stupidities. Did they confine themselves to what they know, or at least not pose as pontiffs until they had learned the sacrament, th would command more respect [illegible]. This group includes Mr. Salvador P. Lopez and Mr. Hartendorp. Both groups are of course insensible to poetry. What they react to in poetry is not to the [illegible] in poetry. In his Anima Poetae, Coleridge propounds the question: “The question should be fairly stated, how far a man can be an adequate, or even a good (s0 far as he goes) though inadequate critic of poetry, who is not a poet, at least in posse. Can he be an adequate, can he be a good critic, though not commen- surate? But there is yet another distinction. Supposing he is not only not a poet, but is a bad poet! What then?” The answer to that of course is tragic: he did not live long enough to see Mr. Faigao’s selections. To give concrete manifestations of the ineptitude of these critics [illegible ].? Vv The eternal tragedy of art happens when judgment of the work of supe- Tior artists is made to rest in the hands of inferiors. I must point this out because this is the case now with Philippine poetry. Since we have nobod; qualified in poetry, either by direct intuition or by [illegible] learning, the judgment of poetry is placed within the hands of poetic inepts. This is forgiv- able when they only pass judgment on the work of their equal or on those still inferior to them. But what about their passing judgment on those artists who by virtue of superior intuition and superior art seem incomprehensible to such editors? The outcome of course is the rejection of these superior work and the printing and assignment of value to mediocrity, It is true that great poets are rare, but when the editorial eye cannot see the least sign of superior- ity, it becomes calamitous not only for the poets concerned but for the future of poetry. At this point, it is unnecessary for me any longer to hide the fact that Iam speaking for myself and declaring outright my work superior to the work of [illegible]. But it is and I need not assume any false modesty about it. 3. Villa scribbles “Poems for an Unhumble One” at the margin. Perhaps, he was going to cite the controversy over the poems—and his explanations of the poems—as an example of “the ineptitude of these critics.” See notes on that work on pages 254-57. 292LITERARY CRITICISM IN THE PHILIPPINES By virtue of my wide and intense training in poetry, and my natural affinity with the spirit of poetry, I naturally produce superior work, in technique as in anything else. To have the publication of such work dependent, for instance, upon the ignorant judgments of Mr, Litiatco or Mr. Hartendorp, who have no ear nor training at all for poetry, is of course an insult not only to me but to Poetry itself It is time that such editors come to realize that there are works which they may not understand and which still can value [sic] (which escapes them by [illegible}) and should be printed, coming as they do not from an irresponsible writer but from a serious, much more-advanced artist than they. There must be confidence in the work of the better artists and such work should not be ignored. Ezra Pound says of certain of his poems: I was twenty years behind the times So you found an audience ready. 293