two obvious parallels: allegorical interpretation and scripturalnhermeneutics.nLiterary texts can lose their relevance for some part (ornall) of a culture. If the texts have acquired an almost sacredncharacter—like Homer—this presents a problem. ThenIliad and Odyssey are filled with scenes which later Greeks,nespecially philosophers, found distasteful. Perhaps the worstnwere those in which the gods fought with each other. Platonwanted to expel Homer, along with all poets, from hisnRepublic, but the Stoics preferred to see a hidden allegoricalnmeaning in all the divine struggles. Of course, theyndistorted the text at the same time as they preserved it. Ovidnunderwent a similar treatment in the later Middle Ages. Inneach age, the emergence of interpretie criticism was thensign of a great cultural discontinuity between the texts andnthe interpreters.nA more obviously relevant analogy is the long tradition ofnscriptural exegesis. The writings of the Old and NewnTestaments were composed over a period of several thousandnyears in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. By the time ofnthe Roman Empire, Jewish scriptures required explicationnand commentary, and by our time there is hardly a line thatnhas not received olumes of attention. Not only is this thenresult of cultural discontinuity, but the stakes are evennconsiderably higher than they were in the case of Homer.nFor believers—Jewish and Chrishan—a proper understandingnof scripture is essential if we are to be in a propernrelationship to our Creator. For the Protestant Christian,nthe saKation of his soul can depend on a correct interpretationnof certain test passages.nThis brings us back once again to Arnold and his sincerenwish to see poetry pick up the religion’s fallen torch. In annearlier age of unbelief, Nero, so the rumor went, played thenlyre and sang while much of the imperial city burned to thenground. It need not be added that Nero had lost his faith innthe gods of Rome—or that he blamed the fire on thenChristians. But contrary to Arnold’s expectations, we faithlessnmoderns are not fiddling or versifying. Instead, wendevote our efforts to interpreting the sacred texts of Melville,nD.H. Lawrence, and Gerard Manley Hopkins. But rathernthan winning converts, the major effect of this monumentalnscribbling has been to broaden the gap between seriousnliterature and popular audiences. To his credit, Leavisnrecognized part of the problem. He lamented the rise of thenhighbrow/lowbrow distinction and pointed out the successnof Hamlet, which “appealed at a number of levels ofnresponse” in 17th-century England. But Leavis’ only prescriptionnturned out to be a fastidious recoil from all thencoarseness and vulgarity of modern life. A few voices werenraised in protest—notably Hart Crane, who insisted on thenpoet’s need to assimilate the machine age. But in the end,nCrane, too, is grist for the hermeneutic mill, and he isncondemned to reenact his sordid Kfe and tragic suicide anthousand times a year for the entertainment of modernnpoetry classes.nIf poetry is anything worth all this attention and if poetsnhave in fact anything to tell us, then we owe it to them notnto interfere in that intensely personal relationship betweennpoets and their audiences. Ancient books need expositors,nbut if the poets of recent centuries have not succeeded innmaking their meaning plain enough for a reader, whynshould we bother? Perhaps a student will not savor all thensignificance in “Burnt Norton” or Donne’s sonnets, butnwhat he can make out for himself (with the help of a fewnnotes) will be his forever. Reading literature is a kind ofnmarriage of two minds, but when an interpreter slips in tonexercise his droit du seigneur, he takes all the honesty andnhalf the pleasure out of the experience.n—Thomas FlemingnAnnouncing two new titles in the Occasional Papers seriesn# 13 TAKING THE BLINDERS OFF John A. Howard, president of The Rockford Institute writes that while moral relativitynhas triumphed in America, there are hopeful signs for the future.n#14 THE TRAGEDY OF SEX EDUCATION Policy analyst EdwardJ. Lynch critiques the new curriculum proposed for thenNew York City schools.nTitlenD #13 Taking the Blinders Off byJoiinA.Howardnn #14 The Tragedy of Sex Education by EdwardJ. LynchnD # 9 On Strategy and Politics by .Mackubin T.Owensnn #10 Straight Talk on the Economy byEdsonl.GayiordnD #11 Soviet Global Strategy by Faith Ryan WhittleseynD #12 Our National Self-Confidence bv Allan C. Carlsonn(?£L’^il^I !iPI’2^l’Q.”i[ for additional ndesOTilable in tjiisjeries.)_nSl.OOea.nS2.00ea.nS.35ea.nS.35ea.nS.35ea.nS.35ea.nyty. Amt.nAmount due: S_nPostageandhandling:AddS.50fororderstotallingS0 – 4.99 AddS1.00fororderstotallingS5.00ormore S_nU.S. Dollars Only. Please make check or money order payable to The Rockford Institute. Total Amount Due: S^nNamenCitv_n. Addressn.State _Zip_nThe Rockford Institute»934 North Main S tr e e f R o c kfo r a • III i n o i s • 6 11 0 3nnn(kP8^nFEBRUARY 1986 / 29n