ABSTRACT
The subsequent critical revolution restored at least that sense of analysis without which good criticism is impossible. For the sense of analysis is a token of sanity in all the varied critical fringes of literature. Without a sense of analysis no good criticism is possible, although there might well be good critical theory. The analysis is there only as part of a genuine critical response: the feeling that the lines are better than anything Denham, on the evidence of the rest of his work, could ever reasonably have been expected to do. The analysis is there to serve the purpose of the judgment and, like the generalizations, is dictated by it. Fundamentally, the fault of merely technical analysis is much the same as that of merely appreciative criticism, for all that one exploits is a method and the other a trick of sensitivity.
