Midwest Modern Language Association

A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950. Vol. 5: English Criticism, 1900-1950 by Rene

Wellek; A History of Modern Criticism: 1750-1950. Vol. 6: American Criticism, 1900-1950 by
Rene Wellek
Review by: Joseph R. Fargnoli
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Spring, 1987), pp.
118-120
Published by: Midwest Modern Language Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1315004 .
Accessed: 23/06/2014 07:54

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Midwest Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
A Historyof ModernCriticism: 1750-1950.By Rene Wellek. Vol. 5: English
Criticism,1900-1950. Vol. 6: American 1900-1950.New Haven:
Criticism,
YaleUniversityPress,1986.Vol. 5, xxiv + 343 pp. Vol. 6, vii + 345 pp. ea.
vol. bibliog.index.ea.vol:$22.50.

The firsttwo volumesof ReneWellek'sA Historyof Modern 1750-

Criticism:
1950,publishedin 1955,coveredliterarycriticismin France,England,Italy,and
Germanyfromthe middleof the eighteenthcenturyto 1830.Volumes3 and4,
publishedin 1965,continuedthe historyof criticismin thosefourcountriesand
addednineteenth-century RussianandAmericancriticism.At that time a fifth
volumewas to dealwith the twentiethcentury,but it hasbecomethreemore
volumes:the two underreviewanda seventh(in preparation, coveringcriticism
on the continentof Europe,1900-1950).
Wellekhassteereda middlecoursebetweenaestheticsandliteraryhistory.He
assumesthatliterarycriticismis a fieldof knowledgewith a knowableobjectand
thatit is expresslyfroma historyof criticismthatjudgments,ideas,andtheories
aboutcriticismcandevelop.Accordingto him,themodernagein criticismbegan
with the disintegrationof the neoclassicalsystems.Criticalconceptssuch as
"organicity,""metaphor,""symbol,"and "the reconciliationof opposites"
tendedto emergeandtakeon centralimportance,especiallyin the trendswhich
ledto theRomanticmovement.Theseconcepts,he argues,continueto befunda-
mentalto the criticalissuesof the twentiethcentury,andhis discussionsof the
EnglishandAmericancriticsin volumes5 and6 bearout this claim.
Wellek'svolumeon Englishcriticismfrom1900to 1950firstlooksat English
symbolism,academiccriticism,and the Bloomsburycritics. William Butler
Yeats'scriticismcomprisesa defenseof symbolistpoeticsbasedon traditional
sourcesand contemporary Frenchviews. Among the academiccriticsA. C.
Bradleyappears the most prominent,for Wellekseeshis workas a fortification
againstmisinterpretations andunsuitabletheoriesof tragedy.In theBloomsbury
group,VirginiaWoolf, M. Forster,andDesmondMcCarthyarethe impor-
E.
tantcritics.Woolf possessesan objectivemethodinformedby a strongsenseof
historyandguidedby a standard of the symbolical.Herprecisecharacterizations
of fictionrepresent herachievement, butshehasmadeno importantcontribution
to the theoryof literatureor the novel. Forster,a reliableempiricistwho in-
troducedthe distinctionof "flat"and"round"characters, failsto thinkclearly
aboutthecreativeprocessandthestatusandfunctionof art;heremainslimitedby
his criticalrealism.McCarthy,however,figuresasan attractive,if minorcritic,
his writingsdisinterested andintelligent.
WellekdiscussesD. H. Lawrenceamonga groupof Englishcriticshecallsthe
New Romantics.He findsLawrence's adage,"Nevertrustthe artist- trustthe
tale,"a fortunateformulation of anoldidea.Thedifferences betweenWellekand
F. R. Leavisaremostapparent whentheyareappraising Lawrenceasa critic.In

118 BookReviews

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
his lateryears,Leaviscameto regardLawrenceas the greatestcriticof all time,
but Wellek frequentlyfinds Lawrence'scriticismlittle more than personal
ideology.WellekfaultsLeavisin hisown practiceforusinganindiscriminate and
vague criterionof "life" as a criticalstandard. Leavisseems more the socialand
moralcritic, hostile to modernism,yet of Arnoldianstaturebecauseof his
influence.WellekseesLeavis'spreferences for cultureinsteadof civilizationand
humanunderstanding insteadof scientificexplanationas centralconcernsof
criticism.
Wellek alsodiscussesthe innovatorsT. E. Hulme, WyndhamLewis, I. A.
Richards,EzraPound,andT. S. Eliot.Hulmeappears ayoungmanin searchof a
world-view,his Bergsonismcontradicting hisclassicism.Lewis,despitehisdoc-
trinairetraditionalism andclassicism,canbe lucid,pithy,andoftenpenetrating.
Richards's theory of criticism suffersfromaestheticandpsychological reductions,
theliteraryworkcut offin a stateof mind,amentalcondition.Butin practice,by
insistingon the analysisof imagery,metaphor,andpoeticlanguage,Richards
stimulatedEnglishandAmericancriticism,especiallyin WilliamEmpsonand
CleanthBrooks.Pound'scriticismseemslargelyuntheoretical andunhistorical to
Wellek. Wellek indicatesthat Poundapparentlylackeda technicalgraspof
modernmetrics.But Pound'scocksurenessproduceda revolutionin taste.
Pound'sdiscoveryof new talentgiveshiman importantplacein the criticismof
the time.
WellekconsidersEliot"byfarthe mostimportantcriticof the twentiethcen-
turyin theEnglish-speaking world."Theearlycriticism,especiallyon the Eliza-
bethansandMetaphysicals, earnsWellek'shighestpraise.At firstEliotdefendeda
view of literatureas autonomous,but later his\argumentsfor the relative
autonomyof artled to a doublestandard.His assertionthatmorethanliterary
standards decideon the greatnessof literatureturnsliterarycriticisminto a sifter
betweenliteratureandnon-literature. Sucha standard abandonsanorganicview
of artandreintroduces a separation of formandcontent.
Inhisvolumeon American criticismfrom1900to 1950,WellekpresentsH. L.
MenckenandVan Wyck Brooksin his discussionof criticismbeforethe New
Criticism.MenckengetscreditforfreeingtheAmerican literaryscenefromcom-
placency,conformity,andconvention,even thoughliterarycriticismoccupied
onlya smallpartof hisactivity.Brooksalsolookedmainlyat artandartistsin so-
ciety,astypifiedbestin hisbookson TwainandJames.Wellekdistinguishes sev-
eralmovementsin theearlypartof thecentury,particularly theNew Humanists,
theacademic critics,andtheMarxistcritics.IrvingBabbittandPaulElmerMore,
themostimportantof theNew Humanists,belongto aperiodcloseto theturnof
the century.In Americanliteraryscholarship,F. O. Matthiessen's American
Renaissanceexemplifiesthereintegration of literaryhistoryandcriticism.Wellek
commendsPhilipRahvamongthe Marxistsfor his strengthsin discussingpar-
ticularworks, especiallyfrom Russianliterature.EdmundWilson andLionel

Book Reviews 119

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Trilling are two major critics who, for Wellek, occupy individual positions.
Though both had studied Marx and Freud, neither can be called a Freudianor
Marxistcritic. Wilson standsas the great publiccritic, while Trilling, though he
disagreedwith the New Criticsover historicalandbiographicalapproaches,con-
sistentlyused many of their standards(unity, coherence,tension, irony, paradox,
ambiguity)in his pursuitof a literaturerepresentativeof the liberalimagination.
Wellek spendsbetter than halfof this volume dealingwith the New Criticism.
Especiallyin his studiesof CleanthBrooks, Allen Tate, andWilliam K. Wimsatt,
Wellek addressesfour frequent accusationsmade about the New Critics: they
were formalists, unhistorical, scientific, and merely pedagogical. According to
Wellek, the New Critics were most united in their opposition to the ruling
scholarlyantiquarianism.He shows how they hardlyconstitute a group. Yvor
Winters he calls a total maverick,while Kenneth Burkeand R. P. Blackmurare
also distinct from the Southerncritics. With Burke, literarytexts have become
pretexts for his philosophy; relativism subsumes art, logic, and distinctions.
Blackmur'speculiarsenseof history andobscurity,his "greatgraspof unreason,"
informshis criticism, mademanifestin his biographyof Henry Adamsunearthed
in 1980. Wellek sympathizeswith Robert Penn Warren'swry definition of the
New Critics: they have common enemies. In the caseof Brooks, Brooks'sappeal
to an Aristotelianconcept of mimesisin his theory of the value-structuredworld
of poetry means a rejectionof formalistpoetics. Like Brooks,John Crowe Ran-
som and Allen Tate see literatureas providinga kind of knowledge distinct from
science. But whereasRansom'scriticismstrugglesover the dichotomy of"struc-
ture" and "texture," Tate's organicpoetic views the symbolsof art as expressive
of the most complete knowledge of the world. Wellek repeats that for these
criticsthereis no "prisonhouseof language."But his argumentsfor the historical
dimensionsof Brooks's, Tate's, and Wimsatt's criticism are less convincing.
The New Critics mythologized a golden age, somewhat synonymouswith a
phaseof history before the Eliotic "dissociationof sensibility"in the seventeenth
century and related to religion. Wellek hesitates to discuss ideology in these
critics, yet he shows little in them which constitutes historicalcontexts apart
from such a version of history. Wellek's closing chapteron Wimsatt, and his ad-
mirationfor Wimsatt's theoryof literature(with its definitionof"icon" asa "ver-
bal sign which somehow sharesthe propertiesof, or resembles,the objectswhich
it denotes . . . an interpretationof realityin its metaphoricand symbolicdimen-
sion,") perhapsmost directly suggest his own criticalpreferencesand the domi-
nant view of literary criticism which regulates the scope and method of these
histories. Wellek's volumes certainlywill be valuablereferenceworks for many
years. They will also stand as his own theory of literarycriticism appliedon a
Hegelian scale.

Joseph R. Fargnoli
University of Rhode Island

120 BookReviews

This content downloaded from 194.29.185.209 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:54:36 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions