A Guide to English and American Literature [3 ed.] 0977521867, 0582484170

Citation preview

A GUIDE TO

THIRD EDITION

ElVBATESON AND HARRISON TMESEROLE

A Guide to English and American Literature

■ |«®l':i®

' '

■' ■m:^-'iv

i.*

'.■aFsrtis

■»'

bc^ffeH?; i?f a*

A

'flfiOmfl’i-A.a? *■

W';4'.': j-Fi' *A ■ ■

m

•

T- ^

•'■%

'A

4

ffii ■r.T

K/^

.

i^A

^

' ‘i.

-'^3

I

’

A Guide to English and American Literature Third Edition F. W. Bateson and Harrison T. Meserole assisted by Marilyn R. Mumford, Glenn Black, Mark Storey, Valentine Cunningham, Christopher Butler, and Nicholas Joukovsky

►P ►

mmm mmm LONGMAN London and New York

Longman Group Limited London and New York Associated companies, branches and representatives throughout the world Published in the United States of America by Longman Inc., New York First published © F. W. Bateson, 1965 Second edition © F. W. Bateson, 1967, 1970 Third edition © Longman Group Ltd, 1976 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

This edition first published igy6

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Bateson, Frederick Wilse, 1901A guide to English and American literature. Previous editions published under title: A guide to English literature. Includes index. I. English literature-Bibliography. 2. American literature-Bibliography. I. Meserole, Harrison T., joint author II. Title. Z2011.B32 1976 [PR83] 016.82 76-19083 ISBN 0-97752-186-7 ISBN o 582 48414 6 cased o 582 48417 o paper

Set in 10/12 point Imprint and printed in Great Britain by Lowe & Brydone Printers Limited, Thetford, Norfolk

CONTENTS

Preface Abbreviations and conventions

1

2

3

4

v viii

General works on English literature Bibliographies and reading lists

i

Literary histories

2

Anthologies

7

Miscellaneous works of reference

8

The approach to medieval literature When does English literature begin?

ii

The mode of communication and its literary consequences

15

The manner of presentation: oral delivery

19

Subject matter: the Middle English mind

21

A Middle English reading list Bibliographies, literary histories and anthologies

26

Special studies and aids

28

Lyrics, romances, drama, ballads

30

Single works and authors

33

The approach to Renaissance literature Rebirth or inflation? Dramatic speech The Ego and Fortune

4^ 47 5^

5

A Renaissance reading list, 1500-1650 Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, anthologies

6

7

and special studies

54

The principal writers

68

The approach to Augustan literature A common culture

loi

First aid for the modern reader

104

The return of love

107

An Augustan reading list, 1650-1800 Bibliographies, literary histories and anthologies

8

Special subjects

114

The principal writers

116

The approach to Romanticism The subjective individual ‘Diversitarianism’ The reading public The retreat from Romanticism

9

138 143 145 148

A reading list, 1800-1970 Bibliographies Literary histories, surveys and criticism

10

in

133 156

Anthologies

139

The principal writers

161

Modern literary criticism Bibliographies and histories of criticism

222

Anthologies and symposia

223

Critical journals

224

General critical theory

223

Criticism of poetry

227

Criticism of drama

228

Criticism of prose fiction

229

Style and stylistics

231

Prosody

231

11

Literary scholarship: an introduction to research in English literature

12

Literary research: primers and style sheets

233

Identifying and locating the texts

235

Assembling the secondary material

243

The techniques of literary research

257

American literature: by Harrison T. Meserole Bibliographies and other works

268

Histories and anthologies

272

Literary criticism

273

Journals

279

The principal writers (to those born 1900)

281

Index

327

. I

'.o-ttmcof

.1. - j i'- V

►'j.L/o bflf r- -

‘ •'■•1:3,'

'■ ■..'V

,, -.v

)

> s , > ,TNi

j •. i-ni -

(

-1

*c

>

PREFACE

This modest handbook is intended for the reader of any age who is entering, or re-entering, the serious study of English or American literature. Here are the principal editions and commentaries that such a reader may reasonably be expected to want to know about if he is to explore at all thoroughly any of the classics or the classical areas of our literature down to the present day.^ Since there are now, generally speaking, plenty of good modern editions and critical studies, why should he make the process of comprehension more difficult than it need be by using one that is unreliable or out of date? The Guide stops, of course, at or before the point where original research may be expected to begin, though a special section on Literary Scholarship makes some attempt to provide the researcher with most of the indispensable equipment. The function of the four inter-chapters (2, 4, 6, 8) is to assist the reader to an historical point of view towards the literature of the principal English periods. They may be regarded as a preliminary catechism that will then enable him to interrogate personally his mental impressions as they arise in the actual process of contact with this or that work or author. There is one overruling assumption: it is that the sequence of books, authors, styles, and movements which constitute English and American literature is a chrono¬ logical aesthetic continuum. The reader’s progress, that is, out of Othello into King Lear does not differ in kind but only in degree from his progress out of the Middle Ages into the Renaissance.^ You may enter the contin1. The bibliographical aids of Tom Peete Cross (rev. Donald F. Bond, 1962), Arthur G. Kennedy (rev. Donald B. Sands, i960), and Richard D Altick and Andrew Wright (rev. edition, 1963) are guides to the books about English literature and its background, but they omit the literature itself as well as all the books about particular authors and works. Some of the recent literary histories and period anthologies contain helpful bibliographies. 2. After years of work on the Oxford Shakespeare the great Elizabethan scholar R. B. McKerrow became convinced ‘that any satisfactory study of the works of Shakespeare, or indeed probably of any other author, must take full account of the order in which they were written, and that it is advisable actually to study them, so far as possible, in that order’ {Proleg07uena for the Oxford Shakespeare, 1939, p. vi).

VI

uum at any point you choose, but for a proper understanding of the point of your entry its predecessors must be recognized as in some sense latent in it. A semi-educational purpose is therefore implicit. In effect the Guide proposes itself as a new kind of literary history. The conventional history of literature has often tended to become a substitute for the reading of the literature it describes: the better the history the greater the temptation to substitute it. Since George Saintsbury, let us say, was obviously wiser than one is oneself, is it not likely that his impressions of Fielding’s Tom Jones will be superior to one’s own impressions of that often tedious novel? Why not, then, accept them gratefully as such? And in that case will there be any need to struggle through those formidable volumes oneself? The argument conceals a fallacy, but at least a reading of Saintsbury does not compel a reading of Tom Jones. On the other hand, the present combination of reading lists and inter-chapters cannot be a substitute for anything else. Meaningless as literature in themselves, they may nevertheless provide the necessary preliminary to meaningful reading. Some oddities of arrangement derive from these assumptions. Thus, authors are not arranged as might be expected in a single alphabetical series - with W. H. Auden (an English author, if finally an American citizen) coming between John Aubrey (b. 1626) and Jane Austen (b. 1775). Instead there are four chronological compartments - with the divisions circa 1500, 1650, and 1800 - in which authors succeed each other in the order of their births. An alphabetical order is easier no doubt for the casual enquirer to use, but is anything learned from its application? To learn that Marlowe and Shakespeare - or Keats and Carlyle - were born in the same year is, on the other hand, to acquire a fact of considerable critical im¬ portance.^ Indeed, much of the silliness of some modern criticism derives directly from its indifference to what might be called this chronological principle. (A work of literature is what it is, thematically and stylistically, because inter alia its composition occurred at a certain point in historical time.) But the sceptic and the incurably unchronological can, of course, always resort to the index. The compiler and his assistants have actually used at one time or another the great majority of the books and editions here listed. At one time we had hoped not to include a single item with which we were not ourselves familiar, but the annual tidal wave of recent scholarly publi¬ cations has made it physically and psychologically impossible for us to I. It has seemed an unnecessary refinement to arrange authors born in the same year by the month of their birth, though Marlowe was in fact born earlier in 1564 than Shakespeare.

Vll

keep that admirable resolution in every case. If errors of fact or opinion have crept in, as they are sure to have done, they will be penitently corrected later. Editions cited are normally restricted to those with explanatory notes or other editorial matter; early editions and mere reprints are therefore not recorded. In this edition the Guide is intended to cover everything of literary or critical importance down to the end of 1975 (with many 1976 items), but unprinted theses, short essays and articles have had to be excluded except in a few special cases. I regret these ex¬ clusions - the doctoral thesis (of which, however, copies are now generally available on microfilm) and the long article or review have been the life¬ blood, respectively, of modern literary scholarship and criticism - but their inclusion would have required twice as many pages and an erudition to which we cannot pretend. Theses published in book form are, of course, frequently entered as well as collections of articles. Unless indicated other¬ wise the place of publication may be assumed to be easy to locate (most of the books listed are still in print) and generally - London in the English section. New York in the American section - and the commentaries, etc., to be written in English. Earlier editions of the Guide were restricted to the literature of the United Kingdom and Eire, and the only help I had was from Harrison T. Meserole, who was responsible for most of chapter 11. Professor Meserole has now also contributed the valuable chapter 12 on American literature. The various ‘Approach’ chapters I have left more or less as they were. (I am rather proud of them.) For chapters 3, 5, 9, 10, ii I have had the help of the younger scholars whose names appear on the title-pages. The section on Shakespeare - which is brand new - is the work of Karl Haffenreffer, and I have had further help from Ian Donaldson, Stephen Gill, and my polymathic neighbour Martin Dodsworth. It is a pleasure also to acknowl¬ edge the assistance of Tim Conley, Karen Crabtree, Priscilla J. Letterman and Jeffrey Walker in the preparation of the American sections. In a work of this kind total impeccability is impossible. I shall be grate¬ ful, as I have been in the past, for the correction of errors and misprints that I have missed. Corpus Christi College, Oxford

F. W. BATESON

via

ABBREVIATIONS AND CONVENTIONS BCB

British Council Booklet (‘Writers and Their Work’ series)

NCBEL The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature CHEL

The Cambridge History of English Literature

DNB

Dictionary of National Biography

EETS

Early English Text Society

ELH

A Journal of English Literary History

MB

Modern Philology

OED

The Oxford English Dictionary

OH EL

The Oxford History of English Literature

PMLA

Publications of the Modern Language Association of America

PQ

Philological Quarterly

RES

Review of English Studies

SP

Studies in Philology

STC

Short-Title Catalogue

TLS

The [London] Times Literary Supplement

A list of the standard abbreviations of all the literary journals now current will be found in PMLA’s annual bibliography (most of them appear in chapter ii, pp. 249-54 below). The MLA Style Sheet has a useful list of the abbreviations permissible in scholarly footnotes (op. cit., ibid., etc.). In spite of their convenience I have tried to eschew all such abracadabra in this Guide, except in chapters ii and 12 where they are inevitable.

I GENERAL WORKS ON ENGLISH LITERATURE

Bibliographies and reading lists^ The most elaborate of the general bibliographies is NCBEL {The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, ed. George Watson, 4 vols., 1969-74). Vol.

I

covers the ten centuries from the earliest Old English

writings to c. 1660; vol. c. 1900, vol.

IV

Il

is from 1660 to c. 1800, vol.

from 1900 to c. 1950. Vols.

i-iii

Ill

from 1800 to

are essentially an updating

(to c. 1968) and revision of CBEL {The Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, ed. F. W. Bateson, 4 vols., 1940). (But whereas CBEL’?, vol. iv is only an index to the preceding vols., NCBEL’s is a new and very detailed bibliography for 1900-1950, ed. I. R. Willison; a general analytical index is promised, but for the time being a short index of the main entries in each vol. by authors, is all that is generally provided.) NCBEL is primarily a list of titles - of English authors’ books (but not articles or essays) and of the books and articles about them - and some patience is often required to find one’s way in the enormous mass of information supplied, the order being almost entirely chronological. A generous selection is also provided from such semi-literary areas as language, prosody, history, children’s books, religion and travel. Oxford’s recent Select Bibliographical Guides (general editors A. E. Dyson and Stanley Wells) are a useful aid to those lost in the mazes of NCBEL, because specialists evaluate in them existing edns. and criticism as well as providing lists of collected or annotated edns. and titles of principal biographies,

etc.

Unfortunately English Poetry (1971) only includes

twenty major figures (Chaucer to Eliot, but not Langland, Wyatt, I. This section provides a rapid conducted tour among the indispensable general research tools; those who want more, especially for particular authors or special periods or genres, should turn immediately to chapter 11. American literature has similar works of reference of its own (see chapter 12).

General works on English Literature

2

Rochester, Gray, Hardy); The English Novel

(1974) is similarly restricted

(Bunyan to Joyce, twenty-two altogether). Shakespeare has a vol. to

(1973), ed. Stanley Wells, who has also supervized the English Drama YoX. (1975; 17 dramatists). himself

The alternative to chronological arrangement is an alphabetical one. This has been adopted by R. Myers in A Dictionary of Literature in the English Language from Chaucer to 1940 (2 vols., 1970), a work without the elaborate scholarship of NCBEL but easier to consult (Shakespeare gets 3^^ columns as against 164 in NCBEL-, vol. 11 consists entirely of book titles - some 60,000 - and is especially useful (even CBEL only indexed the anonyma, periodicals, genres, anthologies and similar collections; NCBEL is not likely to be more generous). Even the best bibliographies are soon out of date, but annual lists of the previous year’s work have increasingly come to the diligent student’s rescue. The division of labour has generally been by periods - for these see the details given below under the appropriate period - but there are four annual lists for the whole of English literature. These are: (i) the Modern Humanities Research Association’s Annual Bibliography of English Language and Literature (very comprehensive, includes principal reviews of books and edns; from 1920); (ii) the English Association’s Year’s Work in English Studies (less comprehensive but the short summaries and evaluations by competent academics are useful; from 1919); (iii) PMLA’s annual bibliography (confined until 1956 to the work of American scholars, but the ML A International Bibliography,

1957-75, provides very thorough

lists of titles; no comments); (iv) Studies in English Literature provides selective

critical

reports

(Renaissance

items

each

Winter

Number,

Elizabethan-Jacobean drama in Spring number. Restoration and Eight¬ eenth Century in Summer number. Nineteenth Century in Autumn number; from i960).

Literary histories ■ General The most ambitious of the general histories are CHEL {The Cambridge History of English Literature, ed. A. W. Ward and A. R. Waller, 14 vols., 1907-16; general index, 1927) and its Oxford counterpart OHEL {The Oxford History of English Literature, ed. F. P. Wilson (later N. Davis) and B. Dobree, 12 vols. in 14 parts, of which 9 have been issued 1945-69). The principal difference between CHEL and OHEL is that in the former each

Literary histories

3

chapter is by a different scholar, usually a specialist in the topic discussed, whereas each volume or part of OHEL is by a single author (usually but not always an Oxford man) from beginning to end. CHEL, though seriously out of date now for the major figures and topics, is still extremely useful for the semi-literary areas. OHEL has its dull volumes as well as one bril¬ liant tour de force in C. S. Lewis, The Sixteenth Century [excluding Drama), but it never fails to be an efficient guidebook - except in the twentiethcentury volume, which is restricted to eight major figures - and is especially useful for those middling or minor authors who don’t get full-length books written about them. The two best modern one-vol. histories are probably A. C. Baugh, A Literary History of England (1948) and the shorter Hardin Craig, A History of English Literature (1950). Baugh’s collaborators were Kemp Malone, Tucker Brooke, George Sherburn and Samuel C. Chew, and Craig had George K. Anderson, Louis 1. Bredvold, and Joseph Warren Beach - most of them nice elderly American professors with the virtues and limitations of their tribe. Both these histories can now be obtained in separate paper¬ back parts (the Craig series rev. 1962, the Baugh series 1967). Of the older histories, George Saintsbury, A Short History of English Literature (1898, last rev. 1957) is the only one with any life left in it. Saintsbury’s opinions and verdicts have worn extraordinarily well and his criticism remains endlessly readable, if never profound. A quite different note is struck in Boris Ford, The Pelican Guide to English Literature (7 vols., 1954-61), a paperback collaborative venture dominated by the critical ideals of F. R. Leavis of Cambridge and his Scrutiny associates. The emphasis, except for an irrelevant initial chapter in each volume on ‘The social context’, is critical rather than historical. This is a stimulating if occasionally infuriating collection, vol. vil (twen¬ tieth century) being particularly provocative. The Sphere History of Literature in the English Language (7 vols,, 1970-71) follows a similar pattern (each period a separate vol. and editor, each chapter by a specialist on the particular author or group) but is less sectarian. Both begin with Later Middle English, i.e. the fourteenth century. A more modest affair is Annals of English Literature, I4j^-ig2§ by J. C. Ghosh and E. G. Withycombe (1935, rev. R. W. Chapman and D. M. Davin 1961, with extension to 1950), a sort of skeleton history which simply lists each year’s principal publications but is remarkably inclusive and reliable. The English Men of Letters series - launched by John Morley in the 1870s and supplemented from time to time up to c. 1940 to a total of some sixty vols. - forms a kind of literary history because of the uniform treat-

General works on English Literature

4

ment and length, though each vol. (from Chaucer to Meredith) was restricted to a single author; the contributors have ranged from Trollope, Leslie Stephen, and Henry James to J. B. Priestley. A more modest modern equivalent is the British Council’s Writers and Their Work series (ed. successively T. O. Beachcroft, B. Dobree and Geoffrey Bullough, 1950-

),

which now includes some 250 English authors of all periods. Each booklet consists of forty to sixty pages devoted to a single author, or occasionally to two or three, ending with a comprehensive but unannotated bibliography. The contributors are partly academics and partly literary journalists, and the series is especially useful for twentieth-century authors (more than seventy have been done already). The Writers and Critics series of paper¬ backs (ed. A. Norman Jeffares, over forty items, though these have included some non-English writers, by 1975) is more ambitious; each runs to 120 pages or more. And the Preface Books (ed. Maurice Hussey, 9 authors 1970-76) go one better, averaging 200 pages. Twayne’s English Authors Series is rather a hit-or-miss affair, but it has already included over 100 authors, including such excellent items as William H. Pritchard’s Wyndham Lewis (1968). A number of other similar series are now under way such as Studies in English Literature (ed. D. Daiches, some fifty booklets by various authors, 1961-75, each a short critical discussion of a single work, some fust-rate). ■ Scottish literature Three recent surveys - John Speirs, The Scots Literary Tradition (1940, rev. 1962), James Kinsley, Scottish Poetry (1955; ten essays by different authors), and Kurt Wittig, The Scottish Tradition in Literature (1958) — have their uses, though they are all rather superficial. Simply as a literary guidebook Wittig’s is perhaps the best because of its greater range and continuity. David Craig, Scottish Literature and the Scottish People (1961), a much abler work, is restricted to 1680-1830. Recent work on Scottish literature is reported in annual supplements to Bibliotheck. ■ Poetry George Saintsbury, A History of English Prosody from the Twelfth Century (3 vols., 1906-10). Readable and thorough if now rather old-fashioned. A good prosodic handbook is Enid Hamer: The Metres of English Poetry (193°)- "T. S. Eliot, The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (1933). An acute if unmethodical survey of the English poet-critics from Sidney to Eliot himself. F. W. Bateson, English Poetry and the English Language (^934>

English Poetry: a critical introduction (1950, rev. 1966).

Literary histories

5

Primarily stylistic surveys.

F.

R.

Leavis, Revaluation: tradition and

development in English poetry (1936). From the Metaphysicals to the Romantics.

Well worth

disagreeing with.

Leicester Bradner, Musae

Anglicanae: A history of Anglo-Latin poetry, i§oo~ig23 (1940)- An instruc¬ tive survey of a literary by way. Moody E. Prior, The Language of Tragedy (1947). Critical examination of English poetic drama. Bernard Groom, The Diction of Poetry from Spenser to Bridges (1956). An unpretentious account of the distinctive vocabularies of the major poets. Josephine Miles, Eras and Modes in English Poetry (1957, rev. 1964). An informative and sensitive statistical investigation into changes in poetic vocabulary. ■ Drama The Revels History of Drama in English, ed. Clifford Leech and T.. W. Craik (7 vols., ill, 1576-1613, vi, 1750-1800 published 1975) has made a promising beginning. At present Allardyce Nicoll, A History of English Drama, i66o-igoo (6 vols., 1952-59) - a revision of a series of separate period histories (1923-46) - has the advantage of including everything from the Restoration, even if the critical comments are often naive or inept. Volume

VI

is A Short-Title Alphabetical Catalogue of Plays produced or

printed in England from i66o-igoo. Similar catalogues for the periods to 1660 can be found in E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage (2 vols., 1903) and Elizabethan Stage (4 vols., 1923) and their sequel Gerald E. Bentley, Jacobean and Caroline Stage (7 vols., 1941-68). Alfred Harbage, Annals of English Drama, g75-i700 (1940; rev. S. Schoenbaum, 1964) is more convenient for purposes of rapid reference. Carl J. Stratman’s Bibliography of Printed English Tragedy (1966) is arranged by authors and covers every¬ body from 1565 to 1900. The nearest approach to a critical history of the English drama is William Archer’s racy The Old Drama and the New (1923), but Understanding Drama (1948) by Cleanth Brooks and R. B. Heilman, an elaborately annotated anthology of plays, should not be missed. A useful work of reference is Phyllis Hartnolls’ Oxford Companion to the Theatre (1951, enlarged 1967). ■ Prose fiction Ernest A. Baker, History of the English Novel (10 vols., 1924-39), though pedestrian and almost confined to the big names, is remarkably thorough. Three shorter histories of the English novel in the older manner are those of Walter Raleigh (1891: up to Scott only), George Saintsbury (1913; but Saintsbury’s best fiction criticism is in scattered introductions to reprints of various eighteenth-century and nineteenth-century novels), and Robert

6

General works on English Literature

M. Lovett and Helen S. Hughes (1932; efficient if superficial). Lionel Stevenson, The English Novel: a panorama (i960) is a sensible unexciting survey in the same tradition. The more modern analytical approach is to be found at its best in Arnold Kettle, Introduction to the English Novel (2 vols., 1952-53), Dorothy van Ghent, The English Novel: form and function (1953; 1961 paperback omits the valuable ‘Problems for study and discussion’), and Walter Allen, The English Novel (1954), but all three tend to omit the minor novelists. Edward Wagenknecht, Cavalcade of the English Novel (1943, rev. 1954), though critically superficial, has comprehensive bibli¬ ographies. ■ Criticism William K. Wimsatt and Cleanth Brooks, Literary Criticism: a short history (1957) has now superseded George Saintsbury’s enjoyable but theoretically naive A History of Criticism and Literary Taste in Europe (3 vols., 1900-4; English chapters extracted 1911 as A History of English Criticism). Though labelled ‘Short’ (in fact it runs to 777 pages) the Wimsatt-Brooks survey is remarkably inclusive - especially for English and American criticism. References are given in it to the crucial articles and essays, as well as to the relevant books. Rene Wellek, A History of Modern Criticism (4 vols., 1955-65) is even more thorough and less parochial, but it begins at 1750 and has only reached 1900 (two twentieth-century volumes are on the way). Of the many modern critical anthologies on a single author or work the most successful seems to have been Twentieth Century Views (ed. Maynard Mack) and its more recent English equivalent Modern Judgments (ed. P. N. Furbank), but these are normally miscellanies drawn from articles already published and with little interconnection. The scholarly Penguin Critical Anthologies (ed. Christopher Ricks) include early as well as modern comments, so providing histories of an author’s reputation, as does the less elaborate and well-informed Casebook series (ed. A. E. Dyson). The excellent Critical Heritage series (ed. A. M. Southam), on the other hand, confines itself to contemporary or nearly contemporary comments (with editorial supplements). A useful series devoted to the various genres and called the Critical Idiom (ed. J. D. Jump) has also appeared, S. W. Dawson, Drama and the Dramatic (1970) is perhaps its masterpiece, but there are altogether some thirty items of varying quality in the series. A similar, if more ambitious, series is Concepts of Literature (ed. William Righter) (which includes Graham Hough, Style and Stylistics (1969). See also ch.

II,

Modern Literary Criticism, pp. 233-257 below.

Anthologies

7

Anthologies ■ General G. B. Harrison, Major British Writers (2 vols., 1954, enlarged 1959) can be recommended. Harrison allows nearly a hundred pages to each of his authors (there are twenty-two in all, from Chaucer to T. S. Eliot), and his team of editors, a different one for each author, includes such first-rate scholar-critics as C. S. Lewis (for Spenser), Bertrand H. Bronson (for Johnson and Boswell), Northrop Frye (for Byron), I. A. Richards (for Shelley), and Lionel Trilling (for Arnold). Prose fiction has been excluded, but there are plenty of notes and some good Introductions. The Houghton Mifflin Masters of British Literature (ed. R. A. Pratt, 2 vols., 1958) follows a similar formula, though the list of editors is less impressive; care has clearly been taken to avoid any unnecessary duplication of Harrison’s authors and extracts. Both have to some extent been superseded by M. H. Abrams, Norton Anthology of English Literature (1962, 3rd edn., 2 vols., 1974), which is the masterpiece of this rather disreputable genre. The fat Oxford Anthology of English Literature (ed. F. Kermode and J. Hollander, 2 vols., 1973; 6 vols. in paperback) is intermittently stimulating; each period has a separate editor, among them Martin Price and Lionel Trilling. A more responsible affair is the Longman Annotated Anthologies (ed. A. D. S. Fowler - vol. I, 1300-1500, 1977, with seven later periods to follow), which promises full annotation at last. ■ Poetry F. T. Palgrave, The Golden Treasury of the Best Songs and Lyrical Poems in the English Language (1861; fully annotated by J. H. Fowler, 5 vols., 1901-28). Often reprinted, sometimes with supplementary poems, and a landmark in the history of English taste. Palgrave was responsible for the arrangement and the notes, but he left the final choice of poems to be included to Alfred Tennyson. A. T. Quiller-Couch, The Oxford Book of English Verse (1900; rev. and enlarged 1939) is still the best one-volume selection but, though the poets are in strict chronological order, each poet’s poems are not arranged in the order of their composition; there are no notes. Helen Gardner, The New Oxford Book of English Verse (1972), though more scholarly, is more conventional; the Americans are now excluded, except Pound. Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren, Understanding Poetry (1938, rev. 1950 and i960) was the first and best of the new-style American anthologies, without notes but with elaborate critical analyses of some of the poems. A creditable effort is made to get to

General works on English Literature

8

grips with the principal technical problems; the rev. eds. recant the original anti-historicism. W. H. Auden and Norman Holmes Pearson, Poets of the English Language (5 vols., 1950) is arranged chronologically and ends c. 1900. The period introductions by Auden are brilliant, and the choice of poems (not confined to short pieces as Palgrave, Quiller-Couch and Brooks-Warren are) reflects more accurately than any other collection the preferences of informed critical opinion today. Glosses are supplied by E. Talbot Donaldson for the medieval poems, but there are no explanatory notes. Iona and Peter Opie, An Oxford Dictionary of Nursery Rhymes (1951, rev. 1952) is a scholarly collection with good notes. John Hayward, The Penguin \Faber'\ Book of English Verse (1956) is a first-rate short selection; there are no notes. James Reeves and Martin Seymour-Smith, A New Canon of English Poetry (1967) is a stimulating collection (to 1900) which manages to avoid all the old anthology favourites. A few notes. ■ Prose Hugh Sykes Davies, The Poets and Their Critics (2 vols., 1943-62). Extracts from criticisms, early and modern, of the principal English poets: vol.

I,

Chaucer to Gray and Collins; vol. ii, Blake to Browning. Kenneth

Allott, The Pelican Book of English Prose (5 vols., 1956). Each volume has a separate editor who provides a long critical-historical introduction. James Sutherland, The Oxford Book of English Talk (1953). Miriam Allott Novelists on the Novel (1959); from Richardson to Aldous Huxley. For the one-author critical anthologies see p. 6 above. The best of the period anthologies, e.g. Kenneth Sisam, Fourteenthcentury Verse and Prose, Eleanor P. Hammond, English Verse between Chaucer and Surrey, G. Gregory Smith, Elizabethan Critical Essays, J. E. Spingarn,

Seventeenth-Century

Critical Essays,

Helen

Gardner,

The

Metaphysical Poets, and the six Oxford verse collections will be found under the appropriate headings below. For modern critical series see p. 6 above.

Miscellaneous works of reference James Murray, Henry Bradley, W. A. Craigie, C. T. Onions, A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles (20 vols., 1888-1928; reissued as The Oxford English Dictionary, 12 vols., and Supplement, 1931-33; second Supplement, ed. R. W. Burchfield, vol. i A~G, 1972-

). The

Anthologies

9

Shorter Oxford Dictionary (ed. William Little, 2 vols., 1933), though decidedly a second-best, will solve many problems. C. T. Onions, The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology (1966) corrects and adds to the OED etymologies. (The Oxford dictionaries are indispen¬ sable for students of all ages, if only as preventives to slovenly or unhistorical reading.) H. W. Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926; tactfully brought up to date by Ernest Gowers, 1965). Problems of current grammar and style arranged alphabetically; a brilliantly lucid analyst and expositor. E. Cobham Brewer, Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1870; latest rev. 1970). Indispensable for popular idioms, myths, allusions. Karl Beckson and Arthur Ganz, A Reader’s Guide to Literary Terms (1961), often needs supplementing from similar compilations by P. Vivian (1908), M. H. Abrams’s reliable rev. of D. S. Norton and P. Rushton (1957), Sylvan Barnet, Morton Berman, William Burtol, i960). The most recent is Roger Fowler, A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms (1973). The OED is surprisingly weak on literary terminology. Dictionary of World Literature: criticism - forms - technique (ed. J. T. Shipley, 1943; rev. 1955 as Dictionary of World Literary Terms). More ambitious than the preceding items, though the articles vary enormously in quality; the longer ones are critical or historical essays rather than entries in a dictionary. Alex Preminger, Frank J. Warnke and O. B. Hardison (ed.), The Encyclo¬ paedia of Poetry and Poetics (1965). Similar to Shipley but more elaborate. The 20o-odd contributors include many distinguished scholar-critics. The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations (1941; much rev. 1953). Originally confined to poetry; 1953 edn. corrects this bias and is easier to consult. Paul Harvey, The Oxford Companion to English Literature (1932; latest rev. 1967). Alphabetical miscellany-useful for standard authors (Shakespeare gets three columns), titles, names of principal characters, plots, etc. Philip Gaskell, A New Introduction to Bibliography (1972). Science of bookproduction, supersedes R. B. McKerrow’s Introduction (1927), which concentrated on the Elizabethan period.

10

General works on English Literature

W. H. Auden and Louis Kronenberger (ed.) The Viking [Faber^ Book of Aphorisms (1962). The foreign aphorisms are translated by the editors. Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, Dictionary of National Biography (63 vols., 1885-1900, reprinted in 22 vols. 1922-50; supplements every decade.) For most reference purposes the single vol. Concise Dictionary suffices. William Matthews (comp.), British Diaries between 1442 and ig42 (1950), and British Autobiographies published or written before iggi (1955)- Chrono¬ logical lists with short summaries of each item. Allardyce Nicoll, The Development of the Theatre (1927). Chaps. 3, 7, 9, 10, II, 12 provide a lucid summary of the physical evolution of the English theatre. Rudolf Stamm, Geschichte des Englischen Theaters (Berne, 1951) is more elaborate. R. W. Lowe’s Bibliography of English Theatrical Literature (1888) - rev. and expanded by J. F. Arnott and J. W. Robinson (1971) from 1559-1900 - is a useful handlist of actors’ lives, theatrical quarrels, etc. The works of reference listed above are the ones most likely to be of general use to the literary student. Some of them are only marginally or intermittently concerned with English literature. Others on more special¬ ized or semi-literary topics will be found in later sections. The Guide to Reference Books (latest edn. 1968), begun by Isadore G. Mudge and continued by Constance M. Winchell, is well worth dipping into for its informative comments on each item; though mainly extra-literary, it will be found useful for the lesser dictionaries and for such things as con¬ cordances and indexes. A. J. Walford, Guide to Reference Material (1959; latest edn. 1973) is similar and easier to find one’s way about in.

2 THE APPROACH TO MEDIEVAL LITERATURE

When does English literature begin? Matthew Arnold’s warning in ‘The Study of Poetry’ against what he called the ‘historical fallacy’ still stands. The fallacy is to confuse the evidential value of works of literature - that is, their consideration as documents merely defining chronological stages in the development of a literature, a genre, a ‘movement’, or indeed of an individual author - with their ‘real’ or permanent value. The existence of a book - or of several books - does not prove anything: they may be bad books, biblia abiblia. It is true Arnold’s illustrations of the fallacy, apart from a passing deprecation of any com¬ paring of Caedmon with Milton, were all drawn from Old or Middle French. But that was because in 1880, the date of ‘The Study of Poetry’, Old and Early Middle English were still in the exclusive keeping of the philologists and the antiquarians. Literary criticism proper still began with Chaucer. But for some two generations now eminent scholars with per¬ suasive tongues and unquestioned literary sense like W. P. Ker, R. W. Chambers, and J. R. R. Tolkien have been staking out quite as large claims for our own early literature as Arnold’s French contemporaries were making in his time for the Chanson de Roland and Chretien de Troyes. And the scholars have been joined more recently by some talented and vociferous literary critics, notably C. S. Lewis and John Speirs. A good deal of what is claimed for our earliest literature may be con¬ ceded. Under cross-examination, however, much of the modern enthusiasm has turned out to be either social-sentimental (the writings are good because they reflect a less corrupt world than ours), or else historically fallacious in a new way, the scholarly emphasis now being not so much on ‘origins’ (good because first) as on ‘traditions’ (good because maintaining the lines of communication). No doubt the prestige of T. S. Eliot’s ‘Tradition and the individual talent’ (1919) has had something to do with

The approach to Medieval literature

12

this latest refinement in the legerdemain of learning. Its classic example is R. W. Chambers, On the Continuity of English Prose from Alfred to More (1932).^ To Chambers - and the most hardhearted reader soon finds him¬ self infected with Chambers’s own romantic excitement - the worthy anonymous author of Ancren Rizvle ‘might have done almost anything’. Richard Rolle’s honest utilitarian prose is, he assures us, ‘excellent’; Walter Hilton’s is ‘glorious’. Roper’s charming but decidedly naive and even clumsy life of Sir Thomas More exhibits, along with other virtues, a ‘passionate narrative power’. And so on, the literary excellences multiplying in a direct ratio to the hypothetical continuity of the prose styles. Arnold’s sniffs can be imagined. The crucial question that Chambers and his fellow enthusiasts have begged is the degree of ‘real’ (literarily significant) continuity between preConquest and post-Conquest literature. No doubt a certain continuity is discernible between some Old English homilies and saints’ lives and their Early Middle English equivalents. But have the latter any ‘permanent’ value.? Are they worth reading today by anybody except a specialist? Is the continuity more than an ‘historical’ one? A complementary question that has also been left unanswered is the ‘real’ relationship between the acknowl¬ edged masterpieces of the two periods. Is there in fact any connection between Beowulf and the Canterbury Tales! Will a knowledge of Old English poetry ‘really’ help a modern reader, except at the most superficial level, to appreciate more fully the carols, ballads, and miracle plays, or even Piers Plowman and Sir Gawain and the Green KnightP It has not been proved; it does not seem likely to be proved. The degree of linguistic continuity has also been exaggerated. The implication of the conventional tripartite division into ‘Old English’ (the term that has now displaced ‘Anglo-Saxon’), ‘Middle English’, and ‘Modern English’ is that the connection between Old English (the language spoken in England between the sixth and the twelfth centuries

A.D.)

and

Middle English (its successor from c. 1150 to c. 1500) is similar to that between Middle English and Modern English (from c. 1500 to the present day). In fact, however. Middle and Modern English merge into each other gradually and almost imperceptibly, whereas the change from Old to 1. An acute and well-informed revaluation of Chambers’s thesis is to be found in Norman Davis’s ‘Styles in English prose of the Late Middle and Early Modern period’ (Les Congres et Colloques de VUniversite de Liege xxi [1961], 165-81). 2. The re-emergence of the alliterative metre in the middle of the four¬ teenth century is an interesting ‘historical’ fact, but it has little ‘real’ significance because of the crudity with which the Middle English poets used it. Chaucer’s Parson described it, correctly, as ‘rum, ram, ruf’.

When does English literature begin?

13

Middle English was rapid and drastic, a linguistic revolution. The proper historical parallel is with the similar, though slower, transitions on the Continent from Latin into French, Italian, and Spanish. At one end of the process there was what is now a dead language. (Old English, as standard¬ ized in the West Saxon of Alfred and his successors, possessed a system of genders, case-endings, and verb conjugations almost as elaborate and inflexible as those of classical Latin.) A Dark Age then intervenes - in England the old ties, linguistic and cultural, almost collapsed under the successive impact of the Scandinavian and the Norman invasions - and a new language emerges everywhere, which is virtually uninflected, with a greatly simplified gender system or none at all, varying considerably from district to district, and essentially Modern English, French, Italian, and Spanish. To obscure or minimize the linguistic hiatus in the interest of an etymological continuity is to miss the all-important literary point: Cicero would not have understood the Chanson de Roland or Dante; the author of Beowulf would not have understood the Canterbury Tales. But with a few marginal glosses to help them, the modern Frenchman and Italian on the one hand, and the modern Englishman or American on the other, can manage the Chanson de Roland, Dante and Chaucer. They are a part, respectively, of modern French, Italian and English literatures; Cicero and Beowulf are not. Kenneth Sisam, one of the most distinguished of modern Anglo-Saxon scholars, has proposed the end of the twelfth century as ‘the starting-point for a study of modern [English] literature’.^ It is a sensible compromise. Chaucer, with whom even T. H. Ward, The English Poets'^ began, is clearly too late: Beowulf is the poem of another culture altogether. The point is not only that there is a line of continuous transmission running from such things as The Owl and the Nightingale and ‘Sumer is icumen in’ to the fourteenth century and beyond, which does not run between them and the Old English masterpieces, but that Early Middle English literature at its best is literature. The great English poems of the Age of Chaucer - which

1. Fourteenth-Century Verse and Prose (1921), p. x. The Oxford English Dictionary chose 1150 as the terminus a quo of the English language. R. W. Chambers is even more precise: ‘If a line must be drawn between Old English and Middle English, it would, I think, have to come between the man who wrote the Peterborough Annal for 1131, and the man who wrote (perhaps about 1155) the*Peterborough Annal for 1132’ {On the Continuity of English Prose, 1932, p. Ixxxvi). 2. The most elaborate of the Victorian anthologies. Arnold was the uncle of Ward’s wife (the once famous Mrs Humphry Ward) and helped him to plan the collection, as well as contributing the general introduction (‘The Study of Poetry’) and the accounts of Gray and Keats-

The approach to Medieval literature

14

is also that of Piers Plowman and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - do not spring out of a sub-literature, like Defoe’s novels; they are the cul¬ mination of a sophisticated literary movement which began two hundred years earlier. (It is true many of the intermediate works in the series have not survived.^) Old English literature is, of course, well worth study for its own sake. The English medievalist will need to acquaint himself with it in some detail, as he will need to acquaint himself with Old Norse, Old and Middle French, Middle High German, and the whole range of Latin literature, classical, post-classical and medieval. But for the modern student of English literature as a whole, these disciplines must remain marginal luxuries. He has also, after all, a duty to the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew classics, and to the Italian, Spanish, and French Renaissances, as well as to the later European literatures, and he must find his way about the political, social and intellectual contexts of English literature proper too, including American literature. In these circumstances a nodding acquaintance with the language and literature of the Anglo-Saxons is all that it is reasonable to demand. If he has a facility for languages and can stumble through ‘The Wanderer’, ‘The Seafarer’, ‘The Dream of the Rood’ and perhaps ‘The Battle of Maldon’, in the original, so much the better. He will certainly want to read Beowulf - and perhaps the other heroic fragments as well - but most of it will necessarily have to be in translation. (The prose version by Clark Hall, which has been revised by C. L. Wrenn with an illuminating introduction by J. R. R. Tolkien, is no doubt the one to use.) But if the conscientious student of English literature can certainly dispense with the full rigours of Anglo-Saxon vocabulary and grammar, a ‘real’ critical estimate cannot be reached even in later Middle English without the co-operation of scholarship. Fortunately Chaucer’s language like Gower’s is fairly easy, but the brilliant ‘Gawain-poet’ - the anonymous author probably of Pearl, among other things, as well as of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight - is often impenetrable without the help of good notes and a glossary. Nor is it enough for the modern reader just to know the dictionary meanings of each word and sentence. The language used in a particular passage will often not release its special shades of meaning until it is related to the literary context in which the passage occurs. And here, with one or two honourable exceptions such as G. R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (1933) and Ernst Robert Curtius, Europdische Literatur

und

lateinisches

Mittelalter

(English

translation

1952), the

scholars have been less helpful so far.

I.

See R. M. Wilson, The Lost Literature of Medieval England (1952).

When does English literature begin?

15

What exactly, it may be asked, is the ‘context’ of a work of literature? Aristotle’s distinctions in chapters I to III of the Poetics still provide the best point of critical departure. In addition to language, the mode of communication, as Aristotle has it, with the vocabulary and emphases a particular language imposes at each stage of its evolution, there is manner of presentation (drama, narrative, oratory, the letter, etc.), that is, a series of author-audience relationships, each with its own technical problems and conventions. Finally, according to Aristotle,there are the ‘objects of imitation’, that is, subject matter, which means in practice the topics and themes in which the author and his original public took a special interest. Aristotle’s triad provides at any rate a tidy prescriptive formula. Here are the three questions which the modern reader must learn to ask himself if he is to make contact - Arnold’s ‘real estimate’ - with a medieval author, indeed any author who is not immediately contemporary.

The mode of communication and its literary consequences In the four centuries that followed the Norman Conquest England was trilingual. Broadly speaking, up to 1350 or even later, the ruling class spoke and wrote in French,^ while the country’s official and intellectual life was conducted in Latin. English, the speech of the middle and lower classes, was hardly ever written at all, except for purposes of religious edification. But in the second half of the fourteenth century English began to displace French and Latin more or less everywhere. (The non-literary evidence of this linguistic revolution is summarized by M. B. Parkes in ‘The Literacy of the Laity’ [Literature and Western Civilization: ii. The Medieval World, 1973.) Inevitably, however, because of the suddenness with which English rose in the social scale, it retained - even in the hands of courtiers such as Chaucer and Gower, or intellectuals such as Wyclif and Hilton - much of its popular nature. An important literary consequence is that Middle English poetry - unlike Old English poetry - has almost no conventional ‘poetic diction’ until the fifteenth century. The most disconcerting characteristic of fourteenth- and fifteenthcentury Middle English for the modern reader is its plethora of varying forms and pronunciations. Those simple outlines of Chaucer’s English that 1. Aristotle puts the ‘objects of imitation’ second, but their logical position in his analysis is third: the Iliad is (i) a Greek (ii) narrative poem (iii) about the Trojan War. 2. ‘Bute man conne Frenss men tellth of him lute’ (Robert of Gloucester, metrical chronicle written c. 1270).

i6

The approach to Medieval literature

are obligingly provided in modern editions of his poems are always tiresomely peppered with qualifications - ‘sometimes’, ‘often’, ‘usually’, ‘occasionally’. There was no standard or King’s English in the fourteenth century, largely because until Henry IV no King of England had spoken English as his native tongue since Harold. Instead there were dozens of overlapping regional dialects, each as ‘correct’ as the next. The immediate literary effect of the dialectal differences in pronouns, inflectional endings, pronunciation and vocabulary was to make stylistic finish, ‘the best words in the best order’, an ideal almost impossible to attain. Even in London no two speakers could be counted on to agree which the best words, word form and word order were. One must not, therefore, expect a Middle English equivalent either of la poesie pure, with its vowel music and elaborate repetitive patterns, or of the delicate linguistic precision that almost any eighteenth-century satirist seems to have had as a birth-right. Chaucer’s early poems may have the rhetorical figures that Geoffrey de Vinsauf, Matthieu de Vendome and the others had codified, but he was never able to maintain this artificial elegance for more than a few lines at a time. The commentators are fond of pointing out the interpretatio (vari¬ ations) - complete with sententia (moral generalization), contentio (anti¬ thesis), circumlocutio, oxymoron, chiasmus, and suspension - of the opening lines of The Parliament of Fowls: The lyf so short, the craft so long to lerne, Th’ assay so hard, so sharp the conquerynge. The dredful joye, alwey that slit so yerne . . . But they all omit the rest of the stanza, in which Chaucer gets off the rhetorical high horse with an almost ludicrous haste; A1 this mene I by Love, that my felynge Astonyeth with his wonderful werkynge So sore, iwis, that whan I on hym thynke, Nat wot I wel wher that I flete or synke. Instead of a climax in the same resounding end-stopped iambics, the rhythm has suddenly become that of common speech: All this mene I . . . (That is, four stressed syllables in a row.) The ‘iwis’ of the last line but one is also the merest padding, and the stanza ends with a grotesque image, apparently, of Chaucer bathing. The Parliament is one of Chaucer’s earlier poems, and the lapse from decorum was perhaps unintentional. Later, however, a playing off of the

The mode of communication and its literary consequences

17

low with the high style became one of his regular devices. He even evolved a sort of ‘low’ rhetoric of his own, with the popular proverb displacing the sententia and such phrases as ‘shortly for to telle’ and ‘nevere was ther seyn with mannes ye/So noble array’ displacing respectively occupatio (the continued refusal to describe this or that - a device by which this or that is in fact described) and hyperbole. Chaucer is noticeably more comfortable in these native and colloquial figures of speech than in the ‘colours of rethoryk’. The English language was clearly not ripe as yet for a Milton or a Mallarrne. The fact that Lydgate, Chaucer’s most indefatigable disciple, keeps on eulogizing his master’s ‘flowers of rethorick eloquence’ only confirms the doubts everybody has always had about Lydgate’s literary sense.^ Even in the fifteenth century, though English had by then largely lost its semi-servile status, the problem of linguistic ‘correctness’ had not been consciously realized. The Scottish Chaucerians did better than the English, perhaps because when they imitated Chaucer they were really writing in an almost dead language, of which the ‘rules’, as it were, were to be found in his poems. The absence of any concept or criterion of ‘correctness’ in Middle English speech helps to account for the peculiarities of Middle English prosody. A compromise had to be worked out between the accentual Old English verse and the Erench syllabic system. In theory the Middle English octosyllabic couplet has four stresses per line, as the Old English alliterative line had done, though with the number of syllables between each stress now reduced to one. In practice, however, irregularity prevailed. Few consecutive Middle English lines have the ‘correct’ number either of stresses or of syllables. Chaucer’s prosody - which was shared by Gower and the other Court poets - has not much more than the appearance of a great syllabic regularity, and even that is truer of our over-edited modern texts than of the original manuscripts. J. M. Manly’s great Chicago edition, which is based on all the manuscripts of the Canterbury Tales, has in fact left us with a text that is far less smooth metrically than that of the Victorian editors. Moreover, such regularity as Chaucer obtained - in deference to his French and Italian models - was often more fiction than fact. The in¬ flectional endings, especially the unstressed final -e (which Chaucer certainly expected to be pronounced, however faintly, at the end of the line), provide the principal fiction. With a few exceptions they count or do not count as a syllable entirely as metrical convenience dictates. In other I. Lydgate’s real point — which is echoed in most of the fifteenth-century compliments to Chaucer - is that with Chaucer English poetry becomes a conscious art comparable to that of the Greeks, Romans, Italians, and French. It is in this sense that he is the ‘Father’ of our poetry.

The approach to Medieval literature

i8

words, the reader must know the metre before he can begin to read the poem - a condition no poet is entitled to impose. (It is the fallacy of classical metres in English: a metre must always emerge naturally from the text’s own speech rhythms, which are themselves always conditioned by the sense.) Chaucer’s frequent omission of the first unstressed syllable of the line and his insertion of an extra syllable at the caesural pause have been excused as ‘licences’. As naturally read, however, such lines do not in practice differentiate themselves from the ‘correctly’ decasyllabic ones. We do not notice them. The actual metrical norm in the Canterbury Tales varies from nine to twelve syllables in just the same way as the blank verse of a Jacobean dramatist did. Juggling with the final -e will usually produce a line that adds up to ten (or with a final -e at the end of the line eleven) syllables, but the essential rhythm is in fact preserved whether the -e is sounded more or less faintly or dropped altogether. Chaucer is not to be scanned like Pope or Tennyson by counting syllables. The desperate hypothesis that men such as Hoccleve, who had known Chaucer personally, could not read his verse as well as a twentieth-century prosodist, derives from this failure to distinguish between the fiction of a quasi-French syllabic regularity and the accentual reality. With Chaucer - as with Langland, the Gawain-poet, and even Wyatt - it is the total stress weight of the syllables that determines the equivalence between one line and the next. The precise number of the unstressed syllables, because they have next to no weight, has next to no metrical significance; what is important is to get the degrees of stress right. The prosodic principle on which Chaucerian verse is constructed was defined by George Gascoigne in Certain Notes of Instruction concerning the Making of Verse or Rime in English (1575): . . . our father Chaucer hath used the same libertie in feete and measures that the Latinists do use: and who so ever do peruse and well consider his workes, he shall finde that although his lines are not alwayes of one selfe same number of Syllables, yet, beyng redde bye one that hath understanding, the longest verse, and that which hath most Syllables in it, will fall (to the eare) correspondent unto that which hath fewest sillables in it: and like wise that whiche hath in it fewest syllables shalbe founde yet to consist of woordes that havesuchenaturallsounde, as may seeme equall in length to a verse which hath many moe sillables of lighter accentes. And surely I can lament that wee are fallen into such a playne and simple manner of wryting, that there is none other foote used but one; whereby our Poemes may justly be called Rithmes, and cannot by any right challenge the name of a Verse.^ I.

Elizabethan Critical Essays, ed. G. Gregory Smith (1904), i, 50.

The mode of communication and its literary consequences

19

Gascoigne’s complaint against the tyranny of syllabic regularity has been met since his time by the elaboration, notably by Milton, of metrical fictions similar to Chaucer’s. Although our prosody is primarily accentual it has had to be made to look syllabic too. By Gascoigne’s time the pressure to conform syllabically had become greater because the ideal of linguistic ‘correctness’, of which it is an offshoot, was very much in the air. Chaucer could take his metrics more lightheartedly. Dialectal pronunciations provided him with a nice range of rhymes. Thus the modern merry often appears in his poems as murye (the south-western form), but if this did not suit the rhyme he could also use mirye (the north-eastern form) or merye (the south-eastern form). And the final unstressed -e - normally pronounced in his time by the older generation and by southerners, but not by younger speakers or northerners - was equally elastic. Under the veneer of a French orthodoxy, rhetorical and prosodic, the essential Chaucer (like the essential Gawain-poet, who had a similar Court veneer) managed to remain as morally uncommitted as the English language itself was in his time.

The manner of presentation: oral delivery The two styles that are juxtaposed in the first stanza of The Parliament of Fowls are best thought of as two different tones of voice. In the three rhetorical lines with which the poem opens, Chaucer is out to impress us; the phrases are noticeably bookish and pedagogic. But he cannot - or at any rate does not - keep it up. A mode of communication without ‘correctness’ to stiffen it and give it authority could not aspire to the grand style (of which verbal decorum is a prerequisite), except for brief moments. And so with a shrug of his shoulders and an apologetic smile Chaucer changes the tone of his voice, which becomes abrupt, intimate and humorous. The narrator’s abandonment of generalization for personal comment is perhaps the most striking difference between the two halves of the stanza. At first it is an anonymous voice, the conventional literary man’s, who is speaking to us from a raised dais as it were; then the impersonal narrator comes down into the audience and Chaucer himself, or a persona calling itself Chaucer, becomes vividly present. Chaucer’s two voices - which enter via the ‘gentils’ and ‘churls’ into the whole presentation of the Canterbury Tales - exploit for purposes of drama the most serious technical limitation of Middle English literature: its dependence on oral recitation. The more ambitious works were read aloud; the popular tale or romance was recited by a minstrel; the lyrics and ballads were sung either solo or in unison (at least for the refrains). Theatrical

The approach to Medieval literature

20

presentation of a kind had also begun in the miracle plays. But reading in the modern sense - silently, to oneself- though already normal, apparently, for Latin and French - had scarcely begun in English. Unlike Provence, where each poet had had his own professional reciter, the Middle English poet had therefore to act his own poetry as though it was a dramatic monologue.^ The frontispiece to the Cambridge (Corpus Christi) manuscript of Troilus and Criseyde shows Chaucer reading the poem to Richard II, the royal family, and other members of the English Court. Some of the younger courtiers are chatting or flirting, and they do not seem to be paying much attention to what Chaucer is saying. A public reading of any length tends to be monotonous at any time. Chaucer’s brilliant solution of the problem was to include his audience in the narrative by direct appeals to them - or sometimes to groups within the audience, such as the lovers or the ladies to confirm or assist his own interpretation of his ‘auctour’ or source. And complementing his pseudo-chorus of an oral audience (who were not expected, of course, to respond verbally to the second-person-plural appeals), Chaucer gradually evolved his own pseudo-narrator - wellmeaning, a little thick in the head, without any personal experience of sexual love, who was and was not Chaucer himself. The pseudo-narrator is perhaps the most interesting of the literary conventions that originated in the practice of oral delivery. We meet him not only in Chaucer but also in Piers Plowman, whose grotesque Long Will cannot be quite William Langland, just as the diffident lover of the Confessio Amantis is only nominally John Gower (the nominal identity is not revealed until Book VIII). Some of the convention’s refinements deserve critical attention. Chaucer’s Lollius, for example, the non-existent Latin historian of the Trojan War, is a nice example of the pseudo-source. Boccaccio’s 11 Filostrato, the actual source of Troilus and Criseyde, is never mentioned or implied in the poem, and the principal episodes that Chaucer attributes to Lollius are in fact his own invention. The pseudo-source is here a sort of cushion, therefore, between the pseudo-narrator and the pseudo-audience. The only audience the historical Chaucer was seriously interested in, as the epilogue to Troilus makes plain, was his friends ‘moral Gower and philosophical Strode’, whom he expects to read the poem to themselves. A somewhat similar device is Vlalory’s ‘Erench book’. Over and over again Malory refers the reader to this usually non-existent Erench source. The passage at the very end when Arthur’s four knights join a The oral facts, are tabulated by Ruth Crosby in two articles in Speculum, (1936), XIII (1938). I have elaborated the thesis of this section in my ‘Could Chaucer spell?’. Essays in Criticism, xxv (1975). I.

XI

The manner of presentation: oral delivery

21

Crusade is typical. Eugene Vinaver adds a note here in what is the standard modern edition of the Morte d'Arthur: Once again Malory’s reference to the French book is meant to conceal his departure from it. In no French version do Arthur’s knights appear as crusaders. It is almost as if Chaucer and Malory were exchanging winks with the more sophisticated members of their audiences. The apparatus of realism - for example, the introduction of a real Southwark innkeeper to act as master of ceremonies on the fictitious pilgrimage to Canterbury, or Malory’s elaborate identification of a non-geographical Astolat with Guildford - has been provided for the simpler souls in the audience. The literary heart of their matter is much less naive.

Subject matter: the Middle English mind With Piers Plowman (completed c. 1377), Troilus and Criseyde (written c. 1385), the Canterbury Tales (1387-94), and Sir Gawain and the Green Knight [c. 1390?), English literature suddenly came of age. The sudden¬ ness is as remarkable as the superiority in literary quality over the earlier prose and verse. These four superb poems, each of epic length and achieve¬ ment, are among the classics of world literature - and they were all written within twenty years of each other. Nor do they stand alone. Although exact dates are difficult to determine, this was also the period, more or less, of the best miracle plays, the first ballads, and some of the best carols, as . . ^ well as of such minor masterpieces as Chaucer’s early poems, the Pearl, and Gower’s Confessio Amantis. It cannot be a coincidence that this litera¬ ture all belongs to the generation immediately succeeding the bubonicpneumonic pandemic of 1348-49, repeated in 1361-62 and 1369, that is now known as the Black Death. In Toynbeean terms the generation of Langland, Chaucer, and the Gawain-poet was a ‘response’ to the ‘chal¬ lenge’ of the Black Death. A society that loses one-quarter to a half of its population in some fifteen months must adjust itself violently if it is to survive. And somehow, though few of the details seem to be known, England did adjust itself;^ in the process the feudal world and its eccle¬ siastical complements, threatened for some time, at last began to disinte¬ grate and a new social order to take its place. The Elizabethans looking I. J. C. Russell {British Medieval Population, 1948) has estimated that the population at the end of the century was half what it had been before the Black Death.

The approach to Medieval literature

22

back at it called it Merry England. Merry or not, English became its official language instead of French and Latin, and a new hierarchy of values was soon implicitly ordering church, state and the individual’s private life. The collapse of villeinage is the affair of the economic historian, but the decline of the ‘gentils’ and the upsurge of the villeins had their literary effects too. It is, in a sense, what the Canterbury Tales is all about. The topic to which the Pilgrims keep on returning is love and marriage. At the heart of the new scheme of values is a new sympathy with sexual love. The medieval church had been built on a morality of asceticism to which pulchritudo was detestable because it was the continuous source of temp¬ tation to a clergy forbidden both to marry and to ‘burn’. But in a country that suddenly finds itself depopulated, procreation becomes one of the essentials of the society’s survival,^ and pulchritudo returned to its proper place in the values of Vhomme moyen sensuel. Moreover, because it had achieved its new status from below, human (sexual) love often carried with it remnants of the half-buried pre-Christian fertility cults. The English summer of the Robin Hood ballads, when the shawes be sheyne. And leves be large and long, is a more realistic mating season than the May of the French dreamvisions, perhaps because the Christian veneer of the courtly love game is absent. Hood himself, the cunning disguiser and invincible fighting man, seems to descend from Odin, as incidentally does the ‘Blind Harry’, who speaks the superh ‘Manner of the Crying of a Play’ that is attributed to Dunbar, the most brilliant of the Middle Scots poets. The modern reader of fifteenth-century ballads, especially the supernatural ones, cannot but be conscious of the implicit pagan roots; in F. J. Child’s definitive English and Scottish Popular Ballads (1882-98) the specifically Christian references are few and far between.'^ In Malory, too. Fate is the ultimate enemy, a concept that is at least ethically preferable to the French clockwork of Fortune’s Wheel. The paganism of the later fourteenth century is noticeably more genial and optimistic than either that of the ballads and Malory or that of the Anglo-Saxon poets. In Chaucer and the Gawain-poet, and even in Langland, the will is free and the universe infinitely various. Here is God’s

1. Chaucer’s Host’s regret that the Monk was forbidden to beget children will be remembered. See Canterbury Tales B 3133 ff. 2. See Lowry C. Wimberley, Folklore in the English and Scottish Ballads (1Q28, rev. 1959).

Subject matter: the Middle English mind

23

plenty! The originally Platonic doctrine of plenitude — whose history from the Timaeus to Pope’s Essay on Man has been brilliantly traced by A. O. Lovejoy in The Great Chain of Being (1936) - had undergone an Aristotelian stratification into hierarchies in the Middle Ages. But the original exuber¬ ance was always liable to erupt and upset ‘degree’ — as it did, for example in the Dea Natura of Bernardus Sylvestris and Alanus of Lille. Chaucer’s ambivalent irony did not exclude either interpretation. In this evasion of intellectual commitment Chaucer’s philosophy of life conforms to the mode of popular allegory that characterizes post-Black Death England. It might be called proverbial allegory. A proverb is a generalization that is still not detached from the typical concrete instance that embodies it: Our economists of today theorize about the ‘inevitability of gradual¬ ness’. Our ancestors of the less cerebral fifteenth century meant much the same thing, but they might say ‘Little by little the cat eateth up the bacon flickle’, or ‘Feather by feather the goose is plucked’.^ A kind of thinking goes on in the proverb, but it is pre-conceptual. The proverb-coiner has the urge to generalize, though his mind is unable to reach the final stage of an abstraction under which the particular examples of a principle can fall. In this sense Piers Plowman is an enlarged or ex¬ tended proverb, and a similar process is clearly at work in Sir Gawain and the ‘Merchant’s Tale’, though the progress toward abstraction has not gone so far in them as in Langland. This English proverbial allegory is the opposite, therefore, of the allegory of the Roman de la Rose - or of The Faerie Queene for that matter - where concept precedes personification. With Langland, on the other hand, we begin with Piers the honest yokel and it is only gradually and almost imperceptibly that he grows into Do¬ wel, Do-bet, and Do-best. In other words, generalization works itself out in the process of narration. The audience does not know that Piers is a symbol both of mankind and of Christ until the narrative eventually compels them to make the identification. (Paganism wakes up and finds itself Christianity.) Moreover, in making the identification we have the feeling that our discovery is only repeating a similar conversion in Lang¬ land himself. The relationship is not that of preacher and congregation so much as a conspiracy of author and audience, who are exploring the nature of reality simultaneously and together. The remarkable Christian mystics of the period, Richard Rolle and his followers and the anonymous author of the beautiful Cloud of Unknowing, were also, therefore, a part of the Peasants’ (spiritual) Revolt. John Ball’s strange letter to his Essex followers

I.

Oxford Dictionary of Proverbs (1935),

p. xii.

The approach to Medieval literature

24

- with its combination of Christian Utopianism and gibberish, proverbial wisdom and cryptic references to Piers Plowman - sums up in dramatic popular allegory the aspirations of Chaucer’s England: John Sheep, sometime Saint Mary priest of York and now of Colchester, greeteth well John Nameless and John the Miller and John Carter, and biddeth them they be aware of guile in borough and standeth together in God’s name, and biddeth Piers Plowman go to his work and chastise well Hob the Robber, and taketh with you John Trueman and all his fellows and no more and look shape you [appoint for yourselves] to one head and no more. John the Miller hath ground small, small, small; The King’s Son of Heaven shall pay for all. Beware or ye be w'oe, Knoweth your friend from your foe. Haveth enough and sayeth ‘Ho’, And do well and better, and flee-eth sin. And seeketh peace, and hold you therein. And so biddeth John Trueman and all his fellows.^ John Trueman, alias Piers Plowman, alias John Ball {not Bull, who was an eighteenth-century vox populi), was executed at St Albans in 1381 for his part in the Peasants’ Revolt. Since his time the English establishment has successfully suppressed a long series of lesser popular risings against the ‘progress’ that enriches the rich by pauperizing the poor (enclosures of commons, threshing machines, automation). But G. K. Chesterton was mistaken when he wrote his poem ‘The Secret People’, with its sinister recurrent line: But we are the people of England: and we have not spoken yet. The English people have spoken. It is the English people who have kept the English language true to its inherent genius (terse, largely monosyllabic, elliptical), however ‘incorrect’ their grammar or their pronunciation may have been. The best of our writers - from Langland, the Gawain-poet and Chaucer onwards - have owed relatively little in their supreme moments, except as props or scaffolding, to the alien aristocratic cultures whose neo¬ classic ‘sublime’ eventually became Arnold’s ‘grand style’. This was William Blake’s conviction (see the preface to his Milton), and it was also George Orwell’s. I. I have modernized the spelling. The original text can be found in Sisam’s Fourteenth-Century Verse and Prose (1921), pp. 160-1.

Subject matter: the Middle English mind

25

A truer touchstone than Arnold’s isolated lines from Homer, Dante and Milton to what is greatest in English literature, its prose as well as its verse, would have been the astonishing anonymous lyric ‘Western Wind’, which might indeed be read - with ‘The Nut-Brown Maid’ perhaps to accompany it, though that is less terse, monosyllabic and elliptical - as a swan-song to the whole Middle English way of life. The four lines are often misquoted, and I therefore reproduce them in the spelling of the early sixteenth-century manuscript, now in the British Museum, which is the only authoritative text: Westron wynde when wyll thou blow The smalle rayne downe can Rayne. Cryst yf my love were in my Armys And I yn my bed A gayne.^ The poem has been much praised and much discussed, but nobody seems to have asked who exactly this speaker is who is taking Christ’s name so emphatically in vain. Since the lover’s arrival will enable the girl (the sex surely implied in the parallel with spring soil fertilized by soft April showers) to return to her bed, she must now be excluded from it. The bed to which she hopes to get back is her bed. The words do not permit any other interpretation. The speaker then is not a girl at all but a fertility goddess, some English Proserpina, who is waiting to be reanimated in spring by an English Zephyrus. As it happens, the opening lines of the Canterbury Tales describe, if more literally, precisely the same series of events. But for Chaucer, of course the assimilation of Christianity and heathenism could not be quite so overt. I. The spelling Armys did not imply two syllables c. 1500. The poem, which is without any title in the MS, often has ‘O’ prefixed to the first line and ‘That’ to the second - two fabrications apparently concocted by QuillerCouch in The Oxford Book of English Verse (1900). The extra words give lines I and 2 the same number of syllables as lines 3 and 4, thus prohibiting the acceleration of reading-speed that the dramatic climax requires.

3 A MIDDLE ENGLISH READING LIST •

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, essay collections, special studies, anthologies and series ■ Bibliographies NCBEL vol.

I

(1974) devotes 450 pages to the period 1100 to 1500. It is

primarily a revision of the same section in CBEL (but updated for edns., etc. to 1971) and because of its greater density it now demands consider¬ able cunning and patience to thread the chronological mazes and select the right edn., modern study or article. (Only short titles are provided, without page refs., and with next to no notes.) A fuller index is promised; the present short list of authors’ names and the titles of anonyma has such traps as xx songes being entered only under x. Nevertheless, with all its limitations, NCBEL is indispensable for this period, if only in the last resort. The Middle English section of CBEL was mainly the work of John Edwin Wells, whose Manual of the Writings in M.E.,

iOjO-1400

(1916;

nine Supplements, 1919-52) is easier to consult because it summarizes the actual works as well as the recent books and articles about them. A revision of Wells is now in progress (ed. J. Burke Severs and Albert E. Hartung, 3 vols., 1967-

); each genre has a separate chapter under its own specialist,

but the updating of recent books, articles and edns. is the one clear superiority over Wells’s original. Eor the non-specialist much the best introduction up to 1400, though as in Wells the drama and romances go to 1500, is Robert W. Ackerman’s section on M.E. literature in The Medieval Literature of Western Europe, ed. John H. Fisher (1966), which comments sensibly on the most signi*This section has been revised by Professor Marilyn Mumford of Bucknell University.

Bibliographies, literary histories, etc.

27

ficant research 1930-60. The bibliography in H. S. Bennett’s OHEL vol. (1947) has a long alphabetical catalogue of fifteenth century authors and anonyma, which usefully supplements NCBEL and is easier to consult. ■ Literary histories and criticism W. P. Ker’s short English Literature, Medieval (1912) has been reissued as Medieval English Literature (1942) with a Supplementary Note by R. W. Chambers, who calls it ‘a classic of English Criticism’; if not quite that, it is at any rate an eminently readable and sensible survey. A longer and more ambitious work is Margaret Schlauch’s English Medieval Literature and Its Social Eoundations (Warsaw, 1956), which conceals under its Marxist framework a fresh and acute reappraisal of the whole range of English literature from Beowulf to the Renaissance. This is probably the best critical introduction to the period now available, though some will prefer A. C. Baugh’s survey, pedestrian but reliable, in A Literary History of England (ed. by Baugh himself, 1947, rev. 1968; M.E. vol. obtainable separately). Dorothy Everett, who had been assigned the earlier Middle English period for OHEL, died with only a few chapters completed; they have now been printed in her posthumous Essays on Middle English Litera¬ ture (1955), which also includes two informative essays on Chaucer’s verbal artistry. Her OHEL period is being undertaken by J. A. W. Bennett. It is unlikely, however, to supersede completely R. M. Wilson, Early Middle English Literature (1939, rev. 1951), which is always sane and thorough. Pamela Gradon’s Form and Style in Early English Literature (1971), which is organized by genres, also covers this area very sensibly if not with much critical originality. The OHEL vols. by E. K. Chambers (1945) and H. S. Bennett (1947) cover the fifteenth century between them, though the division of labour follows no obvious logical principle; H. S. Bennett’s vol. also includes a long, rather dull chapter on Chaucer. Two far livelier if more restricted surveys are R. W. Chambers, On the Continuity of English Prose (1932), which argues, with efltective quotations, that the prose style first found in Alfred characterizes all the best English prose to More and even later, and C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (1936), which traces - with all sorts of fireworks and perversities en route-the history of the love allegory from the Roman de la Rose to Spenser. Incidentally, Lewis’s notion that courtly love was necessarily adulterous even in England is mischievously disposed of by Gervase Mathew in Essays Presented to Charles Williams (1947), a collection ed. by Lewis himself. Lewis’s last contribution to medieval studies was The Discarded Image (1964; a wide-ranging survey of the

A Middle English reading list

28

period’s ‘assumptions’), and his always stimulating scattered articles and reviews have been collected by W. Hooper as Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1966). John Speirs, Medieval English Poetry (1957), an attempt to assess the literary qualities of what he calls ‘the nonChaucerian tradition’ (i.e. lyrics, romances, alliterative poems, and miracle plays), is enthusiastic but amateurish; George Kane’s Middle English Literature: a critical study of the romances, the religious lyrics, Piers Plowman (1951), on the other hand, is expert and professional. Both are well worth reading. As much can hardly be said of C. S. Baldwin’s Medieval Rhetoric to 1400 (1928, reissued 1959) or J. W. H. Atkins, English Literary Criticism: the medieval phase (1943), though they, too, are useful to dip into. But Geoffroi de Vinsauf (who was apparently an Englishman, even if he lived in France and wrote in Latin) and his fellow rhetoricians are best consulted in Edmond Faral’s ed. of Les Arts Poetiques du Xlle et du Xllle Siecle (Paris, 1924). The specialist journals catering especially for this period are Speculum (1926-

), Medium Aevum (1932-

) and the Chaucer Review (1961-

).

Some interesting specimens of the more sophisticated critical methods now employed in medieval studies will be found in Critical Approaches to Medieval Literature (ed. Dorothy Bethurum, i960). Another is J. A. Burrow, Ricardian Poetry (1971), which uses Chaucer, Langland, Gower and the Gawain poet to illustrate each other and the period separately and simultaneously. ■ Essay collections Jerome Mandel and Bruce A. Rosenberg (ed.). Medieval Literature and Folklore Studies (1970). A wide-ranging collection of critical essays of consistently high quality. Roger Sherman Loomis, Studies in Medieval Literature, A Memorial Collection of Essays (1970). Reprints his articles 1930-65. E. Bagby Atwood and Archibald A. Hill (ed.). Studies in Language, Literature and Culture of the Middle Ages and Later (1969). Emphasis on the early medieval period but has useful essays on Gawain, Pearl, Chaucer and Malory. Norman Davis and C. L. Wrenn (ed.), English and Medieval Studies Presented toj. R. R. Tolkien (1962), has inter alia an excellent essay by Angus McIntosh on the alliterative Morte Arthure. ■ Special studies and aids Robert Ackerman, Backgrounds to Medieval English Literature (1966). Literacy, population, education, etc. Donald Howard, The Three Temp¬ tations: Medieval Man in Search of the World (1966). History of ideas.

Bibliographies, literary histories, etc.

29

particularly in Chaucer’s Troilus, Gawain, and Pearl. Joseph M. Miller, Michael H. Prosser and Thomas W. Benson (ed.), Readings in Medieval Rhetoric (1973). Latin texts in translation. Charles L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature in the Fifteenth Century (1913). Includes letter collections. James P. Oakden, Alliterative Poetry in Middle English (2 vols., 1930-35). Gerald R. Owst, Literature and Pulpit in Medieval England (1933). Influence of popular preachers - especially relevant for Langland. Carleton Brown and R. H. Robbins: The Index of Middle English Verse (1943). First-line index of every extant Middle English poem with details of edns., etc. Edith Rickert, Chaucer’s World (ed. Clair C. Olson and M. M. Crow, 1948). Extracts from a wide range of medieval documents which illustrate Chaucer’s social background, trans. into modern English. Fernand Mosse, A Handbook of Middle English (tr. James A. Walker, 1952). The best linguistic introduction. To be supple¬ mented by Tanno F.

Mustanoja’s excellent Middle English Syntax

(Helsinki, i960). H. Kurath and S. H. Kuhn, Middle English Dictionary (1952-

; in progress). Designed to supersede OED for the period. Austin

L. Poole (ed.). Medieval England (2 vols., rev. 1958): Nineteen essays by different experts on various aspects of English life and culture. F. Lee Utley, The Crooked Rib. An Analytical Index to the Argument about Women (1944). Useful for Ancrene Riwle, etc. Stops 1568. H. J. Chaytor, From Script to Print (1945). Transition from oral to reading publics. Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the Latin Middle Ages (trans. Willard R. Trask, 1953). Perhaps the single most important book for students of medieval literature because of the lingua communis of Latin. (German original, 1948.) James I. Wimsatt, Allegory and Mirror (1970).

Anthologies and series J. A. W. Bennett and G. V. Smithers (ed.). Early Middle English Verse and Prose (1966, rev. 1968). Goes to 1300, is fully annotated and has a good glossary by Norman Davis. Like its earlier rival, Bruce Dickins and R. M. Wilson, Early Middle English Literature (1951), it is intended to cover the twelfth and thirteenth centuries on the lines of Kenneth Sisam’s excellent Fourteenth-Century Verse and Prose (1921, rev. 1937). Rolf Kaiser’s bulky Alt- und Mittel-englische Anthologie (rev. as Medieval English, Berlin, 1961) includes specimens, with textual notes and facsimiles of almost everything of interest from the beginnings to c. 1500 except Beoumlf and Chaucer; a second vol. of explanatory notes and a glossary is promised. Two more useful selections covering the whole M.E. period are D. W. Robertson, Literature of Medieval England (1970), which also includes O.E., Welsh,

A Middle English reading list

30

Latin and Irish matter, all generally modernized or translated, and Charles W. Dunn and Edward T. Byrnes, Middle English Literature (1973), which provides modernized versions and the original on opposite pages for the earlier passages and glosses for the later material. The Oxford Book of Medieval Verse, ed. Celia and Kenneth Sisam (1970), is another collection with glosses but without explanatory notes; though extracts are included from longer poems its preference is for lyrics (1150-1500). Eleanor P. Hammond, English Verse between Chaucer and Surrey (1927), the best general selection of fifteenth- and early sixteenth-century poetry, has separate introductions, and notes for the twenty poets included as well as a long General Introduction which is still useful on fifteenth-century prosody. A. M. Kinghorn’s Middle Scots Poets (1970), which has notes and a goodish glossary, starts with James I and ends with Gavin Douglas. The only recent prose selection is William Matthews, Later Medieval English Prose (1963); its texts, from Mandeville and Wyclif to Caxton, are slightly modernized, the Introd. and headnotes are especially informative on prose style. In addition to the anthologies there are the publications of the Early English Text Society (EETS), founded by F. J. Furnivall in 1864 and now numbering over 260 vols., which reflect every aspect of Medieval English literature. The Scottish Text Society is younger though similar.

Lyrics, Romances, Drama, Ballads ■ Lyrics A good short general selection of Middle English lyrics is E. K. Chambers and Frank Sidgwick, Early English Lyrics, Amorous, Divine, and Trivial (1907), which has brief notes; a more recent equivalent is Brian Stone’s Medieval English Verse (1964, a Penguin paperback). For the reluctant beginner a better point of departure might be Speirs’s chapter on ‘Carols and Other Songs and Lyrics’ in his Medieval English Poetry (1957); Speirs prints twenty-six poems in full and is engagingly enthusiastic about their merits. More scholarly and far more comprehensive is R. T. Davies, Medieval English Lyrics (1963), which includes 187 pieces (to Wyatt), with sensible introductory notes and modern versions on the opposite pages where necessary. Theodore Silverstein’s selection of 144 lyrics (1975) is similar. The whole extant corpus of Middle English lyrical verse is avail¬ able, with a full apparatus of introds. and notes, in three vols. ed. Carleton Brown {Thirteenth Century,

Fourteenth Century [religious verse], rev.

Lyrics, romances, drama, ballads

31

G. V. Smithers 1952; Fifteenth Century [religious] verse, 1939), which are supplemented by Richard L. Green, Early English Carols (1935, rev. 1975; Selection 1962), and R. H. Robbins, Secular Lyrics of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries (1952, rev. 1955), and Historical Poems of the XIVth and XVth Centuries (1959). The famous Harley Lyrics, so called because they are preserved in the British Museum MS Harley 2253 - ‘Alysoun’, ‘Lenten is come with love to towne’, etc. - have been ed. by G. L. Brook (1948, rev. 1956) and in facsimile by N. R. Ker (LETS, 1965). Lawrence Minot’s rather dreary political lyrics are also available (ed. Joseph Hall, 1887, 1914), and Frances M. M. Comper, Life of Richard Rolle (1928) includes his mystical lyrics. A good critical discussion of the religious lyrics of the period is by George Kane in his Middle English Literature (1951), Arthur K. Moore, Secular Lyric in Middle English (1951) being thorough but uninspiring. The European context is ably surveyed by Peter Dronke in Medieval Latin and the Rise of European Love Lyric (2 vols., 1966), and his Medieval Lyric

(1968)

is

indispensable.

Rosemary

Woolf’s

English

Religious Ljync (1968) and Douglas Gray, Themes and Images in the Medieval English Lyric (1972) are also much admired.

Romances With the two exceptions of Sir Gawain and the Green Knight (see p. 37 below) and Malory’s Morte d’Arthur (see p. 39 below) the English medieval romances are not of much literary interest, the runner-up being perhaps the alliterative Morte Arthure (ed. James D. Bruce, EETS, 1903). The most useful general collection of the romances is Walter H. French and C. B. Hale (ed.). Middle English Metrical Romances (1930); a welledited recent selection is A. C. Gibbs’s Middle English Romances (1966). The best single book on the romances is probably Eugene Vinaver’s The Rise of Romance (1971), and an excellent summary of the Arthurian romances, their problems, and their backgrounds is available in Arthurian Literature in the Middle Ages (1959) by R. S. Loomis and others; Loomis’s Development of Arthurian Romance (1963) is a much shorter introduction to the same material. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia Regum Britanniae is available (with other early Arthurian texts), in Edmond Faral, Legende Arthurienne (3 vols., Paris, 1929); its historical pretensions were exposed by J. S. P. Tatlock in the masterly Legendary History of Britain (1950). The Everyman’s Library series includes translations or modernizations of Geoffrey of Monmouth, Layamon’s Brut, both the alliterative and the stanzaic Morte Arthure, and all Chretien de Troyes’s Arthurian romances except the Perceval. For the Alexander romances the standard work is

32

A Middle English reading list

The Gests of Alexander, ed. F. P. Magoun (1929). Other romances now obtainable in annotated modern eds. include Thomas Chestre’s Sir Launfal (ed. A. J. Bliss, i960), and Kyng Alisaunder (ed. G. V. Smithers, 2 vols., EETS, 1952-57). A critical discussion of the metrical romances will be found in George Kane, Middle English Literature (1951). Laura Hibbard, Medieval Romance in England (1924, rev. 1959) is the standard work on the non-cyclic romances.

Drama A. W. Pollard’s English Miracle Plays, Moralities, and Interludes (1890, final rev. 1927) only prints five miracle plays, but it has a long and lucid introd. R. G. Thomas has edited with notes, etc.. Ten Miracle Plays (1966); A. C. Cawley’s collection in the Everyman’s Library series (1956) includes fourteen miracle plays, all with short explanatory footnotes, as well as Everyman itself. His ed. of the six pieces by the ‘Wakefield Master’ (1958) is more scholarly and is fully annotated; Martial Rose, The Wakefield Mystery Plays (1963) can also be consulted. Joseph Q. Adams, Chief PreShakespearean Dramas (1924) retains its value because of its inclusiveness; the notes are very short but almost everything of dramatic interest down to c. 1570 has been packed into its 712 pages. Another general collection is R. S. Loomis and H. W. Wells (eds.). Representative Medieval and Tudor Plays (1942). Unfortunately the four cycles (York, Towneley, Chester, and ‘Ludus Coventriae’) are only available in uncritical nineteenth-century edns. without adequate annotation (but an EETS edn. of the Chester plays by R. M. Lumcansky and David Mills is promised immediately). The Non-Cycle Plays and Fragments have been well edited by Norman Davis (EETS, 1970). The standard accounts are E. K. Chambers, The Medieval Stage (2 vols., 1903), and Hardin Craig, English Religious Drama of the Middle Ages (1955), both descriptive and historical rather than critical. Karl Young’s The Drama of the Medieval Church (2 vols., 1933), the classic account of the liturgical drama, sets the English beginnings in their wider European context. G. B. Hardison’s Christian Rite and Chris¬ tian Drama (1965) usefully updates the Chambers-Young approach, from which Glynne Wickham has deliberately diverged in his rather obscure Early English Stage 1300-1600 (1959). Of the many critical studies the best are probably Rosemary Woolf, English Mystery Plays (1972) and Robert Potter, The English Morality Play (1975), though suggestive crumbs and sidelights are provided by F. M. Salter (1955), E. Prosser (1961), M. D. Anderson (1963) arid V. A. Kolve (1966). J. Taylor and A. H. Nelson have assembled eighteen essays from the journals with a good introduction by

Lyrics, romances, drama, ballads

33

Taylor on critical approaches to medieval drama. The whole subject is summarized by John Leyerle in the Drama vol. of the Oxford Biblio¬ graphical Guides {&6.. Stanley Wells, 1975). Ballads The most convenient ed. is the Cambridge one-vol. abbreviation (1904) of Francis J. Child’s exhaustive English and Scottish Popular Ballads (5 vols., 1882-98; reissued 3 vols., 1956). The shorter ed. prints 301 of the 305 ballads in the larger collection, though it reduces the number of versions of each ballad to two or three, but G. L. Kittredge, Child’s pupil and successor at Harvard, provides a long introduction that is still valu¬ able; there are also short headnotes to each ballad. Bertrand H. Bronson has now brought out an indispensable supplement in The Traditional Tunes of the Child Ballads (4 vols., 1959-72, which in fact covers more than the tunes. No editor has attempted to supersede Child and only a handful more ballads of the ‘Child’ type have turned up in this century; The Viking Book of Folk Ballads (ed. Albert B. Friedman, 1956) was, however, a selection of some interest because it abandoned the ‘Child’ formula and gives the musical airs. The printed street ballads, ignored by Child, can be sampled in The Common Muse: an Anthology of Popular British Ballad Poetry, XVth-XXth Century, ed. V. de Sola Pinto and A. E. Rodway (1957). The best single book on the English/Scotch ballads is probably G. H. Gerould’s The Ballad of Tradition (1932), but M. J. C. Hodgart’s shorter Ballads (1950) is a stimulating introd. to the whole subject. More special¬ ized recent theorizings on ballad origins, transmission, tunes, etc., have been reprinted by MacEdward Leach and Tristram P. Coffin as The Critics and the Ballad (1973).

■ Single works and authors In approximately chronological order; the NCBEL references are to the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature, ed. G. Watson (1974).

Ancrene Riwle {Wisse). English text, ed. J. R. R. Tolkien (EETS, 1962). Non-specialists can use G. Shepherd’s fully annotated ed. of parts 6 and 7 (i960). The Corpus MS (the best) was translated into modern English by M. B. Salu (1965). E. J. Dobson’s Moralities on the Gospels (1975) is an important source-study. (NCBEL, i, 498 ff.)

A Middle English reading list

34

The Owl and the Nightingale {c. 1200). Ed. J. W. H. Atkins (1922, with translation); ed. J. H. G. Grattan and G. F. H. Sykes (EETS, 1935; parallel texts of the two manuscripts); ed. Eric G. Stanley (i960; excellent Introd. and notes). {NCBEL, 1, 509 ff.) LAYAMON

(early thirteenth century). Brut. Critical edn. appearing by G. L.

Brook and R. F. Leslie (EETS, 3 vols., 1963-

). Selections by Joseph Hall

(1924) and G. L. Brook (1963; Introd. by C. S. Lewis). {NCBEL, i, 460 ff.) Havelock (late thirteenth century). Ed. W. W. Skeat (1868; final rev. by Kenneth Sisam, 1915). Modernized by A. J. Wyatt, 1889 (rev. 1913). {NCBEL,

I,

431

ff.)

Sir Orfeo (early fourteenth century). Good edn. by A. J. Bliss (1954, rev. 1966). Consult J. B. Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages (1970). (iVC5£L, 1,437 ff.) RICHARD ROLLE

(c. 1300-1349). English Writings, ed. Hope Emily Allen

(1931); Minor Works, ed. with modernized versions Geraldine E. Hodgson (1923); Selected Works, ed. G. C. Heseltine (1930). For Rolle’s life and writings, see Hope Emily Allen (1927) and Frances M. M. Comper (1928; includes edn. of Rolle’s lyrics). Conrad Pepler, English Religious Heritage (1950) is a competent introduction to the later English medieval mystics, including Julian of Norwich {c. 1343-c. 1415), Walter Hilton (d. 1396), and the author of The Cloud of Unknowing {c. 1370), as well as Rolle. {NCBEL,

I,

517 ff.)

‘sir JOHN MANDEVILLE.’

Travels, ed. M. C. Seymour, 1967. See also

Josephine W. Bennett’s masterly Rediscovery of Sir john Mandeville (1954). There is a modern English version of Mandeville by Malcolm Letts (2 vols., 1953). {NCBEL,

JOHN WYCLiF

I,

471 ff.)

{c. 1325-1384). Select English Writings, ed. H. E. Winn

(1929; useful Introd. and notes). Mathew Spinka, Advocate of Reform (1953) includes translations from Wyclif and others (to Erasmus) with a good Introd. The standard life is that by Herbert B. Workman (2 vols., 1926). For the Wycliffite Bible, see Margaret Deanesly’s Lollard Bible (1920). {NCBEL,

JOHN

GOWER

I,

491 ff.)

(i330?-I4o8).

Complete works, ed. (with notes) G. C.

Macaulay (4 vols., 1899-1902); Macaulay’s edn. of Confessio Amantis is

Lyrics, romances, drama, ballads

35

also obtainable separately (EETS, 2 vols., 1900-01); it has been modernized by Terence Tiller (1965). The selection by J. A. W. Bennett (1968) is better than Macaulay’s (1903). Latin works translated by Eric W. Stockton (1962). The detailed bibliographical study by John H. Fisher (1964) complements without superseding the lively chapter in C. S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love (1936). See also J. A. Burrow, Ricardian Poetry (1971; comparison and contrast with Chaucer, Langland and the Gawain poet). {NCBEL,

I,

553 ff.)

WILLIAM LANGLAND

(c. 1332-C. 1400). Piers Plowman: ed. W. W. Skeat

(EETS, 6 vols., 1863-84; rev. 2 vols., 1884 with A, B, and C texts in parallel columns); ed. Thomas A. Knott and David C. Fowler (1952; A text only, no explanatory notes); George Kane (definitive edn. of A and B versions 1960-75 B with E. Talbot Donaldson; notes and C version with Donaldson and others are in preparation). The prose version by J. F. Goodridge in a Penguin paperback of the B text (1959) has a good Introd. and short notes. There is an unannotated version of the B text by H. W. Wells (1935) with a critical introduction by Nevil Coghill, who has also brought out his own modernized selection (1949). The best book to date on Piers Plowman is probably E. Talbot Donaldson, Piers Plowman: the C-text and its poet (1949), which is not in fact confined to the C text. Robert W. Frank (1957) has expounded the Vitae {B text) convincingly. Elizabeth Salter’s survey (1962) is a sensible introduction and Nevil Coghill’s long British Academy lecture (1945), if not exactly sensible, is at least very ingenious. John Lawlor’s study (1962), which concentrates on the literary aspects, can be recommended to non-specialists. {NCBEL, i, 533 ff.) GEOFFREY CHAUCER

(c. 1343-1400). Standard edn. by F. N. Robinson (1933,

rev. 1957), which prints everything positively ascribable to Chaucer and has a good summarized biography as well as thorough separate introds. and notes; the glossary is inferior to that in W. W. Skeat’s elaborate Victorian edn. (7 vols., 1894-97), and for the text of the Canterbury Tales Robinson has been superseded by the monumental J. M. Manly/Edith Rickert edn. based on all the extant manuscripts and fragments (8 vols., 1940). For the undergraduate or beginner E. T. Donaldson’s generous selection from the poems (1958) is preferable because of the separate footnotes and excellent critical discussions of each work or tale. Chaucer’s Major Poetry, ed. A. C. Baugh (1964) is fuller than Donaldson but less critical; the footnotes are comprehensive. Some of the edns. of separate works are valuable, notably Troilus and Criseyde, R. K. Root (1926, rev. 1945) and Parlement of Eoules, D. S. Brewer (i960); for a quick reading, Canterbury Tales,

A Middle English reading list

36

A. C. Cawley (1958) and Troilus, Maldwyn Mill (1975), both in the Every¬ man’s Library series, provide marginal glosses and short explanatory foot¬ notes. R. A. Pratt’s Canterbury Tales (1966), though incomplete, has excellent glosses and notes; of the many edns. of single Tales J. A. W. Bennett’s Knight's Tale (1954) is especially useful. The technical aids include; Eleanor P. Hammond’s Chaucer Bibliography (1908), sequel by Dudley D. Griffith (1955), itself continued to 1964 by William R. Crawford (1967); Caroline E. E. Spurgeon, Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion, ig^y-igoo (3 vols., 1925); Robert D. French, Chaucer Hand¬ book (1927, rev. 1947; a factual record); M. M. Crow and C. C. Olson, Chaucer Life-Records (1965); the concordance by John S. P. Tatlock and Arthur G. Kennedy (1927); and for the Canterbury Tales the elaborate Sources and Analogues, ed. W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster (1941). Beryl Rowland’s Companion to Chaucer Studies (1968) is a good guide book to Chaucer scholarship. Chaucer criticism has multiplied recently, but apart from Dryden (Preface to Fables, 1700) and Aldous Huxley (a brilliant essay on the pagan element in Chaucer in On the Margin, 1921), no first-rate literary critic has ever ventured into this field except C. S. Lewis (not quite first-rate?), who has written provocatively on Troilus both in The Allegory of Love (1936) and in ‘What Chaucer really did to II Filostrato’ {Essays and Studies of the English Association, xvii, 1932). The scholars have done much useful work at the footnote level, but a defective literary sense vitiates or limits most of their more ambitious discussions. Partial recent exceptions are Charles Muscatine’s Chaucer and the French Tradition (1957), and his Poetry and Crisis in the Age of Chaucer (1972; not confined to Chaucer), J. A. W. Bennett, The Parliament of Foules: an Interpretation (1957) and his ‘exposition’ of The House of Fame (1968), and Wolfgang Clemen’s Chaucer's Early Poetry (1963). John Speirs’s bold attempt to apply modern critical methods in Chaucer the Maker (1951) unfortunately did not fulfil its excellent intentions. The final verdict on Ian Robinson’s more sophisti¬ cated Chaucer's Prosody (1971) and Chaucer and the English Tradition (1972) seems likely to be similar. B. H. Bronson’s short In Search of Chaucer (i960), which is perceptive without ceasing to be scholarly, is much more successful. A stylistic study, Robert C. Payne, The Key to Remembrance (1964), is intermittently suggestive, as is also (if less so) the unrelenting pur¬ suit of biblical analogues in D. W. Robertson’s learned Preface to Chaucer (1964) For J. A. Burrow, Ricardian Poetry see under Gower above. Of the more specialized works on the early poems James Wimsatt’s (1968) and James Winny’s (1973) seem the most critically aware; but Ida L. Gordon (1970) explores successfully the philosophical context of Troilus, and

Lyrics, romances, drama, ballads

37

Robert W. Frank (1973) persuades us to take The Legend of Good Women seriously.

The Canterbury

Tales continues to attract commentators,

notably Paul G. Ruggiers (1964), Muriel Bowden (1967), and Trevor Whittock (1968, eccentric but good preliminary ‘On reading Chaucer’). Of the more general studies John Lawlor (1968) is always reliable and Edward Wagenknecht, in The Personality of Chaucer (1968), is often original. But E. Talbot Donaldson, Speaking of Chaucer (1969), a collection of twelve articles, deserves to be the most read because it is both original and well written. Of the older books, the lectures by J. L. Lowes (1934) seem to wear best, though W. C. Curry’s Chaucer and the Medieval Sciences (1926, rev. i960) is still indispensable in its special field and G. L. Kittredge’s short and dogmatic study (1915) still has its admirers. The scholar-critics have generally been at their best in articles or essays rather than books. Some of the essays in Beryl Rowland, Companion to Chaucer Studies (1968) are first-rate; notably V. Ramsag on the irony. Specimens of such scattered works are to be found in the paperback collections ed. by E. Wagenknecht (i960) R. Schoeck and J. Taylor (2 vols., 1960-61), and D. S. Brewer (1966). Snippets or longer extracts are reprinted in J. A. Burrow’s excellent volumes in the Penguin Critical Anthology series (1969). Burrow’s 14-page bibliography in the Oxford Select Bibliographical Guides {Poetry, ed. A. E. Dyson, 1971) is useful at a lower level as a reliable guide-book to modern studies and edns. {NCBEL, r, 577 ff.) ‘the gawain-poet’ (flourished c. 1390). Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, ed. J. R. R. Tolkien and E. V. Gordon (1925, rev. Norman Davis 1967), is the standard edn., but the Israel Gollancz and Mabel Day edn. (EETS, 1940) is also useful. The translation by James L. Rosenberg (1959) has a good introduction by James R. Kreuzer, though the best critical dis¬ cussions to date are Marie Borroff’s detailed study (1962), J. A. Burrow’s less ambitious exposition (1965), and Larry D. Benson’s Art and Tradition in Sir Gawain (1965). See also Burrow, Ricardian Poetry (1971; comparison and contrast with Chaucer, Langland and Gower). Pearl has been well ed. by E. V. Gordon (1953), and both poems are available together in the Everyman’s Library series (ed. A. C. Cawley, 1962). There are critically unambitious edns. of Patience by H. Bateson (1912, rev. 1918) and of Purity (Cleanness) by Robert J. Menner (1920). However, John Gardner’s spirited modern English version of all the four poems (1965) has a long critical introduction. Nineteen recent essays on Pearl have been assembled by John Conley (1970). A similar collection on Sir Gawain was made by Donald 401-6).

R.

Howard

and

Christian

K. Zacher (1969). {NCBEL, i,

A Middle English reading list

38 CHAUCER APOCRYPHA.

Vol.

VII

of W. W. Skeat’s edn. of Chaucer (1897)

contains many of the poems once ascribed to Chaucer, including The Testament of Love by Thomas Usk (d. 1388) and such fifteenth-century pieces as The Tale of Beryn and The Cuckoo and the Nightingale. D. A. Pearsall’s edn. of The Flower and the Leaf and The Assembly of Ladies has a good Introd., notes, and glossary. (NCBEL, i, 652.) JOHN BARBOUR

(i3i6?-i395). The Bruce: standard edn. by W. W. Skeat

(EETS, 4 parts, 1870-89; rev. for Scottish Text Society, 2 vols., 1893-94). {NCBEL,

I,

466-7.)

THOMAS HOCCLEVE (c.

1386-C. 1450). Works, ed. F. J. Furnivall and Israel

Gollancz (EETS, 3 vols., 1892-1925). The one full study is by Jerome Mitchell (1968). {NCBEL, i, 646-7.) JOHN LYDGATE (c.

1370-C. 1450). Minor poems, ed. H. N. MacCracken and

M. Sherwood (EETS, 2 vols., 1910-33). Most of the longer poems have also been ed. for EETS. Eleanor P. Hammond, English Verse between Chaucer and Surrey (1927) includes generous extracts from his work, and a fuller well-annotated selection has now been made by J. Norton-Smith (1966). A recent critical study by Alain Renoir (1967) is learned and enthusiastic, but Derek Pearsall’s (1970) is to be generally preferred. The life by W. F. Schirmer has been rev. and translated by A. Keep (1961). {NCBEL,

I,

639 ff.)

JAMES I OF SCOTLAND

(1394-1437). The Kingis Quair: standard ed. by

W. Mackay Mackenzie (1939). Check-list of studies, 1956-68, in Florence H. Ridley, Studies in Scottish Literature, viii (1970). {NCBEL, i, 654 f.) REGINALD PECOCK

(1945). {NCBEL,

{c. 1390-1461). Definitive study by V. H. H. Green I,

665 f.)

Paston Letters. The standard collection by James Gairdner (6 vols., 1904) is now out of date, but there is an excellent selection, with notes and glossary, by Norman Davis (1958), who is also preparing a complete edn. For the historical background see H. S. Bennett, The Pastons and Their England (1922, rev. 1931). {NCBEL, i, 653 f.) The Macro Plays. Standard edn. of the three moralities {The Castle of Perseverance, Wisdom, Mankind) by Mark Eccles (EETS, 1969). {NCBEL, I, 000).

Lyrics, romances, drama, ballads ROBERT HENRYSON

39

(i429?-i5o8?). Standard edn. of poems by G. Gregory

Smith, 3 vols., Scottish Text Society (1906-14). For ‘The Testament of Cressid’ use Denton Fox’s edn. 1968. The one-vol. edn. by H. Harvey Wood (1933, rev. 1958) is adequate for most purposes; there is also a scholarly selection by Charles Elliott (1963, rev. and enlarged 1975; good notes). Since the critical ground was first broken by Marshall Stearns (1949) much the best general study has been by John MacQueen (1967), though E. M. W. Tillyard’s account of ‘The Testament’ in his Five Poems (1948) is still helpful, and Edwin Muir was perceptive on Henryson’s narrative technique in the appreciation included in his Essays on Literature and Society (1949). Peter Heidtmann has a good ‘Bibliography of Henryson, Dunbar, and Douglas, 1912-68’, in Chaucer Review,^, 1970. (NCBEL, I,

685 ff.)

SIR THOMAS MALORY

(fl. c. 1470). Standard edn. (from recently discovered

Winchester MS) by Eugene Vinaver (3 vols., 1947, rev. 1963) has a per¬ suasive, if sometimes erroneous, critical Introd. and elaborate notes. Vinaver’s ed. of Malory’s last book was also issued separately with correc¬ tions (1955), but the single-vol. edn. of Vinaver’s complete text (i960) is unfortunately without either Introd. or notes. The best general study is still Vinaver’s earlier Malory (1929), though J. A. W. Bennett has ed. some interesting Essays on Malory (1963) by a number of scholars, including one by C. S. Lewis. A rather more coherent collection is Malory's Originality, ed. R. M. Lumiansky, 1964, in which a chap, by a separate scholar is allo¬ cated to each Book in the Winchester MS. Vinaver’s thesis that Malory wrote eight separate books, on which Caxton imposed an artificial unity, has been challenged by Charles Moorman (1965), who must be read, however, in the context of P. J. C. Field’s able study of Malory’s prose style (1971). Stephen Knight’s Structure of Malory’s Arthuriad (1969), though short, is exceptionally important. (NCBEL, i, 674 ff.) WILLIAM CAXTON

(c. 1422-1491). Good popular introduction by Nellie S.

Aurner (1926), which prints most of Caxton’s Prologues and Epilogues in an appendix; complete edn. of these (with full biography) by W. J. B. Crotch (EETS, 1928). See also H. S. Bennett, English Books and Readers, 1475-1557 (1952). The brilliant if specialized Caxton's Aesop (1967) by R. T. Lenaghan can be commended to all students of the fable. N. E. Beales’s

study of Caxton is more general and commonplace (1969)

(NCBEL,

I,

667 ff.)

WILLIAM DUNBAR (c.

1460-C. 1520). Standard edn.

by

John Small and

A Middle English reading list

40

others (Scottish Text Society, 3 vols., 1884-93). The single-vol. edn. by W. Mackay Mackenzie (1932, rev. Bruce Dickins, 1961) prints all the poems with short notes and a glossary; James Kinsley’s annotated selection (1958) is oddly capricious in its omissions. There is a solid life by J. W. Baxter (1952). For recent studies see under James i and Henryson above. {NCBEL, 1, 660 ff.) GAVIN DOUGLAS (c.

1474-1522). Poetical works, ed. John Small (4 vols.,

1874; includes a biography). Definitive edn. of translation of Aeneid by D. F. C. Coldwell (Scottish Text Society, 4 vols., 1957-64), whose Selections (1964) provide an excellent introd. to all Douglas’s work (full notes and glossary). There is a Scottish Text Society edn. of the short poems by P. J. Bawcutt (1967). See too Lauchlan M. Watt, Douglas's Aeneid (1920) and the sparkling section in C. S. Lewis’s OHEL volume. Recent studies listed by Florence H. Ridley and Peter Heidtmann (see under James I and Henryson above. [NCBEL, i, 622 If.) STEPHEN HAWES

(c. 1475-1523?). The Passetyme of Pleasure, ed. William E.

Mead (EETS, 1928; good general account of Hawes in Introd.). C. S. Lewis has a section on Hawes in The Allegory of Love (1936). [NCBEL, i, 650 f.) JOHN SKELTON

still

the

(i46o?-i529). Poems, ed. Alexander Dyce (2 vols., 1843;

most fully annotated

edn.);

ed.

Philip

Henderson (1931,

rev. 1948; uncritical but complete). There are EETS edns. of Mag?iificence by R. L. Ramsay (1906) and of Skelton’s ‘aureate’ translation of Diodorus Siculus, well ed. by F. M. Salter and H. L. R. Edwards (2 vols., 1956-57). R. Kinsman has ed. a good and fully annotated selection from the poems (1969). The best modern studies are by William Nelson (1939) and H. L. R. Edwards (1949), both being primarily biographical. For the poetry there is a Yale critical study by S. E. Fish (1965), and W. H. Auden’s essay in The Great Tudors, ed. K. Garvin (1935) should not be missed. Arthur R. Heiserman’s Skelton and Satire (1961), which is more specialized, is an indispensable ‘aid’. [NCBEL, i, 1015 ff.)

THE APPROACH TO RENAISSANCE LITERATURE

Rebirth or Inflation? Like Romanticism - the inevitable parallel because of both periods’ bias towards individualism for its own sake - the Renaissance has recently lost much of its Victorian glamour. To Walter Pater, whose The Renaissance (1873) is still well worth reading in spite of the affected style, it was the name of a many-sided but yet united movement, in which the love of the things of the intellect and the imagination for their own sake, the desire for a more liberal and comely way of conceiving life, make themselves felt, urging those who experienced this desire to search out first one and then another means of intellectual or imaginative enjoy¬ ment, and directing them not only to the discovery of old and for¬ gotten sources of this enjoyment, but to the divination of fresh sources thereof - new experiences, new subjects of poetry, new forms of art. Pater’s emphasis, it will be seen, was not on the ‘old and forgotten sources’ - not, therefore, on the rebirth as such of classical art and culture, so much as on the new forms of aesthetic activity the classical revival (also known as Humanism) may or may not have stimulated. The crucial words are new, liberal, comely. A sophisticated version of Pater’s Renaissance, adjusted to an antiVictorian view of English literary history, made its appearance in T. S. Eliot’s ‘The Metaphysical poets’ (1921). With Milton and Dryden, according to Eliot, who was adapting two of Remy de Gourmont’s favourite terms, ‘a dissociation of sensibility set in’, displacing the unified sensibility of writers like Shakespeare, Chapman and Donne, who had been able to think and feel at the same time. ‘The poets of the seventeenth century, the successors of the dramatists of the sixteenth, possessed a mechanism of sensibilty which could devour any kind of experience.’ Why they felt an urge to ‘devour’ is explained in ‘Four Elizabethan dramatists’

The approach to Renaissance literature

42

(1924), one of Eliot’s most persuasive essays.^ Here the final impression the English Renaissance leaves is said to be one of ‘artistic greediness’. Its writers wanted ‘every sort of effect together’ and were unwilling ‘to accept any limitation and abide by it’. Their philosophy, ultimately, was one ‘of anarchism, of dissolution, of decay’. At the merely aesthetic level Eliot’s Renaissance is not so different from Pater’s. But his instinctive, pre-critical admiration is accompanied by a distrust of what lay behind or beneath the brilliant surface. And since 1924 everybody’s suspicions have increased as the historical context of the Elizabethan

achievement

has

become clearer. Unlike

the Victorian

aesthetes, we are uncomfortably aware of the social matrix of the English Renaissance - a continuous inflation (with the opportunities it provided the new capitalism of enormous profits or total ruin), unprecedented technical progress (which included gunpowder as well as the printing press), immensely efficient dictatorships, ruthless colonial exploitation (with syphilis, according to D. H. Lawrence, the most influential import of all), an hysterical religious fanaticism, and an omnivorous credulity (alchemy, astrology and witchcraft flourished as never before). New no doubt, scarcely liberal, not by any means always comely. Kenyes’s ‘rash generalization’ (his own words) in A Treatise on Money that Shakespeare, like ‘the larger proportion of the world’s great writers and artists’, was the product of ‘the atmosphere of buoyancy, exhilaration and the freedom from economic cares felt by the governing class, which is engendered by profit inflations’ has been given short shrift by L. C. Knights in Drama and Society in the Age ofjonson (1937). The Elizabethan governing class was not free from economic cares. On the contrary, the economic instability was their nightmare, and the desperate devices to which James I and Charles I were driven to survive economically were a direct cause, as Keynes must have known, of the Civil War. But if Knights disposed of Keynes, he did not dispose of the overwhelming social impact of the sixteenth-century price revolution. In a less naive sense than Keynes’s, Shakespeare’s plays were the product of the inflation, because at bottom they are the objective correlatives of a morality that had been developed in the process of his society’s adjustment to inflation and all that went with it. The price revolution reached England c. 1525, when the prices of most commodities, including food, began to rise (rents and wages, on the other hand, remaining more or less at the old levels). Economists have still not made up their minds about the causes of the inflation, though

I. Inexplicably withdrawn as ‘callow’ from the paperback edition of the Elizabethan Essays.

Rebirth or Inflation?

43

the inflow of Spanish-American silver almost certainly had something to do with it, and at the time, except to one or two advanced thinkers such as Bodin, no rational explanation at all was available. Prices continued to rise, without anybody in the least understanding why, until c. 1650, when the inflation came to an end as mysteriously as it had begun. The disturbing effect of the sixteenth-century inflation can be com¬ pared with that of the Black Death. Once again, with demoralizing sud¬ denness and without any apparent human intervention, England found itself a different place, with many of its basic traditional assumptions - for example, that a day’s labour could be counted on to support a man and his family for a day - inexplicably losing their meaning. It was another Toynbeean ‘challenge’, but different from that of the fourteenth century because (i) though there were many recurrences of bubonic plague, it never returned on the same scale as in 1348-49, as inflation was to do, and (ii) its effects were obvious for all to see, whereas the Elizabethan inflation was continuous for over a hundred years and invisible, except indirectly. The two differences, though not the whole story by any means, may help to explain some of the respective but very different excellences of Chaucer and Shakespeare. Translated into the simplest human terms the sixteenth- and early seventeenth-century inflation meant that a son’s money income had to be nearly twice that of his father if the new generation was to maintain a comparable standard of living. Generally speaking, there were two ways in which the family income could be doubled. One was for the son to work twice as hard as his father. This might be called the middle-class or Puritan solution; its effect upon orthodox Christian theology is the subject of R. H. Tawney’s sociological classic Religion and the Rise of Capitalism (1926). The alternative solution, one more characteristic of the specifically Renaissance ethos, was for the son to go out into the world and carve a fortune there. Eor the son of a gentleman the prospect that offered the biggest rewards, social and financial, was a place at Court. The initiative and determination which could bring dazzling monetary rewards to the middle-class ‘undertaker’, or entrepreneur, were rewarded at a Renaissance Court by the even more dazzling possibility of the favour of the quasi¬ divine Renaissance Prince. It is true a Prince’s smiles were not an imme¬ diately marketable commodity (‘glory’ and ‘gold’ are incommensurable orders of value), but as the Court took the place of modern Cabinet and modern Civil Service combined, the opportunities for pickings were considerable - even for those who were only favourites of a favourite. To succeed, however, it was necessary to be, or at least to seem, properly qualified; hence the dozens of ‘courtesy books’, of which much the most

The approach to Renaissance literature

44

interesting is Castiglione’s II Cortegiano (translated into English by Sir Thomas Hoby in 1561). And among the qualities required of a courtier, along with horsemanship, fencing, dancing and the like, was the ability to write a love song or turn a copy of complimentary verses. George Puttenham’s The Art of English Poesy (1589) is the most elaborate English text¬ book of this aspect of courtliness. (The Queen accepted its dedication and Puttenham tactfully uses some of her dreary poems as examples of poetic craftsmanship.) Although not a book to read through at a sitting, it makes an excellent introduction, with its anecdotes of Court life and its encyclo¬ pedia of metrical forms and rhetorical figures of speech, to the intellectual and technical bases of Court poetry. Puttenharn’s object was ‘to make of a rude rimer, a learned and a Courtly Poet’; ‘learned’, however, not in any academic sense but in the requirements of ‘decorum’, the basis of which was ‘experience’, a quality ten times as valuable, according to Puttenham, as book-learning.^ Decorum, with its implication of a conscious cultivation by the individual of a behaviour appropriate to the nuances of each social occasion, was a key Renaissance term. Closely connected with it is ‘bravery’ or a general magnificence of appearance. Decorum, which permitted simple clothes, speech and manners in the country, demanded their opposite at Court. Here, therefore, was a criterion of linguistic ‘correctness’, both in the courtier’s speech and for Court poetry, that had not been available for Chaucer or the fifteenth century. In the formal speech of Court occasions, and so in the Court poetry which was the reflection of such occasions, the courtier was expected to be ‘brave’ (‘gallantly arrayed in all his colours’ is how Puttenham puts it of the poet) without seeming indecorously artificial or unnatural. (At Court a proper magnificence was natural.) Sidney makes the point when discussing oratory; I have found in divers smal learned Courtiers, a more sound stile, then in some professors of learning, of which I can gesse no other cause, but that the Courtier following that which by practice he findeth fittest to nature, therein (though he know it not) doth according to art, though not by art: where the other using art to shew art and not hide art (as in these cases he shuld do) flieth from nature, and indeed abuseth art.^ Sidney’s ‘practice’ is here the product of Puttenham’s ‘experience’. But to be ‘smal learned’ was not, of course, an indispensable qualification. The 1. The quotations are from the excellent edn. by Gladys D. Willcock and Alice Walker (1936). 2. The Defence of Poesy (1595).

Rebirth or Inflation?

45

best Court poets - Wyatt, Sidney, Greviile, Donne, Lord Herbert, Thomas Carew - were highly educated men. Without an expert knowledge of rhetoric, ‘bravery’ could not be had. But the art had not to obscure the speaking voice. The requirement was not a matter of ‘sincerity’, but of a realism to counterpoise the magnificence. The Arcadian Rhetoric (1588) of Abraham Fraunce, a textbook that explicitly defines tropes and figures as ‘Braverie of speach’, insists with Puttenham on ‘discretion’ and the con¬ tinual danger of ‘affectate curiosity’. Fraunce, like Sir John Hoskyns (Donne’s friend and the author of Directions for Speech and Style, a slightly later, more sophisticated textbook), draws most of his examples from the Arcadia, to us today a tediously overwritten work, though that Sidney was himself aware of the dangers of rhetoric is proved by his sarcasms about ‘swelling Phrases’, ‘coursing of a letter’ (alliteration), and ‘Nizolian paper bookes’ (the phrase-book or gradus) in The Defence of Poesy. Sidney’s own criterion is, essentially, dramatic effectiveness. Discussing ‘that Lyricall kind of Songs and Sonets’ he complained, truly many of such writings, as come under the banner of unresistable love, if I were a mistresse, would never perswade mee they were in love: so coldly they applie firie speeches, as men that had rather redde lovers writings.^ Which does not mean, as nineteenth-century critics thought, that these poets had to be really in love and addressing a real mistress, but that the illusion of such a situation had to be communicated. And at the English Court, where everybody knew everybody, a necessary consequence of the realistic ‘F was the illusion or convention of an identifiable mistress. Penelope Devereux was indispensable to Sidney as sonneteer, though not necessarily in any other capacity. His marriage to Frances Walsingham in 1583, before the Astrophil cycle of sonnets had even been completed, seems to have been a happy one. Sidney’s ‘professors of learning’ and ‘Nizolian’ copyists were learned in the ordinary academic sense - the educational products not of ‘experience’ and ‘practice’ but of authority and logic. Although he does not identify them for us, they were probably middle-class Puritans turned university wits. The type was a variant on those sons who worked twice as hard as their fathers; the Oxford and Cambridge men worked their heads off at school and college instead of in shop or counting-house, sometimes losing some of their Puritanism in the process. They are the first professional authors in English, with their most splendid representatives in Spenser,

46

The approach to Renaissance literature

the son of the London journeyman tailor, and Milton, the son of the London scrivener-usurer. If they are to be called Renaissance, it is with an im¬ portant difference from the Court group. The ‘correctness’ that such Puritan intellectuals aspired to was the neoclassic critics’ version of decorum as it was being formulated by the contemporary Continental commentators on Aristotle’s Poetics. As systematized by the elder Scaliger in Poetices Libri Septem (1561), the neoclassic ‘rules’ have an impressive logical rigour, and the Elizabethan ‘scholarship boy’, with literary instincts but no native literary tradition to work in (his pastors and masters had cut away the medieval roots), may be forgiven his fascination. But the neo¬ classic system only provided models and patterns. Unlike the Court poet, whose lyrical ‘bravery’ was a literary correlative of his aspiration to royal favour, the Puritan or professional poet had no human material with which to fill the neoclassic moulds. (The intellectual correlative of the new capital¬ ism was the new science.) At its norm this poetry is dismally ‘literary’, an imitation of an imitation; at its best it is saved, almost in spite of itself, at least in The Faerie Queene and Paradise Lost, on the one hand by the unconscious terrors and appetites that have seeped through, and on the other by the sheer mental energy displayed in its structures. A third area in the English Renaissance’s cultural map must not be overlooked. Both the aspiring courtier and the industrious Puritan were never more than a generation or two from the half-pagan, half-Christian democracies of village and borough, with the vigorous juries, guilds, and vestries that had been perfected in the fifteenth century. Some of the finest folk songs and traditional ballads seem to date from this period (the Percy Polio, our earliest text for many of the best ballads, was only compiled about 1650), and they come from the other side of the Renaissance pale, which did not extend more than a hundred miles at most to the west and north of London. Oral poetry was, of course, on the defensive. Puttenham’s contemptuous reference to the ‘blind harpers’ and their ‘reports of Bevis of Southampton, Guy of Warwick, Adam Belle, and Clymme of the Clough and such other old Romances or historical rimes, made purposely for recreation of the common people at Christmas dinners and brideales’ is a more typical sixteenth-century reaction than Sidney’s well-known tribute. Nevertheless, though rejected at Court, the culture of the people was part of the unconscious inheritance of even the age’s most ‘modern’ writers. Proverbs and proverbial lore, which had been the Testaments of the folk until they were superseded by the Authorized Version, circulated in all classes of society, as M. P. Tilley’s valuable Dictionary of the Proverbs in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1950) has con¬ clusively demonstrated.

Rebirth or Inflation?

47

It is the collision and partial fusion of the three modes of speech - of Court, city, and country - that give Renaissance English its special virtues of vividness and complexity. With the class barriers partly broken down by inflation, there followed a greater linguistic mobility than in the fifteenth century; the amalgamation of speech that characterized the upper classes of southern and eastern England preceded any similar assimilation of attitudes or philosophies. Hence the pervasive ‘ambiguity’ of the speech of the period - most suggestively explored by William Empson in Seven Types of Ambiguity and The Structure of Complex Words - which was a linguistic reflection of the underlying social ambivalences. Much of the ‘bravery’ of the Renaissance style derives from the reader’s sense of an intellectual daring that enjoys the proximity to logical contradiction. Dr Johnson, an unsympathetic critic, complained that with Donne, Cowley, and the other Metaphysical poets, ‘the most heterogeneous ideas are yoked by violence together’. And violence cannot be denied. But in the best Court poetry - of which Aletaphysical poetry was only the central phase the reader has no sense of the failure of incompatible ideas to exist side by side. The surprising juxtapositions in ‘The Flea’, for example, one of Donne’s most popular poems, were a faithful reflection of a society in which the traditional hierarchies of church and state were in fact in dissolution. The Elizabethans, believing in themselves, were not afraid to believe in the ultimate beneficence of a reversal of the values to which they had found themselves committed at birth. And they liked a similar paradoxical ex¬ citement in their poetry.

Dramatic speech Wyatt, who has as good a claim as anyone to be the first Renaissance Englishman, wrote his earliest ‘ballets’ in the 1520s; Chaucer’s \2sxCanterbury Tales date from c. 1394. In the century and a quarter between except for Skelton and the Scotch poets an inglorious period for Court literature - the best poetry had been the popular oral poetry of songs, carols and ballads. But the invention of the printing press and the remark¬ able increase in literacy at this time were the beginning of the end of oral poetry, except at such sub-literary levels as the nursery rhyme or the obscene jingle. Wyatt’s poems, although often nominally lute songs, are essentially poems to be read - privately, to oneself, the eye lingering or re¬ reading whenever it becomes necessary or desirable. The minute correc¬ tions in Wyatt’s own handwriting in the Egerton MS (now in the British Museum) demonstrate by their attention to minutiae of phrasing, imagery

The approach to Renaissance literature

48

and rhythm that this is a poetry of art, of ‘the best words in the best order’. Wyatt’s contemporaries and followers recognized his pioneering achieve¬ ment as a poetic craftsman; the Elizabethan tributes to him and Surrey resemble those of the Augustans to Waller and Denham and of the Romantics to Chatterton. But there is an important difference between Wyatt’s attitude to words and word order and Waller’s or Chatterton’s. Wyatt’s poetry, though composed on paper and intended to be read privately, is made out of the spoken language and is intended to create the illusion of speech. The typical Wyatt poem, whether song, sonnet, epigram or ‘satire’, is a soliloquy or monologue, in which the ‘I’ makes the same immediate impact as the dramatis persona in a play. Some of the revisions in the Egerton MS, when a regular iambic line loses a syllable (e.g. by a monosyllable taking the place of a disyllable), seem to show Wyatt deliberately aiming at dramatic pause in his rhythms. His master¬ piece ‘They fle from me that some-tyme did me seke’ is constructed entirely on this principle. In line 2, for example. With naked fote stalking in my chambre, the reader’s ear anticipates/ootitep (or some equivalent disyllable) and the absence of the unstressed syllable creates a pause before stalking, the pause emphasizing most effectively the stealthiness with which the approach is being made. Wyatt’s innovation of ending the sonnet with a couplet - for which his Italian and Erench models had provided next to no precedent is a device of the same type. The effect is something like the decasyllabic couplet at the end of a blank verse scene in an Elizabethan or Jacobean play. The poem’s conclusion is marked off with a decisive dramatic finality. It is true the balance between octave and sestet, so important to Petrarch and his followers, is destroyed in the process, but Wyatt and his English successors, who almost all end their sonnets with a rhyming couplet, were not interested in the principle of literary balance. Their concern was for effective dramatic speech. In Chaucer and his contemporaries the emphasis was primarily on dramatic action. Except in a few uncharacteristic passages of Erench rhetoric, our attention is hardly ever detained in them by the actual word or phrase. Instead we are hurried along from what is said to the situation that the words communicate or create. And so the word itself becomes almost transparent. With Renaissance literature, on the other hand, whether it is prose or poetry, the words have all the immediacy and resonance of splendid speech, a speech that itself controls and determines the nature of the dramatic action. The literary unit, therefore, is a speech unit, a phrase or a single sentence, as is clearly demonstrated by the large

Dramatic speech

49

number of memorable items bequeathed by English Renaissance literature to any dictionary of quotations. The conventional literary unit, such as sonnet, narrative poem or play, instead of determining what is said in the sentence or phrase, tends to be determined - in the best English Renais¬ sance literature when it is at its best - by the smaller units. The smaller unit can even stand by itself, enacting on its own small scale its own minia¬ ture drama. The phrase is often, indeed, of superior literary value when it does stand by itself, detached from its context. Shakespeare’s ‘That time of year thou may’st in me behold’ is certainly one of the best of the Sonnets, but it is a poor thing compared to its own fourth line when we allow the nine magic words to stand by themselves: Bare ruined choirs, where late the sweet birds sang. Renaissance literature presupposes a reader or auditor who will translate the writer’s page or the actor’s words into visual images that the mind’s eye can contemplate on an imagined stage. (The public theatres, without scenery or lighting and with only the most rudimentary properties, relied upon the audience’s active imaginative cooperation with the dramatist’s words.) Such mental spectacles is the specific ‘bravery’ that the modern reader of the Elizabethans and Jacobeans must above all learn to cultivate. Since the spectacle is essentially dramatic, there is no leisure as a rule for description. What is described even in The Faerie Queene and Flero and Leander is a scene always dissolving into action, with a limited number of identifiable men and women in continuously changing interrelation¬ ships. So far as there is any recurring structural principle it is the negative one of mutability, change for its own sake, which is the metaphysical version of the 1550-T650 inflation as realized subjectively; it followed that the relationships between the dramatis personae must change, the human situations must develop. The point of poetic interest is therefore not so much the immediate situation

se (present tense) as the tensions between

it and what came before (past tense) and what is still to come (future tense). In Donne’s ‘Extasie’, for example. All day the same our postures were. And we said nothing all the day . . . The lovers, simply by the improbable claim they make of one day’s total immobility, invite us to contrast it with what must have preceded it as well as with what is to come next. Again, to take another familiar single¬ sentence masterpiece, in Webster’s line Cover her face; mine eyes dazzle; she died young . . .

50

The approach to Renaissance literature

the single sentence is a miniature three-act play. The face is to be covered in order that it may not be visible now, but before it is covered its dazzling beauty has already been revealed, and it is only after the revelation of her beauty that we discover the young Duchess is dead. To look for a positive structural principle in English Renaissance literature is to miss its essential point. Mutability, though certain, is after all unpredictable. Each human situation, therefore, is unique, suigeneris', its outcome cannot be foretold by examining earlier human situations of approximately the same type, and it cannot be used as a yardstick of the proper behaviour of others who may find themselves later in the same position. The dramatic presentation of such a situation will be unlikely to fit naturally into a pre-existent mould, such as the classical genres, and it can have no ‘moral’ because a similar situation is unlikely to recur. In the circumstances of Renaissance mutability the only assistance the writer can give the reader is to provide his writings with titles that will suggest or summarize the point of departure or the general direction that each poem will take. Donne seems to have been the first poet to make the title an essential part of the meaning of a short poem, though in a bungling way Tottel’s editor had realized as early as 1557 that Wyatt’s and Surrey’s Songs and Sonnets also need descriptive titles. The dramatists followed Donne, Jonson realizing before Shakespeare the potentialities of this device as a kind of commentary or programme note: Everyman in His Humour, 1958; Measure for Measure, 1604. The genre labels persist (Hemminge and Condell did their best for Shakespeare with the tripartite comedies, histories, and tragedies, in that order), but they had become so vague and structurally irrelevant as to be almost meaningless. The conventional classical divisions - epic, tragedy, ode, comedy, satire, pastoral, etc. - had been based on subject matter and on mode of presentation; that is, on extraverbal considerations. The English Renaissance, with its instinctive reliance on dramatic speech as the determinant of literary structure, did not exactly discard the genres. It was rather that the precepts of Aristotle and Horace, and their Italian and French neoclassic heirs, were not relevant to their critical interests, which were always technical rather than theoretic. Apart indeed from Sidney and Puttenham, the literary critics of this period are very unrewarding except on technical issues, as in the interchange of letters between Spenser and Gabriel Harvey and the Campion-Daniel controversy, both on the use of classical metres in English. Even Jonson, who clearly had the makings of a first-class literary critic, did not in fact achieve more than occasional vigorous obiter dicta. Milton, like Spenser (his ‘original’, as he told Dryden), is something of a special case. (The Renaissance had run its course by the time he reached

Dramatic speech

SI

full literary maturity in the 1650s.) Milton is a middle-class humanist, like More or Jonson or Hooker. A closer parallel, on a lower level, might, however, be with the Scotch litterateur Drummond of Flawthornden, whose feelings about the Metaphysical poets Milton certainly shared. Drummond is here pontificating to his friend Arthur Johnstone: Poesie is not a thing that is in the finding and search, or which may be otherwise found out, being already condescended upon by all nations, and as it were established iure gentium amongst Greeks, Romans, Italians, French, Spaniards. Neither do I think that a good piece of Poesie which Homer, Virgil, Ovid, Petrarch, Bartas, Ronsard, Boscan, Garcilasso (if they were alive and had that language) could not under¬ stand, and reach the sense of the writer.^ It is the bracketed qualification that gives Drummond’s case away. Homer and the others were not alive, and if they had been they would not have been able to write in English. Drummond, whose literary remains were edited by Milton’s nephew Edward Phillips, is an almost perfect specimen of the ivory-tower poet. In his daily life Drummond spoke and heard broad Scots all the time, but his verse and prose, both of which are imitation Sidney, are in pure English. Like Drummond, though for different reasons, Milton never felt the attractive magnet of the Court. Or if he did at one time, as Arcades and Comus perhaps suggest, it was an attraction that soon passed. Lycidas, like his earliest poems, is the perfection of grammar-school poetry - what the humanists, following Quintilian, called imitatio. Ivory-tower poetry can achieve greatness under one con¬ dition : its composition by a poet of intelligent, sensitive, maladjusted, and neurotic temperament. Spenser and Milton seem to fulfil this condition; Marvell is the third great neurotic of the period. This is not to deny other elements of interest in their writings, but it is to the neurotic contradictions in those writings, in part no doubt to be derived from their Puritanism, that the modern reader looks for the fundamental oppositions and discordancies that their tortured imaginations were somehow able to balance and reconcile.

The Ego and Fortune Two concepts dominated the mind of Renaissance England. One was the Ego, the other was Hap or Fortune. The two concepts were indeed each

I.

Quoted by W. P. Ker, The Art of Poetry (1923), pp.

lo-ii.

The approach to Renaissance literature

52

other’s complement. The Ego, retreating into itself or encouraging itself to a stoical endurance, had developed a new selfconsciousness under the impact of the blows or favours of what it felt to be the ultimate nature of things - an unpredictable, uncontrollable, non-human, amoral and yet quasipersonal force, which is neither Christian nor classical. One aspect of this force was no doubt the product of the economic inflation. The motto of Sir Thomas Gresham, the Keynes of the period, was Fortune a moi. But a more obvious agent or embodiment of Fortune was the Renaissance Prince. The whims of most of the Tudors and Stuarts were even more unpredictable than any economic process. As Perlin, a French traveller here in 1558, remarked, ‘One day one sees a man as a great lord, the next he is in the hands of an executioner’. Ralegh’s career was the type; ‘Fortune tossed him up of nothing and to and fro to greatness and from thence down to little more than that wherein she found him’ (Sir Robert Naunton, Fragmenta Regalia). George Cavendish, who had been Wolsey’s gentleman-usher, wrote his moving life of his old master in these terms. Wyatt, another victim - though unlike his poetic disciple Surrey he saved his head - took it for granted: as they say, one happy howre May more prevayle than Ryght or Myght; Yf fortune then lyst for to lowre. What vaylyth Right? Even Prospero’s magic only equipped him with a prescience of the moment when ‘bountiful Fortune’ was to prove herself his ‘dear lady’. Those who were less successful consoled themselves stoically, as Ralegh did: ‘For conversation of particular greatness and dignity there is nothing more noble and glorious than to have felt the force of every fortune. . . . He only is to be reputed a man whose mind cannot be puffed up by prosperity nor dejected by any adverse fortune.’’Such stoic fatalism is scarcely distinguishable from the tragic sense. The typical Renaissance tragedy - whether compressed into a lyric or expanded into five acts - enacts a conflict between the Ego and Fortune. In the lyric the author is able to speak in the first person singular, though Marlowe’s own voice, and those of Chapman and Webster, are as audible in their plays as the ‘I’of Wyatt’s, Sidney’s, and Donne’s poems. It is an unembarrassing ‘I’ because it was both personal and representative, and the reader has no sense of prying into bedrooms because the particular mistress, even if we I. I owe the Perlin and Ralegh quotations to Lewis Einstein’s chapter on ‘The vicissitudes of Fortune’ in his Tudor Ideals (1921), an important and unjustly neglected book.

The Ego and Fortune

53

can put a name to her (Ann Boleyn, Penelope Devereux, Ann More), also includes and represents Fortune, la donna mobile par excellence. In Wyatt’s case in particular it is an almost abstract relationship. The lady’s physical identity is lost sight of entirely in her mutability and her cruelty. Shake¬ speare’s comic heroines, though equally unpredictable and all-powerful, are the instruments of a more benign Fortune. In the tragedies, on the other hand, it is the Ego and its variants or subdivisions who occupy most of the scenes, and Fortune itself tends to be out of sight, though never out of mind - or at most to have delegated some of its functions to lesser agents like ghosts, witches or Machiavellian villains. The central dichotomy includes and explains the characteristic Renaissance combination of acute psychological realism and the widest factual improbability. The Ego was observed and recorded with fascinated or disgusted honesty, not only by Shakespeare but by all the great Renaissance writers (with the Humanist exceptions). Eor them the Ego, the individual rational moral human per¬ sonality, represented reality, which they called Nature. But beyond the Ego’s immediate range or knowledge almost anything seemed to be possible. There Eortune, who was Nature’s antithesis, ruled absolutely, a metaphysi¬ cal Tudor Prince to be propitiated or even influenced but never under¬ stood. It was left to Bacon, the trumpeter of the scientific revolution, to call Eortune’s bluff: ‘. . . chiefly, the mould of a man’s fortune is in his own hand. Faber quisque fortunae suae, saith the Poet. And the most frequent of external causes is that the folly of one man is the fortune of another.’^ I.

Essays, No.

xl,

‘Of Fortune’. The poet is Plautus (misquoted by Bacon).

A RENAISSANCE READING LIST* 1500-1650

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, anthologies and special studies ■ Bibliographies For most purposes NCBEL (vol. i, 807 ff., 1974; a much enlarged revision of CBEL) is the most useful bibliography of the period, because it lists the modern edns. and commentaries as well as the original edns. For more recent books and articles, the specialized journals should be con¬ sulted: ‘Literature of the Renaissance’, published annually from 1917 until May 1969 in SP-, less complete coverage in The Year's Work in English Studies of the English Association; more critical evaluations of recent scholarly work in the period in Studies in English Literature (from 1961; drama

1500-1660 separately); reviews, short notices, advance

information in Seventeenth Century News, Renaissance Quarterly (formerly News), Renaissance Drama (and Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama), and, where relevant, Spenser Newsletter, Milton Quarterly, etc. There are useful recent bibliographies of various authors in English Literary Renaissance. Nor should the more general journals be overlooked: RES has a quarterly list of learned articles that is especially useful for this period. A contemporary record of great historical value, and some human interest, is the Transcript of the Register of the Company of Stationers, 1554-1640, ed. E. Arber (5 vols., 1875-94, reissued 1950). Its sequel, the Register for 1640-1508, ed. G. E. B. Eyre (3 vols., 1913-14, reissued 1950) is of less importance, because after 1640 so many of the books of literary

* Except for the, Shakespeare section (now drastically overhauled by Karl Haffenreffer) and that on Ben Jonson (by Ian Donaldson) the whole of the Renaissance Reading List has been revised by Glenn Black.

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc.

55

interest evaded registration. A. W. Pollard and G. R. Redgrave, A ShortTitle Catalogue of Books Printed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of English Books Printed Abroad 14'/g—1640 (1926, often reissued, rev. edn. in preparation), lists virtually every edn. of every book printed within its terminal dates, as well as giving the principal libraries where copies are to be found; even better is the sequel for 1641-1700 compiled by Donald Wing (3 vols., 1945-51; rev. edn. in progress, 1972-

). These, however,

are all tools for the researcher rather than the literary student, who will probably find the bibliographies attached to the two OHEL volumes - by C. S. Lewis on the sixteenth century, excluding drama (1954), and Douglas Bush on the first half of the seventeenth century (1945, rev. 1962) - more rewarding. For the drama, plays are listed in A. Harbage’s Annals of English Drama gy^-iyoo (rev. S. Schoenbaum 1962; supplements 1966, 1970). A catalogue within the period that has set new standards in descrip¬ tive bibliography, and as such should interest even the merely literary student, is W. W. Greg, A Bibliography of English Printed Drama to the Restoration (4 vols., 1939-59). The analytical bibliography of which Greg was a pioneer (with his friend R. B. McKerrow) receives further treatment in chapter ii below. Of the more select bibliographical guides, S. A. Tannenbaum’s Concise Elizabethan Bibliographies (1936-

) are being

brought up to date under the direction of C. A. Fennel (1967-

); A. E.

Dyson’s Select Bibliographical Guide, English Poetry (1971), devotes a chapter each to Spenser, Donne, Herbert, Milton, Marvell, within this period, each discussed by a different scholar; in the same series, S. Wells has edited a whole vol. devoted to Shakespeare (1973), which has been followed by his English Drama (1975), where a list of modern edns. and commentaries on Tudor and Early Elizabethan Drama (by T. V. Craik) precedes similar sections on Marlowe, Jonson and Chapman, Marston, Middleton and Massinger, Beaumont and Fletcher, Heywood and Dekker, Webster, Tourneur and Ford, and the Court Masque (by K. M. Lea). Even more specialized are George Watson’s short bibliography of the English Petrarchans (1967), C. C. Mish’s checklist of English prose fiction 1600-1700 (1967), and T. P. Logan and D. S. Smith’s bibliography of recent studies in English drama before Shakespeare (1973)- Other useful reference tools are F. B. Williams, Index of Dedications and Commendatory Verse in English Books before 1641 (1962; linked to Pollard and Redgrave); J. E. Ruoff, Handbook of Elizabethan and Stuart Literature (197S

brief

literary encyclopaedia); H. S. Donow, Concordance to the Sonnet Sequences of Daniel, Drayton, Shakespeare, Sidney, Spenser (1969), and M. J. Preston, Complete Concordance to the Songs of the Early Tudor Court (1972).

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

56 ■ Literary histories

The most ambitious recent surveys are the C. S. Lewis and Douglas Bush vols. referred to above. Lewis (vol. Iii) was confined to the non-dramatic literature of the sixteenth century and Douglas Bush (vol. v) also excludes drama. The former is a remarkable tour de force, continuously lively and provocative without any serious gap in the information provided. The general effect of a George Saintsbury redivivus is enhanced by the oddly old-fashioned preferences (Wyatt gets low marks, Spenser and Sidney are the heroes). Lewis’s best chapters are perhaps the extra-literary ones on the changing intellectual climates of opinion, but even at his most perverse he is always enormously readable. Bush’s book is also readable, if a little old-fashioned, especially on Milton. Its weakness is that, unlike Lewis, Bush is only a minor literary critic and his opinions as such are rarely of much interest, but as a guide, especially to the minor figures, the book is of great value because it is both tidy and thorough. In comparison, C. F. Tucker Brooke’s survey of the period in A. C. Baugh’s Literary History of England (1948) and Hardin Craig’s even shorter one in his own History of English Literature (1950) - both now obtainable separately - are merely competent textbooks, and V. de Sola Pinto’s The English Renaissance 1510-1688 (rev. 1966) is largely made up of lists. Probably the most helpful of the inexpensive histories is the Sphere History of Literature in the English Language. Vol. ii, ed. Christopher Ricks, covers the period 1540-1674 (1970), and vol.

Ill,

also ed. Ricks, covers the drama to 1710 (1971). Vol. iv

of OHEL (on the drama) was never completed by F. P. Wilson, except for the period 1485-1585 which has now been ed. by G. K. Hunter (1969); its principal use is for the detailed information provided on the minor Elizabethan dramatists. For the drama, the new Revels History of Drama in English (gen. eds. Clifford Leech and T. W. Craik) promises to provide much useful information on the social and literary background. Vol.

Ill,

by

J. Leeds Barroll, Alexander Leggatt, Richard Hosley and Alvin Kernan, covers the period 1576-1613 (1975), and others are in progress. Scholarly surveys of separate aspects of English Renaissance literature Drama.

F. S. Boas, University Drama in the Tudor Age (1914) ,A. W.

Reed, Early Tudor Drama (1926), Muriel C. Bradbrook, Themes and Conventions of Elizabethan Tragedy (1935) and The Growth and Structure of Elizabethan Comedy (1955), Una Ellis-Fermor, Jacobean Drama (1936, rev. 1961), A. Harbage, Cavalier Drama (1936), F. T. Bowers, Elizabethan Revenge Tragedy I58y-i642 (1940), A. P. Rossiter, English Drama from Early Times to the Elizabethans (1950), Wolfgang Clemen, Die Tragodie

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc.

57

vor Shakespeare (1955; English tr. 1961), T. W. Craik, The Tudor Inter¬ lude (1958), I. Ribner, Jacobean Tragedy (1962), T. B. Tomlinson, Study of Elizabethan and Jacobean Tragedy (1964), L. L. Brodwin, Elizabethan Love Tragedy (1972), Peter Ure, Elizabethan and Jacobean Drama (1974). There is much indigestible information in Glynne Wickham, Early English Stages 1300-1660 (2 vols., 1959-72). G. E. Bentley has assembled a collec¬ tion of learned essays on The Seventeenth Century Stage (1968). Other useful collections of essays are Shakespeare’s Contemporaries (ed. Max Bluestone and Norman Rabkin, 1961; thirty-three items) and Elizabethan Drama (ed. R. J. Kaufmann, 1961; nineteen longish articles). Prose.

Helen C. White, English Devotional Literature (1931), Richard F.

Jones, The Seventeenth Century: English thought and literature from Bacon to Pope (1951) and The Triumph of the English Language; a survey of opinions concerning the vernacular (1953; interesting out-of-the-way quotations), George Williamson, The Senecan Amble: a Study in Prose Form from Bacon to Collier (1951; also interesting for its quotations) and his Seventeenth Century Contexts (i960), F. P. Wilson’s slim volume of lectures (i960), M. W. Croll’s remarkable articles, collected as Style, Rhetoric and Rhythm, (ed. J. Max Patrick and others, 1966), and I. A. Gordon, The Movement of English Prose (1966). S. Fish has made a useful collection of twenty-five modern essays (1971). General studies.

These include W. W. Greg, Pastoral Poetry and Pastoral

Drama (1904), H. J. C. Grierson’s classical Cross Currents in English Litera¬ ture of the Seventeenth Century (1929), Basil Willey, Seventeenth Century Background (1934), also a minor classic, and Lily B. Campbell, Divine Poetry and Drama in Sixteenth Century England (1959). One or two of the best Festchrift collections belong to this period, notably the H. J. C. Grierson (1938), F. P. Wilson (1959) and Hardin Craig (1963) tributes. The Grierson volume has contributions by Mario Praz, Pierre Legouis, T. S. Eliot, and H. W. Garrod among others and is a microcosm of both seventeenth-century literary criticism and scholarship. H. S. Bennett, English Books and Readers (3 vols., 1965-70: covers period 1457-1640) is primarily a handy guide to the book trade in the period. Poetry.

On the whole the most rewarding academic work has been on the

poetry of the period. The serious student will at least dip into J. M. Berdan, Early Tudor Poetry (1920), Janet G. Scott, Les Sonnets elisabethains (Paris, 1929; for the French and Italian sources), Douglas Bush, Mythology and the Renaissance Tradition in English Poetry (1932), L. C. John, Eliza¬ bethan Sonnet Sequences

Vere L. Rubel, Poetic Diction in the English

Renaissance (1941; Skelton to Spenser), Rosemond Tuve’s original and

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

58

suggestive Elizabethan and Metaphysical Imagery (1947),

L.

Zocca,

Elizabethan Narrative Poetry (1950), Hallett D. Smith’s thorough and level-headed Elizabethan Poetry (1952; probably the best of the short guides to the subject), J. W. Lever’s acute The Elizabethan Love Sonnet (1956; 2nd edn., 1966), C. V. Wedgwood, Poetry and Politics under the Stuarts (i960), J. Thompson, The Founding of English Metre (1961), J. Stevens, Music and Poetry in the Early Tudor Court (1961), Joan Grundy, The Spenserian Poets (1969; principally Drayton, Wither, Browne, Giles and Phineas Fletcher), J. H. Summers, The Heirs of Donne and Jonson (1970), and Earl Miner, The Cavalier Mode from Jonson to Cotton (1971). Much of the scholarly emphasis has been on the Metaphysical poets (see separate section below). Yvor Winters’s brief but outspoken critique of the sixteenth century lyric in England (1939; reprinted in Elizabethan Poetry, ed. P. Alpers, 1967; for a rev. version see Winters, Forms of Discovery, 1967) has been influential in stressing the interest of the more sober poets (Gascoigne, Greville, etc.) at the expense of Sidney and Spenser; D. L. Peterson, The English Lyric from Wyatt to Donne (1967) follows in these footsteps. P. J. Alpers, Elizabethan Poetry (1967) gathers twenty-one of the better critical articles, and W. R. Keast, Seventeenth-Century English Poetry (1962; rev. 1971) has twenty-nine. See also the section below on Metaphysical poetry. Rhetoric.

Such works should, of course, be supplemented by the con¬

temporary rhetorics, especially Abraham Fraunce, The Arcadian Rhetorike (1588; ed. Ethel Seaton, 1950), John Hoskins, Directions for Speech and -Style (ed. H. H. Hudson, 1936), and Alexander Gil, Logonomia Anglica (1621; ed. O. Jiriczek, 1903), as well as Puttenham, Sidney, and Jonson. Lucid summaries of Renaissance rhetoric will be found in K. G. Hamilton, The

Two Harmonies (1963), Lee A. Sonnino, Handbook to Sixteenth

Century Rhetoric (1968), and Brian Vickers, Classical Rhetoric in English Poetry 1,(1970). See also The Rhetoric of Renaissance Poetry, eds. T. O. Sloan and R. B. Waddington (1974; essays on rhetorical topics, from Wyatt to Milton). Metaphysical poetry.

General studies of interest are G. Williamson, The

Donne Tradition (1930), The Proper Wit of Poetry (1961) and Six Meta¬ physical Poets (1967), J. B. Leishman, The Metaphysical Poets (1934), R. L. Sharp, From Donne to Dryden (1940), Itrat-Husain, The Mystical Element in the Metaphysical Poets of the Seventeenth Century (1948), Joan Bennett, Four Metaphysical Poets (rev. 1953; rev. again as Five Metaphysical Poets, 1964), L. L. Martz, The Poetry of Meditation (1954; rev. 1962), G. Walton, Metaphysical to Augustan (1955), Arno Esch, Englische religiose Lyrik des

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc. ly Jahrhunderts (1955; in German), E. M. W. Tillyard,

59 The Meta¬

physicals and Milton (1956), Helen C. White, The Metaphysical Poets (1956; concentrates on the religious aspects), J. -J. Denonain, Themes et formes de la poesie metaphysique (Paris, 1956; in French), R. Ellrodt, Uinspiration personelle et Vesprit du temps chez les poetes metaphysiques anglais (3 vols., i960; massively detailed), L. Nelson, Baroque Lyric Poetry (1961), A. Alvarez, The School of Donne (1961), H. M. Richmond, The School of Love (1964), J. Hunter, brief guide The Metaphysical Poets (1965), Earl Miner, The Metaphysical Mode from Donne to Cowley (1969), and Patricia Beer, Introduction to the Metaphysical Poets (1972). There is a short bibliography of Studies in Metaphysical Poetry (1939) by T. Spencer and M. Van Doren, with a continuation by L. E. Berry (1964). J. E. Duncan, The Revival of Metaphysical Poetry (1959) examines reactions to the Metaphysical style from 1800, and A. J. Smith has gathered the early critical comment (1968), as A. F. Allison has of early edns. (to 1700) of Herbert, Crashaw, Vaughan and Marvell (1974). There are useful collec¬ tions of modern critical essays made by F. Kermode (1969), M. Bradbury and D. Palmer (1970; in the ‘Stratford-upon-Avon Studies’ series), and G, Hammond (1974). T. S. Eliot’s seminal essay (reprinted in Selected Essays, 1932) was a review of H. J. C. Grierson’s anthology of Metaphysical Lyrics (1921).

■ Recent critical assessments With the possible exception of Coleridge (who, however, cannot be trusted outside Shakespeare), T. S. Eliot is probably the most perceptive critic the English Renaissance has ever had; his Elizabethan Essays (1934, rev. 1963 with unfortunate omissions) assembles all the essays on the dramatists, from Marlowe to Ford, including the brilliant ‘Preface to an unwritten book’ called ‘Four Elizabethan dramatists’ (omitted as ‘callow’ in 1963). On Poetry and Poets (1957) adds ‘Sir John Davies’; ‘The Metaphysical poets’ and ‘Andrew Marvell’ are in the Selected Essays (1932), which also includes all the dramatic essays. The chapter on the period in The Use of Poetry and the Use of Criticism (1933) is of less interest; but William Empson’s brilliant Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930, rev. 1947) finds its most telling examples in it, though some serious errors on George Herbert have been exposed by Rosemond Tuve {A Reading of Herbert, 1952); his Some Versions of Pastoral (1935) has acute essays on Elizabethan double plots, Marvell’s ‘Garden’, and Paradise Lost. L. C. Knights, Explorations (1946) has four essays on Shakespeare (an especially good one on the sonnets), one on Bacon, and one on Herbert; Further Explorations (1964)

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

6o

contains some later essays on this period, and Public Voices (1971) ex¬ plores relations between literature and politics. (The ambitious earlier semi-Marxist Drama and Society in the Age of Jonson, 1937, was, alas, a gallant failure.) Of James Smith’s remarkable articles in Scrutiny some have recently been collected (by Edward M. Wilson, 1974), including the brilliant performances on As You Like It and ‘Metaphysical poetry’. Similarly Walter Hooper has collected some of C. S. Lewis’s provocative essays in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Literature (1966). Frank Kermode’s Renaissance Essays (1971) gathers together a number of his short pieces, principally on Shakespeare, Spenser, Donne. Alastair Fowler’s Conceitful Thought (1975) has six refreshing and stimulating discussions on the interpretation of English Renaissance poems (Wyatt, Surrey, Sidney, Spenser, Jonson, and the Elizabethan conceit). In America the emphasis has until recently been on scholarship and literary theory rather than on criticism, though Cleanth Brooks, The Well-Wrought Urn (1947), which discusses Shakespeare, Donne, Herrick, and Milton inter alios, should not be overlooked.

Of extended series,

the annual Stratford-upon-Avon

Studies (ed. J. R. Brown and B. Harris) fills many critical gaps, especially in the drama. And Reinterpretations of Elizabethan Drama (ed. N. Rabkin, 1970) includes six good essays originally read to the English Institute, New York.

■ Anthologies and series A good general annthology for the sixteenth-century, with plenty of relevant notes, is still a critical desideratum (James E. Ruolf’s Elizabethan Poetry and Prose (1972) is only useful at undergraduate levels); the seventeenth century is well enough served in Helen C. White, Ruth C. Wallerstein and Ricardo Quintana, Seventeenth-Century Verse and Prose (2 vols., i9‘;i; rev. 1971) , which provides solid scholarly introductions and good explanatory footnotes (vol. i, with twenty-twm authors sharing its 450 pages, ends with Marvell and Vaughan; Shakespeare, Milton, and the drama are left out). Another good seventeenth century anthology is the Borzoi (1967): poetry (2 vols.) ed. M. K. Starkman, prose ed. D. Novarr, religious prose ed. A. D. Ferry, literary criticism ed. E. W. Taylor. The Renaissance section of the more pretentious Oxford Anthology of English Literature (ed. John Hollander and Frank Kermode, 1973) is liberally annotated but too selec¬ tive to be of much use. On the whole the best collections have been those organized on a genre basis, such as J. W. Hebei and H. H. Hudson, Poetry of the English Renaissance, i5og-i66o (1929), which has introductions and notes - unlike the two ‘Oxford Books’ (sixteenth-century, ed. E. K. Cham-

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc.

6i

bers, seventeenth century, ed. H. J. C. Grierson and G. Bullough), which are fat but noteless. Similar to the Hebei and Hudson vol. are Norman E. McClure, Sixteenth-Century English Poetry (1954) and R. C. Bald, Seven¬ teenth-Century English Poetry (1959), both annotated and some 600 pages long. The complementary Hebei and Hudson selection from the period’s prose (1952) is also generous but inferior, and poetry (rev.) and prose are now obtainable together. Grierson’s Metaphysical Lyrics and Poems (1921) has been superseded by Helen Gardner’s Penguin Metaphysical Poets (1957; second edn. 1967), a good selection if under-annotated. Barbara Lewalski and Andrew J. Sabol, Major Poets of the Earlier Seventeenth Century (1973) provides a generous selection from Donne, Herbert, Vaughan, Crashaw, Jonson, Herrick and Marvell, with helpful intro¬ ductions and short notes. And George Saintsbury’s still indispensable Minor Poets of the Caroline Period (3 vols., 1905-21) reprints in full the original edns. of nineteen forgotten Carolines. Specimens of English Renaissance prose are provided in substantial and competent selections by K. J. Holzknecht (sixteenth century, 1954) and M. A. Shaaber (seventeenth century, 1957), as well as in Elizabeth M. Nugent, Thought and Culture of the English Renaissance (1956; covers period 1481-1555). There are two important fully annotated collections of the period’s literary criticism: Elizabethan Critical Essays, ed. G. Gregory Smith (2 vols., 1904; useful notes, introd. now out of date) and Critical Essays of the Seventeenth Century, ed. J. E. Spingarn (3 vols., 1908-9; still the best introd. to the topic available). O. B. Hardison’s collection of English Renaissance criticism (1963) is less inclusive than Gregory Smith, though he has several pieces omitted by Smith. The collections of plays, of which there have been dozens since Robert Dodsley’s Select Collection (12 vols., 1744), are becoming less necessary as more dramatists receive critical edns. J. M. Manly, Specimens of Pre-Shakespearean Drama (2 vols., 1897-98) was useful because of its wide range, and Representative English Comedies, ed. Charles M. Gayley and others (3 vols., 1903-14) is still occasionally worth consulting because of its critical emphasis. The current non-Shakespeare collections are those by C. F. Tucker Brooke and N. Burton Paradise (1933; thirty plays), C. R. Baskervill, V. B. Heltzel, and A. H. Nethercot (1934; forty-two plays), and Hazelton Spencer (1934; twenty-eight plays), all of which have short notes. Richard C. Harrier, Anthology of Jacobean Drama (2 vols., 1963) has much fuller notes but only includes eight plays. Havelock Ellis’s original Mermaid series (18871909) made no pretension to scholarly depth but is still the pleasantest medium in which to read four to eight plays of such Jacobean and Caroline dramatists as Beaumont and Fletcher, Massinger, Middleton, Ford, and

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

62

Shirley. The New Mermaids (general editor Philip Brockbank, now Brian Morris, 1964-

) provide fuller annotation but unfortunately only one play

per vol. A good modern series that combines scholarship, critical sense, and legibility is the Revels Plays (general editor Clifford Leech, 1958-

); each

play (Kyd, Spanish Tragedy, Webster, White Devil, Middleton, Changeling, etc.) obtains a separate vol. A similar American series (Regents Renaissance Drama: general editor Cyrus Hoy) has good texts but the explanatory notes might be fuller; it does however include some lesser-known plays. The more recent Fountainwell Drama series (general editors Arthur Brown, T. A. Dunn and others; 1968-

) provides annotated old-spelling texts of

individual plays. Nor should Charles Lamb, Specimens of English Dramatic Poets (1808) be overlooked (best edn. by 1. Gollancz, 2 vols., 1893). Prose fiction has fared less well, but R. Ashley and E. M. Moseley, Elizabethan Fiction (1953) prints Gascoigne, Lyly, Nash, Deloney, and an excerpt from Sidney’s Arcadia, and Merritt Lawlis in Elizabethan Prose Fiction (1967) includes Gascoigne, Lyly,

Rich,

Greene, Lodge, Nashe and

Deloney. Prose fiction is also available in Charles C. Mish’s more adven¬ turous Anthology of Short Fiction of the Seventeenth Century (1963), which has ten unfamiliar tales, all pre-Restoration, with substantial headnotes.

The inexpensive Penguin English Library now provides

some handy texts in this period:

Gamini Salgado, Cony-Catchers and

Bawdy Baskets (1972) is a pleasant annotated collection of low life Eliza¬ bethan pamphlets, and his Three Jacobean Tragedies (1965) offers The Revenger's Tragedy, The White Devil, and The Changeling. In the same series is K. Sturgess, Three Elizabethan Domestic Tragedies (1969; Arden of Feversham, A Yorkshire Tragedy, A Woman Killed with Kindness) as well as scholarly little vols. of Donne, Nashe, Marlowe, Webster, Ford, etc. More and more English Renaissance texts are now becoming available in facsimile, notably in the Scolar Press series which provides excellent reproductions, but is without notes or comment. ‘The English Experience’ is a similar facsimile series, published in Amsterdam. Some more restricted collections and selections of considerable interest are: Drama.

Early English Classical Tragedies (ed. J. W. Cunliffe,

1912:

Gorbuduc and its Senecan successors); Tudor Plays (ed. E. Creeth, 1966: seven of the earliest Tudor farces and tragedies); A Book of Masques (1967; general editor T. J. B. Spencer - fourteen masques from Daniel to Shirley, each with separate editor); Tudor Interludes (ed. P. Happe, 1972: ten plays, some in selections). Prose.

Characters from the Histories and Memoirs of the Seventeenth-

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc. Century (yd. D. Nichol Smith, 1918);

63

^4 Cabinet of Characters (ed. Gwendo¬

len Murphy, 1925; includes some later characters too), followed by the more specialized editing of the ‘Overbury’ characters by W. J. Paylor (1936); A. V. Judges, Elizabethan Underworld (1930: low life tracts and ballads); A. C. Southern’s detailed account of Elizabethan Recusant Prose (1950); Paul M. Zall’s edition of fifteenth- and sixteenth-century jestbooks (1963); Barbara Rosen’s collection Witchcraft (1969); C. A. Patrides’s selections from The Cambridge Platonists (1969); and John Chandos’s substantial In God’s Name (1971; annotated extracts of preaching in England, 1534-1662). Poetry.

For the Elizabethan sonnet cycles, one must make do with

Martha Foote Crow, Elizabethan Sonnet Cycles (4 vols., 1896-98) or Sidney Lee, Elizabethan Sonnets (2 vols., 1904), both rather out of date; but E. H. Fellowes, English Madrigal Verse (1920), has been recently rev. by F. W. Sternfeld and David Greet (1967). J. P. Cutts, SeventeenthCentury Songs and Lyrics (1959), and Edward Doughtie’s fine annotated Lyrics from English Airs, iyg6-i622 (1970); The Pepys Ballads, ed. Hyder E. Rollins (8 vols., 1929-32: street ballads of Pepys’s own time and earlier) should not be overlooked. The earliest poetical miscellanies, from Tottel’s [1557] to A Poetical Rhapsody [1602], have also been ed. by Rollins, in sometimes excessive detail. Occasionally useful too are: Louise I. Guiney, Recusant Poets (1939), a scholarly collection of Elizabethan Catholic verse; Frank Kermode, English Pastoral Poetry from the Beginnings to Marvell (1952); Elizabethan Minor Epics, ed. E. S. Donno (1963); A. C. Partridge, The Tribe of Ben (1966: pre-Augustan English Classical verse); N. Alexander, Elizabethan Narrative Verse (1967); Paul W. Miller, Seven Minor Epics of the English Renaissance (1967; includes some little-known pieces); M. M. Reese, Elizabethan Verse Romances (1968); K. W. Gransden, Tudor Verse Satire (1970).

Background and special studies In the following ragbag it is hoped the titles will generally be sufficiently self-explanatory; evaluations are not attempted, but all the items have something from which the curious reader may benefit.

Background studies L. D. Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in England (igoz); Phoebe Sheavyn, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age (1909; rev. J. W. Saunders, 1967; useful appendix on Renaissance authors); T. F. Crane, Italian Social Customs of the Sixteenth Century (1920); H. B. Lathrop, Translations

64

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

from the Classics into English from Caxton to Chapman (1932; rev. 1967; with a list of translations); H. O. White, Plagiarism and Imitation during the English Renaissance (1935); L- B. Wright, Middle-Class Culture in Eliza¬ bethan England (1935); Hardin Craig, The Enchanted Glass (1936) and New Lamps for Old (i960; both history of ideas); D. C. Allen, The StarCrossed Renaissance: the quarrel about astrology and its influence in England (1941) and his later. The Legend of Noah (1949; rationalism). Doubt's Boundless Seas (1964; scepticism). Image and Meaning (1968; metaphoric traditions), Mysteriously Meant (1970; Baldwin,

Renaissance allegory);

T. W.

William Shakspere’s Small Latine and Lesse Greeke (1944:

what was taught in Elizabethan schools); Helen C. White, Social Criticism and Popular Religious Literature of the Sixteenth Century (1944) and Tudor Books of Private Devotion (1951); F. P. Wilson, Elizabethan and Jacobean (1945; interesting literary odds and ends) and his Shakespearean and Other Studies (1969; reprints miscellaneous articles from the period, some of exceptional interest); H. Heppe (ed.) Reformed Dogmatics (ed. E. Bizer, tr. G. T. Thomson, 1950: seventeenth-century theology); Louis Babb, The Elizabethan Malady (1951; melancholy); F. S. Siebert, Freedom of the Press in England i4y6-iy'/6 (1952); J. W. Stoye, English

Travellers

Abroad 1604-166^ (1952; foreign influences on English society); E. Cassirer, The Platonic Renaissance in England (tr. J. P. Pettegrove, 1953); J. B. Bamborough, The Little World 0/Maw (1952; Renaissance psychologi¬ cal theory); W. P. Holden, Anti-Puritan Satire iyy2-i642 (1954); D. T. Starnes and E. W. Talbert, Classical Myth and Legend in Renaissance Dictionaries (1955); Eleanor Rosenberg, Leicester Patron of Letters (1955: basic study of Elizabethan patronage); Marjorie Nicolson, Science and Imagination (1956) and The Breaking of the Circle (rev. i960; both science and seventeenth-century poetry); Rosalie L. Colie, Light and Enlighten¬ ment (1957; the Cambridge Platonists); E. H. Miller, The Professional Writer in Elizabethan England (1959); Katherine M. Briggs, The Anatomy of Puck (1959; fairy beliefs) z-nd Pale Hecate's Team (1962; magic and witch¬ craft); S. K. Heninger, A Handbook of Renaissance Meterology (i960); R. F. Jones, Ancients and Moderns (2nd edn. 1961; Bacon and science); MarenSofie Rostvig, The Happy Man (2 vols., 2nd ed. 1962; on the beatus ille. tradition, 1600-1760); H. Fisch, Jerusalem and Albion: the Hebraic factor, in seventeenth-century literature (1964); J. Mazzeo, Renaissance and Seven¬ teenth Century Studies (1964), and Renaissance and Revolution (1965); F. Raab, The English Face of Machiavelli igoo-iyoo (1964); E. W. Tayler: Nature and Art in Renaissance Literature (1964); D. P. Walker,

The

Decline of Hell (1964; seventeenth-century discussions of hell); Margaret Greaves, The Blazon of Honour: a study in Renaissance magnanimity (1964:

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc.

65

Spenser, Sidney, Milton); Frances A. Yates, Giordano Bruno and the Hermetic Tradition (1964), Theatre of the World (1969) and The Rosicrucian Enlightenment (1972; all investigations of the pseudo-science of the period), and Astraea (1974; Queen Elizabeth as myth of Justice, etc.); H. Levin, The Myth of the Golden Age in the Renaissance (1969); J. R. Mulder, The Temple of the Mind (1969; education and literary taste in the seventeenth century); J. A. Van Dorsten, The Radical Arts (1970: early Elizabethan literature); F. J. Warnke, Versions of Baroque (1972); S. E. Fish, Self-Consuming Artifacts (1972; seventeenth-century literature); W. Shumaker, The Occult Sciences in the Renaissance (1972); R. Fraser, The Dark Ages and the Age of Gold (1973; emergence of rationalism); N. B. Hansen, That Pleasant Place (1973; ideal landscape in English literature); Alice S. Miskimin, The Renaissance Chaucer (1975; Chaucer as he appeared to the Tudors). Poetry. T. K. Whipple, Martial and the English Epigram from Sir Thomas Wyatt to Ben Jonson (1925); Lu Emily Pearson, Elizabethan Love Conventions (1933); E. C. Wilson, England’s Eliza (1939; on the cult of Elizabeth in poetry); K. A. McEuen, Classical Influence upon the Tribe of Ben (1939); Mario Praz, Studies in Seventeenth-Century Imagery (2 vols., 1939-47, 2nd edn. 1964; not confined to England), and The Flaming Heart (1958; Crashaw, Donne, etc.); H. H. Hudson, The Epigram in the English Renaissance (1947); M. M. Mahood, Poetry and Humanism (1950; mixed

bag

Wallerstein, funeral

of Elizabethan Studies

elegies,

in

and

seventeenth-century

Seventeenth-Century

Marvell);

Catherine

Ing,

Poetic

authors); (1950;

Ruth

especially

Elizabethan Lyrics

(1951,

prosody); P. Crutwell, The Shakespearean Moment (1954; not confined to Shakespeare); E. M. W. Tillyard, The English Epic and its Background (1954); M. M.

Ross, Poetry and Dogma (1954; seventeenth-century

religious poets); W. Monch, Das Sonett (1955, in German; basic study covering the various European literatures); A. Lytton Sells, The Italian Influence in English Poetry from Chaucer to Southwell (1955) and The Para¬ dise of Travellers (1964; Italian influence on Englishmen in the seventeenth century); John Peter, Complaint and Satire in Early English Literature (1956); A. B. Kernan, The Cankered Muse (1959; satire); H. A. Mason, Humanism and Poetry in the Early Tudor Period (1959; More, Wyatt, etc.); J. A. Van Dorsten, Poets, Patrons, and Professors (1962; Sidney and English literary connections with the Netherlands); H. R. Swardson, Poetry and the Fountain of Light (1962; Christian and classical conflicts in seventeenthcentury poetry); J. M. Cohen, The Baroque Lyric (1963); Ruth Nevo, The

A Renaissance reading list

66

1500-1650

Dial of Virtue (1963; seventeenth-century political poetry); J. B. Broadbent, Poetic Love (1964); A. Fletcher, Allegory (1964; ambitious theoretical study); Kitty W. Scoular, Natural Magic (1965; nature in poetry from Spenser to Marvell); S. N. Stewart, The Enclosed Garden (1966; garden imagery in seventeenth-century poetry); Rosemond Tuve, Allegorical Imagery (1966); A. B. Giametti, The Earthly Paradise and the Renaissance Epic (1966); John Buxton, A Tradition of Poetry (1967; Wyatt, Surrey, Gascoigne, Drayton, Waller, Fanshawe); L. Forster, The Icy Fire (1969; on European Petrarchism); M. Murrin, The Veil of Allegory (1969; allegorical rhetorical theory in the Renaissance); Alastair Fowler, Trium¬ phal Forms (1970; numerological patterns in English poetry); R. Fraser, The War Against Poetry (1970); W. H. Halewood, The Poetry of Grace (1970; Reformation themes in Herbert, Marvell, Vaughan, Milton); J. Mazzaro, Transformations in the Renaissance English Lyric (1970); Virginia Tufte, The Poetry of Marriage (1970; epithalamia - Spenser, Chapman, Johnson, Donne, etc.); A. C. Partridge, The Language of Renaissance Poetry (1971); Earl Miner (ed.), Seventeenth-Century Imagery (1971); H. E. Toliver, Pastoral Forms and Attitudes [k)"]! ; Sidney, Spenser, Shakespeare, Herbert, Vlarvell, Milton, etc.); C. Freer, Music for a King (1972; trans¬ lators of the Psalms - Wyatt, the Sidneys, Herbert, Wither, etc.); L Rivers, The Poetry of Conservatism (1973: public affairs and poets, 1600-1745); H. M. Richmond, Renaissance Landscapes (1973; the landscape lyric Vlilton, Vlarvell, etc.); The Latin Poetry of English Poets, ed. J. W. Binns (1974; chapters on Campion, George Herbert, Vlilton, Crashaw); D. Attridge, Well-Weighed Syllables (1974; Elizabethan verse in Classical metres). Drama. E. and

K. IV

Chambers,

The

Elizabethan

Stage

(4

vols.,

1923;

vols

iii

give short accounts of every known Tudor play); Edwin Nun-

gezer, A Dictionary of Actors before 1642 (1929); Willard Farnham, The Medieval Heritage of Elizabethan Tragedy (1936); Howard Baker, Induction to Tragedy (1939; so-called ‘Senecan’ tragedies primarily medieval); G. E. Bentley, The Jacobean and Caroline Stage (7 vols., 1941-68; includes elaborate catalogue raisonne of every known play of the period); J. Parr, Tamburlaine’s Malady (1953; astrology in Elizabethan drama - useful bibliographies); Madeleine Doran, Endeavours of Art: a study of form in Elizabethan drama (1954: of great critical interest); Alfred Harbage, Theatre for Shakespeare (1955: useful summary of all that is known about Elizabethan theatres, production, acting etc.), for more recent information, see A. Gurr, The Shakespearean Stage

4-1642, 1970); Irving Ribner,

Bibliographies, literary histories, criticism, etc.

67

The English History Play in the Age of Shakespeare (1957); R. Ornstein, The Moral Vision of Jacobean Tragedy (i960); Muriel C. Bradbrook, The Rise of the Common Player (1962; the actor and society); E. M. Waith, The Herculean Hero (1962: Marlowe, Chapman, Shakespeare, Dryden); B. L. Joseph, Elizabethan Acting (rev. 1964); S. Orgel, The Jonsonian Masque (1965; the basic study); D. Mehl, The Elizabethan Dumb Show (1965); C. O. McDonald, The Rhetoric of Tragedy: Form in Stuart Drama (1966);

S.

Schoenbaum, Internal Evidence and Elizabethan Dramatic

Authorship (1966); B. Gibbons, Jacobean City Comedy (1968; Jonson, Marston, Middleton); D. M. Bevington, Tudor Drama and Politics (1968; drama and topical meaning); Glynne Wickham, Shakespeare’s Dramatic Heritage (1969); Ruth Blackburn, Biblical Drama Under the Tudors (1971; mainly early sixteenth century); R. Levin, The Multiple Plot in English Renaissance Drama (1971); J. W. Lever, The Tragedy of State (1971; Jacobean tragedy); G. E. Bentley, The Profession of Dramatist in Shake¬ speare’s Time, i^go-1642 (1971; conditions of authorship). See also the annual collections of essays on Elizabethan Theatre (since 1969) from the International Conference at Waterloo, Ontario. Prose and Style F. O. Matthiessen, Translation: an Elizabethan art (1931; critical appre¬ ciation); W. G. Crane, Wit and Rhetoric in the Renaissance (1937); Ben¬ jamin Boyce, The Theophrastan Character in England (1947) and Polemic Character 1640-61 (1955); M. P. Tilley, A Dictionary of Proverbs in England in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries (1950; an important reference work); W. S. Howell, Logic and Rhetoric in England (1956; period 1500-1700); W. J. Ong, Ramus: method and decay of dialogue (1958; on Ramism); E. Jacobsen, Translation: a traditional craft (1958; from early times to Marlowe); Margaret Bottrall, Every Man a Phoenix (1958; seventeenth-century autobiography - Browne, Lord Herbert, Bunyan, Baxter); Neal W. Gilbert, Renaissance Concepts of Method (i960; Ramism, dialectics, etc.); J. Frank, The Beginnings of the English Newspaper, 16201660 (1961); Joan M. Lechner, Renaissance Concepts of the Commonplaces (1962; important supplement to the studies in Renaissance rhetoric); Margaret Schlauch, Antecedents of the English Novel, 1400-1600 (1963); J. W. Blench, Preaching in England in the late Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries (1964; English sermons, 1450-1600); Basil Willey, The English Moralists (1964; Hooker, Bacon, Hobbes, Browne, Cambridge Platonists); Rosalie L. Colie, Paradoxia Epidemica: the Renaissance Tradition of Para¬ dox (1966); R. Adolph, The Rise of Modern Prose Style (1968; from late sixteenth century); Joan Webber, The Eloquent I (1968; Donne, Bunyan,

A Renaissance reading list

68

1500-1650

Traherne, Lilburne, Burton, Baxter, Browne, Milton); E. J. Dobson, English Pronunciation i^oo-iyoo (2 vols., rev. 1968); P. Delany, British Autobiography in the Seventeenth Century (1969); Walter R. Davis, Idea and Act in Elizabethan Fiction (1969; Sidney, Lodge, Gascoigne, Lyly, Greene, Nashe, Deloney); J. A. McPeek, The Black Book of Knaves and Vnthrifts (1969; rogues, beggars, etc.); O. C. Watkins,

The Puritan

Experience (1972; Puritan autobiographies before 1725); William Nelson, Fact or Fiction (1973 ; Renaissance story-telling). Music and the other arts R. Withington, English Pageantry (2 vols., 1918-20); B. Pattison, Music and Poetry in the English Renaissance (1948; 2nd edn. 1970); F. Delattre and C.

Chemin, Les Chansons elisabethaines (1948);

Rosemary Freeman,

English Emblem Books (1948; the basic study, with a bibliography); Wylie Sypher, Four Stages of Renaissance Style (1955; analogies between the arts, 1400-1700); John Hollander, The Untuning of the Sky (1961; ideas of music in English poetry, 1500-1700); G. L. Finney, Musical Backgrounds for English Literature, 1380-1630 (1961); John Buxton, Elizabethan Taste (1963; 2nd edn. 1965); R. C. Strong, Portraits of Queen Elizabeth (1963; see also Strong’s studies of Elizabethan and Jacobean portraits, 1969, and his study of Inigo Jones and the Masque, with S. Orgel, 1973); W. Mellers, Harmonious Meeting (1965; poetry, music and the theatre, 1600-1900); E. Wind, Pagan Mysteries in the Renaissance (1958; enlarged edn. 1967; see also similar interpretations of Renaissance iconography by E. Panofsky, 1939, and E. H. Gombrich, 1972); J. Shear¬ man, Mannerism (1967); David M. Bergeron, English Civic Pageantry 1338-1642 (1971). (Some of the post-Restoration specialist works listed pp. 11 i-i 16 below overlap into this period.)

The principal writers Arranged in order of birth. The NCBEL references are to The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (ed. G. Watson, 4 vols., 1969-74; detailed index in preparation). Shorter bibliographies, with commentary on recent edns. and studies, exist for major figures in the Oxford Select Bibliographical Guides [Poetry, ed. A. E. Dyson, 1971; Drama, ed. Stanley Wells,

1975). These are abbreviated to Oxford

Bibliographical Guide: Poetry, Drama. The Critical Heritage series of early critical comments on each of the more important authors is the only one to receive regular mention, though books or booklets in other modern series

The principal writers

69

have often been given (generally without specifying the name of the series). SIR THOMAS MORE

(1478-1535). Works: definitive Yale edn. in progress,

ed. R. S. Sylvester and Louis Martz (1963VIII,

; vol. iv, Utopia, 1965; vol.

Confutation of Tyndale, 1974). English works, ed. W. E. Campbell

and A. W. Reed (2 vols., 1927-31; incomplete). Paperback English texts of Utopia, ed. E. Surtz (1964, from the Yale edition); and in Paul Turner’s version (1965). Latin text and Ralph Robinson’s translation, ed. J. H. Lupton (1895); ed. G. Sampson and A. Guthkelch (1910). Correspondence, ed. Elizabeth F. Rogers (1947). Early lives, ed. E. V. Hitchcock (EETS, 1932, 1935, 1950). Selections, ed. P. S. and H. M. Allen (1924); ed. J. G. Greene and J. P. Dolan (1967). R. W. Chambers has written much the best recent life (1935) as well as the slighter The Place of More in English Literature and History (1937). G. Marc’hadour has written an elaborate and scholarly account of More’s life and times (in Erench, 1963) and a detailed study of More’s use of the Bible (1969-72); he also edits Moreana, a bilingual quarterly devoted to More studies (from 1963). E. E. Reynolds has examined relations between More and Erasmus (1965); R. Pineas investigates More’s relations with other Tudor polemical writers (1968; including Tindale); and there is a study of More’s circle and their interest in drama by P. Hogrefe (1959). H. A. Mason, Humanism and Poetry in the Early Tudor Period (1959) has some suggestive chapters on More and his circle. There is a more specialized study of More’s works by M. Fleisher (1973), and four essays on various aspects of his work, ed. R. S. Syl¬ vester (1972). For Utopia, see J. H. Hexter’s study (1952), the studies by E. Surtz (1957) and R. S. Johnson (1969), and a collection of essays as¬ sembled by W. Nelson (1968). There is a learned analysis of More’s English poems by Sister Mary Edith Willow (1974). Preliminary bibli¬ ography by R. W. Gibson (1961). {NCBEL, i, 1972 f.) SIR DAVID

LINDSAY

(i490?-i555). Political works, ed. Douglas Hamer

(Scottish Text Society, 4 vols., 1931-36). Satire of the Three Estates, ed. James Kinsley (1954); and in a modernized acting version by M. McDiarmid (1967). Squire Meldrum, ed. James Kinsley (1959). Short selection, ed. M. Lindsay (1948; no notes). {NCBEL, i, 2426.) WILLIAM

TINDALE

(1494.^-1536). Good selection by S. L. Greenslade

(1938), and another by F. F. Bruce (1964). General studies of Tindale’s works by G. E. Duffield (1964), and by C. H. Williams (1969). There is a lecture by N. Davis on Tindale’s style ‘Tyndale’s English of controversy’, (1971). See also under ‘English Bible’, p. 90 below. {NCBEL, i, 1809.)

A Renaissance reading list

70 JOHN HEYWOOD

1500-1650

(i497?-i58o?). Interludes, ed. John S. Farmer (1905).

Epigrams, edited by B. A. Milligan (1956). A Dialogue of Proverbs, ed. R. E. Habenicht (1963). See Ian Maxwell, French Farce and John Heywood (Melbourne, 1946). The most comprehensive study is still that by R. W. Bolwell (1921). {NCBEL, i, 1413.) SIR THOMAS WYATT

(1503-1542). Rev. Collected Poems, ed. Kenneth Muir

and Patricia Thomson (1969; with commentary) superseded Muir’s two earlier edns.; it has, however, some serious defects - see H. A. Mason, Editing Wyatt (1972). Definitive edn. by Joost Daalder (1975; fully annotated.) There is a well-documented appreciation by Hallet Smith {Huntington Library Quarterly, ix, 1946), and a sensible discussion of the sonnets by J. W. Lever in The Elizabethan Love Sonnet (1956). Kenneth Muir, Life and Letters (1963) is now the standard biography, but H. A. Mason, Humanism and Poetry in the Early Tudor Period is more critically perceptive. Wyatt is also discussed, with differing emphases, in John Stevens, Music and Poetry in the Early Tudor Court (1961), and in D. L. Peterson, The English Lyric from Wyatt to Donne (1967). The fullest studies are R. Southall, The Courtly Maker (1964), Patricia Thomson, Sir Thomas Wyatt and his Background (1964), and S. Baldi (1953; in Italian). On the vexed question of Wyatt’s poems and music, see Winifred Maynard {Review of English Studies, xvi, 1965). Examination of the canon by R. Harrier (1975). Patricia Thomson has collected criticism on Wyatt in the Critical Heritage series (1974). Concordance by Eva C. Hangen (1941). {NCBEL,

I,

1020 f.)

ROGER ASCHAM

(1515-1568). English works, ed. W. Aldis Wright (1904;

complete texts but without notes, etc.). Annotated texts of The Scholemaster, ed. R. J. Shoeck (1966), and ed. L. V. Ryan (1967); Ryan has also written a detailed biographical and critical study (1963). {NCBEL, i, 1822.) HENRY HOWARD, EARL OF SURREY

(i5i7?-i547). Poems, ed. F. M. Padelford

(1920, rev. 1928; thorough but pedestrian). Well edited selection by Emrys Jones (1964). Translations from the Aeneid, ed. F. H. Ridley (1963). Standard life by Edwin Casady (1938). See also H. A. Mason, Humanism and Poetry in the Early Tudor Period (1959) and John Buxton, A Tradition of Poetry (1967). {NCBEL, i, 1023.)

GEORGE PUTTENHAM

{c. 1530-1590). The Arte of English Poesie,

good edn.

by Gladys D. Willcock and Alice Walker (1936). {NCBEL, i, 2312.)

The principal writers

71

THOMAS SACKVILLE, EARL OF DORSET

(1536—1608). ‘Induction’ and ‘Com¬

plaint of Henry Duke of Buckingham’ in A Mirror for Magistrates (critical edn. of whole collection by Lily B. Campbell, 2 vols., 1938-46). The Com¬ plaint of Buckingham, ed. Marguerite Hearsey (1936; thorough intro¬ duction); The Tragedie of Gorbuduc (by Norton and Sackville), ed. J. W. Cunliffe (in Early English Classical Tragedy, 1912), and a more modern ed. by I. B. Cauthen (1970). The fullest study is by Paul Bacquet (Geneva, 1966; in French). [NCBEL, i, 1141.)

GEORGE GASCOIGNE

(c. 1539-1577). Complete works, ed. J. W. CunliflFe

(2 vols., 1907-10; no notes). A Hundreth Sundrie Flowres, ed. C. T. Prouty (1942; with notes). Detailed life also by Prouty (1942). There is a basic general study by R. C. Johnson (1972), a chapter on Gascoigne in John Boston’s A Tradition of Poetry (1967), and some mention of him in Yvor Winters’s discussion of the sixteenth-century English lyric (reprinted, rev., in his Forms of Discovery, 1967), and in D. L. Peterson, The English Lyric from Wyatt to Donne (1967). Detailed analysis of The Adventures of Master F. J. by A. Anderau (1966). {NCBEL, i, 1025.)

GILES FLETCHER

the elder (1546-1611). English works ed. in detail by Lloyd

E. Berry (1964). Of the Rus Commonwealth, ed. A. J. Schmidt (1966). {NCBEL,

I,

1104.)

PRAYER BOOK

(The Book of Common Prayer, 1549, etc.). The standard

account is still that by Francis Proctor (rev. Walter H. Frere, 1902). For a bibliographical survey, see Stanley Morison, English Prayer Books (1943, enlarged 1949). Study of the language of the Prayer Book by Stella Brook (1965). {NCBEL,

I,

SIR WALTER RALEGH

1887 f.)

(1554-1618). Poems, ed. Agnes M. C. Latham (1929,

rev. 1951). Selection of prose and poetry (including The Last Fight of the Revenge and The Discovery of Guiana) also ed. Agnes Latham (1965, with notes). Selection from The History of the World, ed. C. A. Patrides (1971). Of the many biographies, the most up-to-date is that by R. Lacey (1973)Muriel M. C. Bradbrook, The School of Night (1936) includes an acute study of Ralegh’s literary relationships; W. Oakeshott (i960) and A. L. Rowse (1962) have added some interesting details. The best general introduction to the man and his work is Philip Edwards’s stylish short study (1953); see also for the pervading scepticism E. A. Strathmann (1951). Specialists will need to consult P. Lefranc’s elaborate study (1968;

72

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

in French) for an important reassessment of the canon, etc. (NCBEL, i, 2214 f.) EDMUND SPENSER

(1552?-!599). The Variorum works, ed. E. Greenlaw,

C. G. Osgood, F. M. Padelford, and others (9 vols., 1932-49, with excellent index 1957) supersedes all earlier edns., though W. L. Renwick’s anno¬ tated edn. of the minor works (4 vols., 1928-34) is easier to consult. Of the one-vol. editions, J. C. Smith and E. de Selincourt’s (1912) gives a good text, but there are no notes and de Selincourt’s Introduction is verbose and uncritical. Frederic I. Carpenter’s Reference Guide to Spenser (1923), Supplements to 1935 and i960 respectively by Dorothy F. Atkinson (1937) and Waldo F. McNeir and Foster Provost (1962), is indispensable for the scholar; most of us manage with H. S. V. Jones, Spenser Handbook (1930), though it needs revising now. The fullest life is that by A. C. Judson (1945) in the Variorum edn. (see above). Of the critics, W. L. Renwick (1925) is perhaps the most sensible and C. S. Lewis (especially the last chapter of The Allegory of Love, 1936) the most stimulating. Lewis returned to Spenser with more sobriety in his English Literature in the Sixteenth Century (1954), and in his death-bed Spenser's Images of Life, ed. A. D. S. Fowler (1967). Rosemond Tuve has also proved a seminal influence on Spenser’s critics: see her Allegorical Imagery (1966) and Essays on Spenser, Herbert, Milton, ed. T. P. Roche (1970). The best recent general introds. are those by W. Nelson (1963) and P. C. Bayley (1971). The symposium Contemporary Thought on Edmund Spenser, ed. Richard C. Frushell and Bernard J. Vondersmith (1975) is the most recent example of American Spenserism; Edwin Greenlaw’s influence predominates. The Faerie Queene. ed. J. C. Smith and E. de Selincourt (1912; from J. C. Smith’s edn., 1909) gives a good text. Useful brief introds. by E. A. F. Watson (1967), R. Sale (1968), and K. W. Gransden (1969); sound fuller guides by Graham Hough (1962) and Rosemary Freeman (1970). Able general studies by Kathleen Williams (1966) and P. J. Alpers (1967). On the allegory, see M. Pauline Parker (i960), A. C. Hamilton (1961), and J. E. Hankins (1971; heavy-going). On heroism, see M. Evans (1970); on heroic love, M. Rose (1968). Josephine W. Bennett’s adventurous if not always convincing Evolution of the Faerie Queene (1942; on the poem’s composition) is valuable. Of more specialist interest are A. D. S. Fowler’s learned numerological Spenser and the Numbers of Time (1964), Angus Fletcher’s typological The Prophetic Moment (1971), and J. S. Bender’s Spenser and Literary Pictorialism (1972). On Book i, see Mark Rose (1975); on Book 2, see H. Berger (1957); on Books 3 and 4, see T. P. Roche (1964); on Book 5, see T. K. Dunseath (1968) and Jane Aptekar (1969); on Book 6.

The principal writers

73

see D. Cheney (1966), A. Williams (1967), and H. Tonkin (1972). An elaborately annotated ed. of whole poem by A. C. Hamilton expected shortly. Minor poems. Scholarly ed. of the Fowre Hymnes and Epithalamion, with detailed comment, by Enid Welsford (1967). On The Shepheardes Calender, see Paul E. McLane (1961; not always convincing on the historical allegory) and P. Cullen (1970); on Colin Clouts Come Home Againe, see S. Meyer (1969). A. K. Hieatt’s study of the Epithalamion {Short Time’s Endless Monument, i960) has become a classic of numerological exegesis. R. M. Cummings has collected the early critics to 1715 in a Critical Heritage vol. (1971), and there are many collections of mainly modern critical essays (several essays appear in more than one collection): among the more useful are those assembled by W. R. Mueller and D. C. Allen (1952), W. Nelson (1961), H. Berger (1968), P. J. Alpers (1969), A. C. Hamilton (1972), and Judith Kennedy and J. A. Reither (1973). There is a detailed study of Spenser’s Neo-Platonism by R. Ellrodt (i960), and C. G. Smith has catalogued Spenser’s use of proverbs (1970). There is also a brief but useful Spenser Newsletter from Western Ontario (from 1970). Concordance by C. G. Osgood (1915). (Good reader’s guide by P. C. Bayley in the Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Poetry.) {NCBEL, i, 1029 f.)

FULKE

GREVILLE,

BARON BROOKE

(1554-1628). Poems and dramas, ed.

Geoffrey Bullough (2 vols., 1939; good introd. and notes), though not complete, this contains almost everything of interest except the life of Sidney (ed. Nowell Smith, 1907). The Remains have been ed. from MSS by G. A. Wilkes (1965). Useful selection ed. Joan Rees (1973; with notes), and another with an interesting introduction by Thom Gunn (1968). Good critical biographies by Joan Rees (1971) and R. A. Rebholz (1971). Study of the poetry by R. Waswo (1972). [NCBEL, i, 1057.)

JOHN LYLY

(i554?-i6o6). Complete works, ed. R. Warwick Bond (3 vols.,

1902), is sound if rather old-fashioned, and includes some doubtful works. A better edn. of Euphues is that by Morris W. Croll and Harry Clemons (1916), while James Winny,

The Descent of Euphues (1957) includes

Euphues and romances by Greene and Chettle. Gallathea and Midas have been ed. by A. B. Lancashire (1970). Excellent general reappraisal by G. K. Hunter (1962), and a study of the court comedies by Peter Saccio (1969). Recent general survey by J. W. Houppert (1975). [NCBEL, i, 1423-)

A Renaissance reading list

74 SIR PHILIP SIDNEY

1500-1650

(1554-1586). Albert Feuillerat’s edn. (4 vols., 1912-26)

is complete, with both versions of Arcadia, but has no introds. or ex¬ planatory notes. It is being superseded by the well annotated Oxford edn. now in progress: Poems, ed. W. A. Ringler (1962); Old Arcadia, ed. Jean Robertson (1973); Miscellaneous Prose (including The Defence of Poesy [Apology for Poetry]), ed. Katherine Duncan-Jones and J. A. van Dorsten (1973). Katherine Duncan-Jones’s selection from the poems (1973) is annotated and includes the whole of Astrophil and Stella, which has also been ed. by Vanna Gentili (1965; notes and commentary in Italian). Competent critical edition of The Defence of Poesy, ed. Geoffrey Shepherd (1965). The most scholarly of the lives is that by Malcolm W. Wallace (1915), though Mona Wilson (1931) is more readable, and James Osborn (1972) more detailed, with much new material on the years 1572-77. John Buxton (1954, rev. 1964) is interesting on Sidney’s continental tour and friendships, and J. A. van Dorsten {Poets, Patrons and Professors, 1962) on Sidney and the Netherlands. There are suggestive general studies by K. O. Myrick (1935; 2nd edn. 1965) and R. Montgomery (1961). The best books on Sidney’s poetry are those by D. Kalstone (1966), N. L. Rudenstine (1967), and J. G. Nichols (1974). Arcadia is well expounded by Walter R. Davis and Richard A. Lanham (1965) and by Jon S. Lawry (1972); see also studies (in Italian) by F. Rota (1966) and F. Marenco (1968), and in John F. Danby’s rather strained Poets on Fortune's Hill (1952). On Astrophil and Stella, see Richard B. Young (in Three Studies in the Renaissance, 1958). For Sidney’s version of the Psalms, see The Psalms of Sir Philip Sidney and the Countess of Pembroke, ed. J. C. A. Rathmell (1963), and the comment by Coburn Freer (in Music for a King, 1972). Bibliography (1941-70) by M. A. Washington (1972). Concordance to the poems by H. S. Donow (1975). {NCBEL, i, 1047 f.)

GEORGE PEELE

(1556-1596). Definitive edn. under the general editorship of

C. T. Prouty: Life and minor works, ed. D. H. Horne (1952); Edward I and The Battle of Alcazar ed. F. S. Hook and J. Yoklavich respectively (1961); The Arraignment of Paris, David and Bathsabe and The Old Wives Tale ed. R. M. Benbow, E. Blistein and F. S. Hook respectively (1970). This replaces A. H. Bullen’s less ambitious edition (2 vols., 1888). Selection of Peek’s poems has been ed. with notes by Sally Purcell (1972). The evi¬ dence for attributions has been examined by L. R. Ashley (1968). See also W. Senn on Greene and Peek (1973). {NCBEL, i, 1431.)

ROBERT GREENE

(1558-1592). J. Churton Collins’s edn. of the plays and

poems (2 vols., 1905) still holds the field in spite of many errors and omis-

The principal writers

75

sions. G. B. Harrison reprinted eight of the more realistic pamphlets (1923-27), and five are included in Gamini Salgado’s collection of ConyCatchers and Bawdy Baskets (1972); James Winny has included Pandosto in The Descent of Euphues (1957). The best edns. of single plays are: Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay, ed. Daniel Seltzer (1963), and J. A. Lavin (1969); James IV, ed. J. A. Lavin (1967), and N. Sanders (1970). Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay has been examined in detail by K. Assarsson-Rizzie (1972). There is an elaborate study of the romances by Rene Pruvost (Paris, 1938; in French). Bibliography of Greene criticism by T. Hayashi (1971). {NCBEF,

I,

THOMAS KYD

1437 f.) (1558-1594). Standard edn. F. S. Boas (1901; rev. 1955).

Best separate edn. of The Spanish Tragedy is by Philip Edwards (1959); those by T. Ross (1968) and J. R. Mulryne (1970) are second bests; the ed. by A. S. Cairncross (1967) also includes The First Part of Hieronimo (not certainly by Kyd). Studies by A. Freeman (1967) and P. B. Murray (1969). See also Harriet Hawkins, Likenesses of Truth in Elizabethan and Restoration Drama (1972). Concordance by Charles Crawford (3 parts, Louvain, 1906-10). {NCBEF, i, 1427.) THOMAS

LODGE

(1558-1625). Uncritical complete works, ed. Edmund

Gosse (4 vols., 1883, reissued 1963). Rosalynde was ed. by W. W. Greg (1907; rev. 1931), and The Wounds of Civil War by J. W. Houppert (1970). There are scholarly studies by N. Burton Paradise (1931) and E. A. Tenney (1935), and much new biographical information in C. J. Sisson, Thomas Lodge and Other Elizabethans (1933). Bibliography of early edns. (to 1700) by A. F. Allison (1973). {NCBEL, i, 1434.) GEORGE CHAPMAN

(i559?-i634). Standard edns.: plays by T. M. Parrott (2

vols., 1910-14); poems by Phyllis B. Bartlett (1941); Homeric translations by Allardyce Nicoll (2 vols., 1956). New edn. of plays in progress under general editorship of A. Holaday and M. Kiernan {Comedies, 1970; only textual notes). Among the good single edns. of Bussy D’Ambois are those by Jean Jacquot (Paris, i960), N. Brooke (1964), and M. Evans (1965). Other useful edns. of single plays: All Fools by F. Manley (1968); The Gentleman Usher, J. H. Smith (1970); The Widow’s Tears, E. M. Smeak (1967), and Akihiro Yamada (1975-

fullest commentary); Eastward Ho (by Chap¬

man, Ben Jonson and Marston), C. G. Better (1973). There is no satis¬ factory life, but Swinburne’s critical study (1875) is of some interest, and G. de F. Lord has an acute study of Chapman’s Odyssey. There are general critical studies by Jean Jacquot (1951; in French) and M. MacLure (1966),

A Renaissance reading list

76

1500-1650

and a study of the tragedies by E. Rees 1954). R. B. Waddington (1974) has examined the mythology of the narrative poems. James Smith’s long essay in Scrutiny (lll-iv, 1935; reprinted in Shakespearian and Other Essays, 1974) is still of great interest; see also E. M. Waith’s The Herculean Hero (1962). C. S. Lewis’s perverse defence of the continuation of Marlowe’s Hero and Leander (Proceedings of British Academy, xxxviii, 1952) should not be missed by connoisseurs of Lewisism. (NCBEL, i, 1637 f.) Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975) by J. B. Bamborough. FRANCIS BACON

(1561-1626). The Complete Bacon, ed. James Spedding,

R. L. Ellis, and D. D. Heath (14 vols., 1857-74, reprinted 1968), has stood the test of time remarkably well. There is no first-class ed. of the Essays (ed. E. A. Abbott, 2 vols., 1879, is perhaps the least inadequate), but R. E. Jones has collected all the literary works in a useful volume (1937) and J. Max Patrick’s similar selection (1963) has helpful notes. Other useful annotated selections are by C. J. Dixon (1963), S. Warhaft (1965), and A. Johnston (1965), who has also ed. The Advancement of Learning and New Atlantis (1974; with notes). The best life is by Catherine D. Bowen (1963). A good critical study by Brian Vickers (1968), who has also assembled modern critical essays on Bacon (1972). Other studies by R. E. Jones {^Ancients and Moderns, rev. 1961), K. R. Wallace (1967), P. Rossi (trans. S. Rabinovitch, 1968) and Lisa Jardine (1974), Bacon’s philosophy has been expounded by E. H. Anderson (1948) and B. Earrington (1964). On The Advancement of Learning, see D. G. James, The Dream of Learning (1951); on New Atlantis, see H. B. White, Peace Among the Willows (1968). L. C. Knights has an essay on ‘Bacon and the seventeenth-century dissoci¬ ation of sensibility’ in his Explorations (1946). Elaborate bibliography (to 1750) by R. W. Gibson (1950; supplement 1959). Concordance to the Essays by D. W. Davies and Elizabeth S. Wrigley. {NCBEL, i, 2324.)

ROBERT SOUTHWELL

(1561 ?-i595). Complete works ed. A. B. Grosart

(1872). Critical edn. of poems by James H. McDonald and Nancy P. Brown (1967). The most thorough study to date is by Pierre Janelle (Clermont-Ferrand, 1935). There is a biography by Christopher Devlin (1956). {NCBEL,

HENRY CONSTABLE

I,

1059.)

(1562-1613). Scholarly edn. of all the poems by Joan

Grundy (i960). {NCBEL, i, 1095.)

SAMUEL DANIEL

(i563?-i6i9). A. C. Sprague’s edn. includes most of the

poems and ‘A Defence of Ryme’ (1930; good introduction, no notes);

The principal writers

77

The only critical edns. are Laurence Michel, Philotas (1949) and The Civile Wars (1958). There are competent general studies by Joan Rees (1964) and Cecil Seronsy (1967). On Delia, see Claes Schaar, An Elizabethan Sonnet Problem (1960). {NCBEL, i, 1061 f.)

MICHAEL DRAYTON

(1563-1631). The edn. by J. William Hebei, Kathleen

Tillotson and Bernard H. Newdigate (5 vols., 1931-41; rev. 1961) is complete and definitive, John Buxton’s generous selection (2 vols., 1953) being very thinly annotated. There is a sound life by Newdigate (1941; rev. 1961). The unambitious early study by Oliver Elton (1905) has been followed by critical studies by P. G. Buchloh (1964; in German) and R. F. Hardin (1973). N. C. de Nagy has examined Englands Heroicall Epistles (1968). See also Joan Grundy’s The Spenserian Poets (1969). {NCBEL, i, 1065 f.) CHRISTOPHER MARLOWE

(1564-1593). Standard edn. by R. H. Case and

others (6 vols., 1930-33; modernized spelling; Edward II rev. F. N. Lees 1955) has goodish notes and a soberly factual life by C. F. Tucker Brooke. New edn. of Works ed. Fredson Bowers (2 vols., 1973; old spelling, full textual notes but too many errors to be definitive). One-vol. edns. of plays, ed. Roma Gill (1971; with notes), and poems, ed. M. MacLure (1968, annotated). Convenient annotated paperback edns. of complete plays by J. B. Steane (1961), and of complete poems by S. Orgel (1971). An elaborate edn. of Dr Faustus by W. W. Greg (1950) is confined to textual recon¬ struction, but there are good annotated edns. by J. D. Jump (1962) and Roma Gill (1965). Other useful edns.; Dido, Queen of Carthage and The Massacre at Paris, H. J. Oliver (1968); Tamburlaine, J. D. Jump (1967), J. W. Harper (1971); The Jew of Malta, R. W. Van Fossen (1964), T. W. Craik (1966); Edward II, W. Moelwyn Merchant (1967). Facsimile of Hero and Leander, with interesting introduction by L. L. Martz (1972). The most thorough of the biographies is that by John E. Bakeless (2 vols., 1942); there are many good illustrations in A. D. Wraight and V. F. Stern, In Search of Christopher Marlowe (1965) but the text is inferior. T. S. Eliot’s short essay in The Sacred Wood (1920) is probably still the best critique of Marlowe, but there are good things in Paul Kocher’s scholarly study (1946), in Harry Levin’s somewhat pretentious The Overreacher (1952), in D. Cole’s study (1962), in J. B. Steane’s stylish ‘critical study’ (1964; good on the poetry), and in Wilbur Sanders, The Dramatist and the Received Idea (1968; useful on the historical climate). There is a good book on Tamburlaine by Roy W. Battenhouse (1941); see also E. M. Waith, The Herculean Hero (1962). On the Ovidian translations, see E. Jacobsen,

A Renaissance reading list

78

1500-1650

Translation (1958). Collections of critical essays on Marlowe assembled by Clifford Leech (1964) and B. Morris (1968); on Dr Faustus, by J. D. Jump (1969) and W. Farnham (1969). The concordance by Charles Crawford (5 parts, Louvain, 1911-32) covers many plays almost certainly not by Marlowe. Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975), D. J. Palmer. {NCBEL,

I,

1443 f.)

WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE

Editions.

(1564-1616)*

Indispensable Norton facsimile of 1623 Folio in final state, with

continuous line-numbering of each play (ed. C. Hinman, 1968; unavailable in U.K.); predecessors inadequate or unreliable. Critical facsimiles of principal quartos (ed. W. W. Greg, 14 vols., 1939-66, and Hinman, 2 vols. issued, 1971-75), Poems and Sonnets (ed. J. M. Osborn, L. L. Martz, E. M. Waith, 1964). Old-spelling edns. of canon (gen. eds. J. L. Barroll and F. Bowers) and of apocrypha (ed. G. R. Proudfoot) in progress. One-vol. Riverside edn. (textual ed. G. B. Evans, 1973), excellent semi-modernized text with brief explanatory footnotes and textual endnotes, should become standard reference edn. Inferior one-vol. edns. in order of textual merit (modernized and briefly annotated unless otherwise stated): rev. Pelican (gen. ed. A. Harbage, 1969), also published in U.S. in single-play edn. (38 vols., 1956-67; being rev.), scanty notes; Signet (gen. ed. S. Barnet, 1972), also published in single-play edn. (40 vols., 1963-68), Rg text misguided; G. L. Kittredge (1936, rev. I. Ribner 1971), also published in single-play edn. (40 vols., 1966-69), ample notes; H. Craig (1951, rev. D. Bevington 1973), ample notes; P. Alexander (1951), overrated text without notes; W. A. Neilson and C. J. Hill (1942); C. J. Sisson (1954), original but eccen¬ tric and unannotated, emendations expounded in New Readings in Shake¬ speare (2 vols., 1956). London edn. (ed. J. Munro, 6 vols., 1957), pedestrian text with copious but wildly inaccurate textual footnotes. Single-play edns. are too uneven for general recommendation, but serious students will consult even the poorer vols. of the following (listed chronologically): (i) New Variorum (first gen. ed. H. H. Furness, 27 vols. issued, 18711955), substantially unedited old-spelling texts with massive annotation, becomes more scholarly from 1936; (ii) New Cambridge (chief ed. J. D. Wilson, 39 vols., 1921-66), modernized texts, livelier and often more acute than the rest, but marred by Wilson’s textual fantasies and infuriating location of over-abbreviated, sometimes inadequate notes at back; (iii) [New] Arden (gen. eds. Lf. Ellis-Fermor, H. F. Brooks, H. Jenkins, 29 vols. issued, 1951-75), semi-modernized texts with separate textual notes * The Shakespeare section is by Karl Haffenreffer.

The principal writers

79

and generously documented explanatory notes at foot of page, but several texts unsound {beware: the paperbacks disintegrate). New Penguin (gen. ed. T. J. B. Spencer, 27 vols. issued, 1967-74; unavailable in U.S.) has modernized texts with brief, undocumented notes at back. Single-play edns. annotated briefly (Pelican, Signet, Ribner’s Kittredge) listed above under one-vol. edns. Best

edns.

of individual works

(NA = [New]

Arden,

NC=New

[Cambridge], NV =New Variorum, R = Riverside): Ado.: R. Ant.: R text, NA notes (ed. M. R. Ridley, 1954). AWW: NA (ed. G. K. Hunter, 1959), rev. NV (ed. R. Knowles and Sr. E. J. Mattern, forthcoming). AYL: R. Cor.: NA (ed. J. P. Brockbank, forthcoming) will probably supersede R text, NC notes (ed. J. D. Wilson, i960). Cym.: NA (ed. J. M. Nosworthy, 1955) . Err.: NA (ed. R. A. Foakes, 1962). Ham. : NA (ed. H. Jenkins, forthcoming) promises to supersede R text, NC notes (ed. Wilson, 1934; Wilson’s best work). 1H4: NA (ed. A. R. Humphreys, i960), NV (ed. S. B. Hemingway, 1936), NV Supplement (ed. G. B. Evans, in Shakespeare Quarterly,

Vli,

1956). 2H4: NA (ed. Humphreys, 1966; finest NA), NV

notes (ed. M. A. Shaaber, 1940). H5: NA (ed. J. H. Walter, 1954). i, 2, 3H6: R; NA texts capriciously emended. H8: NA (ed. R. A. Foakes, 1957). yC: NA (ed. T. S. Dorsch, 1955). Jn.: NA (ed. E. A. J. Honigmann, 1954). LLL : R; NA notes full, often superfluous (ed. R. David, 1951, rev. 1956) . Lr.: R text, NA notes (ed. Muir, 1952). Mac.: R text, NA notes (ed. Muir, 1951). MM: NA (ed. J. W. Lever, 1965). MND: R. MV: NA (ed. J. R. Brown, 1955), rev. NV (ed. C. Spencer, forthcoming). 0th.: R text, NA notes (ed. M. R. Ridley, 1958). Per.: R text, NA notes (ed. F. D. Hoeniger, 1963). R2: NA (ed. P. Ure, 1956, rev. 1961), NV notes (ed. M. W. Black, 1955). R3: R, W. Clemen’s Commentary (1957, tr. English 1968). Rom.: NA (ed. J. Crow, forthcoming) will supplement critical oldspelling text (ed. G. W. Williams, 1964) and probably supersede R text, NC notes (ed. Wilson and G. I. Duthie, 1955). Shr.: R. STM: R. TGV: NA (ed. C. Leech, 1969). Tim.: R text, NC notes and level-headed Introduction (ed. J. C. Maxwell, 1957); NA notes unreliable. Tit.: R text, NC notes (ed. Wilson, 1948); NA notes unsatisfactory. Tmp.: NA(ed. F. Kermode, 1954, rev. 1958), Introduction justly famous. TN: NA (ed. J. M. Lothian and T. W. Craik, 1975). TNK: R. Tro.: R text, NV notes (ed. H. N. Hillebrand and T. W. Baldwin, 1953). Wiv.: R, full but questionable NA notes (ed. H. J. Oliver, 1971). WT: NA (ed. J. H. P. Pafford, 1963). Poems (LC, Luc, PhT, PP, Ven.): NA (ed. F. T. Prince, i960), NV (ed. H. E. Rollins, 1938), Introduction to New Penguin Luc. (ed. J. W. Lever, 1971) Son.: exemplary no-nonsense ed. by W. G. Ingram and T. Redpath (1964), magisterial NV (ed.

Rollins,

2 vols.,

1944), brilliant Signet

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

8o

Introduction by W. H. Auden (1964). Works of reference.

Standard life by E. K. Chambers (2 vols., 1930), a

judicious and comprehensive work to which later research has added little; compact factual accounts by G. E. Bentley (1961) and P. Alexander (1964); S. Schoenbaum (1970) urbanely traces Shakespeare’s often hilarious lives down to A. L. Rowse’s follies; Schoenbaum’s excellent Documentary Life (1975) gives 210 facsimiles of principal documents, etc. Shakespeare Encyclopedia (ed. O. J. Campbell and E. G. Quinn, 1966) far more accurate and encyclopedic than F. E. Halliday’s Companion (1952, rev. 1964). Chapters by R. Hosley, D. Seltzer, W. R. Elton, M. C. Bradbrook stand out in uneven new Companion (ed. K. Muir and S. Schoenbaum, 1971). Meticulous complete concordance based on Riverside text (ed. M. Spevack, 6 vols., Hildesheim, 1968-70; slightly abridged one-vol. Harvard edn., 1974) supersedes incomplete, textually obsolete one by J. Bartlett (1894); T. H. Howard-Hill’s single-play old-spelling concordances (37 vols., 1969-73), based on substantially unedited texts, include stage directions. Alexander Schmidt’s monumental Shakespeare-Lexicon (2 vols., 1874-75; rev. G. Sarrazin, Berlin, 1902) and E. A. Abbott’s Shakespearian Grammar (1869), still essential, are now available in cheap Dover reprints. C. T. Onions’s selective Shakespeare Glossary (1911, rev. 1953) is based on OED. Certain words illuminated by E. Partridge’s unscholarly Shakespeare’s Bawdy (1947, rev. 1968), M. M. Mahood’s Shakespeare’s Wordplay (1957), and H. M. Hulme’s probing, sometimes straining. Explorations in Shake¬ speare’s Language (1962).

H. Kokeritz’s elaborate Shakespeare’s Pro¬

nunciation (1953) and Shakespeare’s Names (1959) are both somewhat dubious. Masterly collection and study of sources by G. Bullough (8 vols., 1957-75); studies of Shakespeare’s knowledge of homilies (A. Hart, 1934), Bible (R. Noble, 1935), classics (J. A. K. Thomson, 1952; R. A. Brower’s keen Hero and Saint, 1971). Modest bibliography by W. Ebisch and L. L. Schiicking (1931, Supplement 1937) exhaustively continued to 1958 by Gordon R. Smith (1963); annual bibliography in Shakespeare Quarterly (from 1950), which along with Shakespeare Survey (annually from 1948) reviews previous year’s theatre, scholarship, criticism. Thorough, shrewdly critical bibli¬ ography of commentary on classical plays, themes, and sources to i960 by J. W. Velz (1968). T. H. Howard-Hill’s time-saving bibliography of Shakespeare bibliography and textual criticism (1971) is neither critical nor comprehensive. Shakespeare Newsletter (irregularly from 1951) reports some new work; Shakespearean Research and Opportunities (irregularly from 1965) lists work in progress. Useful catalogues of Birmingham (7 vols., 1971) and Folger (2 vols., 1972) Shakespeare libraries. Critical, select

The principal writers

8i

bibliographical guide (ed. S. Wells, 1973) fairly reliable despite unscholarly first chapter and spots of weak criticism; discriminating on theatre, middle and late comedies, English histories, major tragedies, especially Othello. Theatre.

Solid introduction by A. Gurr in The Shakespearean Stage,

14-1642 (1970). Globe playhouse rigorously investigated by C. W. Hodges (1953, rev. 1968; 1973), R. Hosley (articles from 1954); second Blackfriars playhouse, by W. A. Armstrong (1958), Hosley (in The Elizabethan Theatre [I], ed. D. Galloway, 1969). B. Beckerman’s welldigested Shakespeare at the Globe,

i^gg-i6og (1962) shows how theatre

conditions shaped plays. Brief conspectus of 1599-1642 staging by T. J. King (1971) neglects acting. B. Joseph’s Elizabethan Acting (1951, rev. 1964) less reliable than D. Seltzer’s ‘The staging of the last plays’ (in Stratford-upon-Avon Studies 8, 1966) and J. L. Styan’s Shakespeare’s Stagecraft (1967). Shakespeare’s audiences reconstructed with humane erudition by A. Harbage (1941; 1947; 1952). Performances and adap¬ tations since 1660 surveyed by: critically naive G. C. D. Odell (2 vols., 1920); expert A. C. Sprague (1944; 1954; 1964); B. Joseph (i960); M. Rosenberg (informative but doctinaire stage-histories of Othello, 1961, and King Lear, 1972); J. C. Trewin (1964); Sprague with Trewin (1970). Harbage’s invigorating Theatre for Shakespeare (1955) mulls problems of modern production. Literary criticism.

Since Johnson (definitive edn., Johnson on Shakespeare,

ed. A. Sherbo, 2 vols., 1968), Hazlitt {Characters of Shakespear’s Plays, 1817), and Coleridge {Coleridge on Shakespeare: the text of the Lectures of 1811-12, ed. R. A. Foakes, 1971, first text unsophisticated by J. P. Collier; for the rest, definitive edn. is Shakespearean Criticism, ed. T. M. Raysor, (2 vols., 1930, rev. i960), the outstanding literary critics of Shakespeare seem to have been: (i) A. C. Bradley, Shakespearean Tragedy (1904), valuable Shakespeare essays in Oxford Lectures on Poetry (1909), and A Miscellany (1929); More Prefaces to Shakespeare (ed. E. M. Moore, 1974); (ii) H. Granville-Barker, Prefaces to Shakespeare (five series, 1927-47); (iii) G. W. Knight, whose passionate insights outweigh his blather: The Wheel of Fire (1930, rev. 1949); The Imperial Theme (1931); The Shakespearian Tempest (1932, rev. 1953); The Crown of Life (1947); but The Mutual Flame (1955) is mostly blather. Any such list is bound to be unfair to the range and quality of recent criticism. Image patterns discovered by W. Whiter, A Specimen of a Commentary on Shakspeare (1794; ed. A. Over and M. Bell, 1967); rediscovered by C. Spurgeon (1935); developed more sensitively but with defective sense of whole play by R. A. Heilman, This Great Stage (1948, on King Lear), and

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

82

Magic in the Web (1956, on Othello) and E. A. Armstrong (1946, rev. 1963); integrated with dramatic whole by W. Clemen (1936, rev. and tr. English 1951). Suggestive if simplistic poetic interpretations by D. A. Traversi, An Approach to Shakespeare (1938; inferior rev., 2 vols., 1968); provocative, over-moralistic interpretations of themes by L. C. Knights, Explorations (1946); Some Shakespearean Themes (1959); An Approach to ‘Hamlet’ (i960); Further Explorations (1965).

Bradley’s psychological

naturalism corrected in light of dramatic conventions by cranky E. E. Stoll, Shakespeare Studies (1927, rev. 1942); Art and Artifice in Shakespeare (1933); overcorrected by S. L. Bethell, Shakespeare and the Popular Dramatic Tradition (1944); honed by J. L M. Stewart, Character and Motive in Shakespeare (1949). A. P. Rossiter’s vital Angel with Horns (ed. G. Storey, 1961) gores schematizers of divers stripes. J. Kott, Shakespeare Our Contemporary (1961, tr. English 1964, rev. 1966) reduces drama to melodrama, character to caricature; counterblast by A. Harbage in British Academy Lecture (1969). N. Rabkin (1967) illuminates plays’ multiple perspectives. More pretentious than subtle analysis of Shakespearean time by F. Turner (1971). Early works surveyed by M. C. Bradbrook (^Shakespeare and Elizabethan Poetry, 1951), penetrated by A. C. Hamilton (The Early Shakespeare, 1967). Still no major book on comedies: N. Frye’s influential ‘The argu¬ ment of comedy’ (English Institute Essays 1948, 1949) more persuasive than the rarefied generalizations of A Natural Perspective (1965); J. R. Brown’s study (1957, rev.

1962) competent routine; C. L. Barber (1959) links

comedies to popular festivals; B. Evans (i960) ably follows comedies’ shifting dramatic irony; H. Jenkins looks afresh at As

You Like It

(Shakespeare Survey 8, 1955); dark and last comedies explored by E. M. W. Tillyard (1950 and 1938), rescued from imagist-symbolist excesses by R. A. Foakes (1971); studies in depth of most comedies by James Smith, Shakespearian and Other Essays (1974). Excellent surveys of comedies and histories by F. P. Wilson, Shakespearian and Other Studies (ed. H. Gardner, 1969). Tillyard’s engines of providence, Shakespeare's History Plays (i(),^if), tinkered with by M. M. Reese, The Cease of Majesty (1961), modified by E. W. Talbert, The Problem of Order (1962) and H. A. Kelley, Divine Providence in the England of Shakespeare's Histories (1970), dismantled by A. C. Hamilton in chapters on Henry VI (1967) which surpass even J. P. Brockbank’s study (Stratford-upon-Avon Studies j, 1961); L. B. Campbell’s treatment of histories as ‘mirrors of policy’ (1947) tempered intemperately by W. Sanders, The Dramatist and the Received Idea (1968); definitive edn. of M. Morgann’s rousing essay on Falstaff (1777) and Commentary on The Tempest, ed. D. A. Fineman (1971); lively recon-

The principal writers

83

sideration of Falstaff by J. D. Wilson (1953). J. V. Cunningham’s original Woe or Wonder (1951) analyses tragedies’ emotional effects. Scintillating view of major tragedies in J. Holloway, Story of the Night (1961). James Smith’s methods skilfully applied to tragedies by A. L. French, Shake¬ speare and the Critics (1972). Early tragedies freshly considered by N. Brooke (1968); Jacobean tragedies, by M. Mack {Stratford-upon-Avon Studies

I,

i960). No satisfactory books on Othello or Macbeth, but fine

British Academy Lecture on Othello by H. Gardner (1956). Piquant Ha7nlet studies by J. D. Wilson (1935) and H. Levin (1959), excelled by E. Auerbach (in Mimesis, 1946, tr. English 1953), H. D. F. Kitto (in Form and Meaning in Drama, 1956), Mack {Yale Review,

XLi,

1951-52). King

Lear’s Christianization challenged succinctly by N. Brooke (1963), at length by W. Elton (1966); its relation to our time explored profoundly by Mack (1965); steady grasp of play by S. L. Goldberg (1974). Valuable works on classical plays by M. W. MacCallum (1910) and J. E. Phillips, Jr. (1940). Competent study of music in tragedies by F. W. Sternfeld (1963); exquisite study of vocal songs in plays by P. J. Seng (1967). Sonnets deftly set in tradition by J. W. Lever {The Elizabethan Love Sonnet, 1956), while J. B. Leishman (1961) ranges far, discovers little; Sonnets’ power to disturb explained in S. Booth’s prolix essay (1969). Shakspere Allusion-Book (2 vols., ed. C. M. Ingleby et al., rev. J. Munro 1909, rev. E. K. Chambers 1932) to 1700, but not quite exhaustive. 1821 Variorum (ed. E. Malone and J. Boswell, 21 vols.) is a museum of the eighteenth

century’s

spirited scholarship and criticism.

B.

Vickers

sweeps criticism and oddments from every age into six thick Critical Heritage vols. (2 vols. issued, 1973-74). Choice criticism from eighteenth century (1903, rev. 1963) and from 1623-1840 (1916) gathered by D. Nichol Smith; from 1919-35 (1936) and from 1935-60 (1963), by A. (Bradby) Ridler. Other good anthologies of recent essays (ed. L. E. Dean, 1957, rev. 1967; A. B. Kernan, 1970), and of essays mostly modern on comedies (ed. K. Muir, 1965; L. Lerner, 1967), later comedies (ed. D. J. Palmer, 1971), histories (ed. E. M. Waith, 1965; W. A. Armstrong, 1972), tragedies (ed. L. Lerner, 1963; A. Harbage, 1964; C. Leech, 1965, with valuable introduction). Selected criticism of some individual plays in Casebook and Twentieth-Century Interpretations series. Ten British Academy Lectures exhumed by P. Alexander (1964); lectures include Bradley, Granville-Barker, McKerrow, Sisson, C. S. Lewis. Instructive papers in Shakespeare igyi (ed. C. Leech and J. M. R. Margeson, 1972). Issues of Shakespeare Survey and Shakespeare Quarterly (since 1973) devoted largely to one theme, play, or group of plays, as are 4 vols. to date of

Stratford-upon-Avon

Studies

(from

i960).

Shakespeare-Jahrbuch

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

84

(from 1865; since 1964 in 2 vols., Weimar and Heidelberg) and Shake¬ speare Studies (irregularly from 1965) command less interest. Textual criticism.

Shakespeare’s Handwriting by E. M. Thompson (1916)

and Shakespeare’s Hand in the Play of ‘Sir Thomas More’ (ed. A. W. Pollard, 1923) have not been superseded. Important recent studies are: J. D. Wilson’s pioneering Manuscript of Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet’ (2 vols., 1934); R. B. McKerrow’s rigorous Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare (1939); W. W. Greg’s Editorial Problem in Shakespeare

rev. 1955) and

The Shakespeare First Folio (1955), erratic on individual plays; articles by various hands in Studies in Bibliography (annually from 1947); Alice Walker’s searching Textual Problems of the First Folio (1953); F. Bowers’s cautionary On Editing Shakespeare (1955, enlarged 1966), Textual and Literary Criticism (1959), ‘textual criticism’ in Shakespeare Encyclopedia; C. Hinman’s seminal Printing and Proof-reading of the First Folio (2 vols., 1963); E. A. J. Honigmann, Stability of Shakespeare’s Text (1965), corrective yet more tendentious than its targets. F. P. Wilson has ex¬ pounded New Bibliography’s evolution and significance (1942,

rev.

H. Gardner 1970). (NCBEL, i, 1473 ff.) THOMAS CAMPION

(1567-1620). New ed. of works by W. R. Davis (1967;

includes thirty musical settings) supersedes that of Percival Vivian (1909). Comment by Miles M. Kastendieck (1938), and various aspects of the poetry discussed by E. Lowbury, T. Salter and A1 Young (1970). Selection, with music, and introductory essays by W. H. Auden and J. Hollander (1972). (NCBEL, THOMAS NASHE

I,

1069.)

(1567-1601 ?). Works, ed. Ronald B. McKerrow (5 vols.,

1904-10, reissued with corrections by F. P. Wilson and W. W. Greg, 1958), is the definitive ed., with detailed life, commentary, notes, and index. Selection with glossary by Stanley Wells (1964); a convenient annotated paperback selection by J. B. Steane (1972). The only recent studies are by G. R. Hibbard (1962), and R. G. Howarth (1956). C. L. Barber’s Shake¬ speare’s Festive Comedy (1959) has a chapter on Summer’s Last Will and Testament. (NCBEL, i, 1456 f.)

SIR HENRY WOTTON

(1568-1639). Life and letters, ed. Logan Pearsall

Smith (2 vols., 1902). The Elements of Architecture, ed. F. Hard (1968; with notes). (NCBEL, i, 1325.)

SIR JOHN DAVIES

(1569-1626). New edn. of poems by Robert Krueger and

Ruby Nemser (1975) is fully annotated and adds many new poems; it

The principal writers

85

supersedes the edition by Clare Howard (1941). General Study by J. L. Sanderson (1975). E. M. W. Tillyard has ed. ‘Orchestra’ (1945; with notes) and discusses it in his Five Poems (1948); T. S. Eliot’s short essay is in On Poetry and Poets (1957). {NCBEL, i, 1071.)

THOMAS DEKKER

(1572?—1632). Plays, ed. Fredson Bowers (4 vols., 1953—60,

corrections 1962-4; detailed textual apparatus only, commentary ap¬ parently to follow by C. Hoy). Plague pamphlets, ed. F. P. Wilson (1925). Selection of prose works by E. D. Pendry (1967; with glossary). Single annotated edns. of The Shoemaker’s Floliday by J. B. Steane (1965), P. C. Davies (1968) and D. Palmer (1974); and of A Knights Conjuring by L. M. Robbins (1974). There is an elaborate study by M. T. Jones-Davies (2 vols., Paris, 1958; in French) and a study of the plays alone by James H. Conover (1969). Bibliography of early editions to 1700 by A. F. Allison (1972). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama, by Michael Taylor (1975). {NCBEL, JOHN DONNE

I,

1673 f.)

(1572-1631). Standard edns. of the poems: Helen Gardner,

Divine Poems (1952), Elegies and Songs and Sonnets (1965), and W. Milgate, Satires, Epigrams and Verse Letters (1967). H. J. C. Grierson’s edn. (2 vols., 1912) is still useful, though the commentary is partly out of date and several of the poems included are now known not to be Donne’s. Convenient one-vol. annotated paperback edn. of complete English poems, ed. A. J. Smith (1971). Anniversaries, ed. F. Manley (1963; with commentary); Songs and Sonnets, ed. Theodore Redpath (1956; more notes than Grierson, if often uncritical). The definitive edn. of the sermons is by George R. Potter and Evelyn M. Simpson (10 vols., 1953-61), and ten sermons have also been ed. separately by Mrs Simpson (1963). The five Prebend sermons have been ed. with detailed commentary by J. M. Mueller (1971), and Devotions upon Emergent Occasions similarly by M. Raspa (1975) Ignatius His Conclave, with commentary, by T. Healy (1969). Useful selection from the prose, chosen by Evelyn Simpson (ed. Helen Gardner and T. Healy, 1967). Selections from poetry and prose by John Hayward (1929, rev. 1962) and Charles M. Coffin (1952). Standard life by R. C. Bald (completed by W. Milgate, 1970). Perhaps the most helpful appreciations are Doniphan Louthan’s lively The Poetry of Donne (1951) and Frank Kermode’s British Council pamphlet (1957). K. W. Gransden’s modest study (1954) is sensible and readable, Arnold Stein’s (1962) is more pretentious, but there are sound recent introductions by James Winny (1970) and W. Sanders (1971). J. B. Leishman’s learned The Monarch of Wit (1951, rev. 1962) is somewhat

86

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

erratic critically. There is a short and helpful discussion of the Songs and Sonnets by A. J. Smith (1964), and more detailed discussions of the love poetry by P. Legouis (1928; translated 1962), Donald L. Guss (1966), and N. J. C. Andreasen (1967). More specialized studies are those of R. E. Hughes (1968) and Una Nelly (1969), as well as Clay Hunt’s analyses, at great length, of seven key poems in Donne's Poetry (1954) and M. A. Rugoff, Donne's Imagery (1939). Detailed study of the Anniversaries by Barbara Lewalski (1973). A Garland for Donne (ed. Theodore Spencer, 1932) includes T. S. Eliot’s ‘Donne in our time’, a repudiation of Eliot’s earlier enthusiasms. For two clever depreciations see J. E. Crofts (in Essays and Studies of the English Association, xxii, 1937), and C. S. Lewis (in the Grierson Festschrift, 1938). Joan Webber’s Contrary Music (1963) provides a sound introd. to the prose; on the sermons, see W. R. Mueller (1962), F. A. Rowe (1964), and Winfried Schleiner (1970). Helen Gardner has assembled the principal critical essays on Donne in a useful paperback (1963), and there is a generous collection gathered by J. R. Roberts (1975); Frank Kermode’s Discussions of John Donne (1963) is more of an anthology of Donne criticism (from Ben Jonson). In addition, there are two anniversary collections of miscellaneous essays, ed. A. J. Smith (1972) and P. A. Fiore (1972); Julian Lovelock has put together a collection of essays on the Songs and Sonnets (1973). Critical Heritage volume also by A. J. Smith (1976). The standard bibliography is by Geoffrey Keynes (rev. 1973), and there is also a bibliography of Donne criticism (1912-67) by J. R. Roberts (1973). Concordance by H. C. Combs and Z. R. Sullens (1940). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Poetry, by W. Milgate (1971), [NCBEL, i, 1169 f.) See also under Metaphysical Poetry, above, p. 58-9. Standard edn. (with excellent notes, almost nothing left out) by C. H. Herford, Percy and Evelyn M. Simpson (ii vols., 1925-52). The best recent edns. of Jonson are in the Yale Ben Jonson series (gen. ed. A. B. Kernan and R. B. Young, 1962- ): six plays (in separate vols.) and a particularly good ed. of the masques by Stephen Orgel so far. Other edns. of particular plays in Penguin, New Mermaid, Regents, and Revels series are of varying but generally reliable quality. Complete plays, ed. F. E. Schelling (Everyman’s Library, 2 vols., 1910; no notes). Poems; ed. Bernard H. Newdigate (1936; glossary, occasional brief scholarly notes); G. B. Johnston (1954; brief notes); William B. Hunter (1963: short, sometimes erratic explanatory footnotes); Ian Donaldson (1975; much fuller footnotes, source-materials in translation). Life in Herford-Simpson ed. (vols. i, ii, 1925). Sound general study by BEN JONSON (i572?-i637).

The principal writers

87

J. B. Bamborough (1970). No satisfactory book as yet on the poems, but Wesley Trimpi (1962) discusses their ‘plain style’. Edward B. Partridge, The Broken Compass (1958) and Jonas A. Barish, Ben Jonson and the Language of Prose Comedy (i960) remain the best sustained examinations of the plays; other studies by John J. Enck (1957), C. G. Thayer (1963) and Robert E. Knoll (1964). Good critical study of the masques by Stephen Orgel (1965); scholarly details of staging etc. in Orgel and Roy Strong, Inigo Jones (2 vols., 1973). Jonson’s reputation in the seventeenth century is examined by G. E. Bentley (1945), in the eighteenth century by Robert G. Noyes (1935). The best modern criticism of Jonson (including essays by T. S. Eliot, Edmund Wilson, L. C. Knights, Harry Levin, etc.) has been assembled by J. A. Barish (1963). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama by J. B. Bamborough (1975). {NCBEL, i, 1655 ff.) JOSEPH HALL

(1574-1656). Definitive edn. of poemsbyA.Davenport(i949).

Discovery of a New World, ed. H. Brown (1937; from Latin by Brown with notes); Heaven Upon Earth and Characters of Virtues and Vices, ed. R. Kirk (1948; with notes). Account of life and works by T. F. Kinloch (1951). {NCBEL,

I,

1977.)

THOMAS HEYWOOD

(1574?—1641). No modern edn. of plays except A. W.

Verity’s Mermaid selection (1888; five plays), but there are good single edns. of A Woman Killed with Kindness by R. W. Van Fossen (1961), and of The Eair Maid of the West by R. K. Turner (1968). Arthur M. Clark’s pioneer study (1931) has been superseded by Michel Grivelet’s elaborate survey (Paris, 1957; in French). T. S. Eliot’s essay is m Selected Essays (1932). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975) by Michael Taylor. {NCBEL, CYRIL

I,

1682 f.)

TOURNEUR

(i575?-i626). Complete works, ed. Allardyce Nicoll.

(1929; some notes but not enough). Atheist's Tragedy, well ed. by I. Ribner (1964). An elaborate study by Peter B. Murray (1964). See also T. S. Eliot {Selected Essays, 1932) and John Peter {Complaint and Satire, 1956). The Revenger’s Tragedy is now ascribable to Middleton (see below). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975) by Inga-Stina Ewbank. {NCBEL,

I,

1694 f.)

JOHN MARSTON

(i576-1634). Standard edn. of poems by A. Davenport

(1961). Latest edn. of plays by H. Harvey Wood (3 vols., 1934-39). Useful edns. of single plays: Antonio and Mellida and Antonio’s Revenge, G. K. Hunter (1965 and 1966 respectively); The Dutch Courtesan, M. L. Wine

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

88

(1965), P. Davison (1968; with full notes); The Fawn, G. A. Smith (1965); The Maocontent, M. L. Wine (1965), B. Harris (1967; with full notes), G. K. Hunter (1975; full notes). Detailed studies by A. Jose Axelrad (Paris, 1955; in French), A. Caputi (1961) and Philip J. Finkelpearl (1969; useful on the Inns of Court background). See also T. S. Eliot {Selected Essays, 1951), John Peter {Complaint and Satire, 1956) and B. Gibbons {Jacobean City Comedy, 1968). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975) by S. Schoenbaum. {NCBEL, i, 1689 f.) ROBERT BURTON

(1577-1640). Anatomy of Melancholy: ed. A. R. Shilleto

(3 vols., 1893; fullest notes); ed. H. Jackson (3 vols., 1932; best text, gives Latin and translates). Best introductory study is by L. Babb, Sanity in Bedlam (1959); a more detailed study is that by J. R. Simon (1964: in French). On the background, see W. R. Mueller (1952). Scholarly material in Oxford Bibliographical Society Proceedings,

I,

1922-6 is of great value.

{NCBEL, 1, 2219.) THOMAS

MIDDLETON

(1580-1627). Works, ed. A. H. Bullen (8 vols.,

1885-86); Mermaid selection ed. A. C. Swinburne and Havelock Ellis (2 vols., 1887-90; ten plays). Modern critical eds. of single plays: A Chaste Maid in Cheapside, A Brissenden (1968); R. B. Parker (1969), C. Barber (1969); The Changeling, N. W. Bawcutt (rev. 1961), P. Thomson (1964); A Game at Chess, J. W. Harper (1966); A Mad World My Masters, S. Henning (1965); Michaelmas Term, R. Levin (1967); A Trick to Catch the Old One, G. J. Watson (1968), C. Barber (1968); Women Beware Women, Roma Gill (1968), C. Barber (1969), J. R. Mulryne (1975 - fullest com¬ ment). There are modern edns. of The Revenger's Tragedy (which used to be ascribed to Tourneur) by R. A. Foakes (1966) and B. Gibbons (1967). The best examination of the tragedies is by Samuel Schoenbaum (1955); for the comedies see W'ilbur D. Dunkel (1925). Other recent critical studies are by R. H. Barker (1958), D. M. Holmes (1970) and Dorothy M. Farr (1973). See also B. Gibbons, Jacobean City Comedy (1968), and for a largely statistical determination of the Middleton canon David J. Lake (1975). T. S. Eliot’s essay in For Lancelot Andrewes (1928) is reprinted in his Selected Essays (1932). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975) by S. Schoenbaum. {NCBEL, i, 1646 f.)

JOHN WEBSTER

(i58o?-i634?). Standard edn. by F. L. Lucas (4 vols., 1927).

Useful separate edns.: ot The White Devil by John Russell Brown (i960, rev. 1966), E. Brennan (1964) and C. Hart (1970); of The Duchess of Malfi by John Russell Brown (1964), E. Brennan (1964) and C. Hart (1972); and

The principal writers

89

of The Devil’s Lawcase by F. A. Shirley (1972). Convenient one-vol. paperback ed. of these three plays by D. C. Gunby (1972). Excellent short introd. by Clifford Leech (1951). The early studies by Elmer E. Stoll (1905) and Rupert Brooke (1916) are still of interest; more critically ambitious are those by Travis Bogard (1955), P. B. Murray (1969) and R. Berry (1972; ‘baroque’ approach). Elaborate Erench study by F. Lagarde (1968). More specialized are G. Boklund’s examinations of the sources (White Devil, 1957; Duchess of Malfi, 1962), and S. Sternlicht on the imagery (1972); R. W. Dent’s meticulous Webster’s Borrowing (i960) is indispensible if disconcerting. Collections of modern critical essays, ed. G. K. and S. K. Hunter (1969), B. Morris (1970) and R. Holdsworth (1974); and on Duchess of Malfi alone, ed. N. Rabkin (1968). On criticism of Webster, 1617-1964, see D. D. Moore, Webster and his Critics (1966). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama (1975), by Inga-Stina Ewbank. (NCBEL,

I,

1697 f.)

PHINEAS FLETCHER

(1582-1650) and

GILES FLETCHER (i588?-i623).

Poetical

works, ed. F. S. Boas (2 vols., 1908-09; no notes). Phineas’s, Venus and Anchises and other poems, ed. Ethel Seaton (1926; with commentary). Giles’s poems, ed. D. C. Sheldon (1938). For Phineas, see Abram B. Langdale (1937), and for both, see Joan Grundy, The Spenserian Poets (1969). (NCBEL,

I,

1187, 1190.)

EDWARD HERBERT, BARON HERBERT OF CHERBURY

(1583-1648). Poems, ed.

G. C. Moore Smith (1923); plain texts in Minor Poets, ed. R. G. Howarth (1931). Autobiography, ed. Sidney Lee (1886, rev. 1906). De Religione Laid, ed. and trans. by H. R. Hutcheson (1944). See M. M. Rossi (3 vols., Florence, 1947) for enormously detailed account (in Italian) of life, writings, and intellectual background. (NCBEL, i, 13 ii f.) PHILIP MASSINGER

(1583-1640). Last complete edn. by William Gifford

(1805, etc.). The Mermaid edn. (introd. by Arthur Symons, 2 vols., 1887-89) prints ten plays, L. A. Sherman’s (1912) only four. A New Way to Pay Old Debts, ed. A. H. Cruickshank (1926), has some notes, but more up-to-date is the edn. by T. W. Craik (1964), who has also ed. The CityMadam (1964). There is an edn. of The Fatal Dowry by T. A. Dunn (1969), and one of Beggars Bush (by Massinger and Fletcher) by J. H. Dorenkamp (1967). T. S. Eliot’s brilliant essay in The Sacred Wood (1920) was originally a review of Cruickshank’s modest study (1920), which has now been superseded by that of Thomas A. Dunn (1957). Two short studies by D. S. Lawless (1967; 1968, gathering Massinger’s poems).

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

go

See also B. Maxwell’s Studies in Beaumont, Fletcher and Massinger (1939). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama by S. Schoenbaum (1975). (NCBEL, I. 1703 f-)

THE ENGLISH BIBLE

(Authorized Version, 1611). A. W. Pollard’s Records of

the English Bible (1911) is the basic modern work. Pollard has also ed. Tindale’s earliest version (1926) and a facsimile of the Authorized Version (1911). The English Hexapla (1841, rev. 1872) printed the New Testament in the original Greek and in the Wyclif, Tindale, Cranmer, Geneva, Rheims, and 1611 versions. The best general account is F. F. Bruce, The English Bible (1961, rev. 1970). On biblical translation, see E. E. Willoughby on The Making of the English Bible (1956), and A. C. Par¬ tridge’s more general study (1973). The literary influence of the Bible is discussed by David Daiches (1941) and in the collections ed. by Margaret B. Crook (1937) and V. F. Storr (1938). C. S. Lewis has a persuasive essay arguing against any literary influence of the A.V. in They Asked for a Paper (1962). {NCBEL, i, 1825 f.) FRANCIS

BEAUMONT

(l585?-l6l6)

and

JOHN

FLETCHER

(l 579--1625).

Collected plays: ed. A. H. Bullen and others (Fan'orMw edn.,with separate introd. and notes, 4 vols., 1904-12; only twenty plays, the ed. was never completed); ed. A. Glover and A. R. Waller (10 vols., 1905-12; complete, but no notes); a textually meticulous but unannotated edition of all the plays in the canon is now in progress under the supervision of Fredson Bowers (vol. i, 1966, six plays; vol. ii, 1970; five plays). Selected plays by J. St. Loe Strachey (Mermaid series, 2 vols., 1904; ten plays, no notes). Useful modern single edns.: The Knight of the Burning Pestle, A. Gurr (1968); M. Hathaway (1969); The Maid's Tragedy, H. B. Norland (1968), A. Gurr (1969); A King and No King, R. K. Turner (1964); Philaster, A. Gurr (1969); The Woman’s Prize, G. B. Ferguson (1966). A recent critical study is by Clifford Leech (1962); a more thorough and original work is Eugene M. Waith’s The Pattern of Tragicomedy in Beaumont and Fletcher (1952). See also B. Maxwell, Studies in Beaumont, Fletcher and Massinger (1939) and J. Danby, Poets on Fortune's Hill (1952). The most recent study of the Fletcher plays is by Nancy Cotton Pearse (1973). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama by Michael Taylor (1975). {NCBEL, I,

1709 f.)

WILLIAM DRUMMOND

(1585-1649). Poetical works (with A Cypresse Grove),

ed. L. E. Kastner (Scottish Text Society, 2 vols., 1913 ; the definitive edn.). Critical studies by F. R. Fogle (1952), and of the poems by E. Paganelli

The principal writers

91

(1972) in Italian. See also R. H. MacDonald’s annotated catalogue of Drummond’s library (1971). (NCBEL, i, 1188.) JOHN FORD

(1586-1639). Collected plays, ed. without notes by W. Bang

and H. de Vocht (2 vols., Louvain, 1908-27). The Mermaid selection (1888) gives five plays (no notes; introd. by Havelock Ellis). Useful modern single edns.: The Broken Heart, B. Morris (1965), D. K. Anderson (1968); Tis Pity She’s a Whore, N. W. Bawcutt (1966), B. Morris (1968), D. Roper (1975; full notes); Perkin Warbeck, D. K. Anderson (1966), P. Ure (1968). Convenient one-vol. paperback edn. of these three plays by K. Sturgess (1970). T. S. Eliot’s essay is in his Selected Essays (1932). A good general account has been provided in French by Robert Davril (Paris, 1954), and there are sound critical introds. by L. J. Oliver (1955) and Clifford Leech (1957). The most recent critical study is by M. Stavig (1968). F. M. Burelbach has ed. the non-dramatic works (1965). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama by Inga-Stina Ewbank (1975). (NCBEL, i, 1721 f.) THOMAS

(1588-1679). Leviathan (1946; stimulating introd.

HOBBES

by

Michael Oakeshott). See also S. Mintz’s interesting The Hunting of Leviathan (1962). The critical writings appear in J. E. Spingarn’s collection (vol. Il, 1908). The best short introd. is that by R. Peters (1956), and there is a good account of Hobbes’s aesthetic doctrine by C. D. Thorpe (1940). Collection of Hobbes studies assembled by K. C. Brown (1965). See also D. G. James, The Life of Reason (1949). Bibliography by Hugh Macdonald and Mary Hargreaves (1952). {NCBEL, i, 2325 f.) GEORGE WITHER

(1588-1667). Works, reprinted by the Spenser Society

(21 vols., 1872-85). Early verse, ed. Frank Sidgwick (2 vols., 1902; good biographical introd.). Wither’s later career is described by C. S. Hensley (1969). See also Joan Grundy’s The Spenserian Poets (1969), and Coburn Freer’s Music For a King (1972; on Wither’s versions of the Psalms). {NCBEL,

I,

1191.)

WILLIAM BROWNE

(i59o?-i645). Complete works, ed. W. Carew Hazlitt

(2 vols., 1868-69). Poems ed. by Gordon Goodwin (2 vols., 1894). Inner Temple Masque, ed. with good introd. by Gwyn Jones (1954). See Joan Grundy’s The Spenserian Poets (1969). {NCBEL, i, 1195.) ROBERT HERRICK

(1591-1674). Poems: ed. F. W. Moorman (1915); but

the definitive edn. is by L. C. Martin (1956; reissued without notes, etc., 1965); J. Max Patrick’s edn. (1963) is also complete, occasional footnotes.

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

92

Early studies by F. W. Moorman (1910) and F. Delattre (1911; in French). Modern criticism of Herrick starts with S. Musgrove’s stimulating short book (1950); fuller studies by John Press (1961), R. B. Rollin (1966), and R. H. Deming, Ceremony and Art (1974). There is a pleasant life by Marchette Chute, Two Gentle Men (i960) and a rather uncritical one by G. W. Scott (1974). Concordance by Malcolm MacLeod (1936). (NCBEL, I,

1196.)

HENRY KING

(1592-1669). Definitive edn. of the poems

by

Margaret Crum

(1965). See also R. Berman, Henry King and the Seventeenth Century (1964). {NCBEL, GEORGE HERBERT

I,

1199.)

(1593-1633). Works, ed. F. E. Hutchinson (1941, rev.

1945; the definitive edn.). Latin poems, ed. Mark McCloskey and Paul R. Murphy (1965; Latin-English parallel texts). Two interesting selections have introds. by R. S. Thomas (1967) and W. H. Auden (1973). Pleasant life by Marchette Chute, Two Gentle Men (i960). There are good critical studies by Rosemond Tuve (1952), Margaret Bottrall (1954), J. H. Summers (1954), Mary Ellen Rickey, Utmost Art (1966), Arnold Stein (1968), V. Poggi (1967 in italian), and Mark Taylor (1974), and Helen Vendler (1975; the best so far). Modern criticism of Herbert begins in William Empson’s brilliant if erratic Seven Types of Ambiguity (1930); T. S. Eliot’s contribution to the British Council’s Writers and Their Work series (1963) was rather conventional. On the influence of the Psalms, see Coburn Freer, Music for a King (1971). Concordance by Cameron Mann (1927); bibliography by G. H. Palmer (1911). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Poetry, by Margaret Bottrall (1971). {NCBEL, i, 1201 f.) IZAAK WALTON

(1593-1683). The Compleat Walton, ed. Geoffrey Keynes

(1929; no notes). For a detailed examination of Walton’s Lives, see D. Novarr (1958). Sound general study by Margaret Bottral (1968), and a weighty one (in French) by F. Costa (1973). See also J. R. Cooper, The Art of The Compleat Angler (1968). Bibliography by B. S. Horne (1970). {NCBEL,

I,

2222.)

THOMAS CAREW

(i595?-i64o). Poems, ed. Rhodes Dunlap (1949; standard

edn. but somewhat uncritical); unannotated in Minor Poets, ed. R. G. Howarth (1931, rev. 1953). Critical study by E. I. Selig (1958); see also Louis L. Martz, The Wit of Love (1969). For detailed information about Carew’s masque Coelum Britannicum, see Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong on Inigo Jones (1973). {NCBEL, i, 1207.)

The principal writers

JAMES SHIRLEY

93

(1596-1666). Only Complete edn. is still Gifford and Dyce

(6 vols., 1833). Six plays in Mermaid series (ed. E. Gosse, 1888). Modern edn. of The Traitor by J. S. Carter (1965). Scholarly study by Arthur H. Nason (1915). {NCBEL, i, 1725 f.)

JOHN EARLE

(i6oi?-i665). Micro-cosmographie, ed. H. Osborne (1933;

many notes). {NCBEL, 1, 2044.) WILLIAM HABiNGTON

(1605-1654). Standard edn. of poems by Kenneth

Allott (1948). {NCBEL, i, 1208.)

SIR THOMAS BROWNE

(1605—1682). The Only complete edn., by Geoffrey

Keynes (6 vols., 1928-31, rev., 4 vols., 1964), is without notes; it includes Browne’s letters. The edn. by L. C. Martin (1964) has an excellent com¬ mentary, but omits Vulgar Errors. Of Religio Medici there are reliable edns. by Jean-Jacques Denonain (1953 and 1959; important for text, no ex¬ planatory notes) and James Winny (1963; useful notes). Convenient selections by Geoffrey Keynes (1968; full but not annotated), N. Endicott (1968; useful notes), and R. H. A. Robbins (1972; annotated). Critical studies by William P. Dunn (1926, rev. 1950), Joan Bennett (1962), and L. Nathanson, Strategy of Truth (1967). There is also a study in French by Denonain (1959), and a collection of special studies by Robert Cawley and George Yost (1965). J. N. Wise discusses Religio Medici in the light of contemporary comment hy Kenelm Digby and Alexander Ross (1973). For life see O. Leroy (1931), Jeremiah Finch (1950), and F. L. Huntley (1962). Bibliography by Geoffrey Keynes (1924, rev. 1968). {NCBEL, i, 2228 f.) SIR WILLIAM DAVENANT

(1606-1668). Definitive new edn. includes Gondi-

bert, ed. D. F. Gladish (1971) and shorter poems, ed. A. M. Gibbs (1972). Uncritical edn. plays by J. Maidment and W. H. Logan (5 vols., 1872-74). The Seige of Rhodes, ed. Ann-Mari Hedback (1973). Studies by Alfred Harbage (1935) and, somewhat fuller, by Arthur H. Nethercot (1938); also one in German by L. Honnighausen (1965). Howard S. Collins has a book on the comedies (1967). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama by H. Neville Davies (1975). {NCBEL, i, 1208.) EDMUND WALLER

(1606-1687). Standard edn. of poems by G. Thorn-

Drury (2 vols., 1893). Critical edn. in preparation by P. R. Wikelund. Short evasive critical study hy A. W. Allison (1962); more extensive is Warren L. Chernaik, Poetry of Limitation (1968). See also John Buxton, A

94

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

Tradition of Poetry (1967). Dr Johnson’s Life is in Lives of the Poets (1781). {NCBEL,

I,

1211 f.)

SIR RICHARD FANSHAWE

(1608-1666). Good selection of shorter poems and

translations ed. N. W. Bawcutt (1964). The translation of II Pastor Fido has been ed. by W. F. Staton and W. E. Simeone (1964), and that of the Lusiad by G. Bullough (1963). See also John Buxton’s A Tradition of Poetry (1967). {NCBEL, i, 1741.) THOMAS FULLER

(1608-1661). Modern edn. of Worthies of England by

J. Freeman (1952; shortened). Edn. of Holy and Profane State by M. G. Walten (1938); study by W. E. Houghton (1938). Lives by D. B. Lyman (1935) and W. Addison (1951). {NCBEL, I, 2233 f.) JOHN MILTON

Editions.

(1608-1674).

The only complete Milton is the Columbia edition (general

editor F. A. Patterson, 20 vols., 1931-40), which records the textual variants and has an excellent index (2 vols., 1940) but no introduction or explana¬ tory notes; there are English translations of the Latin works as well as the original texts. For the prose, the Yale edn. (gen. ed. D. M. Wolfe, each volume with a separate ed.; still in progress, 1953-

) is definitive, if often

over-elaborate. For the poems, the complete and fully annotated ed. by John Carey and Alastair Fowler (1968) is the most useful; Douglas Bush’s edn. (1966) of the Complete Poetical Works has shorter but perspicacious footnotes. Merritt Y. Hughes’s one-vol. Complete Poems and Major Prose (1957) elaborates Hughes’s earlier edn. of the poems alone (2 vols., 193537). Hughes gives full but uncritical introds. and short footnotes, with over 400 pages of the prose (including translations without the Latin of the Prolusions and parts of the Christian Doctrine). Two detailed edns. for schools are now in progress: the New Cambridge (gen. ed. J. B. Broadbent, 1972-

) and the Macmillan (gen. ed. C. A. Patrides, 1972-

), both being

divided into short volumes with full notes and commentary. They are not likely however to supersede A. W. Verity, Cambridge Milton for Schools, II vols., 1891-96 {Paradise Lost, rev. 1910), a miracle of hard-headed compression, which still deserves frequent consultation even by expert Miltonists. A one-volume edition is now promised. Of the unannotated editions, those of Helen Darbishire (2 vols., 1952-55, i vol. 1958) and B. A. Wright (1956) are of special interest because the spelling is emended - but differently by each - to conform to Milton’s presumed intentions. H. F. Fletcher’s facsimile edition (4 vols., 1943-48) prints photographic repro¬ ductions of all the early editions and manuscripts of the poems. There are

The principal writers

95

useful annotated selections of Milton’s prose by J. Max Patrick (1967) and by C. A. Patrides (1974; good bibliography). Handy separate edns.: Facsimile of Trinity College MS edited by W. Aldis Wright (1899) and by F. A. Patterson (1933). 1645 Poems, ed. Cleanth Brooks and J. E. Hardy (1951; facsimile text with elaborate, often fanciful, critical interpretations) Sonnets: ed. J. S. Smart (1921); E. A. J. Honigmann (1966; more notes than Smart). Dramatic poems, ed. Geoffrey and Margaret Bullough (1958); Comus, ed. F. T. Prince (1968); Samson Agonistes, ed. F. T. Prince (1957), and Isabel MacCaffrey (1966). Facsimile of MS of Paradise Lost, Book I, ed. Helen Darbishire (1931). Lycidas, ed. S. Elledge (1966; with collected comment); Areopagitica and Of Education, ed. Kathleen Lea (1973); Areopagitica, ed. J. W. Hales (1878), R. C. Jebb (1918), and J. C. Suffolk (1968); Correspondence and Prolusions, ed. and translated by E. M. W. and P. B. Tillyard (1932). Biography and reference.

The Victorian life by David Masson (6 vols.,

1859-80; rev. of first three vols. and index 1881-96) is useful for its mass of background information. It needs supplementing today by the ex¬ haustive Life Records of Milton, ed. J. Milton French (5 vols., 1949-58). The illuminating and entertaining early lives have been ed. by Helen Darbishire (1932). A sound modern biography is James H. Hanford, John Milton, Englishman (1949), though it has now been superseded by W. R. Parker, Milton: a biography (2 vols., 1966). On Milton at Cambridge, see H. F. Fletcher, Intellectual Development of Milton (2 vols., 1956-61), and on Milton in Italy, J. Arthos, Milton and the Italian Cities (1968). J. H. Hanford’s indispensable Milton Handbook (1926; rev. J. G. Taafe 1970) prints autobiographical passages, extracts from early lives, etc., and summarizes recent Milton literature. A more elaborate work of reference is D. H. Stevens, Reference Guide to Milton (1930; supplement to 1957 by C. Huckabay, i960, rev. 1969), which lists everything of interest after 1800. Milton Dictionary by E. S. Le Comte (1961); geographical dictionary by A. H. Gilbert (1919). Early concordance by J. Bradshaw (1894); modern concordance to Milton’s English poetry by W. Ingram and K. Swaim (1972). There are two journals devoted to Milton studies: the Milton Quarterly (formerly Newsletter-, 1967(1969-

), and the annual Milton Studies

).

General comment.

A Variorum Commentary on Milton is in progress, under

the general editorship of M. Y. Hughes: already published are vol. i (Latin, Greek and Italian Poems; 1970), vol. ii (Minor English Poems; 3 vols., 1972), and vol. iv {Paradise Regained; 1974). Among the many short general introductions to Milton, the more helpful include those by K. Muir (1955), D. Daiches (1957; rev. 1959), D. Bush (1964), E. M. W. Tillyard

96

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

(1930; rev. 1966), John Carey (1969; less sympathetic than some), M. H. Nicolson’s Reader’s Guide (1963), Lois Potter’s Preface (1971; illustrated), and the various short guides to different works by A. Rudrum (1966-69). Interesting general studies are E. M. W. Tillyard (1951), D. C. Allen, The Harmonious Vision (1954), L. L. Martz, The Paradise Within (1964), N. Frye (1965), G. Williamson (1965), M. Y. Hughes (1965), B. Rajan, The Lofty Rhyme, (1970), R. W. Condee (1974); concentrating on the minor poems are those by Rosemond Tuve (1957), J. Reesing (1968), and J. B. Leishman’s learned posthumous study (ed. G. Tillotson, 1969). The ‘baroque’ approach is put to good account by Roy Daniels (1963). The early criticism of Milton has been gathered by J. T. Shawcross in the Critical Heritage series: vol. i (1628-1731; 1970), vol ii {1732-1801; 1972). James Thorpe’s anthology of Milton criticism (1950) gives speci¬ mens from Addison, Johnson, and others down to Raleigh, Stoll, Ransom, Grierson, Charles Williams, and T. S. Eliot, but F. R. Leavis’s brilliant depreciation in his Revaluation (1936) is omitted. W. R. Parker (1940) discusses Milton’s contemporary reputation, J. A. Wittreich has gathered Romantic comment

on Milton (1970), J.

G.

Nelson,

The Sublime

Puritan (1963) examines Victorian attitudes; various specialists’ theories are attacked in Robert M. Adams, Ikon: Milton and the modern critics (1955), and twentieth-century criticism of Milton is considered in P. Murray, Milton, the Modern Phase (1969). Marcia R. Pointon, Milton and English Art (1970) is an interesting study of Milton’s illustrators. Useful specialist studies includes Charles G. Osgood, Classical Mythology of Milton’s English Poems (1900, rev. 1925), Robert Bridges (final rev. 1921) and S. E. Sprott (1953) both on Milton’s prosody, F. T. Prince (1954) on Italian influences on style and verse, R. D. Emma on Milton’s grammar (1964), R. O. Evans on his elisions (1966), and Mindele Treip on the punctuation (1970). W. J. Grace has examined Milton’s ideas (1968); see also H. Schultz, Milton and Forbidden Knowledge (1955). Collected comment by A. S. P. Woodhouse, ed. H. MacCallum (1972). The Living Milton, ed. Frank Kermode (i960), a symposium by ten young English critics, provides an excellent introd. to the modern view of Milton. The American point of view may be sampled in the continuous miscellany Milton Studies, ed. James D. Simmonds (vol. vi reached 1975). Other useful collections of critical essays on Milton by A. G. Barker (1965), L. L. Martz (1966), C. A. Patrides (1967; useful bibliographies), A. Rudrum (1968), J. H. Summers (on the lyric and dramatic works, 1965), R. D. Emma and J. T. Shawcross (on language and style, 1968), W. B. Hunter, C. A. Patrides and J. H. Ademson, Bright Essence (1971; on Milton’s theology).

The principal writers Comment on ‘Paradise Lost’.

97 The best critical discussions are C. S. Lewis,

Preface (1942) and A. J. A. Waldock, P.L. and its Critics (1947; persuasive reinterpretation via an attack on Tillyard, Lewis, etc.), J. B. Broadbent (i960), J. Peter (i960), William Empson {Milton's God, 1961, rev. 1965; perverse but stimulating), Christopher Ricks (1963; lively and acute study of style), Helen Gardner (1965), Dennis H. Burden, The Logical Epic (1967; a convincing reinterpretation). More recent specialist studies proliferate; among those concentrating on the structure, style and poetic method are A. Stein, Answerable Style (1953), J. L Cope (1962), J. H. Summers, The Muse’s Method (1962), Anne D. Ferry (1963), W. Shu¬ maker, Unpremeditated Verse (1967), S. E. Fish, Surprised by Sin (1967), B. J. Webber (1971), C. Grose (1973). Those concentrating on the mythological and symbolic aspects are J. Whaler (1956), Isabel MacCaffrey (1959), C. A. Patrides (1966; Christian themes), W. G. Madsen, From Shadowy Types to Truth (1968), L. Ryken, The Apocalyptic Vision (1970). On Milton’s portrayal of the epic hero, see P. Hagin (1964) and two studies by J. M. Steadman (1967, 1968). B. Rajan, P.L. and the Seventeenth Century Reader (1947) is useful for contemporary comment. Interesting background studies are W. Kirkconnell on analogues of the Fall story (1952), J. E. Duncan on discussions of Eden (1972), R. H. West on angel lore (1955), J. H. Sims (1962) and J. M. Evans (1968) on the biblical background, and D. P. Harding, The Club of Hercules (igGz) on the classical background. Collections of mainly modern critical essays, ed. C. A. Patrides (1968), B. Rajan (1969), T. Kranidas (1969), A. E. Dyson and Julian Lovelock (1973). Paradise Regained: most helpful studies are those by A. Stein, Heroic Knowledge (1957), Barbara K. Lewalski, Milton’s Brief Epic (1966) and B. J. Weber (1975; on structure). On Samson Agonistes: W. R. Parker’s analysis of the Greek influences (1937), F. M. Krouse (1949), Sister Miriam Clare (1964), W. Kirkconnell, That Invincible Samson (1964; a collection of analogues) and A. Low (1974); also collections of critical essays, ed. R. E. Hone (1966) and G. iVl. Crump (1968). Critical essays on both Paradise Regained and Samson Agonistes, ed. J. A. Wittreich, Calm of Mind (1971), and B. Rajan, The Prison and the Pinnacle (1973). On Comus: short study by J. Arthos (1954), fuller by J. Blondel (1964; in French), J. G. Demeray (1968), but the fullest study is A. Fletcher, The Transcendental Masque (1971). Collected comment by J. S. Diekhoff (1968), and collected comment on Comus and Samson Agonistes, ed. J. Lovelock (1974); see also W. Kirkconnell, Awake the Courteous Echo (1973) for analogues of Comus, Lycidas and Paradise Regained. Collected comment on Lycidas, ed. C. A. Patrides (1961). There is some discussion of Milton’s

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

98

prose works in D. M. Wolfe, Milton and the Puritan Revolution (1941); M. Kelly, This Great Argument (1941); A. Barker, Milton and the Puritan Dilemma 1641-60 (1942); M. J. Fixler, Milton and the Kingdoms of God (1964); J. Halkett, Milton and the Idea of Matrimony (1970); and a study by K. W. Stavely (1976). Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Poetry (1971), by Douglas Bush. (NCBEL, i, if.) SIR JOHN SUCKLING

(1609-1642). Critical edn. of non-dramatic works by

T. Clayton (1971); plays, ed. L. A. Beaurline (1971). Also useful are the edns. by H. Berry (i960) and R. G. Howarth in Minor Poets of the Seven¬ teenth Century (rev. 1953; no notes). {NCBEL, i, 1213.) SIR

THOMAS

URQUHART

(1611-1660). Works, ed. T. Maitland (1834).

Translation of Rabelais, ed. Charles Whibley (3 vols., 1900). Short selec¬ tion by J. Purves (1942; brief notes) and a more recent one by R. Boston (1975). {NCBEL,

I,

RICHARD CRASHAW

2236.) (1612/13-1649). Standard edn. of poems by L. C.

Martin (1927, rev. 1957; useful notes). More recent edn. by George W. Williams (1970); the selection by M. Cayley (1972) has no notes. There is a first-class critical study of Crashaw by Austin Warren (1939); Ruth C. Wallerstein (1935) is learned but rather heavy going. Other critical studies by Mary Ellen Rickey (1961) and George W. Williams (1963). See also Mario Praz, The Flaming Heart (1958), L. L. Martz, The Wit of Love (1969), and Robert T. Petersson, The Art of Ecstasy (1970). On Crashaw’s translation of Marino, see Claes Schaar (1971). {NCBEL, i, 1214 f.) JOHN CLEVELAND

(1613-1658). Critical edn. of poems by B. Morris and

E. Withington (1967); bibliography of poems by B. Morris (1967). General study by Lee A. Jacobus (1975). {NCBEL, i, 1304.)

JEREMY TAYLOR

(1613-1667). The authoritative study is by C. J. Stranks

(1952). There is a pleasant anthology of Taylor’s purple patches by Logan Pearsall Smith (1930). Study by H. Trevor Hughes (i960). Bibliography (to 1700) by R. Gathorne-Hardy and W. P. Williams (1971). {NCBEL, i, 1984.)

HENRY MORE

(1614-1687). Selected poems: ed. M. H. Howard (1911;

with Richard Ward’s life of More); ed. Geoffrey Bullough (1931; with notes and good introd.). Selected philosophical writings, ed. F.

1. Mac-

The principal writers

99

Kinnon (1925). Sudies by A. Lichtenstein (1962) and S. Hutin (1966; in French). {NCBEL, i, 2334 f.) ABRAHAM COWLEY

(1618-1667). English writings, ed. A. R. Waller (2 vols.,

1905-06; no introd. or notes). Essays, ed. J. R. Lumby (1887, rev. A. Tilley, 1923); ed. A. B. Gough (1915). Selected poetry and prose, ed. L. C. Martin (1949); selected poems, ed. John Sparrow (1926). Annotated edn. of The Civil War by A. Pritchard (1973). There is an elaborate French study by Jean Loiseau (1931), and a German one by U. Suerbaum (1958). R. B. Hinman

(i960)

has

expounded

Cowley’s

intellectual

achievement.

Biography by Arthur H. Nethercot (1931) has not superseded Dr John¬ son’s Life in Lives of the Poets (1781). (NCBEL, i, 1219 f.) RICHARD

LOVELACE

(1618-1657?). Standard edn. of poems by C. H.

Wilkinson (2 vols., 1925; rev. i vol., 1930). Unannotated ed. in Minor Poets of the Seventeenth Century, ed. R. G. Howarth (1931). Early study by C. H. Hartmann, The Cavalier Spirit (1925). See also H. M. Richmond, The School of Love (1964). (NCBEL, i, 1221.) ANDREW MARVELL

(1621-1678). Standard edn. by H. M. Margoliouth

(1927; 3rd edn. rev. Pierre Legouis and E. E. Duncan-Jones, 1971; good notes and commentary). Other useful annotated edns. of complete poems: G. de F. Lord (1968); Elizabeth Story Donno (1972). Lyrics, ed. Hugh MacDonald (1952; short notes). Annotated selections: Dennis Davison (1952); J. H. Summers (1961); J. Winny (1962); F. Kermode (1967); Paoli Gulli’ Pugliatti (1967; commentary in Italian). Latin poetry ed. William A. McQueen and Kiffin A. Rockwell (1964; with commentary). The Rehearsal Transpos'd, ed. D.

1. B. Smith (2 parts, 1971). The most

scholarly study is by Pierre Legouis (in French, 1928; shorter English version 1964, rev. 1968). The short critical interpretation by Muriel C. Bradbrook and M. G. Lloyd Thomas (1940) can now be supplemented by J. B. Leishman’s learned poem by poem exposition (1966) and Harold E. Toliver’s Marvell's Ironic Vision (1965). For a discussion (in German) of Marvell’s imagery, see K. Hofman (1967). Useful expositions of Marvell’s ‘pastoral art’ by Donald M. Friedman (1970) and Patrick Cullen (1970). There are other interesting studies of the poetry by Ann E. Berthoff (The Resolved Soul, 1970) and Rosalie L. Colie (‘My Ecchoing Song', 1970). Ruth Wallerstein’s Studies in Seventeenth Century Poetic (1950) is partly on Marvell; see also Ruth Nevo, The Dial of Virtue (1963) and J. M. Wallace, DeiAwjy His Choice (1968; on Marvell’s loyalism). There are good anthologies of critical essays ed. G. de F. Lord (1968) and

A Renaissance reading list 1500-1650

lOO

Michael Wilding (1969), and an excellent critical anthology from the seventeenth century to the present day ed. John Carey (1969). Concordance to the English poems by George R. Guffey (1974). {NCBEL, i, 1222 f.) HENRY VAUGHAN

(1622-1695). Standard edn. by L. C. Martin (2 vols., 1914,

enlarged i vol. 1958; notes). Another good complete edn. by French Fogle (1964). E. L. Marilla’s edn. of the secular poems (1958) has extensive notes, if many of them irrelevant. Martin’s edn. in the Oxford Standard Authors series (1964) includes all the poems and some prose but has no explanatory notes. Annotated selection by Christopher Dixon (1967). There is an excellent life by F. E. Hutchinson (1947) and competent critical studies by Ross Garner (1959 and 1963), E. C. Pettet (i960), R. A. Durr (1962), M. Leardi (1967; in Italian) and J. D. Simmonds, Masques of God (igjz). Elizabeth Holmes (1932) has investigated Vaughan’s Hermeticism. See also L. L. Martz The Paradise Within (1964). Bibli¬ ography by E. L. Marilla (1948); concordance to Silex Scintillans by I. Tuttle (1969). {NCBEL, I, 1230 f.) THOMAS STANLEY

(1625-1678). Definitive edn.

of

poems, original and

translated, by Galbraith M. Crump (1962). NCBEL, i, 1319.)

THE APPROACH TO AUGUSTAN LITERATURE

A common culture The complacency with which the English Augustans regarded their own achievements in poetry and the drama has not been shared by succeeding critics: ‘Dryden and Pope are not classics of our poetry, they are classics of our prose’ (Matthew Arnold); ‘In the seventeenth century a dissociation of sensibility set in, from which we have never recovered’ (T. S. Eliot). The disagreement with Johnson’s view of Pope’s metrics, for example - ‘to attempt any further improvement of versification will be dangerous. Art and diligence have now done their best, and what shall be added will be the effort of tedious toil and needless curiosity’ - is almost total. But Augustan literature makes up in range and coherence what it lacks in glamour. In their several ways at least five of Dryden’s non-literary contemporaries or near-contemporaries (Clarendon, Hobbes, Bunyan, Halifax and Locke) are almost as good writers of prose as he is. And the eighteenth century, if without supreme poets or dramatists, is after all that of our greatest philosopher (Hume), our greatest historian (Gibbon), our greatest political thinker (Burke), and our greatest biographer (Boswell). It was to an exceptional degree a common culture, one based on common assumptions, many of which were literary. And one of them was that the way to serve one’s society, whatever one’s speciality might be, was to write good English. By the end of the eighteenth century it was generally agreed that the English Augustan age par excellence had been the reign of Queen Anne. Originally the analogy had been a political one. The English Civil War (which modern historians are now beginning to call the English Revolu¬ tion) invited an obvious comparison with the last phase of republican Rome, and in these circumstances an English Augustus was not hard to find. To Waller, writing in 1655, he was Cromwell:

The approach to Augustan literature

102

As the vexed world, to find repose, at last Itself into Augustus’ arms did cast; So England now does, with like toil oppressed. Her weary head upon your bosom rest. (‘A Panegyric to My Lord Protector’) In 1660, in Dryden’s ‘Astraea Redux’, the role is as naturally allotted to Charles II: O happy age! O times like those alone By fate reserved for great Augustus’ throne I When the joint growth of arms and arts foreshow The world a monarch, and that monarch you. But the new Augustus’s exact identity was not the real point. The real point was the country’s need for a governmental system which would ensure that a Civil War did not break out again. For reasons that are still not fully understood, the century-old economic inflation suddenly came to an end about 1650, and an English society could therefore be rebuilt on rational but predictable foundations. The new organizing concept was essentially that of equipoise, a Fal^ce of property (the land versus busi¬ ness), a balance of classes (the gentry versus the middling class and the mob), and a_balance of Protestant sects (Anglicanism versus the Dissenters), all reflecting themselves, however imperfectly, in a prevailing political dualism of which the two-party Parliament was only one imperfect aspect. ‘Common sense’ (the ability to distinguish appearance from reality) is the period’s key term at every level. Its opposite, ‘private sense’ or ‘inspiration’, had been the cause of the Civil War; common sense, the rational faculty shared by all human beings except babies and lunatics, was obviously preferable to the emotional and intellectual individualism of the first part of the century. Civil peace was the common concern of all. The linguistic corollary of common sense was a consensus on what should constitute the common usage. Here too the Augustan analogy was invoked. Just as the Latin spoken and written in Augustus’s time had become the model of what all future Latin should be, so the Restoration heralded a conscious campaign to improve English as a medium of general communication. The anonymous author of the extremely intelli¬ gent preface to The Second Part of Mr Waller's Poems {16(^0) - he is thought to have been Francis Atterbury - wonders ‘whether in Charles IPs reign I English did not come to its full perfection; and whether it has not had its I Augustean age as well as the Latin’. This was, apparently, the first time the term Augustan had been used in English and it refers to the English Ian-

A common culture

103

guage. Its extension to English literature was not made until ^712'when I John Oldmixon asserted that Charles II’s reign ‘probably may be the Augustan Age of English Poetry’C The sequence of senses is significant: iTom a political one to a linguistic one, and only then, and finally, from language to literature. The basis of English Augustanism remained political until well into the eighteenth century; it is no accidelit that the ‘neoclassic’ ^Dryden, Swift, Pope, Fielding, and Johnson were Tories, nor that the ‘pre-Romantic’ Addison, Thomson, Gray, Collins, and Cowper were

3^igs. The language, with the new emphasis on ‘correctness’ and ‘perspicuity’, so reflecting the ideals of Tory ‘common sense’, was only one remoye^from_the politics. And Johnson’s great Dictionary of the English Language (1755) is full of Tory wisdom as well as of Tory preju¬ dice. The literature, on the other hand, if two removes from politics, was only one remove from language; Whigs shared most of the same linguistic ideals as Tories, and despite the occasional intrusions of a premature Romanticism, Augustan literature is stylistically remarkably homogeneous. Even Blake has preserved it in ‘To the Muses’. One unifying element - it is, of course, implicit in the Augustan myth - was the general acceptance of Rome as the social model. Latin was far more important than Greek, or indeed my other subject, in the education of the ruling class, and for the budding writer a Latin classic - especially Horace, Virgil, Ovid, and Juvenal among the poets and Cicero among the writers of prose - was always available as a criterion of excellence. The ‘imitation’, a form of free translation with the original allusions adapted to modern circumstances, was one of the most successful poetic inventions of the period; the Horatian imitations of Rochester, Oldham, Dryden, Swift and Pope, and Johnson’s two_Juyenalian satires, in demonstrating the creative possibilities of such parallels, also showed how close the two cultures were in their essential features. And the confidence the Roman Augustans had in their civilizing mission was exactly that of their English imitators. ‘What was said of Rome adorned by Augustus,’ Johnson wrote in his life of Dryden, ‘may be applied by an easy metaphor to English j poetry embellished by Dryden, lateritiam invenit, marmoream reliquit, he ] found it brick, and he leftTt inafble.MBut the ease of the metaphor - from one Augustanism to another - obscured the difference between medium (marble) and embellishment (poetic diction, prosaic elegance).

I

I. Reflections on Dr. Swift’s Letter to the Earl of Oxford about the English (1712, p. 19).

I Tongue

The approach to Augustan literature

104

First aid for the modern reader What then are the questions a modern reader must ask himself when he is reading a later seventeenth- or eighteenth-century poem, play or novel? The first question, to be answered, more or less precisely according to circumstances, is the matter of context. Since Augustan literature is socially committed in a way no other body of English literature has ever been, the modern reader must be at least dimly aware of each work’s original cultural implications if he is to understand^vhat it is about. Most of the Augustan poems that get into the anthologies - Dryden’s ‘Alexan¬ der’s Feast’, for example, or Pope’s ‘Elegy to the Memory of an Unfor¬ tunate Lady’, or Gray’s ‘Ode on the Death of a Favourite Cat’ - owe their place there to their contextual detachability. They are not the period’s best poems, and by the side of Marvell’s or Wordsworth’s lyrics they tend to have a rather shabby or trivial look. Even considered as a tour de force Dryden’s ‘Secular Masque’ is greatly superior to ‘Alexander’s Feast’, but whereas that is a self-sufficient and self-explanatory poem, ‘The Secular Masque’, which is essentially the seventeenth century’s verdict on itself, requires a reader who can transport himself back mentally to the year 1700. Again, Pope’s ‘Epistle to Miss Blount on Her Leaving the Town after the Coronation’ is a much better poem than his ‘Elegy’, but its full appreciation depends on an easy familiarity with the London-versuscountry tradition of Restoration comedy. (The geographical ambivalence derived from the squirearchy’s habit of spending six months every year in London or Westminster and the other six months on their country estates.) And Gray’s ‘Favourite Cat’, engaging though she is, has none of the satiric power of his ‘On Lord Holland’s Seat Near Margate, Kent’, which uses an outdated style of landscape gardening to discredit with damning effect a corrupt and destructive politician who has been ‘dropped’; Art he invokes new horrors still to bring: Now mouldering fanes and battlements arise. Arches and turrets nodding to their fall; Unpeopled palaces delude his eyes. And mimic desolation covers all. A second question that must always be asked the English Augustans is a stylistic one. As Donald Davie has put it in his brilliant Purity of Diction in English Verse (1952), a study which lays for ever the old ghost of ‘poetic diction’ (in the abusive sense that Wordsworth gave the term), the dominant impression created by Augustan poetry is ‘that words are thrust¬ ing at the poem and being fended off from it, that however many poems

First aid for the modern reader

105

these poets wrote certain words would never be allowed into the poems, except as a disastrous oversight’ (p. 5). The Victorians dismissed this stylistic chastity of the eighteenth century as verbal prudery; the contrast with Shakespeare or even BrownmgTvas otivious^ and appeared final. But art is necessarily selective and the only immediate question is the mode or level at which the selection is operating. Thus in drama or the dramatic monologue the dramatis persona’s vocabulary is only limited - has only to to be limited - by the ‘character’ he is supposed to embody. But the typical Augustan, whatever his medium, aimed first of all at concision and

(

("'Concentration, a maximum verbal density in which eyery_word is immediately recognized as necessary; the reader was only left to fill out the verbal implications. ‘Last week I saw a woman flayed, and you will hardly believeTiow mucfrit altered her person for the worse.’ By the side of this characteristic comment of Swift’s (it is, of course, from the Tale of a Tub) one might put Johnson’s tightly packed line from The Vanity of Human Wishes on the various afflictions that a scholar has to expect: Toil, envy, want' the patron, and the jail. Two of Donald Davie’s examples have carried the stylistic process a stage further: So first when Phoebus met the Cyprian queen. And favoured Rhodes beheld their passion crowned. Unusual flowers enriched the painted green. And swift spontaneous roses blushed around. (Shenstone) Urging at noon the slow boat in the reeds That waved their green uncertainty of shade. (Langhorne) Shenstone and Langhorne are minor mid-eighteenth-century poets, but they are here exploiting with great skill the aesthetic elegances possible in the minor distortions of grammar that can be made to assist semantic concision. Shenstone’s flowers were not really unusual or spontaneous, it was their flowering that was; and Langhorne’s boat was not slow but slow-moving, the uncertain shade not the reed’s concern but the boat¬ man’s. Such effects have not been possible in more recent poetry, when the poet has all the words in the English dictionary at his beck and call and is allowed to be as long-winded as he likes. A third question for the modern reader to ask is the nature of the relationship between concreteness and abstraction in the Augustan style.

io6

The approach to Augustan literature

In a literature such as that of the twentieth century, which is primarily concrete, an abstract word or concept is immediately noticed because it is so different from its surroundings. An abstract noun in a poem by Hardy or Yeats, for example, stands out immediately by its difference from the detailed descriptions surrounding it. In Augustan literature the same , principle is at work in reverse. The concrete images protrude because they are so rare. It follows that a mere minimum of concreteness is all that is needed to give vigour to a series of abstractions. Johnson’s line had originally been: Toil, envy, want, the garret, and the gaol. Since gaol is concrete, a second physical image is not essential; patron (displacing garret) can refer back simultaneously to the earlier abstracts, 'when it becomes equivalent to patronage, or forward to the concrete gaol, when it becomes a particular niggardly patron, such as the Earl of Chester¬ field. The principle is the explanation and justification of a favourite Augustan device that the nineteenth century found particularly abhorrent, the device of personification or prosopopoeia. In Gray’s Elegy, especially in its earlier and more specifically Augustan stanzas, the personifications crowd in thick and fast, often with only one concrete appurtenance (usually a verb) to differentiate the personification from a mere abstraction.

But what

effective use Gray makes of his personifications! Let not Ambition mock their useful toil, Their homely joys, and destiny obscure; Nor Grandeur hear, with a disdainful smile. The short and simple annals of the poor. Against the background of generalities - useful toil, homely joys, etc. - the mockery of Ambition and the disdainful smile of Grandeur acquire an unusual particularity. Nor are the personifications mere collective nouns, synonyms of ‘the ambitious’ or ‘the grand’, ‘Grandeur’ is in fact con¬ trasted with ‘the poor’^ and by calling in the allegorical figure to help him make his point. Gray nicely underlines the pretentiousness of the closed circle of the Augustan aristocracy. This quasi-sarcastic use of personifi¬ cation must be distinguished from its ‘pre-Romantic’ or ‘picturesque’ form, in which the poet — Pope in The Temple of Fame, Gray in the Ode on a Distant Prospect of Eton College, and Collins almost everywhere (his Odes are on ‘Several Descriptive and Allegoric Subjects’) - is deliberately competing with the allegoric portraits of popular Italian painters of the seventeenth century like Guido Reni. Picturesque poetry, as Lessing

First aid for the modern reader

107

demonstrated contemporaneously in the masterly Laokobn (1766), is ultimately a contradiction in terms, and this latter mode of personification is often tasteless. But the specifically Augustan personifications simply exploit - at their best with great force and economy - a grammatical characteristic of the English language, viz. that a single noun, however abstract or general, must be followed by a verb in the third person singular. The present indicative tense, simply because it distinguishes between its singular and plural forms, inevitably imposes a degree of personification on the single abstract word. (Compare ‘war begins’ with ‘hostilities commence’.) Horace Walpole’s comment on Gray’s speech compared with the slovenly conversation of the London drawing rooms of the time was that ‘Mr Gray was so circumspect in his usual language that it seemed un¬ natural, though it was only pure English’.^ The case for the best Augustan personifications could be put in precisely those terms; they may at first seem unnatural, but they are really _puxe-E»glish^

The return of love Sir Lewis Namier, the master historian in our time of the English eighteenth century, has used extracts from two letters to illustrate the difference between the House of Commons as it was in Queen Anne’s reign and as it had become at the acce^Ton of George HI. One is from the elder Pitt’s grandfather, the wealthy Governor Pitt of Madras, to his son Robert, a letter written on 16 January 1706: If you are in Parliament, show yourself on all occasions a good English¬ man and a faithful servant to your country. . . . Avoid faction . . . and vote according to your conscience and not for any sinister end what¬ ever. I had rather see any child of mine want than have him get his bread by voting in the House of Commons. Namier’s comment on these admirable sentiments is: This was written after a century of Parliamentary contests over causes which had moved the consciences of men and for which they had ‘died on the scaffold and the field of battle’. Fifty years later the nation was at one in all fundamental matters, and whenever that happy but un¬ inspiring condition is reached. Parliamentary contests lose reality and unavoidably change into a fierce though bloodless struggle for places. I.

The comment occurs in Walpole’s ‘Thoughts on Comedy’ {Works, vol.

II, 1798, p. 321).

The approach to Augustan literature

io8

Namier then quotes his second letter - from Edward Gibbon - on what entering the House of Commons meant in his time: ‘It is to acquire a title the most glorious of any in a free country, and to employ the weight and consideration it gives in the service of one’s friends.’ Namier’s comment follows: ‘In 1706 it was “faithful service to your country”; in 1760 “service of one’s friends.” The community had become atomized and individu¬ alized. . . . ’^ No doubt Namier has overstated the difference. Some public spirit remained in the House of Commons even in 1760 and political corruption was certainly not unknown in 1706. But the trend was what Namier describes, as the different literary climates of opinion in the earlier and later Augustan period amply corroborate. It was a transition from ‘The Age of Satire’ to ‘The Age of Sentiment’. Satire is the most public of the genres. In the hands of SamueJ_Butler, Dryden, and Rochester it corrected the public errors of public figures, and in passing into the prose dialogue of ‘genteel comedy’ as practised by Etherege, Wycherley, Congreve and Vanbrugh it retained much of this public character. With a few un¬ important exceptions the dramatis personae of Restoration comedy are not, of course, the portraits of identifiable individuals; instead the satire is directed via its butts and eccentrics at the whole concept of individualism, the presumed right of any one individual to be noticeably different from other individuals. It is a striking fact that the principal victim of the Restoration dramatists was love, the intensest and most intimate of the private emotions. Love as it emerges from The Country Wife (1675), which I take to be the most characteristic and breathtaking of the Restoration comedies, turns out to be nothing but the sexual instinct. To the clever younger brother, typified by Dorimant in Etherege’s The Man of Mode (1676), the only sensible thing to do with the nuisance of lust was to turn it into the sport of seduction. The metaphors of the chase and the shoot are met by those of flight and flirt on the girl’s part. Indeed, between the letters of Dorothy Osborne to Ternple and those of Mary Wollstonecraft to ImHy, love virtually disappears from even the private levels of English literature. It was the golden age of the bachelor writer: Cowley, Butler, f Oldham, Etherege, Swift, Prior, Congreve, Gay, Pope, Gray, Collins, i Goldsrnith, Cowper and Gibbon - to say nothing of Hobbes, Locke, and Hume - were all unmarried, (The exceptionally unromantic marriages of Dryden, Addison and Johnson only prove the same rule.) Love only returned into literature, apologetically and half-heartedly, via the middle-

I.

The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (vol. i, 1929).

pp. 21,23.

The return of love

109

class reading public and its special middle-class genre of the novel. The Age of Sentiment, which begins very tentatively with the sentimental comedies of Cibber and Steele, c. 1700. was the literary product of that lowermg of.the political temperature described by Namier. As public problems receded, the private life, to which all Non-Conformists (Protes¬ tant and Catholic) were in any case restricted by law, began to loom larger. Of course, if sentimentalism had carried everything before it in the later eighteenth century, it would not be possible to describe its literature as even a modified Augustanism. What distinguishes the period from the nineteenth century is the rearguard resistance that ‘common sense’ con¬ tinued to put up. The term sentimental, apparently the only critical term English criticism contributed at this time to the European stock, was itself a victim almost immediately of a satiric upsurgence. The details are not uninstructive. As used by Richardson and his circle a sentiment was primarily a moral aphorism and to be sentimental was an end in itself - to overflow with emotional morality. ‘What, in your opinion,’ Lady Bradshaigh, an enthusiastic Richardsonian, wrote to Richardson in 1749, ‘is the meaning of the word sentimental, so much in vogue among the polite. . . . Every thing clever and agreeable is comprehended in that word. . . • I am frequently astonished to hear such a one is a sentimental man; we were a sentimental party; I have been taking a sentimental walk.’^ (Unfortunately, Richardson’s answer has not survived.) But if some of ‘the polite’ were using the word in a favourable sense, others, including Horace Walpole (with whom the word was a favourite), were not. For these anti-Richardsonians, to be ‘sentimental’ was at best to be naive and often to be merely over-emotional in a silly way. Considering the vogue both of the sentimen¬ tal novels - though Sterne, whose Sentimental Journey (1768) gave the word its European currency, characteristically mixes a good deal of sex with the emotionalism - and of the sentimental comedies, it is surprising how soon the word acquired its modern pejorative sense. The coup de grace v/as given in the later 1760s and 1770s by a group of dramatists - Goldsmith, Sheridan, George Colman, and Arthur Murphy - with that amiable ‘rnan of sentiment’ Toseph Surface as perhaps the most effective discreditor of them all. Dr Johnson, who refused to include the word sentimental in his Dictionary, is rightly considered the bastion of Augustanism in the later eighteenth century. A dialogue recorded by Boswell between himself and Johnson brings out neatly the subsequent roles of the two men in English literary ideology:

I.

Richardson’s Correspondence, ed. Barbauld, vol. ii (1804), p. 282.

The approach to Augustan literature

no

I maintained that Horace was wrong in placing happiness in nil, admirari; for that I thought admiration one of the most agreeable of all our feelings; and I regretted that I had lost much of my disposition to

^

admire, which people generally do as they advance in life. Johnson. 'Sir, as a man advances in life, he gets what is better than admiration judgment, to estimate things at their true value.’^ A man in love cannot estimate things at their true value.

I.

Life of Johnson, i6 April 1775.

7 AN AUGUSTAN READING LIST 1650-1800

Bibliographies, literary histories and anthologies ■ Bibliographies In both CBEL and NCBEL the second volume is devoted to this period and should always be the research student’s first port of call. They list all the separate publications of the principal writers (over a thousand), all the poetry miscellanies, newspapers, and magazines, and a great deal else, including innumerable books and articles about the period’s literature to c. 1968. For work on the period since^pzj a somewhat fuller bibliography has appeared annually in PO (1925-60 lists reissued with indexes by L. Landa et al., 6 vols., 1950-72), which includes expert comments by American^specialists, those of R.

C[rane] having been especially

instructive. Donald Wing’s remarkable Short- Title Catalosue, 1641-1700 (3 vols., 1945-51; vol.

I

rev. 1972) attempts to list every English publication

within his terminal dates except the periodicals. The eighteenth century has nothing comparable to Wing, though detailed bibliographies exist for some twenty of the principal authors. P. F. Foxon English Bibliosraphtcal iSources (1Q65-66) provides a very useful basis for a post-1700 continuation ^of Wing. (Ser. i reprints the extant trade catalogues of new books to 1737, thus supplementing the last Term Catalogues; it also gives the lists of new books in the Gentleman’s, London and British Magazines to 1766, which sometimes give authorship of books published anonymously.) Foxon’s bibliography of all the 1701-1750 verse (2 vols., 1975) is of exceptional importance because it includes imprint, collation, location of copies, and notes identifying authors of anonymous items, etc. On miscellanies Foxon does not attempt completeness but has useful notes. Of the more specialized bibliographies R. W. Lowe’s admirable Bibliographical Account of English

I

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

II2

Theatrical Literature (1888), now expanded by J. F. Arnot and Robinson (1971) as English Theatrical Literature,

W.

goo, is the most

notable, but C. J. Stratman, Bibliography of_ English Printed Tragedy, 7565-7900(1966) is a useful corrective to the three lists of plays appended to Allardyce Nicoll, Restoration, Early Eighteenth-Century, and Late Eightj eenth-Century Drama respectively (3 vols. 1923-25, rev.

1952). C. N.

Greenough, A Bibliography of the Theophrastan Character in English (1947) ■

also extends into this period.

■ Histories, surveys, criticism Only two of OH EL'?, three volumes projected for the period have so far appeared. These are James Sutherland, English Literature of the Late Seventeenth Century (1969), a pleasantly written introduction that is especially interesting on

Restoration

drama,

and

Bonamy Dobree’s

stylistically elegant but somewhat pedestrian English Literature jn the Early Eighteenth Century (iq=;q). The much shorter The Restoration and Eighteenth Century by George Sherburn, a part of Albert C. Baugh’s [Literary History of England (1948), which is also obtainable separately [ (1967), is much more successful, a model indeed of the literary handbook. I And the even shorter English Literature from Dryden to Burns (1948) by A. D. McKillop can also be recommended. Vol. iv of the Pelican Guide (1957) is competent enough and is especially notable for its avoidance of the Scrutiny excesses of the other vols., and the Sphere vol. iv of its Short History of Literature in the English Language (ed. R. Lonsdale, 1971) is an Oxford equivalent of this and the American handbooks and has somiC really excellent chapters; but the best literary history of the period is still Johnson’s Lives of the Poets (4 vols., 1779-81; standard edn. by G. Birkbeck Hill, 3 vols., 1905; a definitive edn. in preparation by F. W. Hides and others). A more ambitious and more stimulating survey than the hand¬ books provide is Pat Rogers, The Augustan Vision (1974), which covers the period 1688-1760. Eleven miscellanies honour (in the order of their areas \ of special interest in the period) Heibert Grierson (1938), Richard Foster Jones (1951), Louis A. Landa (1971), Arthur E. Case (1952), David Nichol Smith (1945), George Sherburn (1949), William K. Wimsatt (1973), Alan Dugald McKillop (1963), L. F. Powell (1965), F. A. Pottle (1965) and C. B. Tinker (1949). These Festschriften provide much expert specialized literary history, but they also include interesting critical pieces by T. S. Eliot, C. S. Lewis, Maynard Mack, and others. James L. Clifford’s collection. Eighteenth Century English Literature: modern essays in criticism (1959), assembles twenty-one recent articles, mainly from the American

Bibliographies, literary histories and anthologies

113

learned journals. Regrettably. it omits T. S. Eliot’s brilliant survey of mid-

(eighteenth-century poetry (originally the introduction to a 1930 reprint of London and The Vanity of Human Wishes'), as well as Eliot’s more common¬ place essay on ‘Johnson as critic and poet’ in On Poetry and Poets (1957). A similar collection on Restoration drama has been ed. by John Loftis (1966) and on the Augustan background by B. N. Schilling (1965). Three eminently readable critical surveys of the period are George Saintsbury, \iThe Peace of the Augustans (1916), James Sutherland, A Preface^to Eight' eenth-Century Poetry (1948), and Ian

_Augustan Satire (1952); but

the most acute criticism of eighteenth-century poetry since Johnson is Donald Davie, Purity of Diction in English Verse (1952). A recent critical survey of Restoration poetry is David Earley-Hill’s scholarly The Benevo¬ lence of Laughter (1974). Restoration comedy has had a stormy critical career since Charles Lamb’s ‘Elia’ essay (‘On the artificial comedy of the last century’), and the case against it has been effectively reformulated in modern terms in L. C. Knights’s essay in his Explorations (1946). A less jaundiced view is provided by Norman H. Holland, The First Modern Comedies (1959) and Ian Donaldson’s W&ly The World Upside-Down: comedy from Jonson to Fielding (1970). Modern essays on Restoration and early eighteenth-century drama have been collected by John Loftis (1966). A very good book on the novel (primarily on Defoe, Richardson, and Fielding) is Ian Watt’s The Rise of the Novel (1957); A. D. IMcKillop’s sensible The Early Masters of English Fiction (1956) is more of a scholarly guidebook, as inevitably was Miss J. M. S. Tompkins’s intelligent The PopidaLJ^ca)el in England, iyyo-1800 (1932). Finally; R. F. Brissenden, Virtue in Distress (1Q74) surveys the sentimental novel with learning and acuteness. ANTHOLOGIES.

The most valuable is still Joel E. Spingarn, Critical

Essays of the Seventeenth Century (3 vols., 1908-09); Spingarn’s long introd. is much the best general account of Restoration criticism. The fsequel, Eighteenth-Century Critical Essays, ed. Scott Elledge (2 vols., 1961), though useful, is comparatively undistinguished. Alexander Chalmers’s enormous The Works of the English Poets from Chaucer to Cowper (21 vols., 1810) remains indispensable for this period, in spite of the bad print and paper, because it includes the poetical works of so many of the minor English Augustans. Two intelligent shorter selections are Ronald S. Crane, A Collection of English Poems, 1660-1800 (1932) and David Nichol Smith, The Oxford Book of Eighteenth-Century Verse (1926), the latter without notes, etc., which have now been partly superseded by James Sutherland’s well-annotated Early Eighteenth Century Poetry (1965). Donald Davie’s The Late Augustans (1958) is limited to the longer poems and has an

114

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

especially acute critical Introduction. Chalmers also assembled the best of the eighteenth-century essay periodicals in The British Essayists (45 vols., !%!']). British Dramatists from Dryden to Sheridan, ed. G. H. Nettleton and A. E. Case (1939, rev. G. W. Stone 1969), reprints twenty-five plays in critical texts with much useful textual and background material, and is decidedly the best of the modern drama collections, though Leigh Hunt’s {Dramatists of the Restoration (1840), which provided the excuse for I Macaulay’s notorious denunciation of Restoration comedy, is still handy, I in spite of the minute type, because it assembles all the plays of Wycherley, : Congreve, Vanbrugh, and Farquhar. An earlier collection. The British Drama, probably ed. by Sir Walter Scott (5 vols., 1804), has similar uses, since it collects no less than 114 post-Restoration plays. Their modern equivalents are such series as the Regent’s Rfstprafion Drama fgen. ed. John Loftis), the Fountainwells, and the New Mermaids, which have reliable texts and adequate annotation, but are appearing with only one play per voL, each under a separate editor. Though more meagrely anno¬ tated Norman A. Jeffares, Restoration Comedy (4 vols., 1974) spreads its net more widely with twenty-four plays originally produced 1664-1722. Several minor eighteenth-century items, such as John Moore’s Mordaunt and Elizabeth Inchbald’s A Simple Story, are now included in the Oxford English Novels Series (1967-

). Modern essays on Defoe, Richardson,

Fielding and Sterne are assembled by R. D. Spector (1965; good bibli¬ ography appended.) The Augustan Reprint Society has issued facsimiles of out-of-the-way items in the period, each with a scholarly introd. (100 items, 1946-63); the series of more or less forgotten critical pieces are especially valuable. A seven-vol. ed. of the Poems on Affairs of State has come from Yale (1964-75; general editor G. de F. Lord).

Special subjects ■ Miscellaneous John Nichols, Literary Anecdotes of the Eighteenth Century (9 vols., 181215); Illustrations of the Literary History of the Eighteenth Century (8 vols., i8i7-58)- Ragbags of letters, publishers’ ledgers, etc., often of great historical interest. Isaac D’Israeli, Calamities of Authors (2 vols., 1812); Quarrels of Authors (3 vols., 1814). The expert on Grub Street. Thomas Babington Macaulay, Critical and Historical Essays (3 vols., 1843). More than half on this period; originally reviews in the Edinburgh Review. Leslie Stephen, Hours in a Library (3 sers., 1874-79, enlarged 3 vols., 1892,

special subjects

115

1907); History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century (2 vols., 1876); Studies of a Bw^apher (4 vols., 1898-1902); English Literature andSoc 'ety dilphe Eighteenth Century (1904). The best Victorian criticism of the perioQ. Austin Dobson, Eighteenth-Century Vignettes (3 sers., 1892-96); Sidewalk Studies (1902); Old Kensington Palace, and Other Papers (1910); At Prior Park, and Other Papers (1912); Rosalba’s Journal, and Other Papers (1915). All reprinted in the World’s Classics series. Short essays on minor literary figures, special aspects of eighteenth-century social life, etc., often of great brilliance. B. C. Nangle, The Monthly Review (2 vols., 1934-55). Contri¬ butors identified from bthce tile. Elaborate indexes. C. A. Rochedieu, Bibliography of French Translations of English Works iyoo-1800 (1948). A mere booklist, but comprehensive. D. F. Foxon, Libertine Literature in England i66o-iy4‘^ (1964). Scholarly study of (prose) pornography. James S. Malek, The Arts Compared (1974). Aesthetic theorizing in eighteenth century.

■ Poetry and criticism R. P. Bond, English Burlesque Poetry lyoo-iy^o (1932). A. Bosker, Literary Criticism in the Age of Johnson (Groningen 1930, rev. 1953). Samuel H. Monk, The Sublime (1935). Pre-Romantic critical theory. Robert A. Aubin, Topographical Poetry in Eighteenth-Century England (1936). Detailed survey of the loco-descriptive poems. Hoxie N. Fairchild, Religious Trends in English Poetry (6 vols., 1939-68). From an AngloCatholic standpoint. W. J. Bate, From Classic to Romantic (1946). The eighteenth century’s aesthetic premises. John Arthos,

The Language

of Natural Description in Eighteenth-Century Poetry (1949). Paul Fussell, Theory of Prosody in Eighteenth-Century England (1954). Chester F. Chapin,

Personification

in Eighteenth-Century English Poetry

(1955).

Scott Elledge and Donald Shier: The Continental Model (i960). Trans¬ lations of seventeen French critical essays, 1623-88. Geoffrey Tillotson: Augustan Studies (1961). Excellent on poetic diction; some of these essays have now been reprinted separately as Augustan Poetic Diction (1964). K. G. Hamilton, The Two Harmonies (1963). Theories of poetry and prose in the seventeenth century (a very intelligent discussion). A. Mavrocordato, La critique classique en Angleterre de la restauration a la mort de Joseph Addison (1964). M. Price, To the Palace of Wisdom: studies in order and energy from Dryden to Blake (1064). Able if indigestible, v**

•

—'

T. K. Elkin, The Augustan Defence of Satire (1973). Assembles all that the

jfenglish Augustans had to say about satire. Peter Thorpe, EighteenthCentury English Poetry (1975). Unambitious, but with excellent ‘Bibli-

ii6

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

ography’ which fills in gaps with judicious comments and lists articles, old and new, as well as books.

■ Drama Allardyce Nicoll A History of Restoration Dramaj,_jA>6o-i'700

fiQ2't);

A

History of Early Eighteenth-Century Drama, lyoo-iy^o (1925); A History of Later Eighteenth-Century Drama, ly^o~j_8ojy{is^2:yf. Rev. as vqls. i-iii of A History of English Drama (1952). Critically naive, but useful as a work of reference because of its completeness and the information it provides on the theatre. R. D. Hurne, Development of English Drama in the Late Seventeenth Century (1975) is more readable and almost as detailed (it continues to 1710). So too is Arthur Sherbo: English Sentimental Drama

t(i957). W. Van Lennep, E.

L. Avery, A. H. Scouten, G. W. Stone, and

C. B. Hogan, The London Stage 1660-1800 (10 vols., 1960-68) includes a calendar of performances, casts, box office receipts, contemporary com¬ ments, etc. Dugald MacMillan, Drury Lane Calendar iy4y-iyy6 (1938) provides similar material for the period of Garrick’s management. For other periods or theatres, reference may still be made to John Genest’s remarkably thorough Some Account of the English Stage, from 1660 to l8jo (10 vols., 1832). John Loftis is more critical in Comedy and Society from Congreve to Eielding (i960) and The Politics of Drama in Augustan England (1963). ^Three scholarly collections are: L. Hughes and A. H. Scouten (ed.): Ten English Earces (1948). R. W. Bevis (ed.): Eighteenth Century Drama: Afterpieces (1970). S. Trussler (ed.): Burlesque Plays of the Eighteenth Century (1969).

■ Other genres Walter Graham, The Beginnings of English Literary Periodicals, i66^-iyx5 (1926); English Literary Periodicals (1930). Donald A. Stauffer, English Biography before lyoo (1930); The Art of Biography in Eighteenth-Century England (2 vols., 1941). Rene Wellek, The Rise of English Literary History (1941). R. D. Mayo, The English Novel in the Magazines, ly^o-iSi^ (1962).

The principal writers Arranged in order of birth. The NCBEL references are to The New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (ed. G. Watson, 4 vols..

The principal writers

117

1969-74; detailed index in preparation). Shorter bibliographies, with useful comments on recent edns. and studies, exist for major figures in the Oxford Select Bibliographical Guides (ed. A. E. Dyson and Stanley Wells, 1971-75), here abbreviated to Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Poetry, Novels, Drama. The Critical Heritage series of early commentary on each of the more important authors is the only one to receive regular mention below, though outstanding books or booklets in similar series are often given (the publisher’s name for a series may be suppressed).

EDMUND WALLER

EDWARD HYDE,

(1606-1687). See p. 93 above. {NCBEL, 1211-13.)

Earl of Clarendon (1609-1674). History of the Rebellion, ed

W. Dunn Macray (6 vols., 1888); selections, ed. G. Huehns (1955). Standard life by Henry Craik (2 vols., 1911). For critical appreciation see L. C. Knights, Further Explorations (1965). {NCBEL, ii, 1678-82.)

SAMUEL BUTLER

(1613-1680). Collected works, ed. A. R. Waller and Rene

Lamar (3 vols., 1905-28; no notes). Hudibras, ed. J. Wilders (1967; good notes); Characters, ed. C. W. Daves (1971; with notes). Selection, ed. Wilders and H. de Quehen (1973; with notes, includes Hudibras

I, ll

y^complete). Only criticism Edward A. Richards (1937) and the chapter in Ian Jack, Augustan Satire (1952). (NCBEL, ii, 435-7.)

SIR JOHN DENHAM

(1615-1669). Poems, standard ed. T. H. Banks (1928).

Johnson included Denham in The Lives of the Poets (1779-81). (NCBEL,

I,

1217-18.)

JOHN EVELYN

(1620-1706), Diary, ed. E. S. de Beer (6 vols., 1955; com¬

plete and fully annotated); one-volume edn. (1959) omits most notes. Fuither biographical material in W. G. Hiscock, Evelyn and Mrs Godolphin (1951; an affair.?) and Evelyn and His Family Circle (1955). (NCBEL, li, 1580-82.)

JOHN AUBREY

(1626-1697). Brief Lives, bowdlerized ed. by Andrew Clark

(2 vols., 1898); selections, ed. Anthony Powell (1949) and Oliver L. Dick (1949; from manuscripts). Dick’s text has been reprinted with a short preface by Edmund Wilson (1958). Powell’s amusing Aubrey and His Friends (1948) has now been rev. (1963), but much the best book on Aubrey is Michael Hunter’s scholarly Aubrey and the Realm of Learning (1976). (NCBEL,

II,

1682-84.)

ii8

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

SIR ROBERT HOWARD

(1626-1698). H. J. Oliver’s life of Howard (1963) is

careful and scholarly. {NCBEL, ii, 766.) JOHN BUNYAN

(1628-1688). Complete works, ed. G. Offor (3 vols., 1860-

62); ed. R. L. Greaves (13 vols., 1975-

; full notes). Critical edns. of

Grace Abounding by Roger Sharrock (1962), and of Pilgrn^s Progress by J. B. Wharey (1928; rev. Roger Sharrock, i960 and 1968). Critical edns. of Mr Badman and The Holy War in preparation by Sharrock. Standard life by John Brown (1885; rev. Frank Mott Harrison 1928). For criticism see the studies by W. Y. Tindall (1934), Henri Talon (Paris, 1948; tr. English 1951), Roger Sharrock (1954) and Monica Furlong (1975). Bibliography by F. M. Harrison (lO'ia). Oxford Bibliopraphical Guide: Novel, by Sharrock. {NCBEL,

II,

875-80.)

CHARLES COTTON II,

(1630-1687). Poevts, ed. John Buxton (1952). {NCBEL,

437-39-)

JOHN DRYDEN

(1631-1700). Complete works, ed. Sir Walter^cott (18 vols.,

1808, rev. George Saintsbury 1882-93); elaborate critical edn. in prepar¬ ation by E. N. Hooker, H. T. Swedenberg, etc. (vol. i, 1956), now approach¬ ing completion in some 20 vols., texts all computerized by Vinton A. Bearing. Poems, ed. G. R. Noyes (1909, enlarged 1950; good notes); ed. James Kinsley (4 vols., 1958; better texts but notes less full than Noyes). Criticism: ed. W. P. Ker (2 vols., 1900); ed. George Watson (2 vols., 1961; some notes). J. M. Aden has also compiled a useful dictionary, in effect an elaborate index, of Dryden’s criticism (1963). Scott’s life (in vol. i of his edn. of the Works, 1808) should not be ignored, but the most detailed biography is that by C. E. Ward (1961). J^^M. Osborn (1940) provides an informative survey of the earlier lives. The best critical studies have been those of Samuel Johnson (in Lives of the Poets, 1779-81), T. S. Eliot (in Homage to John Dryden, 1924; Eliot’s much inferior BBC talks collected in 1932 can be ignored), Arthur Hoffman (1962), Earl Miner (1967). Of the specialist works Louis I. Bredvold’s reconstruction of Dryden’s ‘intellec¬ tual milieu’ (1934; able but perverse) is challenged by Phillip ._Harth (1968). Edward Pechter, Dryden’s Classical Theory of Literature (1975) is scholarly but unexciting. The translations are surveyed and assessed by William Frost (1955) and L. Proudfoot (i960). Modern articles on Dryden have been assembled by H. T. Swedenberg (1966), which is of more interest than B. N. Schilling’s similar collection (1963). Critical Heritage vol. by J. and H. Kinsley; bibliography by Hugh Macdonald (1939). Concordance by Guy Montgomery (1957).

Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Poetry,

The principal writers

119

pp. 111-27, by J. and H. Kinsley (1971), Drama, pp. 155-63, by H. Neville Davies. {NCBEL, ii, 439-63.) JOHN

LOCKE

(1632-1704). Essay concerning Human Understanding, ed.

\ P. H. Nidditch (107;: first vol. in scholarly edn. of all of Locke with V^\ Nidditch as General Editor). Selection, ed. M. Cranston (1965). Edu' cational writings, ed. J. W. Adamson (1912, rev. 1922). Critical edn. of letters in preparation by E. S. de Beer. Standard life by Maurice Cranston (1952). For literary implications of the philosophy, see^Dr'TjTTameT (1949; with Hobbes and Bolingbroke) and E. L. Tuveson (i960; as precursor of Romantics). Locke’s library is described in detail by John Harrison and Peter Laslett (1966). {NCBEL, ii 1835-43.) GEORGE SAVILE, MARQUIS OF HALIFAX

(1633-1695). Complete works, ed.

Walter Raleigh (1912; no notes). Standard life by H. C. Foxcroft (2 vols., 1898; includes the works with some notes; abridged 1946, with new material). {NCBEL, ii, 1040-41.) SAMUEL PEPYS

(1633-1703). Diary, ed. (with some bowdlerizing) Henry B.

Wheatley (10 vols., 1893-1900), but Wheatley is now superseded, with a complete new transcription by F. McD. C. Turner and ed. William Mat¬ thews and Robert Latham (9 vols. 1971-75, with 2 vols., of commentary; index to follow). Letters, ed. J. R. Tanner (3 vols., 1926-29); further letters, ed. R. G. Howarth (1932), and ed. Helen T. Heath (1955; ‘The Family Circle’). Lives by J. R. Tanner (1925), Arthur Bryant (3 vols., 1933-38), E. Chappell (1933), J- H. Wilson (i960), Richard Ollard (1974; good but not as detailed as Bryant). {NCBEL, ii, 1582-84.) SIR GEORGE ETHEREGE

(i635?-i69i). Plays, ed. H. F. B. Brett-Smith (2 vols.,

1927); good introduction and notes). Poems, ed. James Thorpe (1963; excellent introduction and notes). The Man of Mode, ed. J. Conaghan (1973). Letters, ed. Frederick Bracher (1974). Critical study by Dale Underwood

(1957).

Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Drama,

by John

Barnard. {NCBEL, ii, 741-2.) THOMAS TRAHERNE

(1637/8-1674). Works, best ed. by H. M. Margoliouth

(2 vols., 1958). The principal writings have been ed. (without notes) by Anne Ridler (1966). Gladys 1. Wade’s life of Traherne (1944, rev. 1946), though detailed, is somewhat fanciful. {NCBEL, i, 1235-38.) SIR CHARLES SEDLEY

(i639?-i7oi). Poetical and dramatic works, well ed. by

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

120

V. de Sola Pinto (2 vols., 1928). Standard life also by Pinto (1927). See also J. H. Wilson, Court Wits of the Restoration (1948). {NCBEL, 11, 463-64.) WILLIAM WYCHERLEY

(1641-1716). Works, ed. Montague Summers (4 vols.,

1924; useful if eccentric notes); ed. G. Weales (1966; with notes). In addition to Willard Connely’s popular life (1930) there is a clever critical study by Rose A. Zimbardo (1965). Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by John Barnard. [NCBEL, ii, 742-44.) THOMAS RYMER

(1641-1713). Definitive edn. of critical works by Curt A.

Zimansky (1956; good introd. and notes). [NCBEL, ii, 1703-5.) THOMAS SHADWELL

(i642?-i692). Complete works, ed. Montague Summers

(5 vols., 1927; often useful notes). Standard life by Albert S. Borgman (1928). Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by John Barnard. [NCBEL, II,

744-46.)

CHARLES SACKViLLE, EARL OF DORSET

(1643-1706). Standard scholarly study

by Brice Harris (1940). See also J. H. Wilson, Court Poets of the Restoration (1948). [NCBEL, APHRA BEHN,

II,

472.)

nee Johnson (1640-1689). Works ed. Montague Summers

(6 vols., 1915; eccentric notes). The Rover, ed. F. L. Mink (1967). There have been several lives from Victoria Sackville-West’s lightweight one (1927) to F. M. Link’s more scholarly book (1968). (MCJSA'L, ii, 755-57.) JOHN

wiLMOT,

EARL

OF

ROCHESTER

(1647-1680). Collected works, ed.

John Hayward (1926). Poems, ed. V. de Sola Pinto (1953, rev. 1963; 1 uncritical text, short notes). Definitives edn. of poems by D. M. Vieth I (1968) had been preceded by his Attribution in Restoration Poetry (1963), a special study of Rochester’s text. The essential letters to Henry Savile have been ed. by J. H. Wilson (1941). See also Wilson, Restoration Court jVits (1948). Life by V. de Sola Pinto (1935, rev. 1962) is readable if unscholarly. Graham Greene’s brilliant Lord Rochester's Monkey (1974; but written 1932) depended on Hayward, who included much that Vieth has now shown to be unauthentic; Dustin H. griffin. Satires Against Man (1974) is the first critical study based strictly on the Vieth canon: The basic facts and documents are given by Johannes Prinz (Leipzig, 1927). John¬ son’s brief account in The Lives of the Poets (1779-81) is still of interest. Excellent Critical Heritage collection, by D. Farley-Hills (1972), whose

The principal wfiters

I2I

important Benevolence of Laughter (1974) is also largely concerned with Rochester. {NCBEL, ii, 464-66.)

NATHANIEL LEE

(i649?-i692). Standard edn. by T. B. Stroup and A. L.

Cooke (2 vols., 1954-55). For

soe Roswell G. Ham’s Otway and Lee

(1931). Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by H. Neville Davies. {NCBEL,

II,

746-47.)

THOMAS OTWAY

(1652-1685). Standard edn. by J. C. Ghosh

(2

vols., 1932).

Standard life by Roswell G. Ham (1931; with Lee). Stage history of The Orphan and Venice Preserved in Alice M. Taylor, Next to Shakespeare (1950). Critical analysis, as of Lee, in Bonamy Dobree, Restoration Trasedy (1929) is superficial. Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by H. Neville Davies. {NCBEL, ii, 747-49.)

JOHN

DENNIS

(1654-1734). Critical works, ed. with excellent detailed

commentary by E, N. Hooker (2 vols., 1939-43). Standard life by_Hj_G. Paul £1911). {NCBEL, ii, 1041-44.)

DANIEL DEFOE

(1660-1731). Novels and selected writings (14 vols., Oxford,

1927-28; 2 vols. of non-fiction, no notes, etc.); prose fiction ed. G. A. Aitken (16 vols., 1895) is less reliable textually but has pleasant illustrations by T. B. Yeats. Selections, ed. J. T. Boulton (1975). Moll Elanders, ed. Herbert Davis (1961); Roxana, ed. Jane Jack (1964); Colonel Jack, ed. S. H. Monk (1965); A Journal of the Plague Year, ed. L. Landa (1969); Captain Singleton, ed. S. K. Kumar (1969). The Review, ed. A. W. Secord (22 vols., 1938; index, 1948); A Tour thro' Great Britain, ed. G. D. H. Cole (2 vols., 1927); letters, ed. George H. Healey (1955). Good short life by James Sutherland (1937, rev. 1950); the completest bibliography is by John Robert Moore (i960, rev. 1962). Paul Dottin’s De Foe et ses romans (3 vols., Paris, 1924; vol. i, tr. English 1929) is thorough, if less critically perceptive than Ian Watt’s account in The Rise of_the^ Novel (1957). Defoe’s narrative technique in six of the best novels is examined by John

1. Richetti (1975). Moore, Defoe: Citizen of the Modern World (1958) and G. A. Starr, Defoe and Spiritual Autobiography (1965) are both good general studies. Critical Heritage vol. is by Pat Rogers (1972). Oxford Biblio¬ graphical Guides: Novel, by M. E. Novak. {NCBEL, ii 880-917.)

MATTHEW PRIOR

(1664-1721). Definitive edn. of all literary works by H.

Bunker Wright and Monroe K. Spears (2 vols., 1959), who are also pre-

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

122

paring an edn. of the letters. A competent life by Charles K. Eves (1939) has superseded Johnson’s in The Lives of the Poets (1779-81), though that retains its interest as literary criticism. (NCBEL, 11, 489-92.) SIR JOHN VANBRUGH

(1664-1726). Complete works, ed. Bonamy Dobree

and Geoffrey Webb (4 vols., 1927-28), though superior to A. E. H. Swaen’s Mermaid edn. of plays (1896), leaves much to be desired. Laurence Whistler’s biography (1938) is better on the architect than the dramatist. There is a competent edn. of The Relapse by C. A. Zimansky (1970; with notes). John Barnard is preparing a fully annotated edn. of the plays. Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by John Barnard. (NCBEL, II,

749-50.)

ANNE FINCH, COUNTESS OF wiNCHiLSEA,

nee Kingsmill (1666-1720). Good

but incomplete edn. of poems by Myra Reynolds (1903). John Buxton, A Tradition of Poetry has a pleasant chapter on her. (1967). (NCBEL, ii, 576-7-) JOHN ARBUTHNOT

(1667-1735). Incomplete edn. of works by George A.

Aitken (1892; with some doubtful attributions). The History of John Bull, ed. Herman Teerink (Amsterdam, 1925); Memoirs of Martin Scriblerus (with Pope), ed. C. Kerby-Miller (1950). Standard life by Lester M. Beattie (1935). (NCBEL, ii, 1050-54.) JONATHAN SWIFT

^

(1667-1745). Temple Scott’s edn. of the prose (12 vols.,

1897-1908) has now been superseded by Herbert Davis’s (14 vols., 193968; index vol. xiv by Davis and I. Ehrenpreis), which has good if short introductions to each item but unfortunately no explanatory notes, its only omission being the Journal to Stella (standard edn. by Harold Williams, 2 vols.. 1948). Williams has also brought out good edns. of the poems (3 vols., 1937, rev. 1958) and of Swifts letters (5 vols., 1963-65). Joseph Horrell’s edn. of the poems (2 vols., 1958) is an inexpensive alternative to Williams. (Both are rather underannotated.) There is a fully annotated edn. of A Tale of a Tub and The Battle of the Books by A. C. Guthkelch and D. Nichol Smith (1920, rev. 1958), and of the Drapier's Letters by Herbert Davis (1935, rev. 1965). The most fully annotated edn. of Gulliver's Travels is by Louis A. Landa (i960), but Martin Price’s edn. (1963) has a good introduction. The biographies of Johnson (in Lives of the Poets, 1779-81) and Scott (in his edn. of Swift’s Works, 19 vols., 1814) retain an interest, but the definitive life is likely to be that by Irvin Ehrenpreis (vols. i, ii, 1962-67; vol. iii in preparation). Ricardo Quintana,

The principal writers

123

The Mind and Art of Swift (1936, rev. 1953) is a sound general intro¬ duction, as is also Kathleen Williams, Swift and the Age of Compromise (1958), though the best single critical essay is probably F. R, Leavis, ‘The irony of Swift’ (in his T/ze Common Pursuit, 1952). Herbert Davis’s miscel¬ laneous writings on Swift have been assembled in a paperback (1964). There are many modern specialist studies, e.g. those by Maurice

Johnson

(1950; on the verse), Martin Price (1953; rhetoric), Marjorie Nicholson and Nora M. Mohler (1956; Laputa and Royal Society), Ronald Paulson (i960) and Philip Harth (1961; both on Tale of a Tub)-, Arthur E. Case, Four Essays on Gulliver’s Travels (1945) fills in the contemporary back¬ ground, and Ronald S. Crane has an especially acute study of the Voyage to the Houyhnhnms in Reason and the Imagination, ed. J. A. Mazzeo 1(1962). John Traugott, Discussions of Swift (1962) assembles some of the I shorter modern critiques; R. A. Greenberg has a similar collection devoted exclusively todulliver (1973), and there is a Penguin critical anthology, 1700-1968, by Doris Donoghue (1973), though Ernest TuvgSQn^s collection (1964) is perhaps better. Critical Heritage vol. by Kathleen Williams announced. Bibliography by H. Teerink (Hague, 1937; rev. A. H. Scouten, 1963). Louis A. Landa, Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Novel, 36-55). {NCBEL,

II,

1054-91.)

WILLIAM CONGREVE

(1670-1729). Complete works, ed. Montague Summers

(4 vols., 1923; detailed if eccentric notes); ed. Bonamy Dobree (2 vols., 1925-28); critical edn. without notes by Herbert Davis (1967). F. W. Bateson’s meagrely annotated selection (1930) includes all the comedies, Incognita and the most interesting poems. The best of the modern oneplay edns. is J. M. Barnard’s Way of the World (1972). John C. Hodges edited new letters and documents (1964); and his Congreve the Man (1941) is detailed but deliberately omits Congreve’s literary career. Chapters on Congreve in the various surveys of Restoration comedy - e.g. those of John Palmer (1913), Bonamy Dobree (1924), Thomas H. Fujimura (1952) - are all rather thin. Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by John Barnard. [NCBEL, ii, 750-53.) BERNARD MANDEViLLE

(1670-1733). The Fable (^ the Bees, ed. F. B. Kaye

(2 vols., 1924) is a model edn. of this philosophical classic. See Hector Monro on Mandeville’s ambivalence (1975). [NCBEL, ii, 1095-98.) COLLEY CIBBER

(1671-1757). The Careless Husband, ed. W. W. Appleton

(1966; Regent’s Drama Series); The Rival Queans, ed. W. M. Peterson (1965). The autobiographical Apology was well ed. by R. W. Lowe (2 vols..

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

124

1889), but the only modern

life is F. Dorothy Senior (1928). See also

B. R. S. Fone’s edn. of the Apology (1968), and L. R. N. Ashley in Twayne’s English Authors Series (1965). Life and Times (1928). (NCBEL, n, 777-79-) ANTHONY

ASHLEY

COOPER,

THIRD

EARL

OF

SHAFTESBURY

(167I-I713).

Characteristics of Men, Manners, Opinions, Times, ed. J. M. Robertson (2 vols., 1900); Second Characters, ed. Benjamin Rand (1914). Rand also printed a philosophical fragment and unpublished letters, etc. (1900). Shaftesbury’s literary theories are lucidly expounded in R. L. Brett’s study

(1951).

{NCBEL, ii,

JOSEPH ADDISON

1865-67.)

(1672-1719). Only two volumes of A. C. Guthkelch’s

projected critical edn. were completed (1914). There is a scholarly edn. of the letters by Walter Graham (1941). For The Tatler and The Spectator, see under Steele below. The most recent life, by Peter Smithers (1954), is primarily on Addison’s political career. Bonamy Dobree has an intelligent if inaccurate depreciation in his Essays in Biography (1925), but the classic accounts by Johnson (in Lives of the Poets, 1779-81) and Macaulay (in Critical and Historical Essays, 1843) are still unsurpassed. (NCBEL, il, 1098-112.) SIR RICHARD STEELE

(1672-1729). George A. Aitken’s edn. of The Tatler

(4 vols., 1898-99) is convenient but less detailed than that by John Nichols and others (6 vols., 1786). The Spectator has been ed. by Donald F. Bond in exemplary detail (5 vols.,

1965). Robert J. Allen’s unpretentious

selection from both (1957) makes a handy introduction. Rae Blanchard has ed. definitively The Christian Hero, all the minor periodicals (except The Theatre, ed. John Loftis, 1962), the various tracts, and the occasional verse in a series of separate volumes (1932-59), as well as Steele’s extant corres¬ pondence (1941, enlarged 1948). For the plays the perfunctory Mermaid edn. by George A. Aitken (1894) has been superseded by that of S. Strum Kenny (1971). (The Tender Husband and The Conscious Lovers are also available in the Regent’s Drama series.) Aitken’s life of Steele (2 vols., 1899), on the other hand, was a sound and solid job, to which John Loftis, Steele apDrury Lane (1952) and Calhoun Winter’s reinvestigation of Steele’s early career (1964, later career (1970), are only useful supplements. (NCBEL,

II,

1112-19.)

HENRY ST JOHN, VISCOUNT BOLINGBROKE

(1678-1751). The nearest thing to

a collected edn. is the Philadelphia edn. of 1841 (4 vols.). Letters on the

The principal writers

125

Spirit of Patriotism, on the Idea of a Patriot King, and on the State of the Parties has been ed. by Arthur Hassall (1912). Three of the Letters on the Study and Use of History were ed. by G. M. Trevelyan (1933). Standard life by Walter Sichel (2 vols., 1901-2); D. G. James analyzes the philosophy in some detail in The Life of Reason (1949). (NCBEL, ii, 1119-22.) GEORGE FARQUHAR

(1678-1707). Complete works, ed. (with some notes) by

Charles A. Stonehill (2 vols., 1930). William Archer’s Mermaid edn. (1906), a reprint of the four plays, has introduction. Scholarly edns. of The Recruitings Officer and The Beaux Stratagem are available in the Regent’s Drama and Founfainwell series as well as in various drama anthologies. Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by John Barnard. [NCBEL, ir, 753-56.)

EDWARD YOUNG

(1683-1765). Poems, ed. B. Hepworth (1975; with notes);

Conjectures on Orisinal Composition (ed. Edith J. Morley, 1918). Henry C. Shelly’s Life and Letters (1914) is somewhat perfunctory; a more scholarly performance is C. y,_Wicker, Edward Young and the Fear of Death (1952). jGeorge Eliot’s essay on Young (in her Essays and Leaves from a Notebook, 1884) is still of considerable interest. [NCBEL, ii, 493-97.) GEORGE BERKELEY

(1685-1753). Complete works, ed. A. A. Luce and T. E.

Jessop (9 vols., 1948-57). Luce’s biography (1949) is now the standard life. Recent work on Berkeley has been entirely on the philosophy. [NCBEL, II,

1851-54.)

JOHN GAY

(1685-1732). Poetical works, ed. G. C. Eaber (1926), includes all

the poems, several of the plays and a bibliography; unfortunately there are no explanatory notes (apart from the discussion of doubtful attributions and a bibliographical summary). Vinton A. Bearing’s textually pretentious edn. of Gay’s Poetry and Prose (2 vols., 1975) is of the non-dramatic works and is thinly annotated. Eight of the dramatic pieces are available in the uncritical Abbey Classics edn. (1923). Three Weeks after Marriage, the amusing collaboration with Pope and Arbuthnot, has been ed. by R. Morton and W. M. Peterson (1961) and for the Augustan Reprint Society by J. H. Smith (1961). The letters have been ed. by C. E. Burgess (1966). William E. Schultz’s detailed study of The Beggar’s Opera (1923) - best recent edns. H. Hopne (Halle, 1959), L. Kronenberger and M. Goberman (1961), and E. V. Roberts (1968) - has been partly superseded by E. M. Gagey’s Ballad Opera (1937); William Empson has an ingenious essay on it in Some Versions of Pastoral (1935). The standard life is by W. H. Irving

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

126

(1940); Sven M. Arnnens has analyzed Gay’s social philosophy (1954), and there is a scholarly critical study of the poems by Adina Forsgren (Stockholm, 1971). Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Drama, by Cecil Price. {NCBEL,

II,

WILLIAM LAW

497-500.) (1686-1761). Selected M^ical Writings, ed. Stephen Hob-

house (1938, rev. 1948); A Serious Call, ed. Norman Sykes (1955). Henri Talon, Law: a study in literary craftsmanship (1948) can be recommended. The most recent biography is by A. K. Walker (1974). (^NCBEL, ii, 1653-56.)

ALLAN RAMSAY

(1686-1758). Works, ed. Burns Martin and John W. Oliver

(5 vols., 1951-53). Martin is also the author of the standard biography and bibliography of Ramsay (both 1931). {NCBEL, ii, 1965-73.) ALEXANDER

POPE

(1688-1744). Twickenham edn. of the poems, with

elaborate notes by John Butt and others (6 vols., 1939-61, and abbreviated one vol., 1963) included all Pope’s verse except the Homer translations, which have now been added by Maynard Mack (4 vols., 1967). This is now the standard edn. and supersedes the one by William Elwin and W. J. Courthope (10 vols., 1871-89), except for some of the prose. Herbert Davis’s edn. (1966) is complete except for the Homer translations but is without notes. The incomplete Prose Works, ed. Norman Ault (vol. i, 1935), includes several dubious ascriptions. The best selection is by W. K. Wimsatt

(1951;

valuable

critical

introd.

and

bibliographical

notes,

includes Peri Bathous). The definitive edn. of Pope’s letters is by George Sherbum (5 vols. 1956), who is also the author of the standard biography (to^iyT^)

The Early Career of Alexander Pope (1934), both models of

perceptive scholarship. A definitive edn. of Joseph Spence, Anecdotes of j Pope and Others (ed. S. W. Singer, 1820) has been prepared by James M. / Osborn (2 vols., 1966). The more notable recent critical studies are Geoffrey Tillotson, On the Poetry of Pope (1938, rev. 1950), Aubrey L. Williams, Pope's Dunciad (1955), now complemented by Howard ErskineHill’s shorter study (1972), Reuben A. Brower, Alexander Pope: The Poetry of Allusion (1959), J. S. Cunningham’s short but stimulating The Rape of the Lock (1961), Thomas R. Edwards’s short This Dark Estate (1963), and the refreshingly original Essay by F. M. Keener (1Q74V But Johnson’s long life-cum-critique in The Lives of the Poets (1779-81) and Joseph Warton’s more depreciatory Essay on the Writings and Genius of Pope (2 vols., 1756-82) remain indispensable reading. Rufus A. Blanchard’s Discussions of Alexander Pope (i960) is a useful critical anthology (Swift to Maynard

The principal writers

127

Mack), and Mack has himself assembled some of the best modern articles (1964, expanded 1968). Superseding both collections is the Penguin critical anthology by F. W. Bateson and N. A. Joukovsky (1971). Two specialist works of exceptional distinction are William K. Wimsatt, Portraits of Alexander Pope (iqbt;), which incidentally documents Pope’s morbid fond¬ ness for getting himself painted, and Mack’s Garden and the City (1969), a detailed exploration of the background to Pope’s later poems. Bibli¬ ography by R. H. Griffith (2 vols., 1922-27). Concordance by E. G. Bedford and R. J. Dilligan (1975) supersedes that by E. A. Abbott (1875). Oxford Bibliographical Guide by John Barnard (1973). {NCBEL, ii, 500-27.) LADY MARY WORTLEY MONTAGU,

nee Pierrepoint (1689-1762). Standard edn.

of the letters by Robert Halsband (3 vols., 1965-67), who has also written the best life (1956, rev. i960). {NCBEL, ii, 1584-85.) SAMUEL RICHARDSON

(1689-1761). No edn. of collected works since Leslie

Stephen’s (12 vols., 1883). Novels; ed. W. L. Phelps

(iq

vols., 1902, rptd

1971), ed. W. King and A. Bott (Oxford, 18 vols., 1929-31; fewer printers’ errors than Stephen or Phelps); Pamela, Part i, ed. W. M. Sale (1958; good introd., the final text), ed. T. C. D. Eaves and B. Kimpel (Boston, 1971; text from first edition); Parts i and ii, ed. M. Kinkead-Weekes (1965; final text). Clarissa, ed. J. Butt (4 vols., 1962; final text). Sir Charles Grandison, ed. Jocelyn Harris (3 vols., 1972; with good notes). Correspon¬ dence ed. Anna L. Barbauld (6 vols., 1804); good selection by John Carroll (1964; excellent notes). Standard life by T. C. D. Eaves and B. Kimpel (1971). The best general introd. is still Alan D. McKillop, Richardson, ^Printer and Novelist (1026'). William M. Sale’s bibliography (1936) and his account of Richardson’s printing activities are detailed and definitive. Of the many critical studies Ian Watt, The Rise of the Novel (1957), which stresses social considerations, and M. Kinkead-Weekes’s more technical approach (1973) are probably the best. Margaret A. Doody, A Natural Passion (1974) concentrates on Clarissa and Grandison and is usefully supplementary to Donald L. Ball’s more abstract Richardson’s Theory of Fiction (1971). Oxford Bibliographical Guides: Novel, by John Carroll, '56-70. {NCBEL, HENRY CAREY

II,

917-25.)

(1690-1743). Poems, ed. F. T. Wood (1930), is only a

selection. F. W. Bateson has a chapter on the plays in his English Comic Drama, lyoo-iy^o (1929). {NCBEL, ii, 782-84.) JOSEPH BUTLER

(1692-1752). Ernest Mossner, Bishop Joseph Butler (1936)

128

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

is the standard work. More recent studies have all been concerned with the philosophy. (NCBEL, ii, 1856-58.) GEORGE LiLLO

(1693-1739). William H. McBurney’s edns. of The London

Merchant (1965) and his Fatal Curiosity (1966), both in the Regent’s Drama series, have full notes, etc. [NCBEL, ii, 794-95.) PHILIP DORMER STANHOPE, FOURTH EARL OF CHESTERFIELD

(1694-1773).

Letters, ed. Bonamy Dobree (6 vols., 1932). Some of Dobree’s omissions were filled by Sidney L. Gulick (1937). [NCBEL, ii, 1585-58.) JOHN, SECOND BARON HERVEY

(1696-1743). Memoirs of the Reignof Georgell,

ed. Romney Sedgwick (3 vols., 1931). A good life by R. Halsband (1973). [NCBEL,

II,

1713.)

JOHN DYER (i7oo?-i758).

Poems, ed. Hugh I’Anson Fausset (in Minor

Poets of the Eighteenth Century, 1930). Definitive edn. of Grongar Hill by Richard C. Boys (1941). The life by Johnson (m Lives of the Poets, 177981) is still valuable. See also R. M. Williams, Poet, Painter and Parson (1956). [NCBEL, JAMES

THOMSON

II, 545-46.)

(1700-1748). Complete poetical works, ed. J. Logie

Robertson (1908; gives principal textual variants of Seasons but no ex¬ planatory notes). The Seasons, ed. OttcyZippel (1908; all variants recorded); The Castle of Indolence, etc., ed. Alan D. McKillop (1961; good notes). Annotated edn. of Seasons and Castle of Indolence by James Sambrook (1972). McKillop, Background of Thomson's Seasons (1942) is a valuable scholarly study. General account by Douglas Grant (1951), which must, however, be supplemented by McKillop, Letters and Documents (1958), and Johnson’s life (in Lives of the Poets, 1779-81) retains its critical interest. For an able attempt to relate Seasons to its critical context, see Ralph Cohen, The Art of Discrimination (1964). [NCBEL, ii, 527-31.) HENRY FIELDING

(1707-1754). Complete Works, ed. W. E. Henley and

others (16 vols., 1903; no notes but nearly complete); a much more scholarly complete Fielding is now in progress (gen. ed. W. B. Coley: Joseph Andrews, ed. M. C. Battestin, 1967; Miscellanies, ed. H. K. Miller, 1973, Tom Jones, ed. Battestin and Fredson Bowen J2 vols. 1974); Jacobite’s Journal etc., ed. Coley, 1975. Novels, ed. George Saintsbury (12 vols., 1893; shrewd critical introds.). There are scholarly modern edns. of Tom Thumb, ed. James T. Hillhouse (1918), four of the other farces, in the

The principal writers

129

Regent’s Drama series (1966-68), Shamela, ed. Sheridan W. Baker (1953), Joseph Andrews and Shamela, ed. W. C. Battestin (1961: excellent notes), Covent Garden ’Journal, ed. G. E. Jensen (1915), md Journal of a Voyage to Lisbon, ed. H. E. Pagliaro (1963). The best biography is that of Wilbur DXross (3 vols., 1918). John Butt, Fielding (1954, rev. 1959) is a short but good general introd. and C. J. Rawson has seven acute essays titled Fielding and the_jAususta3i.J4eal under Stress (1972). Ronald S. Crane "has a brilliant study of the plot of Tom ‘Jones in his Critics and Criti¬ cism (1952), a serious omission in the otherwise useful paperback Fielding: a collection of critical essays, ed. Ronald Paulson (1962). The earlier criticism is sampled in the Critical Heritage vol. also ed. by Paulson, with T. Lockwood (1969). Maurice Johnson’s Fielding's Art of Fiction (1961) is more ‘explication’ as Bernard Harrison, Tom Jones (1975) is more philo¬ sophical context, than criticism; a much more critical approach to Tom Jones is provided by L Ehrenpreis (1964) in the Studies in English Litera¬ ture series. Penguin critical anthology. 1730-1968, by Rawson (1973). See also Oxford Bibliographical Guide: Novel, by M. C. Battestin, 71-99. {NCBEL,

II,

925-48.)

SAMUEL JOHNSON

(1709-1784). Yale edn. by Allen T. Ha2en, later J. H.

Middendorf, et al. (9 vols. issued 1958-71; reprints the complete works with full annotation). Standard edn. of poems by D. Nichol Smith and E. L. McAdam (1941), rev. with fewer notes by McAdam and George Milne for the Yale edn. (1965). Standard edn. of letters by R. W. Chapman (3 vols., 1952). Prefaces and Dedications, ed. Allen T. Hazen (1937). Selec¬ tions (without notes) by Mona Wilson (1950), RT W.~Chapman (1955), McAdam and Milne (1964), and (with notes) by R. T. Davies (1965); Johnson on Shakespeare, ed. W. K. Wimsatt (i960; good selection). Standard edn. of Boswell’s life by G. Birbeck Hill (superbly rev. by L. F. Powell, 6 vols., 1934-50; vol. v includes Tour to the Hebrides). James L. Clifford, Young Samuel Johnson (1955) covers authoritatively the years where Boswell is weakest. Walter Raleigh, Six Essays on Johnson (1910) is still the most attractive introduction to Johnson. Of the abler modern studies that by Joseph W. Krutch (1944) is primarily biographical, where¬ as that by Walter J. Bate (1955) is more of a general account, but both have now been largely superseded by John Wain’s splendidly readable if non¬ professional Samuel Johnson (1974). The most important recent contri¬ butions to Johnson criticism have been W. K. Wimsatt’s discussions of the prose style (1941) and of the ‘philosophic’ (scientific) words in The Rambler (1948), B. H. Bronson, Johnson Agonistes (1946), and Donald J. Greene, The Politics of Samuel Johnson (i960). Jean H. Hagstrum has expounded

An Augustan reading list 1650-1800

130

Johnson’s critical doctrines (1952), J. E. Brown, Critical Opinions of Samuel ‘Johnson (1926), an anthology arranged as a dictionary, being merely a useful criticaljool. R. D. Stock liova) is helpful on the background to the Preface to Shakespeare. New Light on Dr. Johnson, ed. F. W. Hilles(i959), contains several excellent special studies. For other recent studies see J. L. Clifford, Johnsonian Studies (1951; supplement to i960 in Johnsonian Studies, ed. M. Wahba, Cairo, 1962). Critical Heritage vol. by J. T. Boulton (1971). Bibliography by W. P. Courtn^_and D. Nichol Smith (1915, rev. 1925). Concordance to the poems by Helen H. Naugle (1973){NCBEL,

II,

DAVID HUME

1122-74.)

——

(1711-1776). Philosophical works, ed. T. H. Green and T. H.

Grose (4 vols., 1874-75). Letters, ed. J. Y. T. Greig (2 vols., 1932); New Letters, ed. Raymond Klibansky and Ernest C. Mossner (1954). Standard life by Ernest C. Mossner (1954, rev. 1972). {NCBEL, ii, 1873-80.) LAURENCE STERNE

(1713-1768). Works, good edn. by Wilbur L. Cross (12

vols., 1904). Useful selection by Douglas Grant (1950). Letters, standard edn. by Lewis P Curtis (1935). Critical edn. of Tristram Shandy by james A. Work (1940) and of The Sentimental Journey by G. Stout (1967). There is a clever critical study by John Traugott (1954); a more thorough work is Henri Fluchere’s elaborate but verbose survey (Paris, 1961; in FrenchEnglish abridgement 1965). A. D. McKillop gives a good critical introd. in Early Masters of English Fiction (1956). For the sermons, see the scholarly discussion by L. van der H. Hammond (1948). The life by Wilbur^LS'£'L] (1961Studies in Philology [5P] (1906-

).

).

* Studies in Scottish Literature [5/S'L] (1963* Studies in the Novel [^SNNTS'\ (1969-

).

).

Tennessee Studies in Literature [PtSL] (1956-

).

Texas Studies in Literature and Language {TSLli] (1959Tulane Studies in English [T'A'P] (1949-

).

*University of Toronto Quarterly [UTQ^ (1931*Victorian Poetry [PP] (1963-

).

).

).

* Yearbook of English Studies [FP.S] (1971-

).

Year’s Work in English Studies [YWES^ (1921-

).

*Zeitschrift fiir Anglistik und Amerikanistik [ZAA'\ (1953-

).

MODERN LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES (INCLUDING ENGLISH) * Arcadia: Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Literaturwissenschaft (1966-

).

*Archiv fur das Studien der Neueren Sprachen und Literaturen [Archiv^ (1846-

).

*Contemporary Literature \ConLi\ (i960-

).

Critique: Studies in Modern Fiction [Crit\ (1956-

).

*Germanisch-romanische Monatsschrift [GPM] (1909-

).

*JEGP: Journal of English and Germanic Philology (1897* Journal of Modern Literature [JMD] (1970* Medium AUvum [MZE~\ (1932* Modern Drama [MP] (1958-

). ).

* Modern Fiction Studies [MFS] (1955*Modern Language Notes [fMLN^ (1886-

)• ).

* Modern Language Quarterly \MLQ'\ (1940*Modern Language Review [MLK\ (1905*Neophilologus [Neophil] (1916-

).

).

).

).

*Neuphilologische Mitteilungen [NTH] (1899—

).

).

252

Literary scholarship

*Novel: a Forum on Fiction (1967- ). PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America (1884- ). *Studia Neophilologica [5A^] (1928- ). * Studies in Short Fiction (1963- ). Twentieth Century Literature \TCL\ (1955- ). Year’s Work in Modern Language Studies \ YWMLS^ (1931-

).

HUMANISTIC AND INTERDISCIPLINARY JOURNALS Anglo-Saxon England [ASE] (1972- ). *Clio: an Interdisciplinary Journal of Literature, History, and the Philo¬ sophy of History \ClioW] (1971- ). * Eighteenth-Century Studies [ECN] (1967- ). * Eire-Ireland: a Journal of Irish Studies \Eire^ (1966- ). English Miscellany: a Symposium of History, Literature, and the Arts [EM^ (1950- )■ * Enlightenment Essays [EnlE'] (1970- ). *Hartford Studies in Literature: a Journal of Interdisciplinary Criticism [^fNL](i969- ). Journal of Medieval and Renaissance Studies [JMRS] (1971- ). *Literature and Psychology [LSfP] (1951- ). Mediaeval Studies [MN] (1939- ). Medieval and Renaissance Studies (1966- ). Medievalia et Humanistica \M&H^ (1943- ). Renaissance and Modern Studies [PMN] (1957- ). *Renaissance and Reformation \_Ren&R\ (1964- ). Renaissance Papers [PewP] (1956- ). * Renaissance Quarterly [RenQ\ (1948- ). *Scottish Studies [5cN] (1957- )• * Speculum: a Journal of Medieval Studies (1926- ). Studies in Medieval Culture [SMC] (1964- ). *Studies in Romanticism [N/P] (1961- ). Studies in the Renaissance [NPew] (1954- ). * Victorian Studies [UN] (1957- ). JOURNALS FOR INDIVIDUAL LITERARY FIGURES AND NEWSLETTERS * Blake Newsletter [BlakeN] (1967- ). * Blake Studies [Blake S] (1968- ). *Bront'i Society Transactions [PNP] (1894- ). Browning Institute Studies [P/N] (1973- ). * Browning Society Notes [BS Notes] (1970- ).

Assembling the secondary material

253

* Studies in Browning and His Circle [SBHC] (1973*Studies in Burke and His Time [^SBHT^ (1959-

Byron Journal [k)"]2,-

).

Chaucer Review [ChauR] (1966*Conradiana (1968* Dickensian (1905-

).

).

).

). ).

Dickens Studies Annual [DSA\ (1970-

).

* Dickens Studies Newsletter [DSN] (1970-

).

*Thomas Hardy Yearbook [THY] (1970* Hopkins Quarterly (1974-

).

).

Hopkins Research Bulletin (1970-

).

*Housman Society Journal [HSJ] (1974-

).

*Johnsonian News Letter [JNL] (1940-

).

*New Rambler: Journal of the Johnson Society of London [NRam] (1941— *James Joyce Quarterly [JJQ] (1963-

).

).

*Wake Newsletter: Studies of James Joyce's 'Finnegans Wake' (1962-

).

* Keats-Shelley Journal [^>S7] (1952-

).

Keats-Shelley Memorial Bulletin [KSMB] (1910* Kipling Journal [KJ] (1927-

).

*Charles Lamb Bulletin [ChLB] (1973-

).

*D.H.Lawrence Review [DHLR] (1968*Mill News Letter (1965-

).

).

* Milton Quarterly [MiltonQ] (1967Milton Studies [MiltonS] (1969*Moreana (1963-

).

).

).

).

Research Opportunities in Renaissance Drama [RORD] (1956-

).

*Satire Newsletter [aSA^L] (1963-73). *Scriblerian: a Newsletter Devoted to Pope, (1968-

Swift, and Their Circle

).

* Seventeenth-Century News [.SCA^] (1942* Shakespeare Newsletter [A'^A^] (1951* Shakespeare Quarterly [-S^] (1950* Shakespeare Studies

). ).

(1965-

Shakespeare Survey [A'AA'] (1948-

).

).

).

Shakespearean Research and Opportunities [A'i?0] (1965*Shavian (1953-

).

*Independent Shavian (1962-

).

*Shaw Review [ShawR] (1951* Spenser Newsletter (1970-

).

).

Tennyson Research Bulletin (1967-

).

).

Literary scholarship

254 Victorian Newsletter [FA^] (1952-

).

*Victorian Periodicals Newsletter [KPA^] (1968* Women and Literature (1972-

).

^Virginia Woolf Quarterly [VWQ] (1972*Wordsworth Circle [WC] (1970Yeats Studies (1971-

).

).

).

).

LITERARY PERIODICALS * Cambridge Quarterly [CQ] (1965/6-

).

*Criterion (1922-39). *Critical Quarterly \CritQ] (1959* Essays in Criticism [E/C] (1951* Hudson Review [HudR^ (1948*Kenyon Review

). ).

).

(1939-70).

*Malahat Review [MHRev^ (1967-

).

*New York Review of Books (1963-

).

* Partisan Review [PP] (1934Prose (1970-

).

).

*Sewanee Review [PP] (1892-

).

*\London^ Times Literary Supplement [PL5] (1902*Yale Review [TP] (1892-

).

).

Contributions of scholarly interest on English literature are also to be found in the proceedings of such bodies as the British Academy, the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, the Leeds Philosophical Society, and the Michigan Academy of Science, Arts, and Letters. ■ Composite miscellanies (Festschriften) Much literary scholarship, sometimes of the highest quality, is tucked away in the volumes of academic piety that celebrate such events as the seventieth birthday of some distinguished professor. Among the best of the species are those dedicated to F. J. Furnivall (1901), G. L. Kittredge (1913), H. J. C. Grierson (1938), D. Nichol Smith (1945), George Sherburn (1949), C. B. Tinker (1949), F. P. Wilson (1959), Marjorie Nicholson (1962), Hardin Craig (1963), A. D. McKillop (1963), Basil Willey (1964), F. A. Pottle (1965), Rene Wellek (1968), Louis Landa (1970), and W. K. Wimsatt (1973). ■ The book trade The standard histories are F. A. Mumby, Publishing and Bookselling: a history from the earliest times to the present day (4th edn., 1956) and Marjorie

Assembling the secondary material

255

Plant, The English Book Trade: an economic history of the making and sale of books (1939, rev. 1965). Colin Clair, A Histroy of Printing in Britain (1965) is more up to date, if somewhat cursory. Specialist studies include Cyprian Blagden, The Stationers' Company: a history, 1403-igyg (i960); H. S. Bennett, English Books and Readers, 1475 to

(1952), 1558 to 1603

(1965), 1603 to 1640 (1970); W. W. Greg, Some Aspects and Problems of London Publishing between 1550 and 1630 (1956); R. M. Wiles, Serial Publication in England before 1750 (1957); and J. J. Barnes, Free Trade in Books: a study of the London book trade since 1800 (1964). E. Gordon Duff, A Century of the English Book Trade: short notices of all printers, stationers, book-binders, and others connected with it

457-1557'\

(1905), and his Hand-Lists of English Printers, 1501-1556, compiled, with the help of other scholars, in four parts (1895-1913), begin a chronological series of special dictionaries and check-lists in the field. Ronald B. McKerrow, A Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers in England, Scotland, and Ireland, and of Foreign Printers of English Books, 1557-1640 (1910) comes next, and is in turn continued by Henry R. Plomer’s three volumes, A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers Who Were at Work in England, Scotland, and Ireland from 1641 to 1667 (1907); A Dictionary [as above] from 1668 to 1725 (1922); A Dictionary [as above] from 1726 to 1775 (1932). Joseph Moxon, Mechanick Exercises on the Whole Art of Printing (1683-84), the earliest treatise on printing in English, has been ed. by Herbert Davis and Harry Carter (1958, rev. 1962). The most elaborate study of an early printer’s business records is D. F. McKenzie, The Cambridge University Press, i6g6-i7i2 (2 vols., 1966). The sections on ‘Book production and distribution’ in NCBEL provide a complete bibliography of the subject. ■ Biographical dictionaries For biographical information on English figures no longer living the stan¬ dard source is the Dictionary of National Biography (DNB), edited by Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee (66 vols., 1885-1901; reprinted in 22 vols., 1921-22), and its six supplements covering the years 1901-60 (6 vols., 1912-71). A volume of Corrections and Additions (1966) has been cumulated from the Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research (1923-63). Sum¬ maries of each life are collected into the Concise DNB (Part i, 1953, includes figures to 1900; ii, 1961, covers 1901-50). Who's Who, published annually since 1849, includes data on English and some non-English figures in all fields and is standard for living persons. Its companion source. Who Was Who (6 vols., beginning 1897, 1916, 1929, 1941, 1951,

256

Literary scholarship

1961), contains final entries in Who's Who of persons who have died in the preceding decade or so, with death date. Biographical data on university figures may be found in Alumni Oxonienses: the members of the University of Oxford, 1^00—1886, compiled by Joseph Foster (8 vols., 1887-92), and in Alumni Cantabrigienses: a biographical list of all known students, graduates, office

at

the

University

of

Cambridge from

the

and holders earliest

times

of to

igoo, compiled by John and J. A. Venn (10 vols., 1922-54), both of which are supplemented for the medieval period by A. B. Emden, A Biographical Register of the University of Oxford to A.D. 1500 (3 vols., 1957-59) and A Biographical Register of the University of Cambridge to 1500 (1963). For information on titled persons there are G. E. C[okayne]’s two works. The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct, or Dormant (new edn., rev. V. Gibbs et al., 13 vols., 1910-59) and Complete Baronetage (5 vols. plus index, 1900-09); and Burke’s Landed Gentry, ed. L. G. Pine (17th edn., 1952; not confined to hereditary titles). Two special sources particularly valuable for minor figures not found elsewhere are William Musgrave, Obituary Prior to 1800 {as far as relates to England, Scotland, and Ireland), ed. G. J. Armytage (6 vols.,

1899-1901),

and Frederick Boase, Modern English Biography, containing many thousand

(3 vols. plus 3-V0I. supplement, 1892-1901, 1908-21). Other useful sources for persons

concise memoirs of persons who have died since the year 1850

not included in DNB include The Dictionary of Welsh Biography down to ig40, edited by R. T. Jenkins et al. (English edn., tine,

The

British

Establishment,

biographical dictionary

1^60-1^84:

1959), and Alan Valen¬ an

eighteenth-century

(2 vols., 1970). Many other special sources are

listed in Robert B. Slocum, Biographical Dictionaries and Related Works

(1967) and its supplement (1972), which are arranged by country and vocation. Although not precisely biographical dictionaries, William Matthews’s two volumes will often reward by providing leads to sources not imme¬ diately locatable elsewhere; they are British Autobiographies: an annotated bibliography of British autobiographies published or written before ig^i (1955) and British Diaries: an annotated bibliography of British diaries written between 1442 and ig42 (1950). Eor biographical information on persons not included in the standard sources, one may consult a group of general tools, the most useful of which are: Phyllis M. Riches, An Analytical Bibliography of Universal Collected Biography, comprising books published in the English tongue in Great Britain and Ireland, America, and the British Dominions (1934); Albert M. Hyam-

Assembling the secondary material

257

son, A Dictionary of Universal Biography (rev. edn., 1951); and J. O. Thorne, Chambers's Biographical Dictionary (rev. edn., 1961). The Bi¬ ography Index: a cumulative index to biographical material in books and magazines (1946-

) is issued quarterly and cumulated annually and trien-

nially; it locates biographical data in current books and periodicals in the English language and thus provides up-to-date material to supplement the older general and special sources.

The techniques of literary research H Palaeography A good introduction to palaeography, the study of earlier handwriting and its particular habits of abbreviation, contraction, capitalization, etc., is H. G. T. Christopher’s Palaeography and Archives: a manual for the librarian, archivist, and student (1938), and there is an excellent essay by Stanley Morison on the development of handwriting in Ambrose Heal, The English Writing-Masters and Their Copybooks, i^yo-iSoo: a bio¬ graphical dictionary and a bibliography (1931). W. W. Greg, English Literary Autographs, iy^o-i6yo (3 vols., 1932) expands the discussion of Renaissance hands begun in R. B. McKerrow, An Introduction to Bibli¬ ography for Literary Students (1927) and provides facsimile models of the various hands, as does C. E. Wright, English Vernacular Hands from the Twelfth to the Fifteenth Centuries (i960). Perhaps the most convenient introduction to the secretary hand is Giles E. Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton’s manual, Elizabethan Handwriting, 1^00-16^0 (1966). The standard treatises on the court hands are Charles Johnson and Hilary Jenkinson, English Court Hand A.D. 1066 to 1500 (2 vols., 1915) and Jenkinson, The Later Court Hands in England from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century (2 vols., 1927). See also R. B. Haselden, Scientific Aids for the Study of Manuscripts (1935), and the author and subject catalogues of the splendid Palaeography Collection in the University of London Library (2 vols., 1968). The literary relevance of palaeography is simply exemplified in C. J. Sisson, New Readings in Shakespeare (2 vols., 1956); E. Maunde Thompson, Shakespeare’s Handwriting (1916) and his chapter in Shakespeare's Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More (ed. A. W. Pollard, 1923) are more technical. ■ Analytical and descriptive bibliography The most comprehensive, accurate, and up-to-date introduction is now Philip Gaskell, A New Introduction to Bibliography (1972), which contains

Literary scholarship a helpful reference bibliography. Its predecessor, Ronald B. McKerrow, An Introduction to Bibliography for Literary Students (1927), is still a readable and generally reliable guide to the printing practices of the Elizabethan period. Other earlier studies still of interest to the ordinary literary researcher are R. W. Chapman, Cancels (1930) and Percy Simp¬ son, Proof-Reading in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries (1935). More recent problems are discussed in entertaining detail by Michael Sadleir in XIX Century Fiction: a bibliographical record (2 vols., 1951)-

The more important articles have been printed in: (1889-

The Library

), which was merged in 1920 with the Transactions of the Biblio¬

graphical Society (1893-

) and is indexed in George W. Cole, An Index

to the Bibliographical Papers Published by the Bibliographical Society and the Library Association, London, i8jy-ig32 (1933); the Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America (1904/5-

), for which there are cumu¬

lative indexes to vols. i-xxv, xxvi-XLV; and the annual Studies in Bibli¬ ography: Papers of the Bibliographical Society of the University of Virginia (1948/9-

), which contains an annual checklist of bibliographical scholar¬

ship, as does the Oxford Bibliographical Society’s Bibliography in Britain (1963-

). Especially noteworthy for its re-examination of accepted

beliefs is D. F. McKenzie’s article ‘Printers of the mind: some notes on bibliographical theories and printing-house practices’ {SB, xxii, 1969,

1-75)The most elaborate study of the problems of bibliographical description is Fredson Bowers, Principles of Bibliographical Description (1949), which draws heavily on the earlier work of W. W. Greg, whose introduction in the last volume of A Bibliography of the English Printed Drama to the Restoration (4 vols., 1939-59)

Collected Papers (ed. J. C. Maxwell,

1966) should also be consulted. Some of the practices of Greg and Bowers have recently been questioned by D. F. Foxon in his lecture Thoughts on the History and Future of Bibliographical Description (1970). At a lower level John Carter, ABC for Book-Collectors (5th edn., 1972; technical terms expounded alphabetically with lucidity and wit) is indispensable.

■ Textual criticism The best full-length introduction for the student of English and American literature is James Thorpe, Principles of Textual Criticism (1972). Two recent collections of essays provide a convenient sampling (with some duplication) of the; more important shorter studies: O. M. Brack and Warner Barnes, eds.. Bibliography and Textual Criticism: English and Ameri-

The techniques of liter ayy research

259

can literature, lyoo to the present (1969), and Ronald Gottesman and Scott Bennett, eds., Art and Error: modern textual editing (1970; fifteen essays, with summaries of some thirty more). The methodology of Greek and Latin scholarship is brilliantly epito¬ mized by Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (tr. from German, 1958). W. W. Greg’s short The Calculus of Variants (1927) was intended to make the classical methods available for editors of English texts, though more is in fact to be learned from A. E. Housman’s Introductions to his Manilius (1903, 1930), Juvenal (1905), and Lucan (1926), and his entertaining ‘The application of thought to textual criticism’ (reprinted with various reviews, etc., by John Carter in A. E. Housman: selected prose, 1961). Modern English textual criticism begins with R. B. McKerrow’s enormously elaborate edition of Thomas Nashe (5 vols., 1904-10), which first introduced the term (and concept) ‘copy-text’. McKerrow’s old col¬ league W. W. Greg controverted his recommendations in his influential paper ‘The rationale of copy-text’ {SB, iii, 1950-51, 19-36). Earlier still, McKerrow, Prolegomena for the Oxford Shakespeare (1939) had stimulated Greg to his own ‘Prolegomena’, which was prefixed to his The Editorial Problem in Shakespeare (1942, rev. 1951). Other important contributions have been made by J. Dover Wilson [The Manuscript of Shakespeare^s Hamlet, 2 vols., 1934), Alice Walker {Textual Problems of the Eirst Eolio, 1953), Eredson Bowers {On Editing Shakespeare and the Elizabethan Dramatists, 1955; Textual and Literary Criticism, 1959; and Bibliography and Textual Criticism, 1964), and Charlton Hinman {The Printing and Proof-Reading of the Eirst Eolio of Shakespeare, 2 vols., 1963). See also E. A. J. Honigmann’s review of Shakespearean textual studies in The Stability of Shakespeare's Text (1965) and T. H. Howard-Hill’s bibli¬ ography of Shakespearian Bibliography and Textual Criticism {Index to British Literary Bibliography, vol. il, 1971). Outside Shakespeare, textual criticism has been especially active with Langland (important edn. of A-text of Piers Plowman by G. A. Kane, i960, followed by B-text by Kane and E. Talbot Donaldson, 1975), Chaucer (edn. of all MSS of Canterbury Tales by J. M. Canly and Edith Rickert, 8 vols., 1940), Rochester and his associates (D. M. Vieth, Attri¬ bution in Restoration Poetry, 1963), Pope (‘General note on the text’ in Epistles to Several Persons, ed. E. W. Bateson, rev. 1961), Addison {The Spectator, ed. D. F. Bond, 5 vols., 1965), Goldsmith {Collected Works, ed. C. Price, 2 vols., 1973), and Dickens {Oliver Twist, ed. Kathleen Tillotson, 1966). A strictly methodical approach to textual criticism has been worked out and illustrated from English texts by V. A. Dearing in A Manual of Textual

Literary scholarship

260

Analysis (1959); he has harnessed the computer to the text of the Dryden edn. now being issued by the University of California Press as described in his pamphlet Methods of Textual Editing (1962). Editorial problems and methods are also discussed in the annual volumes of Papers Given at the Editorial Conference, University of Toronto [1965-

] (1966-

), each of

which is devoted to a single century or general topic (separate titles and editors for each volume).

■ Sources and influences The best general introduction is in Andre Morize, Problems and Methods of Literary History, chaps, v and x; R. D. Altick provides a readable survey of both aspects in The Art of Literary Research, chap.

III.

The chapters

in Chauncey Sanders, An Introduction to Research in Literary History, are useful for their detailed notes which list several hundred books and articles, mainly from the 1920s and 1930s, devoted either to ‘Source study’ or to ‘Success and influence’. One of the few discussions of the principles involved is Hardin Craig, ‘Shakespeare and Wilson’s Arte of Rhetorique: an inquiry into the criteria for determining sources’ {SP, xxvili, 1931, 618-30). The topic is also examined by Kenneth Muir and F. W. Bateson, Essays in Criticism, iv (1954), 432-40. Some classic examples of source-influence scholarship are: R. D. Havens, Milton's Influence on English Poetry (1922); J. L. Lowes, The Road to Xanadu (1927, rev. 1930; Coleridge’s knowledge of travel books, etc.); Janet Scott, Les Sonnets elisabHhains: les sources et Vapport personnel (Paris, 1929); Huntington Brown, Rabelais in English Literature (1930); W. F. Bryan and Germaine Dempster, Sources and Analogues of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales (1940); Grover Smith, T. S. Eliot's Poetry and Plays: a study in sources and meaning (1956); Geoffrey Bullough, Narrative and Dramatic Sources of Shakespeare (8 vols., 1957-74); R. W. Dent, John Webster's Borrowing (i960); Albert Goldman, The Mine and the Mint: sources for the writings of De Quincey (1965); and Norman Fruman, Coleridge, the Damaged Archangel (1971; the problem of Coleridge’s plagiarism). Scholarly editors have not always had the patience to add to their other tasks an investigation of their authors’ sources, but Arthur Friedman’s edition of Goldsmith (5 vols., 1966) is notable for its thorough¬ ness in this respect. See also Friedman’s ‘Principles of historical annotation in critical editions of modern texts’ {English Institute Annual, 1941, 1942, pp. 115-28). Of the many refutations of proposed sources two of the most effective are D. L. Clark, ‘What was Shelley’s indebtedness to Keats?’ [PMLA,

LVi,

The techniques of literary research ^94^> 479^97)

261

W. B. C. Watkins, ‘The plagiarist: Spenser or Mar¬

lowe?’ {ELH, XI, 1944, 249-65). In the past a degree of plagiarism was ethically respectable because of the neoclassic doctrine oi 'imitatio (see H. O. White, Plagiarism and Imitation during the English Renaissance, 1935). Useful summaries of the classical influences will be found in J. A. K. Thomson,

Classical Influences on English Poetry (1951) and Classical

Influences on English Prose (1956). A more critical account is Gilbert Highet, The Classical Tradition: Greek and Roman influences on western literature (1949). Accounts of an author’s after-fame have been of two types. In Caroline Spurgeon, Five Hundred Years of Chaucer Criticism and Allusion (3 vols., 1925) and John Munro,

The Shakespeare Allusion-Book (rev. E. K.

Chambers, 2 vols., 1932) every discoverable reference - for Chaucer to 1900, for Shakespeare to 1700 - is transcribed in chronological order. The more selective treatment in a continuous narrative is ably represented by A. B. Howes,

Yorick and the Critics: Sterne's reputation in England,

iy6o-i868 (1958) and G. H. Ford, Keats and the Victorians: a study of his influence and rise to fame, i82i-i8gy (1944).

■ Attribution and authenticity Morize, Problems and Methods of Literary History, chap, vii, is a good introduction to the topic, which is also surveyed by Altick, Art of Literary Research, chap, iii, and Sanders, Introduction to Research, chap. in. On a larger scale, David V. Erdman and Ephim G. Fogel, eds.. Evidence for Authorship (1966) provides a stimulating collection of essays (some of which were originally contributed to a symposium on ‘The case for internal evidence’ in the Bulletin of the New York Public Library,

Lxi-Lxiv, 1957-60) as well as an excellent annotated bibliography of selected readings. A greater objectivity in the use of internal evidence is the most impor¬ tant recent advance. The happy-go-lucky methods in Elizabethan drama, including Shakespeare, of F. G. Fleay and J. M. Robertson (and the more responsible Charles Crawford and Dugdale Sykes) were pilloried by E. K. Chambers in ‘The disintegration of Shakespeare’ {Proceedings of British Academy, xi, 1925, 89-108, and in Shakespearean Gleanings, 1944). The next stage, represented by the more cautious E. H. C. Oliphant, The Plays of Beaumont and Fletcher: an attempt to determine their respective shares and the shares of others (1927), has given place to the meticulous linguistic re-examination typified by Cyrus Hoy, ‘The shares of Fletcher and his collaborators in the Beaumont and Fletcher canon’ {SB, viii-xv.

Literary scholarship

262

1956-62). The turning point was perhaps the collaborative Shakespeare^s Hand in the Play of Sir Thomas More by A. W. Pollard, W. W. Greg, E. M. Thompson, J. D. Wilson, and R. W. Chambers (1923), which remains a model of method. The whole field is well surveyed in S. Schoenbaum’s

level-headed

and

informative

Internal

Evidence

and

Elizabethan Dramatic Authorship (1966). Unsigned essays have been skilfully recovered by R. S. Crane in New Essays by Oliver Goldsmith (1927) and by Stuart M. Tave in New Essays by De Quincey (1966). G. Udny Yule, The Statistical Study of Literary Vocabulary (1944), an attempt to determine the authorship of De Imitatione Christi, opened a door for the use of computers; Alvar Ellegard has applied similar methods to the ‘Junius’problem in A Statistical Method for Determining Authorship (Stockholm, 1962). The standard work of reference is Samuel Halkett and John Laing, Dictionary of Anonymous and Pseudonymous English Literature (new edn., rev. James Kennedy et al., 9 vols., 1926-62). William Cushing’s Anonyms (1889)

Initials and Pseudonyms (2 vols., 1886-88) are still occasionally

useful, and the British Museum General Catalogue of Printed Books (263 vols., 1959-66) also identifies the authors of a great many anonymous and pseudonymous books and pamphlets. For the most part reliable, none of these is infallible because each derives its identifications from a variety of sources, some dependable, some not. A more scholarly venture is Wk E. Houghton’s gradual identification of authors of anonymous reviews and articles in the great nineteenth-century journals (from office copies, correspondence, etc.) in The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals (1966-

). Indexes of the contributors to the Monthly Review (1749-1815)

have been brought out by B. C. Nangle (2 vols., 1934-55), while early contributors to the Quarterly Review and Blackwood's Magazine have been identified by H. and H. C. Shine (1949) and A. L. Strout (1959), respec¬ tively. See also Andrew Boyle, An Index to the Annuals [1820-50], vol. i: ‘The authors’ (1967). Additional reference works are described by Archer Taylor and Frederic J. Mosher in The Bibliographical History of Anonyma and Pseudonyma (1951). The most spectacular modern exposure of literary forgery is John Carter and Graham Pollard, An Enquiry into the Nature of Certain Nine¬ teenth Century Pamphlets (1934), which has been supplemented by D. F. Foxon, Thomas J. Wise and the Pre-Restoration Drama: a study in theft and sophistication (1959).

The techniques of literary research

263

■ The processes of composition Authors have not provided much information on the writing of their own works. Apart from such classics as Coleridge’s account of his dream-poem ‘Kubla Khan’ (published with ‘Christabel’, 1816) and Edgar Allan Poe’s of the opposite method he used with ‘The Raven’ (‘The philosophy of composition’, Graham’s Magazine, 1846), the poets have been curiously reticent until recently, though in On English Poetry (1922) Robert Graves has explained how several of his early poems were written. C. Day Lewis has also described in some detail the composition of one of his poems in Poetry for You (1944), as has I. A. Richards in ‘Poetic process and literary analysis’, contributed to Style in Language (ed. T. A. Sebeok, i960). The most notable equivalents in the field of prose fiction are Henry James’s prefaces to the New York edition of his Novels and Tales (24 vols., 1907-09). Poets at Work (introd. C. D. Abbott, 1948) contains essays by D. A. Stauffer, Karl Shapiro, Rudolf Arnheim, and W. H. Auden based on manuscripts of modern poets at the Lockwood Memorial Library, Buffalo. Editions that provide exceptional insight into authors’ methods of com¬ position and revision include: R. L. Purdy’s edition of Sheridan’s T/je Rivals from the Larpent MS with the revised version on opposite pages (1935); Ernest de Selincourt’s parallel text edition of Wordsworth’s 1805-06 and 1850 versions of The Prelude (1926, rev. Helen Darbyshire, 1959); and T. G. Steffan and W. W. Pratt’s variorum edition of Byron’s Don Juan (4 vols., 1957, rev. 1971), especially Steffan’s The Making of a Masterpiece (vol. i). Other important works of literary research on this topic are: M. R. Ridley, Keats’ Craftsmanship: a study in poetic develop¬ ment (1933). Josephine W. Bennett, The Evolution of ‘The Faerie Queene’ (1942). A. H. Gilbert, On the Composition of ‘Paradise Lost’ (1948). Grace J. Calder,

The Writing of ‘Past and Present’ (1949). Neville Rogers,

Shelley at Work (1956, rev. 1967). John Butt and Kathleen Tillotson, Dickens at Work (1957). Jerome Beaty, ‘Middlemarch’ from Notebook to Novel: a study of George Eliot’s creative method (i960). E. R. Wasserman, Pope’s Epistle to Bathurst: a critical reading with an edition of the manuscripts (i960). R. W. Rader, Tennyson’s ‘Maud’: the biographical genesis (1963). Jon Stallworthy, Between the Lines: Yeats’spoetry in the making (1963) and Vision and Revision in Yeats’s ‘Last Poems' (1969). Robert Scholes and Richard M. Kain, The Workshop of Daedalus: James Joyce and the raw materials for ‘A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man’ (1965, J. T. Laird, The Making of ‘Tess of the D’ Urbervilles’ (1975).

Literary scholarship

264

■ The literary profession and audience The best general survey is J. W. Saunders, The Profession of English Letters (1964). Specifically Marxist studies include: ‘Christopher Caudweir [C. St J. Sprigg], Illusion and Reality (1937) and Romance and Realism (ed. S. Hynes, 1970); George Thomson, Marxism and Poetry (1945); and Arnold Kettle, Introduction to the English Novel (2 vols., 1952-53). A helpful survey of some of the less committed studies is provided by Lennox Grey’s ‘Literary audience’ in Contemporary Literary Scholarship (ed. Lewis Leary, 1958). Among the more important works on this topic are: Alexandre Beljame, Le public et les hommes de lettres en Angleterre au dix-huitieme siecle, 1660-1^44 (Paris, 1881; English translation, with new notes by Bonamy Dobree, 1948). Leslie Stephen, English Literature and Society in the Eighteenth Century (1904). Phoebe Sheavyn, The Literary Profession in the Elizabethan Age (1909, rev. J. W. Saunders, 1967). K. J. Holzknecht, Literary Patronage in the Middle Ages (1923). L. L. Schiicking, Die Soziologie der literarischen Geschmacksbildung (Munich, 1923; English translation, 1944). A. S. Collins, Authorship in the Days of Johnson, iy26-iy8o (1927) and The Profession of Letters, ly80-^1832 (1928). Amy Cruse, The Englishman and His Books in the Early Nineteenth Century (1930), The Victorians and Their Books (1935), and After the Victorians (1938). Q. D. Leavis, Fiction and the Reading Public (1932). R. J. Allen, The Clubs of Augustan London (1933). L. B. Wright, Middle-Class Culture in Elizabethan England (1935).

Knights, Drama and Society in the

Age of Jonson (1937). Alfred Harbage, Shakespeare’s Audience (1941). Dorothy Whitelock, The Audience of Beowulf

G. H. Ford, Dickens

and His Readers (1955). R. K. Webb, The British Working Class Reader, iygo-1838 (1955)- R. D. Altick, The English Common Reader: a social history of the mass reading public, i8oo-igoo (1957). Alvar Ellegard, The Readership of the Periodical Press in Mid-Victorian Britain (Gothenburg, 1957). Ian Watt, The Rise of the Novel

E. H. Miller, The Professional

Writer in Elizabethan England: a study of non-dramatic literature {ig^g). John Loftis, Comedy and Society from Congreve to Fielding (i960) and The Politics of Drama in Augustan England (1963). Louis James, Fiction for the Working Man, 1830-1850 (1963). Leo Hughes, The Drama’s Patrons: a study of the eighteenth-century London audience (1971).

■ Key terms and concepts Of the many dictionaries of literary terms the most ambitious are the Dictionary of World Literary Terms (ed. J. T. Shipley, 3rd edn., 1970) and the Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics (ed. A. Preminger, 1965,

The techniques of literary research rev. 1974)-

265

both (especially Shipley) the length and quality of the entries

vary enormously, but no student of Augustan poetry can afford to miss, to take one example, R. S. Crane, ‘Neo-classical criticism’ in Shipley. The best of the short-entry dictionaries is M. H. Abrams, Glossary of Literary Terms (3rd edn., 1971), though it provides fewer illustrative quotations than A. F. Scott, Current Literary Terms (1965). A Dictionary of Modern Critical Terms (ed. Roger Fowler, 1973) is the most recent of such com¬ pilations and includes a short bibliography with many of the terms defined. Some of the more important terms are treated at greater length in separate vols. of two series: ‘Critical Idiom’ (ed. John Jump) and ‘Concepts of Literature’ (ed. William Righter). Three general surveys are of exceptional value: E. R. Curtius, Europdische Literatur und lateinisches Mittelalter (Berne, 1948; English trans., 1953: especially valuable for its ‘topoi’, i.e. conventions of subject-matter, such as the May morning); W. K. Wimsatt and Cleanth Brooks, Literary Criticism: a short history (1957: indispensable for the Renaissance and English neoclassicism); M. H. Abrams,

The Mirror and the Lamp:

Romantic theory and the critical tradition (1953: Romantic theory in all its English ramifications). In addition to specialist articles in the Journal of the History of Ideas (1940-

) there are the following collections of essays, etc.: Logan P. Smith,

Four Words: Romantic, Originality, Creative, Genius (1924; reprinted in Words and Idioms, 1925). A. O. Lovejoy, Essays in the History of Ideas (1948). Nature, classicism. Romanticism, Gothic, etc. W. J. Hippie, The Beautiful, the Sublime, and the Picturesque in Eighteenth-Century British Aesthetic Theory (1957). C. S. Lewis, Studies in Words (i960). Nature, wit, sense, simple, conscious, etc. George Williamson, Seventeenth Century Contexts (i960). Mutability, ‘strong lines’, enthusiasm, wit. J. B. Leishman, Themes and Variations in Shakespeare's Sonnets (1961). Poetry as immor¬ talization (from Pindar to Shakespeare), devouring time and fading beauty (from the Greek Anthology to Shakespeare). Rene Wellek, Concepts of Criticism (1963). Literary criticism, baroque. Romanticism, realism, etc. Discriminations: further concepts of criticism (1970). Comparative literature, classicism, symbolism. R. S. Crane, The Idea of the Humanities and Other Essays Critical and Historical (2 vols., 1967). Ancients and moderns, ‘Man of Feeling’, progress, etc. The terms most elaborately discussed recently have been: classicism:

Henri Peyre, ‘Le mot Classicisme’ (in Le Classicisme franqais,

1942). Also Lovejoy and Wellek (above). courtesy:

Ruth Kelso, The Institution of the Gentleman in English Litera-

266

Literary scholarship ture of the Sixteenth Century (1929) and Doctrine for the Lady of the Renaissance (1956).

culture: Raymond Williams, Culture and Society, ijSo-igyo (1958). DISSOCIATION OF SENSIBILITY: F. W. Bateson, Essays in Criticism, i (1951), 302-12, also Frank Kermode in Romantic Image (1957).

gothic: Samuel Kliger, The Goths in England (1952); Paul Frankl, The Gothic (i960), also Lovejoy (above).

grotesque: Arthur Clayborough, The Grotesque in English Literature (1965)-

image: P. N. Furbank, Reflections on the Word 'Image (1970). imagination: M. W. Bundy, ‘ “Invention” and “Imagination” in the Renaissance’, jfEGP, xxix (1930), 535-45; A.

S. P. Woodhouse,

‘Collins and the creative imagination’ (in Studies in English, by Members of University College, Toronto, ed. M. W. Wallace, 1931).

irony: Norman Knox, The Word Irony and Its Context, Z500-J755 (1961). nature: J. W. Beach, The Concept of Nature in Nineteenth-Century English Poetry (1936); also Lovejoy and Lewis (above).

novelty: C. de W. Thorpe, ‘Addison and some of his predecessors on “novelty” ’, PMLA, lii (1937), 1114-29. picturesque: Elizabeth W. Manwaring, Italian Landscape in Eighteenth Century England (1925); J. H. Hagstrum, The Sister Arts (1958); also Hippie (above).

plenitude: A. O. Lovejoy, The Great Chain of Being (1936); Maynard Mack, introduction to edition of VopCs, Essay on Man{ig^o). Lovejoy’s book demonstrates brilliantly his approach to the history of thought via single ‘unit-ideas’.

primitivism: H. N. Fairchild, The Noble Savage (1928); Lois Whitney, Primitivism and the Idea of Progress in English Popular Literature of the Eighteenth Century (1934); Margaret M. Fitzgerald, First Follow Nature: primitivism in English poetry, iy2g,--iyg,o (1947).

realism: Harry Levin, ‘What is Realism?’ (in Contexts of Criticism, 1957, pp. 67-75);

Wellek (above).

romanticism: Fernand Baldensperger, ‘ “Romantique”, ses analogues et ses equivalents: tableau synoptique de 1650 a 1810’, Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature, xix (1937), 13-105 (examples from French, English, and German in parallel columns); Hans Eichner, ed., 'Romantic' and Its Cognates: the European History of a Word (1972); also Lovejoy, Wellek, and Kermode (above).

sentimental: E. Erametsa, A Study of the Word 'Sentimental' (Helsinki, 1951)-

simplicity: R. D. Havens, ‘Simplicity, a changing concept’. Journal of the

The techniques of literary research

267

History of Ideas, xiv (1953), 3-32. From 1700 to c. 1815. sincerity:

Patricia M. Ball, ‘Sincerity: the rise and fall of a critical term’,

Modern Language Review, Lix (1964), i-ii. sublime:

S. H. Monk, The Sublime: a study of critical theories in XVIII-

century England (1935); J- T. Boulton, introduction to edition of Burke’s Sublime and Beautiful (1958); also Hippie (above). wit:

George Williamson, The Proper Wit of Poetry (1961).

12 AMERICAN LITERATURE

Bibliographies and other works of reference ■ Biography The Dictionary of American Biography [DABi], ed. Allen Jackson, Dumas Malone, et al, 20 vols., plus index and supplements (1928-1937, 1946, 1958) is standard and includes many deceased American authors. Stanley Kunitz and Howard Haycraft (ed.), American Authors, i6oo-igoo (1938, 1942), and The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 47 vols. to date, 1892-

), are also useful. For modern authors consult Who's Who

in America (Chicago, 1899-

)

Contemporary Authors, quarterly from

March 1962).

In each division of this section of the Guide the attempt has been to record the titles of the most significant books pertinent to the subject and some unusually important essays or chapters in books, articles in journals, and separately published pamphlets, particularly the University of Minnesota Pamphlets on American Writers [UMPAW]. Standard abbreviations for journal titles, as given in the annual MLA International Bibliography, have been used throughout and may be found in the list of journals included in this section or in the section listing periodicals for the study of English literature (pp. 249-54). As in the English sections the place of publication of books and journals is Great Britain, the United States, or Canada unless otherwise indicated. Other abbreviations: BAL Blanck’s Bibliography of American Lterature CEAA The Center for the Edition of American Authors DAB Dictionary of American Biography LHUS Literary History of the United States MWEAL Major Writers of Early American Literature NR New Republic N YHTB New York Herald Tribune Books

Bibliographies nad other works of reference

269

■ Bibliographical guides and handbooks Clarence Gohdes, Bibliographical Guide to the Study of the Literature of the U.S.A., 3rd edn., rev. (1970) is the standard work. Charles H. Nilon, Bibliography of Bibliographies in American Literature (1970) is a wideranging list of sources under forty-two categories. Richard D. Altick and Andrew Wright, Selective Bibliography for the Study of English and American Literature, 5th edn. (1975) is a handy paperback for the beginner. More limited in scope but a model of its kind is Richard Beale Davis, American Literature through Bryant 1388-1830 (1969) in the Goldentree Bibliographies series (other vols. on American subjects in this series are listed below). The following specialized works can be recommended; Matthew J. Bruccoli (ed.), ‘The Chief Glory of Every People’: Essays on Classic American Writers (1973). Essays on Cooper, S. Crane, John Dewey, Emerson, Hawthorne, Howells, Irving, Melville, Simms, Thoreau, Twain, Whitman. Not strictly a ‘guide’, this nonetheless provides up-to-date reappraisals of the authors treated and in some cases an estimate of the ‘state of the art’ in current scholarship. Jackson R. Bryer (ed.). Sixteen Modern American Authors: a survey of re¬ search and criticism (1974; orig. title Fifteen Modern American Authors, 1969). Essays on S. Anderson, Cather, H. Crane, Dreiser, T. S. Eliot, Faulkner, Fitzgerald, Frost, Hemingway, O’Neill, Pound, E. A. Robinson, Steinbeck, Stevens, W. C. Williams, Wolfe. Everett Emerson (ed.). Major

Writers of Early American Literature

(1972). Essays on Wm Bradford, Bradstreet, Taylor, C. Mather, Wm. Byrd H, Edwards, Franklin, Freneau, C. B. Brown. Robert A. Rees, and Earl N. Harbert (ed.). Fifteen American Authors before igoo (1971). Essays on H. Adams, Bryant, Cooper, S. Crane, Dickinson, Edwards, Franklin, Holmes, Howells, Irving, Longfellow, J. R. Lowell, Norris, Taylor, Whittier, Literature of the Old South, Literature of the New South. Louis D. Rubin jr. (ed.), A Bibliographical Guide to the Study of Southern Literature (1969); appendix by J. A. Leo Lemay lists 68 more writers of the Colonial South. Essays on 23 general topics and more than 200 individual writers from John Smith to Walker Percy. Darwin T. Turner, Afro-American Writers (Goldentree Bibliographies Series, 1970). 135 Black American writers, early eighteenth century to present. James Woodress (ed.). Eight American Authors (rev. edn., 1971). Essays on Poe, Emerson, Hawthorne, Thoreau, Melville, Whitman, Twain, James.

American literature

270

■ Current bibliographies, checklists, and surveys Articles on American Literature Appearing in Current Periodicals, igoo—ig^o (1954) and its companion vol. Articles . . . ig^o-igO'/ (1970), ed. Lewis Leary, provide a comprehensive checklist to published scholarship; Anita F. Maldonado, Index to Articles on American Literature . . . J95J-J959 (i960) supplements Leary’s vols. Leary’s principal sources are the quarterly bibliographies in AL, the annual bibliography in AO, and the American section of the MLA International Bibliography, all of which should be consulted for the most up-to-date listings. Leary is now compiling a supplement to his Articles which will cover 1968 to 1975 inclusive. The annual American Literary Scholarship (1964-

),

ed. James

Woodress (for 1963-67, and 1973), and J. Albert Robbins (for 1968-72) consists of essays by specialists assessing the year’s work on American literature under chronological periods, genres, or writers. This source must be consulted by any serious student of American literature.

■ American bibliography The standard bibliography is Jacob Blanck, Bibliography of American Literature [BAL'l 6 vols. to date: i, Henry Adams to Bonn Byrne (1955); II,

G. W. Cable to Timothy Dwight (1957); m, Edward Eggleston to Bret

Harte (1959); iv, Nathaniel Hawthorne to Joseph H. Ingraham (1963); V,

Washington Irving to H. W. Longfellow (1969); and vi, A. B. Longstreet

to Thomas W. Parsons (1973). American publications are catalogued in one or more of the following, here arranged here chronologically from the beginning to the present: Charles Evans, American Bibliography: A chronological dictionary . . .from

i63g [down to .. . 1820. 13 vols. and index (1903-34, repr. 1955, 1959). Reaches only through 1800, indexed by R. P. Bristol (1961), see R. P. Bristol’s Supplement and Index to Supplement (1970, 1971). See also the National Index of American Imprints through 1800: the short-title Evans

by

Clifford

K.

Shipton

and

James E.

Mooney

(2

vols.,

1969). Ralph R. Shaw and Richard H. Shoemaker. American Bibliography: a preliminary checklist ([1801-19]; repr. 20 vols., 1958-65). Supplements include Title Index (1965) and Corrections, Author Index (1966). Richard H. Shoemaker, et al., A Checklist of American Imprints for [1820-30]. (13 vols., 1964-73.) O. A. Roorbach, Bibliotheca Americana: catalogue of American publi¬ cations i820-[i86i] (4 vols., 1852-61). James Kelly, The American Catalogue of Books {Original and Reprints)

Bibliographies and other works of reference

271

Published in the United States from Jan., 1861, to Jan., 1866-71).

(2 vols.,

Frederick Leypoldt, et al., The American Catalogue of Books [i8y6—igio]. (13 vols., 1880-1911). Also frequently useful is: Joseph Sabin, Bibliotheca Americana: a dictionary of books relating to America, from its discovery to the present time (29 vols., 1868-1936). IN PROGRESS

Cumulative Book Index \i8g8-

] (1900-

).

The Publishers’ Trade List Annual (1873-

).

American Book Publishing Record (i960-

).

Publishers' Weekly (1872-

).

The National Union Catalog Pre-ig^O Imprints (393 vols. to date. 1968-

).

Vol. 393 ends with Moran, Baruch (1975). The National Union Catalog ig^O through ig6y (125 vols., 1970). The National Union Catalog ig68-igy2 (106 vols., 1973). The National Union Catalog igyj (16 vols., 1973-74). The National Union Catalog igy4 (16 vols., 1974-75). The National Union Catalog igyp, (5 vols. to April, 1975, 1975). ■ Other selected reference works James D. Hart, The Oxford Companion to American Literature, 4th edn. (1965) is indispensable within its wide limits. James Woodress, Disser¬ tations in American Literature i8gi-ig66 (1968), and G. Thomas Tanselle, Guide to the Study of United States Imprints (2 vols., 1971) are equally useful within their narrower terms of reference. Standard in their fields are: Frank Luther Mott, A History of American Magazines (4 vols., 1938-1957; a 5th vol., Sketches of Twenty-One Magazines, igo^-iggo, also containing an index to all 5 vols., followed in 1968); Clarence S. Brigham, History and Bibliography of American Newspapers, i6go-i820 (2 vols., 1947; rev. edn. 1962); and Winifred Gregory, American News¬ papers, i82i--ig36, a Union List of Files Available in the United States and Canada (1937; 1967). Joseph Jones, et ah, American Literary Manu¬ scripts: a checklist of holdings in . . . Libraries in the United States (i960) contains errors that will be corrected in the rev. edn. now in progress (ed. J. Albert Robbins et al.).

American literature

272

Histories and anthologies ■ General histories Originally in 3 vols. (1948) the authoritative and standard Literary History of the United States [LRUS'], ed. Robert E. Spiller et al., is now in its 4th rev. edn. (2 vols., 1974). Vol.

I,

History, contains essays on every period,

movement, major figure, and many minor figures in the canon of American literary history from the beginnings to the present; vol. 2, Bibliography, contains selective bibliographies for each of these movements, periods, and individual writers (through 1972). Marcus Cunliffe, The Literature of the United States (1954; rev., 1967) is the best one-vol. history, though A. H. Quinn et al.. The Literature of the American People (1951) is also good. Robert E. Spiller, The Cycle of American Literature (1957), and Leon Howard, Literature and the American Tradition (i960), were both written for a more general audience, but may be read with profit. ■ Period histories Eor the colonial and early national period, Moses Coit Tyler’s often crotchety but thorough A History of American Literature

(2 vols., 1878; Revolution

I

J607-J765

1962) and The Literary History of the American (2 vols., 1897; i vol., 1957) remain standard. Perry

vol.,

Miller’s more restricted The New England Mind: the seventeenth century

(1939; repr. 1961) and The New England Mind: from colony to province (1953; repr. 1961) are indispensable, though both vols. have come under increasing criticism in the past fifteen years. For the nineteenth century, F. O. Matthiessen, American Renaissance: art and expression in the age of Emerson and Whitman (1941) is classic, as is D. H. Lawrence, Studies in Classic American Literature (1923), if for different reasons. Jay Martin, Harvests of Change: American literature, i86y,-igi4 (1967), and Warner Berthoff, The Ferment of Realism: American literature, 1884-igig (1965), focus on the post-Civil War era and the early twentieth century. Van Wyck Brooks covers a longer period in Makers and Finders: a history of the writer in America 1800-igi^ (5 vols., 1936-52). For the modern period, Howard M. Jones and Richard M. Ludwig, Guide to American Literature and Its Backgrounds since i8go (3rd edn., rev. 1964), is the best single work. Edmund Wilson (ed.). The Shock of Recognition (2 vols., 1955) collects the opinions of American authors on American literature, for the periods 1850-1900 (vol. i) and 1900-1950 (vol. 2).

Histories and anthologies

273

■ Anthologies The fullest and most up-to-date anthology is American Literature: tradition and innovation, ed. Harrison T. Meserole, Walter Sutton, and Brom Weber (new edn., 4 vols., 1974). An excellent rival is The American Tradition in Literature, ed. Scully Bradley, Richmond C. Beatty, and E. Hudson Long (4th rev. edn., 2 vols., 1974).

Literary criticism* Morton D. Zabel (ed.). Literary Opinion in America (3rd edn., 2 vols., 1962) contains a historical outline, extensive selections, an excellent list of recent works, and a superb bibliography of twentiety-century American criticism. Walter Sutton, Modern American Criticism (1963), Stanley E. Hyman, The Armed Vision: a study in the methods of modern literary criticism (1948; abridged, 1955), and Richard Ruland, The Rediscovery of American Literature (1967) are also useful. John P. Pritchard’s two books. Criticism in America (1956) and Criticism in New York, 181^^860 (1963), Eloyd Stovall (ed.). The Development of American Literary Criticism (1955), and William Charvat, The Origins of American Critical Thought, 1810-1835 (1936), trace the emergence of American criticism in the nineteenth century, and Hans-Joachim Lang, Studien zur Entstehung der neueren amerikanischen Literaturkritik (Hamburg, 1961) deals with the period 1880 to 1940. ■ The novel Alexander Cowie, The Rise of the American Novel (1938), provides de¬ tailed treatment of the major novelists, and many lesser figures, from William Hill Brown to Dos Passos. Carl Van Doren, The American Novel,

lydg-igsg (1940) is less detailed though more critical, as are Richard Chase (1957), Arthur H. Quinn (1936), first-class for early fiction, Leslie Fiedler, Love and Death in the American Novel (i960; rev. 1966) and D. E. S. Maxwell on The Intellectual Background (1963). The emphasis in Edward Wagenknecht, Cavalcade of the American Novel (1952) is on twentiety-century fiction. Useful at a humbler level are C. Hugh Holman, The American Novel through Henry James (Goldentree Bibliographies, 1966), which provides an

* See also the Literary Criticism general section, pp. contains many American studies not included here.

222-32, which

American literature

274

extensive annotated listing of selected key sources for the study of the novel up to Edith Wharton (despite its title), and Blake Nevius, The American Novel: Sinclair Lewis to the Present (1970), in the same series, for more contemporary writers. Other studies of the novel, with particular thematic or chronological emphases, or employing particular critical approaches, are: John W. Aldridge, Time to Murder and Create (1966): forces behind the novels of O’Hara, Styron, Bellow, Porter, McCarthy, Mailer, and Updike. Louis Auchincloss, Pioneers and Caretakers (1965): nine women novelists from Jewett to McCarthy. Joseph Warren Beach, American Fiction, ig20-ig40 (1941): the revolt against romanticism in Dos Passos, Hemingway, Faulkner, Wolfe, Cald¬ well, Farrell, Marquand and Steinbeck. Marius Bewley, The Eccentric Design: form in the American novel (1959). Primarily Cooper, Hawthorne and James. Nelson Blake, Novelists' America: Fiction as History, igio-ig40 (1969): the period as reflected in the novels of Wolfe, Lewis, Fitzgerald, Faulkner, Steinbeck, Dos Passos, Farrell, and Wright. Joseph Blotner, The Modern American Political Novel, igoo~ig^o (1966). American politics in the novels of West, Lewis, Sinclair, Dos Passos, Hicks, and Mailer. Sam Blufarb, The Escape Motif in the American Novel: Mark Twain to Richard Wright (1972): treats Twain, Harold Frederic, S. Anderson, Dos Passos, Hemingway, Steinbeck, McCullers, and Richard Wright. Herbert R. Brown, The Sentimental Novel in America, iy8g-i86o (1940): domestic, moral, and religious ideas in most of the major and minor figures. Edwin H. Cady, The Light of Common Day: Realism in American Fiction (1971): development of realism in Twain, Hawthorne, Howells, Stephen Crane, and Wister. Robert Falk, The Victorian Mode in American Fiction, 1863-1885 (1965): Twain, DeForest, Howells, and James as seeking an ‘equilibrium of conflicting forces’. W. M. Frohock, The Novel of Violence in America (1957): conflicting social problems from Dos Passos to Agee. David D. Galloway,

The Absurd Hero in American Fiction: Updike,

Styron, Bellow, Salinger (1966). Maxwell Geismar, Rebels and Ancestors: the American novel, i8go-igi3 (1953): primarily Norris, Crane, London, Ellen Glasgow, and Dreiser; The Last of the Provincials: the American novel, igi3-ig23 (1947): Mencken, Lewis, Gather, Anderson, Fitzgerald; Writers in Crisis: The American Novel Between Two Wars (1942): Lardner, Hemingway, Dos

Literary criticism

275

Passes, Faulkner, Wolfe, Steinbeck, and American Moderns: from rebellion to conformity (1958): the novel of the mid-twentieth century. Harlan Hatcher, Creating the Modern American Novel (1935); primarily 1900-1930. Harry B. Henderson, iii, Versions of the Past: The Historical Imagination in American Fiction (1974): the novel of the last decade, especially Warren, Styron, Malamud, Ellison, and Mailer. David H. Hirsch, Reality and Idea in the Early American Novel (The Ha£;ue, 1971); the romance in the novels of Brackenridge, Brown, Cooper, H v^Lhorne, and Melville. Daniel G. Hoffman, Form and Fable in American Fiction (1961); thematic treatment of works by Irving, Hawthorne, Melville, and Twain. Howard Mumford Jones, The Frontier in American Fiction (Jerusalem, 1956): excellent treatment of frontier element in novels of Cooper, Twain, and Cather. Alfred Kazin, On Native Grounds: an interpretation of modern American prose literature (1942): the critical classic on the novel since Howells as an interpretation of American life. Harry Levin, The Power of Blackness (1958): studies in Poe, Hawthorne, and Melville. R. W. B. Lewis, The American Adam: innocence, tragedy, and tradition in the nineteenth century (1955): first-rate study of nineteenth-century fiction. Lillie D. Loshe, The Early American Novel (1907; 1930): the early novel through Cooper. Leonard Lutwack, Heroic Fiction (1971): especially on Norris, Steinbeck, Hemingway, Bellow, and Ellison. Perry Miller, The Raven and the Whale: the war of words and wits in the era of Poe and Melville (1956): primarily on Poe and Melville, but also treats the other major writers of the period. Gordon Milne, The American Political Novel (1966): most of the major figures, 1774-1964. David W. Noble, The Eternal Adam and the New World Garden: The Central Myth in the American Novel Since 1830 (1968). Raymond M. Olderman, Beyond the Waste Land: a study of the American novel in the nineteen-sixties (1972):

Kesey,

Barth,

Heller,

Pynchon,

Hawkes, Vonnegut, and Elkin. Walter B. Rideout, The Radical Novel in the United States, igoo-igM (1956): social elements in Dos Passos, Farrell, Hicks, and Sinclair. Tony Tanner, City of Words: American fiction, ig^o—igyo (1971): good critical survey of Nabokov, Ellison, Bellow, Heller, Barth, Pynchon, Vonnegut, Hawkes, Updike, Roth, Malamud, Mailer, and Kesey.

American literature

276

Gordon O. Taylor, The Passages of Thought: psychological representation in the American novel, i8yo-igoo (1969): psychological realism in James, Howells, Norris, Crane, and Dreiser. James W. Tuttleton, The Novel of Manners in America (1972); detailed discussion of Cooper, James, Howells, Wharton, Lewis,

Fitzgerald,

O’Hara, Marquand, and Cozzens. Helen Weinberg, The New Novel in America: the Kafkan mode in con¬ temporary fiction (1969): Salinger, Roth, Bellow, Mailer, and Malamud. ■ Short story Fred Lewis Pattee, The Development of the American Short Story (1923; repr. 1966), is still the best general survey, though it must be supple¬ mented by Arthur Voss, The American Short Story (1973). William Peden, The American Short Story (2nd edn., 1975), is a good historical and biblio¬ graphical treatment, 1940-1975; Austin M. Wright, The American Short Story in the Twenties (1961) concentrates on S. Anderson, Fitzgerald, Hemingway, Faulkner, and Katherine Anne Porter. In Ray B. West, jr.. The Short Story in America, igoo-igyo (1952) emphasis is on the 1940’s. Harry Hayden Clark, American Literature: Poe through

Garland

(Goldentree Bibliographies, 1971), provides an extensive annotated listing of key sources for the study of the short story, including letters, travel accounts, and writings on literary theory between 1830 and 1914. ■ Poetry Roy Harvey Pearce, The Continuity of American Poetry (1961) is the best general treatment of the history and theory of American poetry, though Hyatt H. Waggoner, American Poets from the Puritans to the Present (1968) is also useful. Gay Wilson Allen, American Prosody (1935), long the standard work, is still worth reading, as is Louise Bogan, Achievement in American Poetry (1951). More specialized studies are: Gordon S. Bigelow, Rhetoric and American Poetry of the Early National Period (i960): theories of poetry in the early poets. Cleanth Brooks, Modern Poetry and the Tradition (1939): stimulating discussion of the changing tradition in American poetry. Stanley Burnshaw, The Seamless Web (1970): poetic imagination in modern poetry. Stanley K. Coffman, Imagism: a chapter for the history of modern poetry (1951): the imagist tradition in Amy Lowell, Pound, Eliot, and Williams. L. S. Dembo, Conceptions of Reality in Modern American Poetry (1966): good on Hart Crane, Williams, Moore, Cummings, Pound, and Eliot.

Literary criticism

277

Edwin Fussell, Lucifer in Harness: American meter, metaphor, and diction (1973): poetic technique in Poe, Whitman, Eliot, Pound, Hart Crane, Williams, and Stevens. Horace Gregory, and Marya Zaturenska, A History of American Poetry igoo-ig^-O (1946): general survey-Moody to Eliot. Harold S. Jantz, The First Century of New England Verse (1944): the best available detailed treatment of the development of Puritan poetry. But also consult Harrison T. Meserole (ed.), Seventeenth-Century American Poetry (1968), for a useful introd., texts, and notes, and Kenneth Silverman (ed.). Colonial American Poetry (1968), for additional material on the eighteenth century. J. Hillis Miller, Poets and Reality (1965): first-rate study of Eliot, Stevens, and Williams and their relationship to the European tradition. Robert Philips, The Confessional Poets (1973): analysis of the style and language of six contemporary poets: Lowell, Snodgrass, Sexton, Berryman, Roethke, and Plath. M. L. Rosenthal, The Modern Poets: a critical introduction (i960), and The New Poets: American and British Poetry Since World War II (1967). These two form the best critical survey of contemporary poetry, covering almost all the poets. Walter Sutton, American Free Verse (1973): Whitman to Pound, Cum¬ mings, Moore, and Williams. Allen Tate (ed.). Six American Poets from Emily Dickinson to the Present: (1972): Dickinson, Hart Crane, Robinson, Aiken, Moore, and Cummings. Hyatt H. Waggoner, The Heel of Elohim: science and values in modern American poetry (1950): science and religion in the poetry of Robinson, Frost, Eliot, Jeffers, MacLeish, and Hart Crane. Yvor Winters, Primitivism and Decadence: a study of American experimental poetry (1937) •’ brilliant attack on the modernist tradition. Edmund Wilson, Axel’s Castle: a study in the literature of iSyo-igj (1931): landmark study tracing the movements of the period - especially Yeats, Valery, Eliot, Proust, Joyce, and Gertrude Stein.

■ Drama Arthur H. Quinn’s A History of the American Drama from the Beginning to the Civil War (2 vols., 1923) and A History of the American Drama from the Civil War to the Present Day (1927; rev. 1939), are the standard works. Arthur Hornblow, A History of the Theatre in America from Its Beginnings to the Present Time (2 vols., 1919) is a good general study containing some material not in Quinn. Margaret C. Mayorga, A Short History of the

American literature

278

American Drama: commentaries on plays prior to ig20 (1932), is especially useful for its extensive bibliography. E. Hudson Long, American Drama from Its Beginnings to the Present (Goldentree series, 1970), provides an extensive annotated listing of key sources for the study of the drama and theatre, by periods, and of major and lesser dramatists from the eighteenth century to the present. Other studies of more limited scope are:Louis Broussard, American Drama: contemporary allegory from Eugene O’Neill to Tennessee Williams (1962): O’Neill, Barry, Eliot, Wilder, and Williams. Alan S. Downer, Fifty Years of American Drama igoo-ig^o (1951): brief but discerning survey. Morris Freedman, American Drama in Social Context (1971): O’Neill, Eliot, and Miller. David Grimstead, Melodrama Unveiled: American theatre and culture, 1800-18yo (1968): best available account of melodrama. Joseph Golden, The Death of Tinker Bell: The American Theatre in the 20th Century (1967): excellent general survey. John G. Hartman, The Development of American Social Comedy from 1787 to iggd (1939). Daniel F. Havens, The Columbian Muse of Comedy: the development of a native tradition in early American social comedy, 1787-1845 (1973): Tyler to Anna Cora Mowatt. Francis Hodge, Yankee Theatre: the image of America on the stage, 18251850 (1964): development of American comedy. Glenn Hughes, A History of the American Theatre, i700-ig50 (1951): well done, though marred by inaccuracies. Joseph Wood Krutch, The American Drama Since igi8 (1957); very able study concentrating mainly on O’Neill and Maxwell Anderson. Jordan Y. Miller, American Dramatic Literature (1961): ten twentiethcentury plays with material on historical background. Richard Moody, America Takes the Stage: romanticism in American drama and theatre, 1750-igoo (1955). Montrose J. Moses, The American Dramatist (1918): useful for period from 1870 to 1918. George C. D. Odell, Annals of the New York Stage (15 vols., 1927-1949): greater New York City plays and operas to 1895, with dates of first performances, lists of the original casts, and criticisms of each production. Hugh F. Rankin, The Theater in Colonial America (1965): to 1764, based largely on newspaper sources. George O. Seilhamer, History of the American Theatre (3 vols., 1888-1891;

Literary criticism

279

repr. 1968): general survey of period 1749-1797. Gerald Weales, American Drama Since World War II (1962): interesting account of recent dramatists.

Journals The journals listed below regularly publish essays important to the study of American literature. Various lesser newsletters and bulletins devoted to specific authors (e.g., Dreiser Newsletter, Emily Dickinson Bulletin, Sinclair Lewis Newsletter) also exist. The standard abbreviation for each journal appears in parentheses following the title. An asterisk {*) preceding the title indicates that the journal reviews books. A dagger (f) preceding the title indicates that essays published in that journal are abstracted in the MLA Abstracts. * Afro-American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal (AfrAmS) * Alabama Review (AlaR) * American Book Collector (ABC) American Dialog (AmD) The American Examiner: A Forum of Ideas (AmEx) * American Heritage (AH) \*American Literary Realism, iSyo-igio (ALR) "f*American Literature (AL) * American Notes and Queries (AN&Q) •f*American Quarterly (AQ) * American Scholar (ASch) American Speech (AS) f American Studies (AmerS) American Transcendental Quarterly (ATQ) •\*Appalachian Journal (AppalJ) ■\*Boundary 2: A Journal of Postmodern Literature (Boundary) f Bulletin of the New York Public Library (BNYPL) \*Canadian Review of American Studies (CRevAS) f Colby Library Quarterly (CLQ) f Connecticut Review (ConnR) \*Contemporary Literature (ConL) f Costerus: Essays in English and American Language and Literature (Costerus) Crane Review (CraneR) '\*Early American Literature (EAL) f Emerson Society Quarterly (ESQ)

28o

American literature

f Essex Institute Historical Collections (EIHC) f Fitzgerald-Hemingway Annual {FHA) Georgia Review (GaR) Gypsy Scholar (GyS) Harvard Library Bulletin (HLB) \*Hollins Critic {HC) '\*Indian Journal of American Studies (IJAS) Iowa Review (lowaR) Jahrbuch fur Amerikastudien (JA) \*yournal of American Studies (JAmS) * Journal of Negro History {JNH) f Kansas Quarterly (KanQ) * Kyushu American Literature (KAL) t Library Chronicle {U. of Pa.) {LC) Library Chronicle of the Univ. of Texas (LCUT) *Louisiana Studies (LaS) f Markham Review {MarkhamR) 'f*Mark Twain Journal {MTJ) * Massachusetts Review {MR) f Michigan Academician {MichA) j;*Michigan Quarterly Review {MQR) *Mid-America {M-A) Midwest Quarterly {MQ) * Nathaniel Hawthorne Journal {NHJ) ^*Negro American Literature Forum {NALF) *New England Quarterly {NEQ) *Ohio Review {OhR) *Paideuma: A Journal Devoted to Ezra Pound Scholarship {Paideuma) '\*Papers of the Bibliographical Society of America {PBSA) * Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography {PMHB) * Players: Magazine of American Theatre (Players) t*Poe Studies {PoeS) Princeton University Library Chronicle {PULC) t Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society {PAAS) *Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society {PMHS) Proceedings of the New Jersey Historical Society {PNJHS) Proof: Yearbook of American Bibliographical and Textual Studies {Proof) * Quaker History {QH) "I* Renascence t Research Studies (Wash. State) {RS) * Resources for American Literary Studies {RALS)

Journals

281

*Shenandoah t South & West (S&W) * South Atlantic Bulletin (SAB) '\*South Atlantic Quarterly (SAQ) f*South Carolina Review (SCR) Southern Humanities Review (SHR) Southern Literary Journal (SLJ) \*Southern Review (SR) Southwest Review * Southwestern American Literature (SwAL) * Stephen Crane Newsletter (SCraneN) Studi Americani (Rome) (SA) \*Studies in American Fiction (SAF) Studies in American Literature (Hiroshima) (SALit) * Studies in Black Literature (SBL) Texas Quarterly (TQ) f Thoreau Society Bulletin (TSB) f Thoth Topic (Washington and Jefferson College) Virginia Cavalcade (VC) f*Virginia Magazine of History and Biography (VMHB) * Virginia Quarterly Review (VQR) William and Mary Quarterly (WMQ) *Walt Whitman Review (WWR) * Western American Literature (WAL) Yale University Library Gazette (YULG) \*Zeitschrift fur Anglistik und Amerikanistik (ZAA)

The principal writers (to 1940) Because of the mass of scholarly editions, biographies and critical studies that have accumulated round the classic writers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries it has seemed best to set an arbitrary date as the terminus ad quern of this section. The date chosen is 1900 as an author’s year of birth. At least this solves, or shelves, the problem of who are the best living American authors. As there is no inter-chapter (no ‘The approach to American literature’) it has been possible to include many important articles. The abbreviations used for the journals where they appeared are

American literature

282

listed in the preceding subsection. A few standard works of reference are also abbreviated. (CEAA stands for Center for Editions of American Authors.) In most cases, only the date of publication has been supplied for books cited in this section. Additional information (publisher or city) is provided for a book published by a less well-known press, or in other than a major city. The order of arrangement is by date of the author’s birth. Section X above, on Literary Criticism, includes a great many American writers, most of whom fortunately were born after 1900 as well as some American critical journals. ANNE BRADSTREET

(1612-1672). The Works in Prose and Verse, ed. J. H.

Ellis (1867) is still the standard text. The Works, ed. Jeannine Hensley (1967) is a modernized version; a facsimile edn. of The Tenth Muse (1650) is introd. by Josephine K. Piercy (1965). The Poems, ed. Robert Hutchinson (1969), is a useful paperback. The standard life is Elizabeth Wade White, Anne Bradstreet ‘'The Tenth Muse' (1971). The best critical studies are by Ann Stanford {NEO, 39, 1966, and MWEAL, pp. 33-58); her monograph on the poet (1975) may well become standard. EDWARD TAYLOR

(1642-1729). Donald E. Stanford’s edn. of The Poems

(i960) is the standard, and its Foreword by Louis L. Martz is one of the best critical essays on Taylor. Thomas H. Johnson’s edn. (1939) is still useful. Norman Grabo has ed. Christographia (1962) and Treatise Con¬ cerning the Lord’s Supper (1966). A Metrical History of Christianity, ed. Donald E. Stanford, is available in microphoto (1962). Norman Grabo, Edward Taylor (1961), the first, is still perhaps the best full-length critical study.

Stanford’s concise critical and biographical introd. (1965), is

updated by his essay m MWEAL, pp. 59-91. Taylor’s imagery and typology are discussed by Peter Nicolaisen (Neumiinster, 1966; in German); essays by Ursula Brumm, Karl Keller, and Robert E. Reiter in Typology and Early American Literature, ed. Sacvan Bercovitch (1972), develop the topic; William J. Scheick focuses on Taylor’s psychological, theological, and poetic concepts in The Will and the Word (1974). Karl Keller, The Example of Edward Taylor (1975), successfully sets him in the context of American culture from the seventeenth century to the present.

COTTON MATHER

(1663-1728). Thomas J. Holmes’s 3-vol. bibliography

(there are more than 400 titles) (1940), which has excellent notes and essays by prominent scholars, makes it clear why there is no collected edn. There are, however, modern edns. of his Diary ed. Worthington C. Ford (2 vols.

The principal writers

283

Hist. Soc. Collections, Boston, 1911-12, and New York, 1957), and for the year 1712 ed. William R. Manierre (1964); Selected Letters, ed. Kenneth Silverman (1971); Bonifacius: an essay upon the good, ed. David Levin (1966); and Selections (1926); Magnalia Christi Americana (first two of seven books from London folio 1702) has also been well ed. by Kenneth B. Murdoch (1976). Barrett Wendell’s is still the standard biography (1891; with an intro¬ duction by Alan Heimer, 1963); supplemented by Otho T. Beall, jr., and Richard H. Shryock (1954); Robert Middlekauf, The Mathers . . . 1596i'/28

(1971); and David Levin’s essay in NEQ 34 (1963).

Among the best critical essays are Austin Warren {SR, 72, 1964); rev. in his Connections, (1970); K. M. Woody on Manuductio ad Theologiam {EAL, 4,

II,

1969), and his extensive bibliographical notes to Manuductio

ad Ministerium {EAL, 6, i, 1971); and Sacvan Bercovitch’s fine essay in MWEAL, pp. 93-149.

WILLIAM BYRD II

(1674-1744). The best text of Byrd’s four major works is

ed. Louis B. Wright (1966). The London Diary {iyiy-iy2i) and other writings (1958), and The Secret Diary, iyog-iyi2 (1941) are both ed. Louis B. Wright and Marion Tinling; Another Secret Diary . . . iy3g-iy4i (1942), ed. Maude H. Woodfin and Marion Tinling, also includes some of Byrd’s poems and essays. These are all standard texts. Histories of the Dividing Line Between Virginia and North Carolina, ed. William K, Boyd, with a new introd. and textual additions by Percy G. Adams, is available in a parallel text paperback edn. (1967). Richmond C. Beatty’s biography (Boston, 1932) is the best, but should be supplemented both by Carl Dolmetsch’s (1974) and the Byrd section in Louis B. Wright, The First Gentlemen of Virginia (1940). The best full-length critical study is by Pierre Marambaud (1971); an excellent brief introd. is R. B. Davis’s essay in MWEAL, pp. 151-77.

JONATHAN EDWARDS

(1703-1758). The Standard edn. of The Works is in

progress at Yale (Perry Miller, general editor; now John E. Smith); first four vols. are: i. Freedom, of the Will, ed. Paul Ramsey (1957); ii, Religious Affections, ed. John E. Smith (1959); iii. Original Sin, ed. Clyde A. Hol¬ brook (1970);

IV,

The Great Awakening, ed. C. C. Goen (1972). Earlier

edns.: Sereno Dwight (with Life, 10 vols., 1829-30); Edward Williams and Edward Parsons (8 vols., 1806-11, supp., ed. Robert Ogle, 2 vols., 1847, all repr. 1968); Samuel Austin (8 vols., 1808-09; with additions (index), 4 vols., 1843); Images or Shadows of Divine Things, ed. Perry

American literature

284

Miller (Yale, 1948). There is a convenient selection with excellent introd. by Clarence H. Faust and Thomas H. Johnson (rev. 1962). The standard biography is by Ola E. Winslow (1940); see also Perry Miller (1949) and A. O. Aldridge (1964); both combine biography and criticism. The best critical studies are by Conrad Cherry (1966) and Roland Delattre (1968). The newest full-length study is Whlliam J. Scheick, The Writings of Jonathan Edwards: Theme, Motif, and Style (Texas A & M, 1975)BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

(1706-1790). The Standard edn. of The Papers ed.

Leonard W. Labaree, et al., is now in progress (18 vols. to date; Yale, 1959-

). A. H. Smyth’s lo-vol. edn. (1905-07) supplements it until

complete. Representative Selections, ed. C. E. Jorgensen and F. L. Mott (1962) contains an excellent introd. and bibliography. The Autobiography, ed. Leonard W. Labaree, Helen C. Boatfield, and Helene H. Fineman (1964) is the best edn. of Franklin’s principal work; for additional infor¬ mation on its text, see Max Farrand, The Autobiography ... a restoration of a fair copy' (1949) and Memoirs: parallel text edition (1949). For criticism of the Labaree text and of texts in the Yale Papers, see J. A. Leo Lemay’s essay {ECS, i, 1967-68). Carl Van Doren’s (1938) is the best biography, to be supplemented by Bruce Granger (1964) and A. O. Aldridge (1965). There is a good shorter study by Richard Amacher (1962). On Franklin’s religion, consult A. O. Aldridge, Benjamin Eranklin and Nature's God (1967). Vlax Hall, Benjamin Franklin and Polly Baker (i960), Gilbert Chinard, Notes in Proc. Amer. Philosoph. Soc., 103 (1959), J. A. Leo Lemay, two essays (in ECS, cited above, and in MWEAL, pp. 205-43), and James A.

Sappenfield, A Sweet Instruction: Franklin's

journalism as a literary apprenticeship (1973) are excellent critical studies. A recent book is Melvin H. Buxbaum, Benjamin Franklin and the Zealous Presbyterians (1975). THOMAS PAINE

(1737-1809). The Writings, ed. Moncure D. Conway (4

vols., 1894) is still standard, though Philip S. Foner’s two-vol. edn. (1945) may be more accessible. Selections, ed. Harry Hayden Clark (1944), is useful, with an excellent introd. and bibliography. The best biographies are those of Moncure D. Conway (2 vols., 1892) and A. O. Aldridge (1959). On Paine’s deism see 1. W. Riley {American Philosophy, 1907, pp. 296-304); Robert P. Falk {PMHB, 62, 1938, 52-63); and Harry Hayden Clark {U. of Calif. Chronicle, 35, 1933, 56-87). There are also important critical essays by Clark {AL, 5, 1933, 133-45),

A. O.

The principal writers

285

Aldridge {CL, 2, i960, 369-83; PMHB, 79, 1955, 81-99; and RLC, 32, ^95^1

47~^5)- Richard Gimbel, A Bibliographical Check List of ‘‘Common

Sense’, with an Account of Its Publication (1956), supplements the anno¬ tated bibliography in Clark’s Selections (see above) and the more complete listing in LHUS. Just published is David F. Hawke, Paine (1975).

HUGH HENRY BRACKENRiDGE

(1748-1816). There is no collected edn. of

Brackenridge’s writings. Charles F. Heartman, Bibliography . . . prior to 1825 (1917) is the first aid to consult. The best edn. of Modern Chivalry, his major work, is by Claude M. Newlin (1937, which contains a valuable bibliography); it has been ed. for the modern reader by Lewis Leary (1965). A useful selection is Daniel Marder’s Brackenridge Reader (1970). The authoritative biography is by Claude M. Newlin (1932). Marder’s full-length study (1967) combines biography and criticism. The standard treatment of Brackenridge as dramatist is in Arthur H. Quinn, A History of the American Drama from the Beginning to the Civil War (1943). Other criticism may be found in Moses Coit Tyler, The Literary History of the American Revolution, vol. ii (1897) and Lyon N. Richardson, A History of Early American Magazines, iy40-iy8g (1931), the best account of Brackenridge’s association with the United States Magazine. The best study of Modern Chivalry is Newlin’s introd. to his edn. of the novel; William B. Craddock, A Structural Examination of .. . Modern Chivalry (1967) is also useful. PHILIP ERENEAU

(1752-1832). Good modern edns. of the poetry are by

Fred Lewis Pattee (3 vols., 1902-07), and Harry Hayden Clark (1929). Lewis Leary has ed. The Last Poems (1945). The Prose Works, ed. Philip Marsh (1955) should be supplemented by Letters on Various Interesting and Important Subjects, ed. Harry Hayden Clark (1943). The best book on Freneau is Lewis Leary, That Rascal Freneau (Rutgers, 1941). There is no definitive biography, but Mary S. Austin’s (1901) may be consulted, with Fred Lewis Pattee’s essay inZ)^£;Nelson F. Adkins, Philip Freneau and the Cosmic Enigma (1949) is useful. A full-length study by Philip Marsh (1967) attempts to identify unsigned essays and sketches. ROYALL TYLER

(1757-1826). There is no standard edn., although most of the

important material has been reprinted. Marius Peladeau’s edn. of The Verse (1968) and The Prose (1972), must be used with caution. The Contrast, ed. James B. Wilbur (1920), is the best text of Tyler’s major play. A facsimile edn. of the 1802 London edn. of The Algerine Captive has an

American literature

286

introd. by Jack B. Moore (1967). For a list of Tyler’s unpublished plays, see Allan G. Halline, American Plays (1935). The best biography, by G. Thomas Tanselle (1967), is based on unpublished letters. Briefer accounts are Frederick Tupper, Vermont Hist. Soc. Proc., 1926-28, Grandmother Tyler’s Book, ed. Helen T. Brown and Frederick Tupper (1925), the reminiscences of Tyler’s wife, and Arthur H. Nethercot, AL, 12. Also useful is Thomas P. Tyler’s general survey of Tyler’s life based on his son’s memoir {Proc. of Vermont Bar Assoc., i, 1878-81). Arthur H. Quinn, A History of the American Drama from the Beginning to the Civil War (1943) provides the standard account of The Contrast', Alexander Cowie in The Rise of the American Novel (1948) contains the most extensive treatment of The Algerine Captive. Peladeau’s introds. and notes to the Poetry and Prose are valuable.

(1771-1810). There is only one collected edn. of Brown’s novels (6 vols., 1887), but Fred Lewis Pattee’s introd. to a modern edn. of Wieland (1926) is helpful, as is Warner Berthoff’s to Arthur Mervyn (1962). A new edn. of Wieland is scheduled as the first vol. of a CEAA edn. The earliest biography, still useful, is William Dunlap’s Life . . . with selections from the rarest of his printed works, from his original letters, and from his manuscripts before unpublished (Philadelphia, 1815); the best general account is that by Harry R. Warfel (1949). David Lee Clark’s life (1952) must be used with caution. The ‘lost’ life by Paul Allen (1810), recently found, is being ed. by Robert L. Hemenway and Joseph Katz (Columbia, S. Carolina, 1975/6). The best critical studies are Arthur Kimball, Rational Fictions (Mc¬ Minnville, Ore., 1968); and one by Donald A. Ringe (1966). Ringe’s essay in MWEAL, pp. 273-94, is the best brief introd. to Brown as man and novelist. CHARLES BROCKDEN BROWN

(1783—1859). A Standard edn. of the works is now in progress under H. A. Pochmann (1969- ). Three vols. have appeared to date: Journals and Notebooks, ed. Nathalia Wright, vol. i, 180J-1806 (1969); Mahomet and His Successors, ed. H. A. Pochmann and E. N. Feltskog (1970), Journals and Notebooks; vol. iii; i8ig-i82y, ed. Walter A. Reichart (1970); and nine other vols. are scheduled. Until this edn. is complete, the 21-vol. edn. of 1860—61 should be used. Representative selections, ed. H. A- Pochmann (1934), is useful.

WASHINGTON IRVING

Stanley T. Williams’s biography (2 vols., 1935) is still the standard;

The principal writers

287

those by Pierre M. Irving (4 vols., 1862-64; 1869) and George Hillman (1925) continue to be useful. The best critical study is by William L. Hedges (1965). Other sig¬ nificant contributions are by Van Wyck Brooks (1944), Walter A. Reichart (1957), Edward Wagenknecht (1962). Ben H. McClary, Washington Irving and the House of Murray (1969), is a revealing account of an American author’s relations with his principal English publisher and of his contacts with English literary men. Lewis Leary’s pamphlet (1963), is a good introd. to the man and his writings. JAMES FENiMORE COOPER

(1789-1851). Although individual and collected

edns. of Cooper’s works are innumerable, no definitive one exists. Most of the canon is available today in older edns., facsimile editions, or modern edns., many of which are textually corrupt. A projected 48-vol. edn. is being planned under the direction of the CEAA and the sponsorship of the American Antiquarian Soc. and Clark University. To date, no vols. have appeared. Until this edn. surfaces, W. A. Townsend’s 32-vol. Darley Edition of the novels (1858-61) is the best. The 32-vol. Household edn. of his Works (1876-84) is useful because fifteen of the novels have prefaces by Susan Fenimore Cooper; there is also a 33-vol. Mohawk edn. (1895-6) of the works. The best anthology of non-fictional prose is ed. Robert E. Spiller (1936, with introd., bibliography, and notes). The latest reprint of non-fiction is the Early Critical Essays {1822), ed. James F. Beard (1956), which consists of book reviews for the The Literary and Scientific Re¬ pository, and Critical Review. The most complete edn. of the correspondence is that by James F. Beard (6 vols.. Harvard 1960-68); it supersedes the earlier, but still useful edn. by Cooper’s grandson James Fenimore Cooper (Yale, 1922), which contains some letters not found in Beard’s edn. as well as ‘Small Family Memoirs’, an account of her childhood by Susan Fenimore Cooper. Lafayette’s letters to Cooper have been ed. by Stuart W. Jackson {YULG, April 1934). The earliest significant biography is William Cullen Bryant’s ‘Dis¬ course’, one of many tributes in G. P. Putnam, Memorial of James Fenimore Cooper (1852); this brief sketch is important as a view of Cooper by his contemporaries. The first full biography, noted for its wit and style, but lacking in accurate detail, was by Thomas R. Lounsbury (1882). Lives by W. Shubrick (1900) and Mary E. Philips (1913) help to correct Lounsbury’s image of Cooper, demonstrating especially his amiable personality; that by Henry W. Boynton (1931) gives a vivid impression of Cooper, but does little to establish his literary position. Although not intended primarily as biography, Robert E. Spider’s seminal Fenimore Cooper: Critic of His

288

American literature

Times (1931) show show Cooper used the issues of his time as basis for writing. Marcel Clavel’s Fenimore Cooper:. . . lajeunesse, iy8g-i826 (Aixen-Provence, 1938) is remarkably complete. James Grossman’s incisive biography (1949) is probably the best one-vol. study. Spider’s brief but informative pamphlet (1965) is also useful. Spider’s book, on Cooper as critic of his time (1931), although partly biographical, also initiated serious scholarly work. Two of the best introds. to Cooper’s sources are by Warren S. Walker (1962) and Thomas L. Philbrick (1961). George Dekker has argued in James Fenimore Cooper: The Novelist (London, 1967; New York, 1968) that one of the best ap¬ proaches to Cooper is through Walter Scott. The most comprehensive study of American society in the novels is Kay S. House, Cooper’s Americans (1965), which argues that his characters are defined by their class or their responses to open experiences. According to House, charac¬ ters of the first type reflect America’s connections with European culture, while those of the second type explore the limits and possibilities of Ameri¬ can life. Albert Keiser in The Indian in American Literature (1933) describes Cooper’s use of Indians as ‘remarkably complete and faithful’; Lucy L. Hazard in The Frontier in American Literature (1927) suggests that Leatherstocking mediates between savage and civilized worlds; Harry Hayden Clark’s monograph {Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Arts and Letters, 1959, i960) suggests that Cooper was enthusiastic towards science as a means of advancing utilitarian ends, but against it as a means of eliminating evil; Henry Nash Smith, Virgin Land: the American West as symbol and myth (1950) traces the Daniel Boone legend through Cooper’s novels, and James K. Folsom in The American Western Novel (1966) suggests that major themes in the Leatherstocking Tales are used in later novels about the West. Donald A. Ringe’s biography (1962) examines ideas, settings, and characters as revealing a serious and careful artist; Richard Chase in The American Novel and Its Tradition (1957) argues that any criticism of Cooper is an elaboration of D. H. Lawrence; and R. W. B. Lewis in The American Adam (1955) characterizes Natty Bumppo as the Adamic hero. There is a collection of reprinted review and critical articles ed. George Dekker and John P. McWilliams in The Critical Heritage series (1973). A convenient collection of essays on the Leatherstocking Tales is ed. Warren S. Walker (1965). Mary Cunningham’s Re-Appraisal (New York State Historical Assoc., 1954) contains papers read by twelve scholars at the Cooper Centennial Celebration at Cooperstown in 1951.

WILLIAM CULLEN BRYANT

(1794-1878). The Poetical Works (1876),

com-

The principal writers

289

piled by Bryant himself, is the basic edn. of the verse, to which Parke Godwin added (2 vols., 1883); Prose, also ed. Godwin (2 vols., 1884); selections, ed. Tremaine McDowell (New York, 1935) with useful introd. and biographical and critical material. The earliest full-length biography, still well worth reading, is by Parke Godwin (2 vols., 1883); it has been supplemented in the lives by John Bigelow (1890), William A. Bradley (1905), and Harry H. Peckham (1950). The best modern approaches are by Curtis S. Johnson, on Bryant’s journalistic career (1962), and Albert F. McLean, jr’s more general study (1964).

RALPH WALDO EMERSON

(1803—1882). The Centenary Edition ed. by his son

Edward Waldo Emerson (12 vols., 1903-04) is the best. It has been supplemented by C. C. Biglow, The Uncollected Writings (1912) and a collection of 25 sermons, ed. A. C. McGiffert (1938). Some of the lectures are in the Centenary Edition. S. E. Whicher, R. E. Spiller, and W. E. Williams have ed. three vols. of Early Lectures (1959, 1964, 1972). The lo-vol. Journals, ed. E. W. Emerson and W. E. Forbes (1909-14), contains selected material. A complete edn. of the Journals and Notebooks is being published by W. H. Gilman, A. R. Ferguson, and others. To date, 10 vols., covering 1819 to 1848 have been published, latest being vol. 10, 1847-48 (1973), vols.

II

and 12 (to 1862) are ready for press. The CEAA is

preparing a new edn. of the works, of which vol. i. Nature, Addresses and Lectures (Cambridge, Mass., 1971) is ed. by the general editor, A. R. Ferguson. Letters, ed. R. L. Rusk (6 vols., 1939) is the starting point for the correspondence; supplemented by correspondence with Thomas Carlyle, ed. C. E. Norton (2 vols., Boston 1883, rev. 1888), ed. Joseph Slater (1964); with John Sterling, ed. E. W. Emerson (Boston, 1897); with Herman Grimm, ed. F. W. Holls (Boston, 1903); with Clough, ed. H. F. Lowry and R. L. Rusk (1934); Letters . . . to a Friend [Samuel Gray Ward], ed. C. E. Norton (Boston 1899); and H. H. Furness, Records of a Lifelong Friendship (Boston, 1910). Of the biographies J. E. Cabot’s Memoir (2 vols., 1887) is still indispen¬ sable and contains many extracts from the journals and letters. The definitive biography is R. L. Rusk’s detailed and factual Life (1949). M. D. Conway, Emerson at Home and Abroad (1882; repr. 1968) is a collection of anecdotes; Emerson in Concord (1889) by his son E. W. Emerson is a first-hand, account of Emerson’s daily life. F. B. Sanborn, The Personality of Emerson (1903), based largely on conversations, and Marie Dugard, Ralph Waldo Emerson: sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1970; rev. 1913; the best

American literature

290

book on Emerson by a foreigner) are also illuminating. Josephine iNIills’s study (1964) is a brief but good introd. For contemporary opinion K. \V. Cameron, Emerson Among His Con¬ temporaries (1967) is a large collection of reviews of Emerson’s books, essays on his works, and tributes from his friends from the 1840s to the end of the century. Two collections of critical essays have been ed. by Carl Bode (1969), and Milton Konvitz and Stephen Whicher (19(12). The first book-length study of Emerson’s sources, J. S. Harrison, The Teachers of Emerson (1910) deals with the Platonic quality of his thought. Perry Miller {NEO 40, 1969) and Yukio Irie, Emerson (Ttui Quakerism (Tokyo, 1967) deal with his Puritan and Quaker tendencies. F. 1. Carpenter, Emerson and Asia (1930) and H. R. Zink, Emerson's Use of the Bible (1935) are also useful. The best book on his philosophy is H. D. Gray, Emerson: A Statement of Xetc England Transcendentalism as Expressed in the Philosophy of its Chief Exponent (1917; repr., 1958); others include Paul Sakmann, Ralph Waldo Emersons Geistestcelt (Stuttgart, 1927); Sherman Paul, Emerson's Angle of I'ision (1952); S. E. Whicher, Freedom and Fate (Philadelphia, 1953); and P. L. Nicololf, Emerson on Race and History: an examination of'English Traits’ (1961). Raymer McQuiston, The Relation of Ralph Waldo Emerson to Public Affairs (1923) is useful, as is V. C. Hopkins, Spires of Form: a study of Emersons aesthetic theory (1951). The progress of the Whitman-Emerson relationship is discussed in Edmund Wilson, The Shoik of Recogru'tion (1943) and the latest full-length study of the Emerson-Thoreau relationship has been documented by Joel Porte (19(16). Recent critical works include John Q. Anderson, The Liberating Gods: Emerson on poets and poetry (1971); Jetfrey Duncan, The Potver and Form of Emerson's Thought (1973), and Edward \\ agenknecht, Ralph Waldo Emerson: portrait of a balanced soul (1974)N.'M'H.^XIEL H.WTHORNE

(1804-1S64). The Centenary Edition of the HorArjr,

ed. \\ illiam Charvat, R. H. Pearce, C. M. Simpson, and Fredson Bowers, now being published by Ohio State University will in time be complete and authoritative. To date, eleven vols. have appeared: The Scarlet Letter (1962); The House of the Set en Gables (1965); The Blithedale Romatu e and Fanshatce (1964): The Marble Faun (1968): Our Old Home: A Series of English Sketches (1970); True Stories from History and Biography (1972); A Wonder Book and Tangle^cood Tales (1972); The American Xotehooks (1972); Ttcice-Told Tales (1974); Mosses from an Old Manse (1974); The Snotv Image and Uncollected Tales (1974).

i^ne vol.. Dr Grim-

shatce’s Secret and The Ancestral Footstep is ready for press.) I ntil the rest

The principal writers

291

of this edn. appears, the 13-vol. Riverside edn., ed. George P. Lathrop (1883), serves as the standard ed. supplemented with E. H. Davidson’s edition of Dr Grimshawe's Secret (1954), and The English Notebooks, ed. Randall Stewart (1941). Though supplanted hy the Centenary Edition, Stewart’s The American Notebooks (1932) is also excellent. Of the un¬ collected works, the more important include Randall Stewart, ‘Haw¬ thorne’s contributions to The Salem-Advertiser' {AL 34); Arlin Turner’s Hawthorne as Editor: Selections from His Writings for the American Magazine of Useful and Entertaining Knowledge (1941); and Poems, ed. Richard Peck (1967). Although the complete letters have yet to be pub¬ lished, important collections include Letters to

William D.

Ticknor,

1851-1864 (1910); Love Letters (1907); and Carolyn Ticknor, Hawthorne and His Publisher (1913). Of the biographical studies Randall Stewart’s (Yale, 1948) is nearly definitive; the authorized two-vol. biography by his son Julian Hawthorne (1884) is candid, though sometimes inaccurate. Other indispensable works written by friends or relatives are: James T. Field, Yesterdays with Authors (Boston, 1871); George P. Lathrop, A Study of Hawthorne (Boston, 1876); Horatio Bridge, Personal Recollections (1893); and Rose Hawthorne Lathrop’s Memories (Boston, 1898). Robert Cantwell, The American Years (1948) provides new material on the Salem background. Material on Haw¬ thorne’s later life appears in Caroline Ticknor’s Hawthorne and His Publisher (1913), while his struggle with his later romances is recounted by E. H. Davidson in Hawthorne’s Last Phase (1949). Henry James’s (1879) is still the best of the critical biographies, although Edward Wagenknecht’s (1961) is also noteworthy. Other useful studies are by Newton Arvin (Boston, 1929) and Mark Van Doren (1949); H. H. Waggoner has pro¬ vided a brief, but perfect introd. (U. of Minn., 1961). Among the various collections of critical essays, two are especially useful: ed. R. H. Pearce (1964) and ed. A. N. Kaul (1966). J. Donald Crowley has a useful collection of reviews of Hawthorne’s work in The Critical Heritage series (1970). Two astute introds. are J. Donald Crowley, Nathaniel Hawthorne (1971) and F. O.

Matthiessen’s fine

chapter in American Renaissance (1941). Indispensable critical studies include those by Hyatt H. Waggoner (1955) and Neal F. Doubleday (1972). For a discussion of Hawthorne’s religious and philosophical con¬ cepts, L. J. Pick, The Light Beyond (1955) considers his observations of Catholicism in terms of his concept of evil and the unpardonable sin; R. R. Male, Hawthorne’s Tragic Vision (1957) treats his connection with Romanticism;

and

J.

G.

Taylor,

Hawthorne’s Ambivalence

Toward

Puritanism (1965) discusses the clashes between Puritanism and the

American literature

292

nineteenth-century view of man that Hawthorne encountered. Jane Lundblad (1947) stresses European influences, while Frederick Crews brilliantly treats the psychological themes in The Sins of the Fathers (1966). For a discussion of form in Hawthorne’s writing, John C. Stubbs, The Pursuit of Form (1970) and Leland Schubert, Hawthorne, the Artist (1944) are useful. R. H. Fogle’s two books, Hawthorne's Fiction (1953, rev. 1964), and Hawthorne's Imagery (1969), deal with Hawthorne’s use of light and dark images in his fiction. WILLIAM

GILMORE SIMMS

(1806-1870). The most complete descriptive

bibliography is A. S. Salley, Catalogue of the Salley Collection (1943). When completed, the Centennial Edition of Simms’s writings

to be

published in 15 vols. by the University of South Carolina Press ed. John C. Guilds, will be definitive. To date, 3 vols. have appeared; Voltmeier, ed. Donald Davidson and Mary C. Simms Oliphant (1969); iii. As Good as a Comedy and Paddy McGann, ed. Robert Bush (1971); v. Stories and Tales, ed. John C. Guilds (1974). Meantime the Redfield edn. of the Works (20 vols., 1853-66) remains the standard for the major fiction (18 vols.) and poetry (2 vols.). Among the many reprints of Simms’s novels, the best is Alexander Cowie’s edn. of The Yemassee (1937), which contains an excellent analysis.

Simms’s correspondence, ed. Mary C. Simms

Oliphant, Alfred Taylor Odell, and T. C. Duncan, is available in 5 vols. (1952-56); the material in the notes contains much new information on his literary theory, writing habits, travel and interest in spiritualism, con¬ temporary reviews of his works, and comments on works that have received little criticism. Although much has been written about Simms, William P. Trent’s (1892) is the only full biography, and despite its defects it is essential for studying the stages of his life. Also useful is Perry Miller’s The Raven and the Whale (1956) which describes Simms’s membership in Young America, to which Poe and Melville also belonged. Calling Simms ‘in¬ finitely complex’, Edd W. Parks in ‘Simms self-revealed’, a chapter of William Gilmore Simms as Literary Critic (1961), argues that Simms’s personality is best revealed in his letters. His public career is discussed in Jon L. Wakelyn, The Politics of a Literary Man (1973). Simms’s standing as an American writer is one of the most disputed in American literature. He received his highest praise from Poe in a review of The Wigwam and the Cabin in the Broadway Journal (4 Oct. 1845) in which Poe calls him the best novelist on the whole that this country has produced. Despite, disparaging comments from most of his contemporaries, Simms’s popularity rose with Trent’s biography. Greater impetus was

The principal writers

293

added with Vernon L. Farrington’s emphasis on the quality of his realism {Main Currents of American Thought, ii, 1927). Alexander Cowie, The Rise of the American Novel (1948) is important for its discussion of Simms’s literary theory; Carl Van Doren in The American Novel (1921; rev. 1940) praises his realism. In The Roots of Southern Writing (1972), C. Hugh Holman suggests that Simms provided the first accurate portrayal of the negro and the poor white. Joseph V. Ridgely’s important provocative study (1962), argues that the nature of Southern society stimulated Simms’s best writing. Of the more important articles, L. Moffitt Cecil, ‘Symbolic pattern in The Yemassee’ {AL, 1964), ‘Simms’sPorgy as national hero’ (AL, 1965), and ‘Functional imagery in Simms’s “The Partisan” ’ {Studies in Medieval, Renaissance, \and~\ American Literature, 1971), provide the first analyses of Simms’s symbolic method. John C. Guilds {SCR, 1969) argues that Simms ranks as second only to Poe, a literary critic of the pre-Civil War period. The best study of Simms’s poetry is found in Edd W. Parks, Southern Poets (1936). HENRY WADSW'ORTH

LONGFELLOW

(1807-1882). The Standard Library

Edition of The Works (1891) is the standard text and Andrew Hilen is currently editing a selection of the letters - vols. i-iv covering the years 1814-65 have appeared to date (1966, 1972). Robert Ward is preparing the journals for publication, though none

has yet been published.

Samuel Longfellow’s Life (1893) remains the standard biography, though the more recent Young Longfellow (1938) by Lawrance Thompson and the later Portrait of an American Humanist (1966) by Edward Wagenknecht correct many errors and offer illuminating critical insights. Studies of Longfellow’s verse are, on the whole, inadequate. George Arms, The Fields Were Green: A New View of Bryant, Whittier, Holmes, Lowell, and Longfellow (1953), one fine exception, is among the better appraisals of Longfellow and the ‘schoolroom poets’. William Charvat’s essay in The Profession of Authorship in America, i8oo-i8yo (1968), Newton Arvin’s critical biography (Boston, 1963), and Gay Wilson Allen’s American Prosody (1935) are at least essential to future research. The recent work of the Longfellow Symposium published in ESQ 58 (1970) suggests a more critical resurgence of interest. JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER

(1807-1892). Thomas Currier’s A Bibliography

(1937) has been supplemented by the selective critical bibliography in Edward Wagenknecht’s

Whittier: A Portrait in Paradox (1967).

The Riverside edn. of The Writings (Boston, 1888) is still the standard text, though many items were either lost or rejected by Whittier be-

American literature

294

fore this edn. Whittier on Writers and Writing, ed. Harry H. Clark and Edwin Cady (Syracuse, N.Y., 1950), assembles many of his literary reviews, but much of the prose remains unavailable and J. B. Pickard’s promised edn. of selected letters has yet to appear. The first biography was by William Sloane Kennedy (Boston, 1882), which in some ways is a more honest critical assessment than the authorized life by Samuel Pickard (Boston, 1899). Wagenknecht’s study is far better; this with Winfield Townley Scott’s famous discussion, ‘A new consider¬ ation of Whittier’s verse’ {NEQ, June 1934), Lewis Leary’s concise over¬ view (1961), and George Arms’s The Fields Were Green (Stanford, 1953), forms the critical basis. Perhaps the best indication that Whittier is still a concern for major scholarly work is Robert Penn Warren’s excellent essay on him (Minneapolis, 1971). EDGAR ALLAN POE

(1809-1849). The Complete Works, ed. James A. Harrison

(17 vols., 1902), is the standard authority for the prose; the selection, ed. A. H. Quinn and E. H. O’Neill (2 vols., 1946), is also excellent. Thomas O. Mabbott’s edn. of The Poems (1969) is regarded as definitive, though Floyd Stovall’s edn. (1965) is admirable for its bibliographical scholarship. Poe’s correspondence is available, ed. John Ward Ostrom (2 vols., 1948). A. H. Quinn’s Critical Biography (1941) is the primary authority on Poe’s life. Vincent Buranelli’s biography (1961) appears to be the best general treatment; Edward Wagenknecht’s Poe: The Man Behind the Legend (1963), is brief and informal but trustworthy, as is Roger Asselineau’s (1970), a good short introd. to the man and his work. Two earlier biographies are also helpful: Hervey Allen’s Israfel (1929; rev., 1934) and George E. Woodberry’s (1885; rev., 1909). There are few outstanding critical studies. E

H. Davidson’s (1957)

is among the better ones. Two good earlier studies are Margaret Alterton, Origins of Poe's Critical Theory (1925) and Norman Foerster’s American Criticism: Studies in Literary Theory from Poe to the Present (1928). Of the two most recent full-length studies of Poe’s work, Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe Poe by Daniel Hoffman (1972) is idiosyncratic and ignores much previous scholarship, while Stuart Levine, Seer and Craftsman (1972) deals only with the tales and dismisses the poems without explanation. Two collections, ed. R. Regan (1967) and ed. Richard P. Veler (1972), bring together some of the best critical articles of recent years. (All essays in the latter were printed there for the first time.)

OLIVER

WENDELL

HOLMES

(1809-1894). There are three major bibli¬

ographies-by George Ives (1907), Thomas Currier and Eleanor Tilton

The principal writers (^953)>

295

Blanck, BAL. The standard edn. of The Complete Writings

(1892), must be supplemented by The Autocrat's Miscellanies, ed. Albert Mordell (1959), and The Complete Poetical Works, ed. Horace Scudder (^895)-"^^® definitive biography is Eleanor T ilton’s Amiable Autocrat (1947). Three early critical evaluations merit attention: E. C. Stedman’s {Century Magazine, Feb. 1895), Edward Delille’s {Fortnightly Review, Aug. 1886), and Barrett Wendell’s classic chapter in A Literary History of America (New York, 1900). The best modern essays are by Van Wyck Brooks, SatR, 27 (June 1933), and HM (July 1940), and S. L Hayakawa and Howard Mumford Jones’s introd. to Representative Selections (1939). More recently, there has been Lewis Leary’s chapter in The Comic Imagination in American Literature, ed. Louis Rubin (1973). HENRY

DAVID THOREAU

(1817—1862). Though generally considered the

standard edn., the 20-volume Walden Edition of The Writings (Boston, 1906), ed. H. E. Scudder, Bradford Torrey, and F. B. Sanborn, is in¬ complete. The letters, ed. Carl Bode and Walter Harding (1958), have been supplemented by K. W. Cameron’s Companion (1964) and Over Thoreau's Desk . . . 1838-61 (Hartford, Conn., 1965). Important manu¬ scripts lately discovered are in Wendell Click, ‘Three new early Manu¬ scripts . . . ’ {HLQ 51), the ‘lost’journal of 1840-41 (ed. Perry Miller, Con¬ sciousness at Concord, Boston, 1958), Lawrence Wilson, on the Canadian Notebook {HLQ 59), Walter Harding,

‘Thoreau and the

Kalmuks’

{NEO 59) and Thoreau's Minnesota Journey (1962), and K. W. Cameron’s edns. of Thoreau’s Fact Book (1962) and Literary Notebooks (1964). The best collection of the poetry is ed. Carl Bode (1943; 1964). A complete new Thoreau edn. is currently being published by Prince¬ ton. To date, Walden, ed. J. Lyndon Shanley (1971), and The MaineWoods, ed. Joseph J. Moldenhauer (1972), have appeared; Reform Papers and Early Essays and Miscellanies are scheduled. An excellent starting point for a study of Thoreau’s life is Ellery Channing’s study of The Poet Naturalist (1873;

t>y F. B. Sanborn,

1902); eccentric but indispensable, sketchy as biography, it is useful as a testimony to Thoreau’s literary inclinations. Sanborn (American Men of Letters series, 1917) was among the first to reveal important details of Thoreau’s life. The most satisfactory single account remains H. S. Salt’s Life (London, 1890; rev. 1896), the first by someone other than a friend. A. R. Marble’s (1902; repr. 1969) was the first full-length biography by an American who was not a member of the Concord group. The most com¬ plete life is Walter Harding’s (1965), an invaluable portrait of the artist as man; Leon Edel’s (1970) is a brief but valuable introd.

American literature

296

The first critic who approached Thoreau seriously as an artist was F. O. Matthiessen in his section on Walden in American Renaissance (1941) - required reading for any student of Thoreau. Much of Matthiessen’s criticism derives from earlier writers, notably Mark Van Doren (1916), H. S. Canby (1939), and J. W. Krutch (1940), but it is the finest in considering Thoreau as a part of the pattern of his time. The best studies of Thoreau and nature are Sherman Paul, The Shores of America (1958) and R. L. Cook, Passage to Walden (1949). Leo Stoller’s valuable After Walden (1957) discusses Thoreau’s attitudes towards the role of the indivi¬ dual in the community, while Ethel Seybold, The Quest and the Classics (1951) is an acute study of the impact of Thoreau’s reading on his writing. Collected Poems (1943) brought from H. W. Wells an evaluation {AL 44), which is the finest critical study of Thoreau’s poetry so far. J. H. Shanley, The Making of Walden (1957) demonstrates that textual study can be raised to the level of serviceable criticism, while J. A. Christie (1965) discusses Thoreau’s role as scholar and artist. The best collections of critical essays are ed. Walter Harding (1954), ed. Sherman Paul (1962), ed. Richard Rutland (1968), and ed. Wendell Click (1969). A still more recent collection is ed. Charles R. Anderson, Thoreau's Vision (1973). JAMES RUSSELL LOWELL

(1819-1891). The Standard text is the Riverside

edn. (1890); the Elmwood edn. of 1904 includes three additional vols. of letters. The Cambridge edn. of the poetry (1897) also includes material not present in the Riverside ed. The Uncollected Poems, edn. Thelma Smith (1950), reprints 135 poems of secondary importance from newspapers and magazines. The letters, ed. Charles Eliot Norton (1894),

often

bowdlerized; more reliable are New Letters, ed. M. A. de W’olfe Howe (1932). An edn. of the Biglow Papers is scheduled (Northern Ill. U.P.) Horace Scudder’s biography (2 vols., 1901) remains useful, but Martin Duberman’s (1966) is the best. Leon Howard, in Victorian Knight-Errant (1952), has a new biographical and critical commentary. Edward Wagenknecht. Portrait of a Many Sided Man (1971) at times overwhelms the reader with detail, but his ‘psychograph’ is evidence of a continuing interest in Lowell.

HERMAN MELVILLE

(1819-1891). Although the Constable edn. of the Works

(16 vols., 1922-24) is not ed. critically, it is for the present the most complete. It includes all but the lectures, letters, journals and a few short prose pieces. The projected 14-vol. Hendricks House edn. (ed. H. P. Vincent,) is also textually inconsistent; 7 vols. have been issued ;Mo63;-Z)fcy^, ed. H. A. Murray (2 vols., 1949); The Piazza Tales, ed. E. O. Oliver

The principal writers (1948);

297

The Confidence-Man,

ed.

Elizabeth Foster (1954);

Collected

Poems, ed. H. P. Vincent (1947); Clarel, ed. W. S. Bezanson (i960); Omoo ed. Harrison Hayford and Walter Blair (1969). The bestedn. when complete (in 16 vols.) will be the Northwestern-Newberry CEAA Writings, ed. Harrison Hayford with Hershel Parker and G. T. Tanselle, which already includes:

Typee (1968); Omoo (1968); Redburn (1969);

White Jacket

(1970); Mardi (1970); and Pierre (1971). The Confidence Man is scheduled. M. R. Davis and W. H. Gilman, Letters (Yale, i960) is virtually com¬ plete. The main earlier collection is Meade Minnigerode’s Personal Letters (1922). Melville’s public lectures, ed. M. M. Sealts (1957) are reconstructed mainly from newspaper accounts. The best edn. of Billy Budd, Sailor is by Harrison Hayford and M. M. Sealts (1962). This and Moby-Dick (Norton edn.,

1967), ed. Harrison Hayford and Hershel

Parker, will be included in the Northwestern-Newberry edn. Sidney Kaplan’s edn. of Battle-Pieces and Aspects of the War (i960) is excellent, as are Hennig Cohen’s The Battle-Pieces (1963). Journal of a Visit to London and the Continent i84g~i8yo, ed. Eleanor Melville Metcalf (1948), and Journal Up the Straits, ed. Raymond Weaver (1935) have also been from MSS. H. C. Horsford’s edn. of the latter adjournal of a Visit to Europe and the Levant (1955) is more critical. The definitive biography is Jay Leyda, The Melville Log, 2 vols., 1951; rev. 1969). Although it lacks narrative line, it is the most comprehensive treatment. Based on Leyda Leon Howard (1951) places Melville’s life in its historical and literary context. The first full-length biography was by Raymond Weaver (1921), a valuable work although it often treats Mel¬ ville’s fiction as fact; C. R. Anderson, Melville in the South Seas (1939) does attempt their separation. Anderson’s book and Lewis Mumford’s Study of His Life and Vision (1929; rev. 1962) are both valuable as bi¬ ographies. W. H. Gilman’s (1951) is probably the best study of the years 1819 to 1841. Using family papers, Eleanor Melville Metcalf’s Cycle and Epicycle (1953) is valuable for its account of the later years. Leon Howard’s (1961) is a brief but informative introd. Other relevant material includes: Victor Paltsits, Family Correspondence . . . i8'go-igo4 (1929); Alice Kenney, The Gansevoorts of Albany (1969), an exploration of Melville’s family background; C. R. Anderson’s Journal of a Cruise to the Pacific Ocean (1937); and Hershel Parker’s Gansevoort Melville’s 1846 ‘London Journal’ (1966), which makes available the record of the arrangements for the English publication of Typee. Of the many critical surveys, Newton Arvin’s (1950) is probably the most satisfactory. Like Mumford, Arvin considers Melville’s works as separate from his life. Three other general surveys are: Ronald Mason,

American literature

298

The Spirit Above the Dust (1951), which explores Melville’s symbols and his place in American literature; James E. Miller, A Reader’s Guide (1962), treating most of the longer works; and Tyrus Hillway’s more general survey of Melville’s life and works (1963). One of the most durable and comprehensive thematic studies is W. F. Sedgwick, The Tragedy of Mind (1945). Richard Chase’s Critical Study (1949) and Lawrance Thompson’s Melville’s Ordeal with God (1952) are at their best brilliantly controversial. Other studies: M. R. Stern, The Fine Hammered Steel of Herman Melville (1957), an examination of his exploration of the disastrous results of the idealized quest; Merlin Bowen, The Long Encounter (i960), a discussion of Melville’s theme of the individual against the universe; Nicholas Canaday, Melville and Authority (1968), E. A. Dryden, Melville’s Thematics of Form (1968), emphasizing Melville’s creation of a fiction in inverse relation to life; William Braswell, Melville’s Religious Thought (1943); James Baird, Ishmael (1956) examines Melville as mythmaker. A good study of his patterns in fiction and poetry is John Seelye, The Ironic Diagram (1970). In Progress into Silence (1970), Alan Lebowitz sees Mel¬ ville as having only two heroes: Ishmael and Ahab. William H. Shurr probes his career as poet in The Mystery of Iniquity (1972). Specialized studies of Melville’s works are also plentiful. Some of the most important are: H. P. Vincent, The Trying-Out of Moby-Dick (1949); H. B. Kulkarni, Moby-Dick: A Hindu Avatar (1970); Hershel Parker and Harrison Hayford, Moby-Dick as Doubloon (1972); Robert Zoellner, The Salt-Sea Mastodon (1973); Vincent Kenny, Clarel: a spiritual auto¬ biography (1973); Howard Vincent, The Tailoring of Melville’s White Jacket (1970); M. R. Davis, Melville’s Mardi (1952); and R. H. Fogle, Melville’s Shorter Tales (i960). The best collections of critical essays are ed. Richard Chase (1962) and ed. Hershel Parker (1967). Valuable treatments found in general symposia include sections in F. O. Matthiessen, American Renaissance (1941), R. W. B. Lewis, The American Adam (1955), Perry Miller, The Raven and the Whale (1956), and Leo Marx, The Machine in the Garden (1964). Among recent studies, the most valuable and useful are William B. Dillingham, An Artist in the Rigging (1972), Robert L. Gale, Plots and Characters (1969), and Joseph Flibbert, Melville and the Art of Burlesque (Amsterdam, 1974).

WALT WHITMAN

(1819-1892). The Collected Writings, ed. G. W. Allen and

Sculley Bradley (New York University, 9 vols. out) will become the standard edn. Leaves of Grass, ed. Harold W. Blodgett and Sculley Bradley (1965; rev. 1968) gives the 1892 edn. without variants but contains

The principal writers

299

passages excluded in the course of revisions, uncollected MS fragments, and the various prose prefaces and postscripts. Blodgett, Bradley, and Wil¬ liam White will edit the forthcoming Variorum Edition with variants from both printed and unprinted sources. The Early Poems and Fiction, ed. T. L. Brasher (1963), and the Prose Works 1892, ed. Floyd Stovall (2 vols., 1963-64) are also important. E. H. Miller’s edn. of the Correspondence (5 vols., 1961-69) is considered definitive. Forthcoming vols. of The Collected Writings include Notebooks, Diaries, and Prose Fragments, 2 vols., ed. Edward Grier and William White; Journalistic Writings, 2 vols., ed. Herbert Bergman and W'illiam White; a Bibliography to be prepared by W’illiam White. Meantime earlier edns. of these materials are helpful, especially The Complete Writings (10 vols., 1902) - ed. by Whitman’s literary executors, Richard M. Bucke, Thomas B. Harned, and Horace L. Traubel. In addition. Diary in Canada, ed. W. S. Kennedy (1904) and An American Primer, a collection of Whitman’s notes on language, ed. Horace Tranbel (1904; repr. 1970), are also of interest. Collections of journalism include The Gathering of the Forces, ed. Cleveland Rodgers and John Black (2 vols., 1920), from the Brooklyn Daily Eagle 1846-47; / Sit and Book Out, ed. Emory Holloway and Vernolian Schwarz (1932), editorials for the Brooklyn Daily Times 1857-59;

York Dissected, ed. Holloway and

Ralph Adimari (1936), articles from Life Illustrated 1855-56; and articles and poems written during his two months as editor of the Aurora in 1842, ed. J. J. Rubin and C. A. Brown (1950). For the general reader, several excellent edns. are available. The Portable Walt Whitman, ed. Mark Van Doren (1945), provides selections from Leaves of Grass and Specimen Days and prints all of Democratic Viasta; The Complete Poetry and Prose, ed. Malcolm Cowley (2 vols., 1948), The Best of Whitman, ed. Harold W. Blodgett (1953), Poems, ed. G. W. Allen and C. T. Davis (1955), Complete Poetry and Selected Prose, ed. James E. Miller (1959) are similar. Of the biographies G. W. Allen, The Solitary Singer (195S) is an indispensable source-book; equally detailed are Roger Asselineau, The Evolution of Walt Whitman (i960) and The Creation of a Book (1962); H. S. Canby’s study (1943) is a useful introd., while Richard Chase’s (1961) is brief and provocative. Important recent studies include Joseph J. Rubin, The Historic Whitman (1973) and Thomas Brasher, Whitman as Editor of the ‘Brooklyn Eagle’ (1970). Also of interest are Emory Holloway’s scholarly Interpretation in Narrative (1926), and Frederick Schyberg’s study of Whitman’s psyche (Copenhagen, 1933; trans. New York, 1951). An invaluable although sometimes unreliable source of Whitman’s opinions and attitudes on politics and literature is Horace Traubel, With Whitman

American literature

300

in Camden (5 vols., i-iii, 1908-14;

IV-V,

ed. Sculley Bradley (1953, 1964).

The earliest biography is R. M. Bucke’s (Glasgow, 1884), for which Whitman himself supplied much of the material. How much assistance he provided is brilliantly discussed in Walt Whitman’s Autograph Revision of the Analysis of Leaves of Grass, ed. Stephen Railton, with essays by Quentin Anderson and Galway Kinnell (1974). The book contains 35 pages of manuscript reproduced in facsimile with the Whitman passages under¬ lined in red ink. W. S. Kennedy (1896) and Thomas Donaldson (1896) rely primarily on conversations with the poet. Basil de Selincourt’s study (1914), in which he treats Leaves of Grass with an acuteness remarkable for his time, was the first attempt at criticism. The basic critical text remains F. O. Matthiessen’s long and subtle fourth chapter in American Renaissance (1941). E. H. Miller, Walt Whitman’s Poetry - a psychological journey (1968) is the masterpiece of more recent criticism.Two basic companions to Whitman studies are G. W. Allen’s Handbook (1946) and Walt Whitman as Man, Poet, and Legend (1961). In his Critical Guide (1957), James E. Miller analyses the structure of Leaves of Grass, concluding that nationalism is the structural principle. There are several collections of articles; the most complete and balanced is probably ed. Francis Murphy (1970); see also Leo Marx (i960); R. H. Pearce (1962), a collection emphasizing the art and integrity of Leaves of Grass; John C. Broderick (1962); and E. H. Miller (1969). Other recent and important studies are: Thomas E. Crawley’s The Structureof ‘Leaves of Grass’ (1970); Barbara Marinacci, O Wondrous Singer! (1970), for be¬ ginners but nevertheless valuable; and Floyd Stovall, The Foreground of ‘Leaves of Grass’ (1974). EMILY

DICKINSON

(1830-1886). Two major works of scholarship are:

Willis Buckingham’s massive Annotated Bibliography,

i8§o-ig68 (1970),

and S. P. Rosenbaum’s Concordance to the Poems (1964). The former is thorough and accurate, particularly when supplemented by the addenda in the Emily Dickinson Bulletin 26 (1974); Sheila Clendenning’s Bibliography,

i8go-ig66 (Kent, Ohio, 1968) is more manageable. The confusing history of the publication of the poetry was finally resolved in Thomas Johnson’s variorum edition of The Poems (1955), since reprinted in one vol. without critical apparatus as The Complete Poems (i960). Johnson’s work is a monument of textual study but, as R. W. Franklin, The Editing of Emily Dickinson (1967) points out, some errors persist. Johnson has also ed. the Letters (3 vols., 1958). Biographical problems nearly equal textual difficulties. George Whicher, This Was a Poet (1938, 1952, 1957) is the standard work, though Jay

The principal writers

301

Leyda, The Years and Hours (i960) supplies much new data. John Cody’s psychoanalytic After Great Pain (1971) and John Walsh, The Hidden Life (1971) are interesting, but only in part convincing. All four are superseded by Richard Sewall’s definitive Life (2 vols., 1974). There are four critical anthologies: ed. Klaus Lubber (1968), Caesar Blake and Carlton Wells (1964), Richard Sewall (1963), and Richard Rupp (1972). Included in both the Blake-Wells and Sewall collections is a seminal essay-Conrad Aiken’s introd. to his selection of the poems (1924). Allan Tate’s ‘New England culture and Emily Dickinson’ {Sym¬ posium, April 1932) and R. P. Blackmur’s ‘Emily Dickinson: Notes on Prejudice and Fact’ (SoR, Autumn, 1937) have a similar status. The best of the full-length studies before the Johnson text is by Richard Chase (1951). Charles Anderson (i960) and Clark Griffith (1964) are the most rewarding of subsequent studies. Denis Donoghue’s introd. in the UMPAW series (1969) is compact and perceptive. Three specialized studies stand out: Inder Nath Kher, The Landscape of Absence (1974), John Todd, Emily Dickinson's Use of the Persona (The Hague, 1974), and Edith Wylder, Emily Dickinson's Manuscripts (1971), a not wholly convincing analysis of the rhetorical significance of the punctuation. MARK TWAIN

(1835-1910). The most complete and definitive edn. is by

A. B. Paine (37 vols., 1922-25). There are also the Author’s National Edition, 22 vols., (1899-1900), the Underwood Edition, 25 vols., (1901-07), and Mark Tzvain's Works (23 vols., 1933), but much of Twain’s writing is to be found outside these collections. A. B. Paine has ed. the Notebook (1935), Speeches (1910, rev. 1923), Autobiography (2 vols., 1924) and Letters (2 vols., 1917). Bernard DeVoto, Mark Twain in Eruption (1940) may be considered a third vol. of the Autobiography to be used in con¬ junction with DeLancey Ferguson’s findings in ‘The Uncollected Portion of Mark Twain’s Autobiography’ {AL, 36). Charles Neider’s chrono¬ logical arrangement of portions of Paine’s and DeVoto’s edns. of the Autobiography (1959) is also useful. The complete Autobiography will be ed. by Frederick Anderson for an lowa-California edn. of Twain’s works. Dixon Wecter, Mark Twain in Three Moods (1948), Mark Twain to Mrs Fairbanks (1949), and The Love Letters (1949) are collections of basic material. Letters to Mary \B. Rogers, igoo-i6\, ed. Lewis Leary (1961), S. C. Webster, Mark Twain: Business Man (1946), W. F. Frear, Mark Twain and Hawaii (1947), and the Mark Twain-William Howells Letters, ed. H. N. Smith and W. G. Gibson (i960) are less important. Much of Twain’s early journalism has been reprinted: Contributions to the ‘Galaxy’, i868-yi, ed. B. R. McElderry, Jr. (1961); The Pattern for

American literature

30a

Mark Twain's ‘Roughing It’, ed. F. R. Rogers (1961); Traveling with the Innocents Abroad, ed. D. N. McKeithan (1958); The For gotten Writings, ed. Henry Duskis (1963); Mark Twain’s San Francisco, ed. Bernard Taper (1963); Letters from the Earth, ed. Bernard DeVoto (1962), and On the Poetry of Mark Twain, ed. A. L. Scott (1966). Mark Twain’s Western Years, ed. Ivan Benson (1938) and E. M. Branch, Literary Apprenticeship of Mark Twain (1950) include selected Twain writings. Massive new edns. of Twain’s writing are now under way. The Mark Twain Papers, in about 15 vols., ed. Frederick Anderson, will include unpublished writings. 8 vols., all from U. of California, have appeared; ‘Which Was the DreamV and Other Symbolic Writings of the Later Years, ed. J. S. Tuckey (1967); Letters to his Publishers, i86j-g4, ed. Hamlin Hill (1967); Selected Mark Twain-Howills Letters, ed. Frederick Anderson, W. M. Gibson and H. N. Smith (1967); Satires and Burlesques, ed. F. R. Rogers (1968); Correspondence with Henry Huttleston Rogers, i8gg-igog, ed. Lewis Leary (1969); Hannibal, Huck and Tom, ed. Walter Blair (1969); Mysterious Stranger Manuscripts, ed. W. M. Gibson (1969), and The Great Landslide Case . . . Three Versions, ed. Frederick Anderson and E. M. Branch (1972). Later vols. will include notebooks, correspondence, later writings, and miscellaneous literary material, of which 3 vols. (Notebooks) are ready for press. The lowa-California edn. of the Works will appear in 24 vols., also ed. Anderson. So far only What is Man} and OtherPhilosophicalWritings, ed. Paul Baender (1973) has appeared; Roughing It, Innocents Abroad, and 4 vols. of Early Tales and Sketches are scheduled. There is no definitive biography: biographers usually treat only periods of Twain’s life. For example, Kenneth Andrews, Nook Farm: Mark Twain’s Hartford Circle (1950) deals with the influence of the East during the Hartford years; M. M. Brasher, Son of Missouri (1934) is up to his depar¬ ture for the river; Dixon Wecter, Sam Clemens of Hannibal (1952) stresses the Hannibal period; Justin Kaplan, Mr Clemens and Mark Twain (1966) begins when he is over thirty years old; Hamlin Hill, Mark Twain and Elisha Bliss (1964), an important study, covers the key years 1869-79, the publication of his early works, and the influence of subscription publishing on them. The best full-length, if limited, biography is DeLancey Fer¬ guson, Man and Legend (1943). Although it has many minor errors, A. B. Paine, The Personal and Literary Life of Samuel Langhorne Clemens (3 vols., 1912), is indispensable. Van Wyck Brooks, The Ordeal of Mark Twain (1920; rev. 1933) and Bernard DeVoto, Mark Twain’s America (1932) are useful critically. Edward Wagenknecht’s thesis in The Man and His Work (1935; rev. 1961, 1967) is that the two aspects are inseparable. Lewis

The principal writers

303

Leary (i960) provides a brief but excellent introd. Recent studies include Hamlin Hill, God’s Fool (1973) and Justin Kaplan, Mark Twain and His World (1974). E. H. Long’s Handbook (1957) is useful as introd. and as research tool. Of the general critiques of Twain’s works, the most original and provocative is H. N. Smith, The Development of a Writer (1962), a pene¬ trating analysis of nine major works as the quest for a unified point of view managed best in Huckleberry Finn. Robert Regan, Unpromising Heroes (1966) is more general; E. M. Branch, The Literary Apprenticeship (1950) is the most detailed analysis of Twain’s works up to 1867. G. C. Bellamy, Mark Twain as a Literary Artist (1950) is also illuminating. James Cox, The Fate of Humor (1966) and F. R. Rogers, Burlesque Patterns (i960) survey Twain’s brand of humour, while A. E. Stone, Childhood in Mark Twain's Imagination (1961) is good on the way the child characters are handled. H. N. Smith (1963) has assembled critical essays. Six books offer commentaries on the influence and sources: Bernard DeVoto, Mark Twain’s America (1932) discusses kinship with the writers of the South¬ west; Walter Blair, Native American Humor (i960) interprets Twain’s hum^our as part of a long tradition; H. G. Baetzhold, Mark Twain and John Bull (1970) discusses the influence of British writers; G. A. Cardwell, Twins of Genius (1953) discusses the influence of George Washington Cable; Constance Rourke, American Humor (1931) and D. G. Hoffman, Form and Fable (1961) both trace Twain’s indebtedness to folklore. Louis Budd, Social Philosopher (1962) is the best survey of Twain’s politicalsocial views. For his principles and practice of writing see especially S. J. Krause, ‘Twain’s method and theory of composition’ (MP 59), and Mark Twain as Critic (1957). Recent studies include those by Thomas Blues (1970); Maxwell Geismar (1970); Lewis Leary (1971); Frederick Anderson (in The Critical Heritage series, 1971); and David Kesterson (1973). WILLIAM DEAN HOWELLS

(1837-1920). Howells has been unjustly neglected.

George Arms’s bibliography (the final vol. in the CEAA edn.) is not yet out, nor are 30 of the projected 39 vols. of the Indiana edn., scheduled for completion by the end of 1975. The Writings (6 vols., 1900), though incomplete, benefited from the personal supervision of Howells and is the most authoritative text for those included. Water Meserve has ed. The Complete Plays (i960). George Arms, Richard Ballinger, and John Reeves are preparing an edn. in 5 vols. of the letters. The selected bibli¬ ography in Clara and Rudolf Kirk’s Representative Selections (1950; rev. 1961) provides the best list of texts before that in the Indiana edn. Vito Brenni’s bibliography (1973) is a convenient checklist. The Indiana edn.

American literature

304

will clearly stimulate much bibliographical investigation; the texts which have appeared to date {Their Wedding Journey, Literary Friends and Acquaintance, The Altrurian Romances, The Shadow of a Dream and An Imperative Duty, The Son of Royal Langbrith, A Chance Acquaintance, The Rise of Silas Lapham, Indian Summer, and The Kentons) are among the best of the CEAA sponsored projects; Years of My Youth, The Leather wood God, The Quality of Mercy, A Modern Instance, The Minister’s Charge, and 4 vols. of letters, criticism, and short fiction are scheduled. Edwin Cady, The Road to Realism and The Realist at War (1956, 1958), comprise the best biography, though the less comprehensive studies by Van Wyck Brooks (1959), and Edward Wagenknecht (1969) remain valu¬ able. Kenneth Lynn’s study (1971) astutely isolates the personal tensions in Howells which helped to shape his fiction. A growing interest in Howells and American realism has produced several excellent works; among the best is Everett Carter, Howells and the Age of Realism (1954). William McMurray (1967) and Kermit Vanderbilt (1968), have built on Carter’s work while offering significant contributions of their own. There are two anthologies of the criticism which seldom overlap: ed. Edwin Cady and David Frazier (1962), and Kenneth Eble (Dallas, 1962). HENRY ADAMS

(1838-1918). There is no standard edn. though most of

Adams’s work is now available. The Houghton Mifflin reprint of Education, his most familiar work, has a fine introd. by Sir Denis Brogan (1961) Mont-Saint-Michel and Chartres is accessible in the private 1912 edn. and that of 1913; his two novels. Democracy and Esther, have been reprinted together, with an introd. by Ernest Samuels (1961). The Henry Adams Reader (1958) and The Education . . . and Other Selected Writings (1963) are the best collections. Harvard has announced plans to publish letters to persons outside the family; until these appear we have Harold Dean Cater, Henry Adams and His Friends (1947); and the somewhat less reliable A Cycle of Adams Letters, 1861-1865 (2 vols., 1920) and Letters, i858-i8gi (2 vols., Boston, 1930, 1938), both ed. Worthington C. Ford. Among the excellent biographies, the most notable is Ernest Samuels’s now standard 3-vol. work: The Young Henry Adams, The Middle Years, and

The Major Phase (1948-64), supplemented by ‘Henry Adams:

twentieth century virgin’ {Christian Century, 5 Oct., i960). Elizabeth Stevenson’s biography (1956) is less ambitious but lively, particularly in relation to the persona of the Education. The best critical introd. is by George Hochfield (1962). Bases for further research include J. C. Levenson’s rather difficult The Mind and Art

The principal writers

305

of Henry Adams (i957)» William Jordy, Scientific Historian (1952), and Robert Sayre’s important discussion of Education in The Examined Self (1964). Three particularly useful recent books are Melvin Lyon, Symbol and Idea in Henry Adams (1969), John Conder, A Formula of His Own (1970), and Louis Auchincloss’s introductory essay in the Minnesota series (1971). HENRY JAMES

(1843—1916). The New York Edition, planned and ed. by

James himself with extensive stylistic revisions (26 vols., 1907-17) does not include the essays or plays. The first complete edn. of the short stories is that ed. by Leon Edel (1961-64), though this is now being superseded by an annotated edn. by M. Aziz (vol. i, 1973). A definitive edn. of the plays and notes for plays is also ed. by Edel (1949); of the dramatic criticism, 1872-1901, ed. Allan Wade (1948); of the art criticism in The Painter’s Eye, ed. J. L. Sweeney (1956); and of some of James’s newspaper essays in Parisian Sketches: Letters to the ‘New York Tribune’, i8y5-y6, ed. Edel and

1. D. Lind (1957). At present there is no complete edn. of James’s,

criticism nor of his travel essays; selections of the former include Notes and Reviews, ed. Pierre de Chaignon la Rose (1921), and Literary Reviews, ed. Albert Mordell (1957). The best selection of travel writings is ed. M. D. Zabel (1958). James’s notebooks are available ed. F. O. Matthiessen and Kenneth B. Murdock (1947). The best edn. of the autobiographical vols. is ed. F. W. Dupee (1956); selected correspondence is available ed. Percy Lubbock (2 vols., 1969) A multi-vol. edn. of letters, ed. Edel, is in prep¬ aration: vol.

I,

i843-y5 (1974).

The most critically acclaimed - and attacked - biography of the century is Leon Edel’s massive five-volume study: The Untried Years, i843~i8yo (1953); The Conquest of London, i8yo-i88i (1962); The Middle Years, i882-i8gy (1962); The Treacherous Years, i8gy-igoi (1969); and The Master, igo2-igi6 (1972); his approach and method may be suspect, his biography is nevertheless indispensable. Two other excellent studies are by F. W. Dupee (1951; 3rd edn. 1965) and B. R. McElderry (1965), the latter perhaps the best introd. to James, though Leon Edel’s Henry James (i960) in the U. of Minnesota pamphlets is also justly admired. A brief recent study is Harry T. Moore, Henry James and His World (1974). Pelham Edgar’s Henry James, Man and Author (1927), one of the first important critical studies, is useful as biography and as a perceptive analysis of stylistic method. Most of the more ambitious books on James owe much to F. W. Matthiessen’s The Major Phase (1944), a first-rate analysis of James’s theory of fiction. Another good general introd. is that by Lyall H. Powers (1970). Oscar Cargill (1961) concentrates on the long novels; James

American literature

3o6

Kraft (1969), surveys the early short stories (1864-79). Richard Poirier, The Comic Sense of Henry James (i960) is excellent on the early James. The middle period is well handled by Joseph Wiesenfarth (1963), in a thorough examination of the dramatic qualities in the novels; the later style is dealt with by Seymour Chatman (1972). Christof Wegelin, Images of Europe in Henry James (1958) handles the international scene, while J. A. Ward, Search for Form (1967) deals with the structural complexities. One of the finest recent works is Viola H. Winner’s Henry James and the Visual Arts (1970); less impressive is Peter Buitenhuis (1970), which deals with James’s combination of visual observations and literary schemata. A useful book on his theory of fiction is by James E. Miller (1972). Leon Edel’s Collection of Critical Essays (1963) brings together some of the best recent estimates. The Bibliography of Henry James by Leon Edel and D. H. Laurence (1957; rev. 1961) is definitive. It is divided into original works, contri¬ butions to books, published letters, contributions to periodicals, trans¬ lations, and miscellanea. EDITH WHARTON

(1862-1937). In 1927 Mrs Lawson Melish published a

complete descriptive bibliography up to Here and Beyond] subsequent bibliographies are by Lavinia Davis (1933) and Vito Brenni (1966; unevenly annotated). There is no complete edn. of the works. Good selections include Treasury, ed. Arthur Quinn (1950); a Reader, ed. Louis Auchincloss (1965); and short stories, ed. Wayne Andrews (1958), and ed. R. W. B. Lewis (1962). Lewis’s Edith Wharton (1975) is the definitive biography, based in part on materials available after the 1968 opening of the MSS and including in an appendix a tale fragment, ‘Beatrice Palmato’. Although sketchy, Percy Lubbock’s Portrait (1947) is still a good study. Grace Kellogg, The Two Lives of Edith Wharton (1965) is more ambitious but less reliable. Millicent Bell’s Edith Wharton and Henry James (1965) is a lucid account of this important friendship. Book-length criticism has been somewhat uneven; the best includes Blake Nevius (1953), E. K. Brown (Paris, 1935; in French), and Louis Auchincloss’s two studies (1961, introductory; and 1971, pictorial). Less significant but still useful are Marilyn Lyde, Edith Wharton: Conventions and Morality in the Work of a Novelist (1959) and Josephine Jessup, The Faith of Our Feminists . . . Edith Wharton, Ellen Glasgow, and Willa Cather (1950). Many perceptive critical essays have been collected by Irving Howe (1962); two good articles not included in that volume are Frederick Hoffman, ‘Points of moral reference: a comparative study of Edith and

The principal writers

307

F. Scott Fitzgerald, {English Institute Essays, 1949) and John Crowe Ransom, ‘Characters and character’ (Am. Rev., Jan. 1936). Edith Wharton is also discussed at length by Van Wyck Brooks in The Confident Years (1952), Alfred Kazin in On Native Grounds (1942), and Edmund Wilson in Classics and Commercials (1950).

EDWIN ARLINGTON ROBINSON

(1869-1935). The Collected Poems (1937) is the

only edn. that approaches completeness. Charles T. Davis’s selection of early poems and letters-mostly to Robinson’s friend Harry de Forest Smith (i960) is useful because it contains the poems originally published in The Torrent and the Night Before and The Children of the Night but omitted from Collected Poems-, it also includes full bibliographical and explanatory notes. Selected Poems, ed. Morton D. Zabel (1965) contains most of Robin¬ son’s best work aside from the long narratives; his two plays, Van Zorn (1914) and Porcupine (1915) have not been reprinted. Correspondence is available in Ridgley Torrence’s selection (1940), a careless edn. but in¬ valuable for light on character and ideas. More scholarly is Untriangulated Stars, ed. Denham Sutcliffe (1947), the letters to Harry de Forest Smith. Letters to Edith Brower, ed. Richard Cary (1968), a substantial volume dating from January 1897, to June 1930, is also valuable. Letters ... to Howard G. Schmitt, ed. Carl J. Weber (1943) contains letters written to a collector of Robinson’s works and contains letters from January 1929 to January 1935. Other important letters are in Daniel Gregory Mason’s ‘Early Letters’ (VQR, Winter-Spring, 1937), Edwin S. Fussell, ‘Robinson to Moody’ (AL, 1951), Robert L. Lowe, ‘Edwin Arlington Robinson to Harriet Monroe’ (MP, 1962). Robinson’s prose has not been collected but is listed in bibliographies by Lillian Lippincott (1937) and Charles B. Hogan (1936). The first biography, by Hermann Hagedorn (1938), consists mainly of reminiscences from friends; it does not contain any extended account of the poetry. Emery Neff’s biography (1948) is useful, though limited, as is Chard Powers Smith’s Where the Light Falls (1965). So far there is no satisfactory complete life. Of the many personal reminiscences, the most important are by Rollo Walter Brown, Next Door to a Poet (1937), Esther W. Bates (1944), and Laura Richards (1936). Other vivid glimpses are recorded in Carl Van Doren, Three Worlds (1936), Mabel D. Luhan, Movers and Shakers (1936), and Daniel G. Mason, Music in My Time (1938). Winfield T. Scott, ‘To see Robinson’ (New Mexico Quarterly, 1956) is valuable for both the personal portrait of Robinson and his view of other poets. Robinson criticism began with Amy Lowell’s essay in Tendencies in Modern American Poetry (1917) in which she blamed his moralistic bent

American literature

3o8

but ascribed it to an outworn Puritan inheritance. Nevertheless, she con¬ sidered him a great poet, as did most of the early critics. Lloyd Morris (1923), B. R. Redman (1926), and Mark Van Doren (1927) all praise Robinson for his use of common experiences. It was not until his deaths that important criticism began to appear. One of the most detailed studies is that of Ellsworth Barnard (1952) which examines, among other things, his poetic theory, the causes of his obscurity, and the relation of his language and rhythm to his content and theme. Studies by Louis O. Coxe (1962, 1968) are among the most valuable of Robinson critiques, establish¬ ing a relationship between his life and his poems, and ‘placing’ him in relation to younger contemporaries. Wallace Anderson’s book (1967), probably the best general introd., discusses religious and literary influences as well as literary development. Literary sources are treated in Edwin S. Fussell’s brilliant critical study (1954). Two books on Robinson’s philos¬ ophy are by Estelle Kaplan (1940), a thorough and systematic study, and W. R. Robinson (1967) which contains some insight but also a questionable interpretation of some poems. Robinson’s Arthurian poems are discussed in Nathan C. Starr, King Arthur Today (1954) and in Glauco Gambon, The Inclusive Flame (1963). The major collections of essays on Robinson are those by Ellsworth Barnard (1969) and Francis Murphy (1970). FRANK NORRIS

(1870-1902). Although much textual and critical work re¬

mains to be done, we are fortunate in having Kenneth Lohf and Eugene Sheehy’s bibliography (1959); a standard, though incomplete, edn. (10 vols., 1928); and a supplementary edn. of The Literary Criticism, ed. Donald Pizer (1964). The only full-length biography is by Franklin Walker (1932), though Charles Dobie’s ‘Frank Norris, or up from culture’ {AM, April 1928; also as introd. to vol. 7 of the 1928 edn.) remains influential. Norris has received uneven critical attention since his death. Of the full-length studies, Ernest Marchand (1942) and Donald Pizer (1966) deserve mention. Fredric Taber Cooper’s pioneering essay in Some American Story Tellers (1911) merits reading, as does Theodore Dreiser’s introd. to McTeague in the 1928 edn. Maxwell Geismar’s Rebels and Ancestors: The American Novel, i8go-igi§ (1953) opens with a long chapter on Norris, convincingly applying psychoanalytic techniques. The best of the period studies which include Norris are Charles Walcutt, American Literary Naturalism (1956), Donald Pizer, Realism and Natural¬ ism in Nineteenth-Century American Literature (1966), and Larzer Ziff, The American iSgo’s (1966). More recent are John Hill’s Merrill Checklist (1970), and James D. Hart’s A Novelist in the Making (1970), a collection of forty-four themes developed by Norris during his years at Harvard.

The principal writers

STEPHEN CRANE

309

(1871-1900). Of the bibliographies Ames Williams and

Vincent Starrett (1948) contains numerous errors and gaps, and R. W. Stallman (1973) lacks description and annotation. Wilson Follett’s edn. of The Works (12 vols., 1925-27) is an unreliable text. It is now being super¬ seded by Fredson Bowers’s Virginia Edition, of which six vols. have appeared {^Bowery Tales, Tales of Whilomville, Tales of Adventure, Tales of War, The O’Ruddy, and Reports of War. Three more vols.. The Red Badge of Courage, Poems, and The Third Violet \and^ Active Service are scheduled to complete this edn.) At present the best texts, which partly supplement and correct the Follett edition, are The War Dispatches and The New York City Sketches, ed. R. W. Stallman and E. R. Hagemann (1964, 1966);

ed. OlovW. Fryckstedt(Uppsala, 1963);

The Complete Short Stories and Sketches and The Complete Novels of Stephen Crane, ed. Thomas Gullason (1963, 1967); and Joseph Katz’s edn. of The Poems (1966). Letters, ed. R. W. Stallman and Lillian Gilkes (i960) is standard for the correspondence. There have been four major biographies: Thomas Beer’s faulty but valuable Stephen Crane: a study in American letters (1923); John Berry¬ man’s Freudian interpretation (1950); Edwin Cady’s excellent critical biography (1962); and R. W. Stallmann’s massive but imperfect life (1972). A definitive biography is one of the pressing needs of Crane studies. Crane has fared better critically. Warner Berthoff, The Ferment of Realism (1965), Larzer Ziff, The American iSgo’s (1966), Jay Martin, Harvests of Change (1967), Lars Ahnebrink, The Beginnings of Naturalism in American Fiction (Uppsala, 1950), and Charles Walcutt, American Literary Naturalism (1956) all offer intelligent discussions of Crane’s work in the context of the major literary movements of the late nineteenth century. The best of the studies concentrating solely on Crane are those by Jean Cazemajou (1969) and Eric Solomon (1966). Daniel Hoffman on the poetry (1969) is indispensable. For a history of critical opinion, Thomas Gullason, Stephen Crane’s Career (1972) provides an excellent guide, as does Stephen Crane in Transition'. Centenary Essays, ed.

Joseph Katz

(1972), for current interpretations. The best of the more recent criticism includes Marston La France’s general introd. (1970); Milne Holton, Cylinder of Vision (1972), a good synthesis of previous criticism; and an elaborate critical anthology, ed. Richard Weatherford {Critical Heritage series, 1973). THEODORE DREISER

(1871-1945). Neither a comprehensive bibliography nor

a standard edn. of Dreiser’s work exists. We have Donald Pizer’s checklist in Proof: The Yearbook of American Bibliographical and Textual Studies

American literature

310

(1971) and the semi-annual (since Spring 1970) bibliographies in the Dreiser Newsletter, but the lack of a comprehensive bibliography and the suspension of the University of Pennsylvania’s project for a definitive text are serious obstacles. Robert Saalbach’s edn. of Selected Poems (1969) and Marguerite Tjader and John McAleer’s recent edn. of Notes on Life (1974) provide accurate texts, but for the novels we must rely on the various edns. of single works. Although only selected letters have been published, Letters, ed. Robert Elias (1959), and Letters to Louise, ed. by the recipient, Louise Campbell (1959), offer much of critical and biographical interest. Many of these letters were unavailable to early biographers, but H. L. Mencken, A Book of Prefaces (1917) and Dorothy Dudley, Forgotten Frontiers (1932) remain valuable studies.

The definitive biography,

despite its critical shortcomings, is by W. A. Swanberg (1965). Four biographical accounts by close acquaintances add some detail: Robert Elias (1949; repr. 1970); Helen Dreiser (1951); Marguerite Tjader (1965); and Ruth Epperson Kennell, Theodore Dreiser and the Soviet Union, 1927-1945 (1969). Mencken (1917) and F.

O.

Mattheissen (1951) offer perceptive

criticism of Dreiser within their biographies. Phillip Gerber’s (1964) is a similarly balanced introd. to the man and his work. Eileen Moers in Two Dreisers (1969) and Richard Lehan (1969) suggest the relationships between Dreiser’s life and his fiction. More recent criticism includes Rolf Lunden’s The Inevitable Equation: The Antithetic Pattern of Theodore Dreiser's Thought and Art (Uppsala, 1973); Robert Penn Warren’s outstanding Homage (1971); and W. M. Frohock’s unexceptional but brief study (1972). Serious students must also consider several seminal essays, particularly those by Carl Van Doren {Nation, 16 March, 1921) and Maxwell Geismar in Rebels and Ancestors: The American Novel, 1890-1915 (1953). Critical essays have been collected by Alfred Kazin and Charles Shapiro (1955) and, with some overlap, by John Lydenberg (1971). Jack Salzman has gathered contemporary reviews of Dreiser’s fiction, including valuable articles by Mencken and Malcolm Cowley, in Theodore Dreiser: the critical reception (1972). Essays discussing Dreiser and American natural¬ ism, particularly those by Charles Walcutt in American Literary Naturalism (1956) and Donald Pizer in Realism and Naturalism in Nineteenth-Century American Literature (1966) should also be consulted.

WILLA GATHER

(1873-1947). Phyllis Martin Hutchinson’s list of works by

and about Miss Cather {BNYPL, June-Aug. 1956) is the most reliable listing of signed publications and criticism up to 1956. April Twilights 1903, ed. Bernice Slote (1962; rev. 1968), and Collected Short Fiction,

The principal writers

311

i8g2-igi2, ed. Virginia Faulkner with an introd. by Mildred Bennett (1965), include expanded and corrected checklists of the poetry and short fiction. Willa Gather herself supervised and approved the Library Edition (13 vols., 1937-41), but it is not all-inclusive, and is supplemented by Faulkner’s collection of the short stories, Bernice Slote’s edn. of The Kingdom of Art: Willa Gather's First Principles and Critical Statements, i8g3-i8g6 (1967), a collection of reviews and articles, 1893-1902, ed. William Curtin, as The World and the Parish (1970), and seven previously uncollected stories. Uncle Valentine and Other Stories, ed. Bernice Slote (1973), all material either rejected or overlooked by the author. Willa Gather’s will forbids the printing of her correspondence, and so no edn. of the letters is possible, though Margaret O’Connor’s ‘Guide’, RALS 4, 145-72, is helpful. A Critical Biography by E. K. Brown, completed by Leon Edel (1953), unravels many of the complicated legends and hypotheses. Edith Lewis (1953), and Elizabeth S. Sergeant (1953) add lively personal accounts to the more critically oriented study of Brown and Edel, and James Woodress (1970) adds new biographical detail. Mildred Bennett, The World of Willa Gather (1951; rev. edn. with notes and index, 1961), devoted largely to the Red Cloud years, is basic for all biographical inquiry, though the unsubstantiated interviews and identifi¬ cations must be used with care. More recently, Bernice Slote, A Pictorial Memoir (1973) offers an interesting collection of photographs of Willa Gather, and some scenes from her fiction. Criticism has been uneven; typically, estimates display prejudgment and a lack of careful reading. Early exceptions include H. L. Mencken’s somewhat superficial but influential reviews in the Smart Set, particularly that of March 1919, and Rebecca West’s ‘The classic artist’ {NYHTB, ii Sept., 1927; also in The Strange Necessity, 1928). Arthur Hobson Quinn supplies a sane interpretation based on all of the published writings in American Fiction (1936). Many, though unfortunately not all, of the best essays have been collected by James Schroeter (1967). Special issues of the Colby Library Quarterly (June 1968) and Western American Literature (Spring 1972) contain current critical assessments. Of the book-length studies, John Randall’s The Landscape and the Looking Glass (i960) is the most thorough, and Dorothy Van Ghent’s (1964) perhaps the most per¬ ceptive. Two other books deserve mention; David Daiches’s Critical Introduction (1951) and Edward and Lillian Bloom’s Willa Gather's Gift of Sympathy (1962). The most recent contribution to appear is by Dorothy McFarland (1972), which is sound if not original. ROBERT FROST (1874-1963).

The Poetry, ed. Edward Connery Lathem

American literature

312

(1969) is the standard text, though not quite complete. The Concordance (1971), also ed. by Lathem and based on his edn. of the poetry, is indis¬ pensable. Frost’s prose, although incomplete, appears in: Lathem and Lawrance Thompson, Farm Poultryman (1966), Lathem and Hyde Cox, Selected Prose (1966), and Lathem, Interviews (1966). Louis Untermeyer’s edn. of his Letters from Frost (1963) and Margaret Anderson’s of those to John Bartlett (1963) are important; Lawrance Thompson’s selection (1964) incorporates letters from Untermeyer and Bartlett as well as others from various correspondents; further additions are made in Arnold Grade, Family Letters of Robert and Elinor Frost (1972). Elaine Barry, Robert Frost on Writing (1973) prints letters, reviews, lectures, and introds. by Frost, some previously unpublished. The official biography is by Lawrance Thompson: two of the projected three vols. have appeared. The Early Years, i8'/4-igi5 (1966) and The Years of Triumph, igiy-iggS (1970). Although critical views of this work vary greatly, it is at least the most complete. Thompson has also written a brief but perfect introd. (1959). Three other biographies have a limited use: Gorham Munson’s (1927), the first of the Frost biographies, is now dated; Elizabeth S. Sergeant’s study (i960) is essentially an appreci¬ ation; Jean Gould, The Aim Was Song {igbf) is entertaining but superficial. Further biographical matter survives in records of conversations with Frost by Sidney Cox (1957), R. L. Cook (1958), Daniel Smythe (1964), Louis Mertins (1965), Edward Connery Lathem (1966), and Robert Francis (1972). Two useful collections of critical essays on Frost are ed. Richard Thornton (1937) and James Cox (1962); the latter is the more valuable, the eleven essays all making critical points and initiating a reappraisal of Frost’s work. Lawrance Thompson’s Fire and Ice (1942) is a basic study that attempts to correct previous misapprehensions. Reuben Brower’s close analyses (1963) are also excellent. One of the shortest but most clear-sighted studies of Frost is Radcliffe Squire, The Major Themes (1963), which uses the techniques of New Criticism. Elizabeth Jennings’s provocative study (1964) deplores the lack of close critical attention to Frost. Less rewarding but still useful are appreciations by Philip Gerber (1966) and Elizabeth Isaacs (Denver, 1962). Two recent studies are those of Reginald L. Cook (1974) and Donald J. Greiner (1974).

SHERWOOD ANDERSON

(1876-1941). The bibliography compiled by Eugene

Sheehy and Kenneth Lohf (i960) provides the first thorough checklist of writings by and about Anderson; it is supplemented by G.

Thomas

Tanselle’s ‘Additional reviews of Sherwood Anderson’s work’ (PBSA,

The principal writers

313

third quarter 1962.). Ray White’s less comprehensive Merrill Checklist (1969) adds to Anderson’s own publications books and articles about him. Most of Anderson’s work is either out of print or sorely in need of reediting. Malcolm Cowley’s edn. of Winesburg, Ohio (i960) has the best text of Anderson’s most famous novel. It is reprinted with a collection of essays, ed. John Ferres (1966). The most inclusive collections are The Sherwood Anderson Reader, ed. Paul Rosenfield (1947), The Portable Sherwood Anderson, ed. Horace Gregory (1947), and Short Stories, ed. Maxwell Geismar (1962). Although a few items have been reissued, notably Paul Appel’s reprinting of the Notebook, Hello Towns!, Perhaps Women, No Swank, and Puzzled America (1970), the most important have been Ray White’s edns. of the novels for the Case Western Reserve University. The first vol., A Story Teller’s Story (1968), has some inaccurate notes and faulty text, but Tar: A Midwest Childhood (1969), and Marching Men (1972) have fulfilled White’s promise of ‘uniform, definitive, critical editions’. White has also brought out the Sherwood AndersonjGertrude Stein Correspondence and Personal Essays (1972) and Memoirs (1969). These add considerably to the standard selection of the Letters, ed. Howard Mumford Jones (Boston, 1953). The basic biographical text is William Sutton, The Road to Winesburg (1972). Sutton supplies the only fully reliable account of Anderson’s early years. Two other full-length biographies, Irving Howe (1951) and James Schevill’s more sympathetic approach (1951), have their value. Gertrude Stein in The Autobiography of Alice B. Toklas (1933), William Faulkner in ‘An Appreciation’ {Atlantic Monthly, June 1953), and Elizabeth Prall Anderson and Gerald Kelly in Miss Elizabeth (1969) provide the best personal reminiscences. Although few books have been devoted solely to Anderson, several collections of essays have: the ‘Homage to Sherwood’ issue of Story (Sept.-Oct. 1941); Ray White (U. of North Carolina, 1966); and Walter Rideout (1974). The best Anderson criticism is to be found in either jour¬ nals or period studies, e.g. William Phillips, ‘How Sherwood Anderson wrote Winesburg, Ohio’ (AL, 1951), Jarvis Thurston’s ‘Anderson and “Winesburg” ’: mysticism and craft’ {Accent, Spring 1956), and Benjamin Spencer’s ‘SA: American Mythopoeist’ {AL,

1969). There are also

important chapters in Lionel Trilling, The Liberal Imagination (1950), Maxwell Geismar, The Last of the Provincials (1947), and T. K. Whipple, Spokesmen (1928). The essays by Phillips, Spencer, Trilling, and Whipple are included in Walter Rideout’s collection. More recently Anderson has been discussed intelligently by Austin Wright in The American Short

American literature

314

Story in The Twenties (1961) and by Richard Bridgeman in The Colloquial Style in America (1966). The earliest of the full-length studies were Cleveland Chase’s hostile Sherwood Anderson (1927) and N. Bryllion Fagin’s more receptive The Phenomenon of Sherwood Anderson (1927). Both are reviewed by Robert Penn Warren in a seminal statement of anti-Anderson criticism in the New Republic, 16 May 1928. Recent work includes the often perceptive introds. by Brom Weber (1964), and Rex Burbank (1964), and a longer evaluation by David Anderson (1967). WALLACE STEVENS

(1879-1955). In 1963 Samuel French Morse (with Jack-

son Bryer and Joseph Riddel) updated his earlier bibliography; a decade later J. M. Edelstein published A Descriptive Bibliography (1973). These are the two essential bibliographical tools. The closest we have to a standard text is Collected Poems (1954), supplemented by Opus Posthumous (1957) and The Palm at the End of the Mind - Selected Poems and a Play, ed. Holly Stevens (1971). Morse’s long-awaited critical biography (1970) unfortunately did little to dispel the rumours and legends of Stevens’s life, though Holly Stevens’s carefully screened ed. of The Letters (1966) adds some data about the writings. Stevens’s literary career began in debate with Louis Untermeyer {New Era of American Poetry, 1919 and American Poetry Since igoo, 1923) and Conrad Aiken {NR, 10 May 1919). Untermeyer’s attacks on the poetry continued in: Stanley Burnshaw’s review of Ideas of Order {New Masses, I

Oct 1935); G. S. Fraser, ‘Mind all alone’ {New Statesman, 9 Jan i960);

passages in Yvor Winters, Primitivism and Decadence (1937) and The Anatomy of Nonsense (1943). The case for Stevens has been put most eloquently by; R. P. Blackmur {Hound and Horn, Winter 1932); Hi Simons {Harvard Advocate, Dec. 1940; SoR, Winter 1940;

Autumn 1945; and

MP, May 1946); Roy Harvey Pearce, The Continuity of American Poetry (1961); Louis Martz {Yale R, Spring 1967); and Frederick Hoffman, The Mortal No (1964). Essays by Simons, Pearce, and Martz are included in the Twentieth Century Views collection (1963); two similar collections are ed. Pearce, The Act of the Mind (1965) and ed. Peter McNamara, (1972). The most distinguished of the book-length studies are Erank Kermode’s economical Wallace Stevens (i960), Joseph Riddel’s more comprehensive, perhaps excessive.

The Clairvoyant Eye (1965), and Frank Doggett,

Stevens' Poetry of Thought (1966). Recent books include James Baird’s aesthetic evaluation of the entire canon (1968), Helen Vendler’s superb critical analysis of the longer poems (1969), and Roger Silvere’s The Absurd in Wallace Stevens' Poetry (1972).

The principal writers

315

WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS

(1883-1963). Emily Wallace’s comprehensive

bibliography (1968) is invaluable; it is supplemented by John Engels, Merrill Checklist (1969). All Williams’s writings are now published in a reliable text by New Directions; the most recent vols. include Imaginations, ed. Webster Schott (1970) and a Reader, ed. M. L. Rosenthal. Many of the letters were ed. by John Thirlwall (1950). These volumes and Williams’s Autobiography (1954) supply much of our knowledge. Michael Weaver’s study (1971), though indispensable, concentrates on the literary career. Marianne Moore [Contact, Summer 1921;

The Dial, Mar. 1927;

Poetry, May 1934) and Ezra Pound [The Dial, Nov. 1928) were among the foremost of Williams’s early champions, but Yvor Winters, ‘Poetry of feeling’ [KR, 1939) stands as the most influential early study. J. Hillis Miller’s collection (1966) includes essays by both Moore and Winters. Other significant collections of critical essays include a special Williams issue of the Journal of Modern Literature, May 1971; and Jerome Mazzaro’s Profile (1971). Of subsequent discussions of Williams’s place in modern American letters the fullest are in M. L. Rosenthal, The Modern Poets (i960), Roy Harvey Pearce, The Continuity of American Poetry (1961), and Denis Donoghue, Connoisseurs of Chaos (1965). There are also many book-length studies. Vivienne Koch (1950) is still valuable, but it is with James Guimond (1968), Sherman Paul (1968), and Thomas Whitaker’s highly perceptive introd. (1968) that the Williams industry really begins. More recent studies include Linda Wagner on the prose (1970), Benjamin Sankey’s Companion to ‘Patterson’ (1971), Jerome Mazzaro’s combination of textual, cultural, and biographical analysis of the later poems (1973); Joseph Riddel’s Nietzschean-Heideggerian The Inverted Bell (1974) and the newest, Reed Whittlemore’s critical and biographical Poet from Jersey (1975). SINCLAIR LEWIS

works, Mark

(1885-1951). Since there is no standard edn. of Lewis’s

Schorer’s

biography (1961) should be consulted for a

checklist. Less valuable are James Lundquist’s Checklist and Guide (both 1970). Short stories and essays have been collected in The Man from Mam Street, igo4-igyo, ed. Harry E. Maule and Melville H. Cane (1953); Selected Short Stories (1935), and Seven Selected Short Stories (1943). Correspondence has been published in From Main Street to Stockholm . . . igig-igjo, ed. Harrison Smdth (1952) and Letters from Jack London, ed. King Hendricks and Irving Shepard (1965). The major critical biography is that by Mark Schorer (i960). Vincent Sheean, Dorothy and Red (1963) discusses Lewis’s romance with Dorothy Thompson; Paul de Kruif talks at length about Lewis in The Sweeping

American literature

3i6

Wind (1962); Mark Schorer (pamphlet, 1963) provides a useful introd. to the man and the artist. Carl Van Doren’s Biographical Sketch (1933) is a mere promotion piece commissioned by Lewis’s publisher. One of the earliest critical estimates of Lewis’s work was Stuart P. Sherman’s The Significance of Sinclair Lewis (1922): though brief, it is cogent. Another useful short study is that by Vernon L. Farrington (1927). Two later full-length critical studies are by Sheldon N. Grebstein (1962) and D. J. Dooley (1967); both contain valuable bibliographical sketches. The most recent critical study is by James Lundquist (1973). The best collection of critical articles is ed. Mark Schorer (1962). EZRA POUND

(1885-1972). As there is no collected edn. Donald Gallup’s

bibliography (London, 1963) is the primary source for uncollected items in both poetry and prose. Even so the use of different titles in the U.S. and England and the varying contents under the same title make his publishing record exceptionally difficult to follow. For the poetry, no definitive edn. exists. Eva Hesse’s English-German edn. of The Cantos, though incom¬ plete, is the most authoritative: Cantos I-XXX, Pisaner Gesange and Cantos igi6-ig62 (Zurich, 1954, 1956, 1964). Alary de Rachewiltz’s ItalianEnglish edn. of the first thirty cantos (Milan, 1961) is also considered authoritative. Other standard edns. include Personae (1926; rev. 1949, London,

1952, as Personae: Collected Shorter Poems')', Selected Poems

(London, 1928); Collected Shorter Poems (London, 1968); The Confucian Odes (New York, 1959; London as The Classic Anthology)-, A Lume Spento and Other Early Poems (New York, 1966); The Classic Noh Theatre of Japan (1959); Guide to Kulchur (London, 1938); Impact (Chicago, i960); Instigations (London, 1920); Literary Essays (New York, 1954); Patria Mia and the Treatise on Harmony (Chicago, 1950); Pavannes and Divag¬ ations (1918); Polite Essays (London,

1937),

The Spirit of Romance

(London, 1910); the Translations of Ezra Pound (New York, 1953); Confucious to Cummings, ed. Pound and Marcella Spann (New York, 1964); The ABC of Reading (London, 1934). Recent texts include Selected Cantos (London, 1967), containing a foreword by Pound stressing that the selections indicate the main elements in the Cantos; Selected Cantos (New York, 1970) with an additional 280 lines comprising passages from Cantos LII, LXXXIII, CXV, and CXVI not printed in the 1967 edn.; Drafts & Fragments of Cantos CX-CXVII (New York, 1970); The Cantos of Ezra Pound [I-CXVII] (1970). The Letters . . . igoj-ig4i, ed. D. D. Paige (New York, 1950) presents the core of Pound’s extensive corres¬ pondence on his literary theory and practice. Also useful is E. P. to L. U.: Nine Letters to Louis Untermeyer ( Indiana U., 1963) and Forrest Read’s

The principal writers

317

Pound jJoyce (New York, 1967); the latter prints all the known Pound letters to Joyce and Pound’s essays and review on Joyce. The first full biography is by Charles Norman (i960), a valuable aid to the student because of its comprehensive and detailed treatment. Norman expanded this volume into The Case of Ezra Pound (rev. 1968) which includes, among other additions, the transcript of the hearings on Pound’s indictment. Also useful is Michael Reck, A Close-Up (1967), based on personal contact and intimate knowledge. Even more detailed is Patricia Hutchins, Ezra Pound’s Kensington (1965).Noel Strock’s Life (1970), which provides much new information will certainly become the standard biography. Mary de Rachewiltz, Discretions (1971) is valuable as biography and as commentary on private allusions in much of Pound’s poetry. The first substantial criticism came from Carl Sandburg {Poetry, Feb. 1916), which emphasized Pound as innovator. T. S. Eliot’s short Ezra Pound: His Metric and Poetry (1917) stands as the first perceptive introd. Two seminal essays appeared early in the 1930s: F. R. Leavis devoted a section in New Bearings in English Poetry (1932) to Pound, saluting him as one of the shapers of the twentieth century; R. P. Blackmur’s ‘Masks of Ezra Pound’, to be found now in Language as Gesture (1952), stressed his genius at working on an existing text. With the appearance of Hugh Kenner’s study (1951), a second phase of Pound criticism began. Kenner was the first critic to deal with Pound’s complete poetry and in so doing treated Pound’s insistence on definition, pointed out the importance of imagism, and discussed the importance of the poetry in his development. Perhaps the best discussion of Pound’s language is Donald Davie, Poet as Sculptor (1964). In Ezra Pound’s Poetics and Literary Tradition (Berne, 1966), N. Christoph de Nagy discusses Pound’s view of the prag¬ matic function of criticism. Thomas H. Jackson, The Early Poetry (1968) is a persuasive study of the influence of the poets of the 1890s. Pound’s interest in Oriental literature is best treated in a chapter by Earl Miner in The Japanese Tradition in British and American Literature (1958). L. S. Dembo, The Confucian Odes (1963) is a good account of Pound’s trans¬ lations of the classic Book of Odes. Several readings of the Cantos have appeared. The Annotated Index to them by John Hamilton Edwards and William W. Vasse (1957) is valuable. George Dekker, The Cantos (1963; title in England Sailing to Knowledge) provides original readings of indi¬ vidual passages; Noel Strock, Reading the Cantos (1967) offers glosses of the later cantos; Walter Baumann, The Rose in the Steel Dust (Berne, 1967) stresses Cantos IV and LXXXII as important to the architecture of the Just City; and Daniel D. Pearlman, The Barb of Time (1969) is an ambitious new reading. K. K. Ruthven, A Guide to Ezra Pound’s 'Personae’ (1969)

American literature

318

contains valuable notes. A perceptive account of the early verse is pro¬ vided by Herbert N. Schneidau (1969). Hugh Witemeyer, The Poetry of Ezra Pound: Forms and Renewals igo8-ig20 (1969), is perhaps the best single guide yet on the early work. Christine Brooke-Rose, A ZBC of Ezra Pound (1971) is a clever introd., as is Hugh Kenner’s far more important The Pound Era (1971). The best books treating both Pound and Eliot include Donald Gallup,

T. S.

Eliot and Ezra Pound (1970),

a general survey of the period when the two poets worked together, and The Political Identities of Ezra Pound and T. S. Eliot (1973). The most recent collection of essays is Eva Hesse, 22 Versuche uber einen Dichter (Frankfurt, 1967; English translation 1969). MARIANNE MOORE

(1887-1972). Although Marianne Moore has received

too little critical attention, she has not been neglected by scholars. Thus Eugene Sheehy and Kenneth Lohf’s The Achievement of Marianne Moore

igoj-ig^y (1958) provides a bibliographical basis, and Craig Abbott’s unpublished dissertation (U. of Texas, 1974) builds on their work; Con¬ cordance to the Poems, ed. Gary Lane (1972) is indispensable. The poetry is accessible in Collected Poems (1951), a Reader (1951), which includes several essays, and The Complete Poems (1967), whose omissions. Miss Moore comments, ‘are not accidents’. Though there is no definitive biography, there are some excellent introd. studies by Bernard Engel (1964), Jean Garrigue (1965)

and

Donald Hall’s more substantial The Cage and the Animal {igjo). With these exceptions, the best criticism has not appeared in books, but in early essays, most typically by her fellow poets, including Hilda Doolittle in The Egoist (August 1916) and Ezra Pound in the Little Review (March 1918 (also in the Little Review Anthology, ed. Margaret Anderson (1953); see also Pound’s Letters, ed. D. D. Paige, 1950); Yvor Winters’s ‘Holiday and day of wrath’ {Poetry, April 1925); William Carlos Williams in the Dial (May 1925; see also Selected Essays, 1954, and Autobiography, 1951); R. P. Blackmur in The Double Agent (1935; also in Language as Gesture, 1952); and Kenneth Burke in Accent (Spring 1942). Several of these articles are in Charles Tomlinson’s Collection of Critical Articles (1969). Other important collections include the special issue of the Quarterly Review iv (1948) and the Festschrift for Marianne Moore's yyth Birthday, ed. M. J. Tambimuttu (1964).

EUGENE O’NEILL

(i888-1953). There is no complete edn. of O’Neill, but

the Wilderness edn. of the Plays (12 vols., 1934-35) contains what O’Neill regarded as his canon up to Ah, Wilderness\ and Days Without End-, later

The principal writers

319

reprinted in a 3-V0I. edn. (1941) and reissued with The Iceman Cometh added to vol. iii (1951). This ed.must be supplemented hy. A Moon for the Misbegotten (1952), A Long Day’s Journey Into Night (1956), A Touch of the

Poet

(1957),

Mughie'

(1959);

Donald

Gallup’s

edn.

of More

Stately Mansions (1964), by Thirst and Other One-Act Plays (1914) and The Lost Plays (1950; rev. 1958 collected in Ten 'Lost' Plays (1964); and by 'Children of the Sea’ and Three Other Unpublished Plays, ed. Jennifer M. Atkinson (1972). J. Russell Reaver’s Concordance (3 vols., 1969) provides an analysis of the major plays, etc. There is no edn. or complete listing of O’Neill’s letters, but most of the important ones will be found in O’Neill and His Plays, ed. Oscar Cargill, N. B. Fagin, and W. J. Fischer (1961). Other important letters are in Barrett Clark, Eugene O’Neill (1929; rev.

1947) as well as in studies by Isaac Goldberg (1926), Lawrence Langner (1951), George Jean Nathan’s Intimate Notebooks Arthur H. Quinn’s History of the American Drama (1936), Wisner P. Kinne’s George Pierce Baker and the American Theatre (1954) and John Henry Raleigh’s collec¬ tion of interpretations of The Iceman Cometh (1968). The most authoritative biography is Louis Schaeffer, O’Neill: Son and Playwright and Son and Artist (1968, 1973). Both vols. add new infor¬ mation and emphasize the autobiographical basis of practically all the plays. Arthur and Barbara Gelb, O'Neill (1962; rev. 1973) is valuable for O’Neill the man, but of little use for his plays. The first biography was by Barrett Clark (1926; rev. 1929, 1947); Doris Alexander, The Tempering of Eugene O’Neill (1962) is the first scholarly one. Croswell Bowen, The Curse of the Misbegotten (1959) is also useful, though the emphasis is again on the man rather than the plays. John Gassner (1965), and Clifford Leech (1963) provide two brief but excellent general introds. Frederic I. Carpenter (1964) is also useful; Edwin A. Engel’s The Haunted Heroes of Eugene O’Neill (1953) traces the various themes and their development in the plays; R. D. Skinner’s study (1935) sees O’Neill’s career as a prolonged struggle to achieve inner harmony; S. K. Winther (1934; rev. 1961) portrays O’Neill as a social critic of a sick society. John Henry Raleigh on The Plays (1965) traces the development from an interesting but flawed playwright to a great one. Recent studies of O’Neill’s plays include Chester Long, The Role of Nemesis in O’Neill (The Hague, 1968), Timo Tiusanen, O’Neill’s Scenic Images (1968), and Travis Bogard, Contour in Time (1972). The most complete collection of reviews of the plays is Jordan Y. Miller, Play¬ wright’s Progress (1965). E. E. CUMMINGS

(1894-1962). A complete review of Cummings’s writings

American literature

320

is in Firmage’s Bibliography (i960). Joseph W. Mahoney’s ‘Bibliographical Survey’ [LWU, vi, 1973,

188-201) provides an excellent up-to-date

survey of writings on Cummings to 1973. George J. Firmage’s Complete Poems igi3-ig62 (1972) is the standard edn. of Cummings’s verse; it only omits poems from Cummings’s college days that he never collected. These appear in Charles Norman’s biography (1958, rev. 1967). The best available edn. of The Enormous Room (1922), Cummings’s World War I novel (Modern Library, 1934), includes a note on the author, a bibliography, and a new introd. by the author. The most authoritative text of Eimi (1933), a travel journal of the trip to Russia in 1931, is the Grove Press edn. (1958). Three Plays

tf

4

F. W. Battfson’s \\ell'-knr>\\.[ i- a [^LDiia lo iIh- niaiii liiu's (iT 'cViticism of ihe major autiiors. ano ’ ^ rf,^ Ix"-: o;;;'imi' o! liu-:.- otk. It is more than just a richlv ai-ui'otauVl lu')i;i>^.'ap!i\ ; its M''. t--chapters’ provide a condensed critical Idstorx' o! i nciish liUTattra-, and tlie commentary is wittv. pointed ard stimidatin^F a-, wed ns being a -mine of useful data, ro:-'tins Tidrd ddit'en, tde tex; nas.been completely re\ ised to take accaoinf .of tiie 'died e! recent scholarshij), and for the first rime a substantial semion - t ontri'anted by Harrisem T. Mescroie, Frolesscnr of jrnni isi-, at id nos'. ania hlate Uni\ersity—has been included on Amyican iiterattn'c. ' . "

^

O.

■

,

•

Some reviews oj the first .Edition oj this work: ‘a at once sturdily idiosyncratic anc se;idl\ re: arontiad'In: calls the four “interchapters” provide a ce::;lensed critical history . of Hnslish literature really admirable in its s'o;t',' ret ;y)t de •T;;epressed as to eliminate opinion and tvit.' , . ,

. . bis guide is much m(;re than a roi;tine'co:itn:lat;e:i r;;| ;:a-;:ies and dates. It contains provocatiye contmejats, liyefy cndtit al "i:t'te::chapters”, and a judicious distillatioitOf the ix'st a\ailabn' scho'Ia;-- . ship in the field. . Most, bibliograp'iies, are spo;ages; . ; Gdnn.d lo ' English Literature is a sie'ye, and an extremely uj^eidd one.” .

. d . . a Very important book, as vyclldas cnjovable.’ '

'

,

/.dr Ohscrvei:

. d- . The (luardiiw

From 1946 until his; relireme'nt !%y, In .nn ond vya s I.ecturer in Fncjlish l.ilerature ai ine Jniyersity of'0.x:orcT, and-a Tutor and Fellow of Corpus Cliristi' Cidlctt y i'vtiS cb*-SC), Visiting l^rofessor at scvei'al ;Amc'rican uniyei-sities. i'-or numy ^cai's he 'has been one of the mo.'st vigorous, spirited an(Pcontro\nV.siai figures on tire Fnglish literary scene. Some of the-major acl-ueyements antong his many■ publicat.itsns are' The Cambridge Bibliographj' oJ English Literature, ol which he was 'editor; the .journal E-vsci^'s in Criticism which he foundec. series of

Longman

‘