AMERICAN CRITICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD THE FICTION OF WILLIAM DEAN HOWELLS Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Carl Leroy Marshall, B.S. in Edu., M.A. The Ohio State University 195J+ Approved by: 7 '- I ~ v ' ' 1 - \ Adviser [I ti TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages P r e f a c e .......................................... ii Chapter I. The First Phase: Non-Controversial Criticism ........................ 1 Chapter II. Idealistic-Moralistic Criticism . 13 Charter III. Realistic Criticism ....... 101 Chapter IV. Iconoclastic Criticism.......... llj.6 Chanter V. Sociological Criticism.......... 169 Chap ter VI. Conventional Criticism.......... 188 Chapter VII. Scholarly Criticism . 203 Chapter VIII. Conclusion....................... 223 Works Cited .... ....................... 2,37 li PREPAGE For almost eighty years literary critics and reviewers have disputed the quality, the meaning-, and the worth of the novels of William Dean Howells. During that time they have reached a general accord on only one point: that he had a clear, supple prose style. Whether or not the critics have approved of Howells, they have been compelled to deal with him, not only because of the massiveness of his work (and his eminence as an editor and a critic), but also be­ cause of its importance as an expression of realism. Their numerous and varied comments indicate several distinctive attitudes which seem to me to account in some measure for the conflicting evaluations. I have sought to distinguish and identify those attitudes through.studying the American criticism published in books and in magazines of respectable literary standing. I have felt that these sources promised serious, well-considered opinions that would represent most adequately the major trends of critical thought. I have attempted to display the body of criticism with as much objectivity as I could command, but of course I have proceeded on certain basic assumptions of my own which were not always to be concealed. My reading of Howells had proved to me that he was not as shallow as the critical commonplaces indicate. I saw that he omitted some important iii aspects of reality, that ho was Indeed restrained and gentle, that ha never quite achieved a compelling, fully satisfying presentation. And yet X was convinced that, with all of his faults, h© was a subtle, perceptive, humane writer who offered a mature criticism of life, even in the novels that seemed lightest. I felt also that he was a genuine democrat who employed his art as best he could to further the liberal ideal. I wished to determine, then, what motivated the con­ flicting, often vehement, critical judgment that proclaimed him "a master of delicate cameo pieces,” ”a literary anar­ chist stressing the sordid and the commonplace," "a realist depicting humanity," "a timid spokesman of Victorian prudery," "a democrat critical of his times." Obviously he could not be all of these things. I concluded that tradition, preju­ dice and passion, iconoclasm and sociological determinism frequently provided the key to these opinions. On those grounds I approached my subject. My procedure has been to present the views of each group of critics In a separate chapter, rather than to follow a purely chronological order. This method seemed to fit my purpose best and to allow the most satisfactory revelation of the critical positions. The writings of the critics are extremely uneven in bulk and in the amount of detail involved. The realistic criticism, for example, was always a minority opinion. Although it paralleled the Idealistic-moralistic Iv criticism in point of time, It would bo submerged If con­ sidered simultaneously with the reviews of the predominant group. Yet the small school of realists was important, for it v/as victorious in its war with the idealists. Similarly, the criticism of the Iconoclasts and the sociological writers has been far more influential than its slight volume suggests. I believe that my scheme clearly reveals the unity and the effect of the major points of view and lessens the amount of unavoidable repetition. In each chapter I have defined and described one type of criticism and have indicated the amount and the extent of that criticism. Then I have presented the essence of the opinions and commented on the fidelity to fact, the consistency, and the degree of recognition of Howells1 intention and meaning. My classification of critics eccording to their particular "humor" is justifiable as a principle, I think, In most in­ stances. The amorphous groupings for which I could find no better label than "Conventional" and "Scholarly" are perhaps less defensible, but they have certain distinguishing marks. The criticism labeled "Conventional" seems cautious and con­ servative, with something of the air of the textbook; It regularly slights Howells’ social novels; it shows a want of fresh Insight and originality. On the other hand, the "Scholarly" criticism contains specific, knowing comment; It shows a deep interest in the social significance of Howells; V it reveals insight, precision, and impersonality. No doubt there are individual writers whom I have classified rather arbitrarily, but I have been governed by what has seemed to me their dominant critical attitude and method. I have made full use of the pertinent bibliographical aids, and I have located a number of reviews not listed in those sources. Although I do not claim that my study is exhaustive. I have . examined almost everything and have used most of what I have seen except when it was so brief or ■ trivial that it could carry no weight. In citing and sum­ marizing huge blocks of material I have found It necessary to use many omnibus notes. Normally, I have given the refer­ ences In order of citation; but where the footnote immedi­ ately follows a quotation, the first reference is to it. Perhaps I should point out also that after a first complete citation, I have regularly used a brief form in later refer­ ences, except where additional information seemed necessary. Chapter I THE PIHST PHASE: NON-CONTROVERSIAL CRITICISM When William Dean Howells first began writing novels in 1872, realism had not yet become an issue in American literature. The unchallenged control of literary affairs rested securely in the hands of the "elegant,” conservative periodicals--the North American, the Atlantic, Harper 1 a, the Nation, Scribner1s--which by precept and practice exhib­ ited the moral and romantic attitudes and biases that prevailed during the time. Although no rules had been established for the criticism of the novels in general the editors and critics wanted fiction to meet the standards that had been set up for poetry. Somewhat vaguely, they expected the novel to present'moral Ideas in terms of beauty and truth; to express the imaginative Insight of the human soul; to preserve the traditional romantic idealism. And yet, for perhaps the very reason that dogmatism seemed unnecessary, literary criticism from 1872 to 1881 remained largely individual, expressive of the personal tastes and preferences of the writers. It treated the novels directly, honestly, and sympathetically, and set up no formal criteria or rigid pattern of group judgment. Howells1 first seven novels made quite agreeable Impres sions on the periodical reviewers. These books found, and extended, an appreciative audience that had already been attracted by the quiet charm of his essays and travel books. Not only were they written in the clear, flexible style that readers had learned to expect from Howells, but they were preeminently moral, decorous, and witty. Their view of the world, or of that part of the world which they touched, was the accepted view of persons of culture and good taste. The momentary instances when the author probed beneath the surface of society life and attitude tended to be harmless little sallies demonstrating his Insight and humor. If he sometimes made readers a little uncomfortable by dwelling on their foibles, his unfailing good nature and his implication that he understood and shared those faults had soothing effect. Their Wedding Journey (1872) and A Chance Acquaintance (1 8 7 3 ) seem to have ingratiated themselves through the pages of the Atlantic Monthly, and then in book form, without a great deal of fanfare, for only one substantial review appears. Writing on Their Wedding Journey, Henry Adams noted an "extreme and almost photographic truth to nature” presented with ”remarkable delicacy and lightness of touch.” The novel touched no deep vein, he concluded, but It was spun out with dexterity, tact, and wit. "Our descendants will find nowhere so faithful and so pleasing a picture of our American existence, and no writer is likely to rival Mr. Howells in this idealization of the commonplace. Two brief notices of A Chance Acquaintance lauded the book for its characterization of Kitty Ellison as a really charming human being. Both writers, however, objected to the figure 3 of Arbufcon, the Nat Ion reviewer declaring him ''rather the distorted version of the hated Bostonian as he appears to us outside barbarians, than an accurate representation of 2 even a very priggish man." Later critics of Howells showed that they had given careful attention to his initial effort at sustained fiction. Particularly did they quote, or refer to,* the author's aside in Their Wedding Journey--"Ah I poor Real Life, which I love, can I make others share the delight I find in thy foolish and insipid face?"^--either to deprecate it, with the com­ ment that Howells' practice was better than his theory," or to justify it. They commonly noted the sketch-like quality, the lack of a conventional plot, the generous supply of incidents, the delightful humor, and the tone of understand­ ing and sympathy.^- A Chance Acquaintance elicited a larger number of retro­ spective remarks, since it contained a definite plot, love interest, and impressive characterization.