Catholic Criticism in America: Studies of Brownson, Azarias, and Egan, with an Essay for Catholic Critics

302 Pages·018.468 MB·English

by  Drummond, Edward Joseph

catholic mtnQxm,
wrmtxs or ''Mt 'w *m 0
wxth m s m Y rot o^diio 'jtammr
*r
Edw&rd J* Bruaaond
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of tbs
requirements for the degree of Doetor of Philosophy,
In the Department of Snglish, in the Graduate
College of the State University of lose
May, 1942
ProQuest Number: 10831760
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
uest
ProQuest 10831760
Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author.
All rights reserved.
This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code
Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC.
ProQuest LLC.
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346
11
73zj?
This dissertation owes much to Professor Austin
W&rren. The topic itself was suggested by his; his acute
, and constructive criticism has been most helpful* X am
J in his debt for his very generous aid; it Is with real
%
^ gratitude that X acknowledge ay indebtedness*
M
\
ill
m t m
•Catholics, of all people,* wrote Theodore Maynard,
"ought to he specially fitted for this department of litera­
ture Ci*e* criticism!, einee they hare a sense of the past,
a deep culture available, and a unifying philosophy.• la
spite of that special fitness Catholics in America have
act produced a body of literary criticism distinguished
enough to gain critical attention; indeed their cultural
contribution here has almost wholly been neglected by stu­
dents of American letters* thy has there been this dis­
crepancy between critical potency and critical act? Or
to come at the matter from the other side. Has this body
of criticism, even If it does not merit to be termed out­
standing work, deserved such total neglect? Either way
there le a problem* fhy has the wort of Catholic critics
in this country been almost wholly overlooked? Or, If
their work has not merited any prolonged consideration,
why have they not produced better criticism?
An examination of American Catholic criticism is in
order; it must be made before answers can he made to either
Question* It is true, moreover, that such an examination
is practically more important than furnishing answers for
questions which look only to the past* for the important
thing, from a practical paint of view, is to Isom from
tbs poet for tbs future* It would, then, be historically
useful to determine exactly what criticism there has been,
to trace its patterns and general directions. In particu­
lar what were the relatione set up between art and pru­
dence, and between literature and life! It would be
critically useful to evaluate the work that had been done
and area acre useful to offer some positive suggestions
for the Improvement of this critical work.
It was with the hope of providing such a survey of
American Catholic criticism that 1 undertook this diseer-
tatioTi. A complete study, however, which would be both
historical and critical, was not possible for the present;
it was necessary, therefore, to mark off some portion of
the whole field.
Several procedures presented themselves. The first
was to start with the very beginnings and to carry the
chronicle and ccamentary as far forward as the limits of
time and materials permitted* This plan was not adopted
because much of this early material is not available in
the libraries of the middle-west; such a study of the be­
ginnings would, moreover, tend to be purely historical and
bibliographical rather than critical in its scope.
A second possible procedure wee to begin about 1900,
Y
or with the America or the Oowmoaweal. i®4 to consider
only present-day writer# end problems* this appeared, how­
ever, to urge a false division in the history of Catholic
criticism; an understanding of the present seemed to oall
for an understanding of the past*
It was a third possibility to select a few represen­
tative Individuals and to make a thorough study of their
critical work, on the assumption that if they were chosen
from different periods seme of the broader outlines of
American Catholic criticism could be seen and evaluated.
This third course seemed most feasible. So I have selected
Orestes Browstsen, Brother As&rl&e, and Maurice Francis
%aa&* They were important figures and their writing
covers the years from 1844 to 1934*
fvea a selective history, however, which alas to be
critical, seems incomplete without some statement of the
historian* s own theory. The concluding essay of this
study is, then, concerned with several aspects of the pro­
blem of literary criticism. It Is included here not only
to indicate my own norms In evaluating the work of Brown-
son, Ararias, and Kgen, but also (and this was the more
important reason) to offer a positive program for the im­
provement of American Oatholic criticism*
vi
COHTEIffS
Page
Preface Hi
Chapter One Create# A, Brownson , . ....... 1
I Hie Baale Principles 1
II fhe farm of Practicality * * * 7
HI fhe Bern of Intellectuality 20
IT His Critical ^Judgments.......... . . . . 34
Chapter fee Brother Asarlas . . . . . . . . . . S7
I Hie Philosophy of the Word . . . . . . . . 3 7
11 Sle Concept of Literature . . . . . . . . 63
111 Bla Concept of Critic!an . . . . . . . . . 73
17 Opinions and Judgments . . . . . . . . . . 83
Chapter Three henries Francis fgan . . . . . . . 103
I Hia Critical Poaltion . . . . . . . . . . 102
II Hie Critic! an of the Brans . 113
111 Hie Criticism of the Bevel ..... 123
17 tie Criticise of Poetry . . . . . . . . . 141
Chapter four feeard# a Better Criticism . . . . 136
1 Analysis of American Catholic Criticism • 156
11 Art and Prudence ..... 162
III The Tael of the American Catholic Critic . 174
Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 232
Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 256
1
ORB STS 8 A. BROWSOH
I
Hie contemporaries might not regard consistency as any
guage of greatness, but even they ebook their heads over
Orestes Brownson. *As early as 1834 Dr. Ohanning had con­
fessed a mistrust of him because he had made Important
changes in religion.*1 lowell compared him to a weather­
cock in 4 Fable for Critics.® Still Browneon was a capable
man, and, as Sehlesinger points out, his *©ontemporaries were
forced to try to reconcile his undeniable ability with his
equally undeniable instability.*® Browueon has been looked
upon as an escapist, or as one who blindly followed author­
ity from the day he heard Fanny Wright to the day he read
CHobertl, or, finally, as merely a restless man bent on
novelty. Hone of theee Interpretations fit the facts of
hie life.4
*Hle predominant passion,* wrote one who knew him well,
*was love of truth.He altered his beliefs, certainly,
but his was the inconsistency of a firm and driving intel-
g
leot hunting the truth, not that of caprice or stupidity.
Brown son was too sincere to hold a position once he saw its
falsity5 he did not, however, regard this releasing of the
old to grasp the new as change. It was a going forward.
*1 deny that I have changed, though I own I seem to myself
3
to have advanced*1,7 That paradox was open to at least one
literal interpretation* He was not changing his most funda­
mental principle - *1 sought the truth . . . that I might
use it.*®
Externally there did seem to be a good deal of shift­
ing about* He had been raised a Calvinistic Congregation-
aliet and in 1833 had turned to P re shyt © rian i am. This re­
ligion, without assuming the responsibility of teaching
with authorityf wanted him to accept its doctrines as if
it did so teach* Browneon rejected it as much because of
that inconsistency as for its hard theology. Universal!am,
with Its doctrine of salvation for all, attracted him in
183b, but after a few years it pleased him just as little.
It punishment were purely for the good of the individual,
why could not the virtuous be punished as well as the bad?
Hot only that, - if divine punishment were limited to this
life, then the corollary seemed true, and bank accounts be­
gan to look like signs of divine approval. Brownson was no
more likely to accept that error than was Marx* During the
four year© that he did preach as an Universal!st minister
his religious views had become increasingly liberal. *He
commenced to transpose his sense of sin to society, tracing
evil to the organization of the world instead of to the eouls
of men.*® *My Greed,**® which he set down in 1839 in the
Gospel Advocate, ipade it clear that he held little if any
supernatural belief and that he was interested in social
3
reform based on humanitarian principles.
It was in the same year that he first heard Fanny Wright.
He was struck with her doctrines and within a short time he
was editing the Free Inquirer, writing for the Workingmens
party, and pushing the ideas of Owen and Wright. Zealous as
he was to help the worker, and he newer lost that zeal, still
he was not blind to the difficulties Inherent in the theories
of Owen and Wright. He newer quite believed the doctrine
that man was |ust a passive creature of circumstance; more
and more he came to doubt that by bettering man*© environ­
ment you could make him a well-trained animal and perfectly
happy. Besides, as he realized very clearly, the man with
money and a vote would always be stronger than the man with
just a vote. So unless there were cooperation there would
always be oppression and conflict, the ultimate betterment
of society and of the worker was going to be accomplished
only by cooperation of all classes of society* And this
to be permanent could be brought about only by moral suasion,
not by physical force. Reform, if it was to be enduring,
must come from within.
This idea became more and more a part of his thought.
In 1833 when he took ©took of hi© position he found that he
was again holding, or could hold once more, a kind of liber­
al Christianity. Feeling that he now had a gospel to preach
which would help others, he became a Unitarian minister and
preached humanitarian Christianity. Soon his articles in