BOOKS
467
proj ect. acvan Bercovitch 's
The Puritan Origins of the American Self,
whil e representing a new genera tion o f criticism, cas ts a certa in light,
oblique but illumina ting, on the earli er interpreta tion s, p arti cul a rl y
on the sta tus of the ques tion , "Wha t is 'American '?" The asking o f the
ques tion entails the study of a relation ship between literary text and
histori ca l situa tion, but in the past that presupposition did n o t a lways
lead to the next step, of actuall y grounding the literary text within a
hi storical matrix. The criticism o f American writing, whil e no tabl y
ardent in its hi stori t:al-mindedne and it quest for cu ltural genera liza–
tion , has no t been no tabl y hi storica l in its procedures. Often the history
taken fo r granted by criti c ha been a hi tory extrapo la ted from
litera ture. As Quentin Ander on has put it, litera ry works have been
readil y "substilUted for the Ameri can past by literary critics." Someone
asserted recentl y tha t Emerson is American culture in the nineteenth–
century- a sta tement few critics are likely to protest, or even no ti ce as
unu ual. Most hi storian s would throw up their hands. T he di sparity
between the views of nineteenth- century society held by literary criti cs
and by social historians threa tens, in fact, to cri pple the who le
enterpri se of studying the American past.
Of course in certain moods Emerson might well have agreed with
the critic. And thi s uncomfortable thought points to one o f the
difficulti e Ameri can criti i m ha ye t to solve. I refer to the peculia rly
self-aggrandizing way writers have rela ted to and identified with
America-not to America as social fact alone, but as idea and idea l.
This la tter rela tionshjp and its solipsistic implications is the majo r
subj ect o f
The Puritan Origin s of the Am erican Se lf,
a brave and
brilliant book in tha t it makes expli cit wha t has been the buried theme
of much of the criticism o f the previo us two decades. But it is also a
troubling book in so far a it accepts the centrality of tha t theme
uncriticall y. T h e book is bo th troubling and revealing in o ther ways as
well , but let me say a t once tha t io(: is the mos t significant and far–
rea hing contributio n to the theory of American litera ture in recent
years. I am no t a t all certain tha t Bercovitch has taken a turn in a new
directio n , but it seem clear to me tha t hi s argument brings into ight
the outer limits, let us ay the impasse, o f the main currents o f
American criticism in the recent pas t.
This is not to say tha t the book takes its bearings in any overt way
from the majo r criti cal tradition . Th e mode (as di stinct from the
implicit theme o f "Americanness") o f the tradition has been predomi–
nantl y dia lecti cal: from Van Wyck Brooks, D.H . Lawrence, V.L.
Pa rrington , and
F.O .
Ma tthiessen to Mill er, Chase, Lewi s, Feidelson ,
