The Literary Background of Howells's Social Criticism

George Arms

THAT BETWEEN the years 1889 and 1894—from Annie Kilburn to A Traveler from Altruria—the major novels of William Dean Howells were markedly economic and even socialistic in their criticism of American life is an interpretation commonly conceded by literary historians. Until 1930 those historians who inquired into the factors responsible for the marked change in Howells that occurred during the period of his "economic novels" were content to give Tolstoy sole credit as an influence, basing their view upon Howells's own words: "What I feel sure is that I can never look at life in the mean and sordid way that I did before I read Tolstoy." The first study to deal with the factors which were responsible for the "economic novels" of Howells was made by Professor Taylor, who without discrediting the influence of Tolstoy has added some four other influences: the Haymarket trial, other industrial disputes, Henry George, and Edward Bellamy. Professor Taylor's essay is remarkably fine, but on its own admission does not attempt a systematic study of influences on Howells. In 1938 an article by Mr. Getzels suggested that a Marxist origin could alone account for the "economic novels" ; and while it did not locate any single factor, it questioned several of the influences advanced by Professor Taylor. Mr. Wright first brought to public notice Laurence Gronlund as the Marxist factor which Mr. Getzels had not discovered, but (through an analysis of the novels) had indicated must somewhere exist. A note following upon the articles of Messrs. Getzels and Wright presented additional evidence for the importance of Gronlund in influencing the social views of Howells, and also indicated more exactly the extent to which Howells presented a Marxian philosophy in his "economic novels."

A recently discovered interview reaffirms the evidence of Howells's debt to Gronlund cited in the Science and Society articles— the "Editor's Study" of April, 1888, and a manuscript letter of November 23, 1888. At the same time it corrects the impression that it was through reading alone that Howells came to know his foremost mentor in socialism:

"It was ten years ago," said Mr. Howells the other day, "that I first became interested in the creed of Socialism. I was in Buffalo when Laurence Gronlund lectured there before the Fortnightly Club. Through this address I was led to read his book, 'The Co-operative Commonwealth,' and Kirkup's article in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Afterward I read the 'Fabian Essays'; I was greatly influenced also by a number of William Morris's tracts. The greatest influence, however, came to me through reading Tolstoi. Both as an artist and as a moralist I must acknowledge my deep indebtedness to him."

Howells's story of his first contact with Gronlund has a very important implication in that he did not merely read him as an independent author of a book but heard him as a leading member of the Socialist Labor party, a fact which suggests a much greater awareness by Howells of real socialistic activity than has usually been granted. In describing his other reading of the time—Kirkup, the Fabian tracts, and Morris—Howells also has indicated a more thorough study of socialistic doctrine than has been generally realized. At the same time one should observe that he still did not go directly to Marx, although Das Kapital was available, but was content to have Marxianism in its modified Gronlundian interpretation.

Even in view of Howells's testimony, not too much weight should be given to Morris and the Fabians as factors in the development of Howells's doctrine. His writings indicate no important influence from them that does not have its more convincing parallel in Gronlund. In what one might term their spiritual influence, they are certainly to be acknowledged. Though not so important as Tolstoy, along with such men as E. E. Hale, T. W. Higginson, and R. T. Ely they nevertheless form that general background of what Howells later called "a real renascence" (the industrial consciousness of the 1880's and 1890's). In the same category, though in positions of importance somewhere between Tolstoy and these others, Henry George and Edward Bellamy are also to be placed, with the doctrines of both of whom Howells found some fault.

Indeed, although here and there influence from persons other than Gronlund occurs, the almost exclusive basis of Howells's social philosophy in the period of his "economic novels" is Gronlund's Cooperative Commonwealth. The numerous parallels between the two men can be briefly and convincingly illustrated by the parallels (at times verbal, in spite of a six-year lapse) between this book and A Traveler from Altruria. In the analysis of American society both Howells and Gronlund noted public education as a surface tendency toward socialism. Both men noted the interdependence of the poor and the essentially socialistic core of labor unions. Both felt that the militia, made up of petty bourgeoisie, was the foe of the workman; both saw the possibility of a gradual absorption of private farm lands through railroad monopoly. It was the belief of both that the American worker, though then perhaps not without prosperity, would soon be as poor as his fellow in Europe; that slavery remained in the wage system.

In their attitude towards socialistic revolution, both men gave an economic interpretation of history with the use of similar terminology. Both conceived of previous periods as the necessary basis of future socialism. Again, both men saw the revolution as beginning with the nationalization of the greater enterprises; both saw the revolution as beginning in the cities; and both felt that the isolation of America would make revolution there peculiarly practicable. In the achieved commonwealth the two men prophesied the disappearance of crime, the end...