tion of His Writings, edited by ByronnC. Lambert in 1972; and Irving Babbitt:nRepresentative Writings, editednby George A. Panichas in 1981. RussellnKirk, who has done a great deal tonpromote interest in Babbitt and More,nof course includes them in The PortablenConservative Reader (1982).nMore has received more booklengthnattention than Babbitt. ArthurnHazard Dakin’s excellent biographynPaul Elmer More (1960) was the productnof many years of research andnvolumes of correspondence with thosenacquainted with More. Robert M. Davies’nThe Humanism of Paul ElmernMore (1958) focuses on More’s philosophicalnand religious writing. FrancisnX. Duggan’s Paul Elmer More (1966)nis a brief but informative critical biographynin the Twayne United StatesnAuthors Series. (My own study of thenliterary criticism, Paul Elmer More:nLiterary Criticism as the History ofnIdeas, is in press.) The New Humanismnas a movement usually receives anchapter in the histories of Americannliterary criticism, but finally receivednthe more extensive consideration itndeserves in J. David Hoeveler Jr.’s ThenNew Humanism: A Critique of ModernnAmerican, 1900-1940 (1977).nRecently, a renewed interest in Babbittnis manifesting itself In Novembern1983 a conference commemoratingnthe 50th anniversary of his death wasnheld at The Catholic University ofnAmerica in Washington, DC. Thenpapers presented are scheduled to appearnas a book. Meanwhile, three ofnthem recently appeared in ModernnThomas R. Nevin’s Irving Babbitt:nAn Intellectual Study, is the first booklengthnstudy of this major but neglectednfigure. Brief but authoritative, andnusing hitherto unpublished material,nthis book displays thorough researchnand perceptive analysis. Nevin callsnhis study “a history of Babbitt’s mind,”nand in addition to tracing the developmentnof Babbitt’s thought, he providesnextensive comparisons with More’snthought.nSuch comparisons are useful becausenthe two men were for manynyears the kind of friends who embracenessentially the same values and principles.nFrom the time they were graduatenstudents of Sanskrit together at Harvardnin the 1890’s, until Babbitt’sndeath in 1933, they corresponded regularlynand met whenever the occasionnpresented itself They were fundamentallynone in their opposition to excessivenand dehumanizing forms of romanticism,nnaturalism, humanitarianism,nscientism, and rationalism.nTogether they championed “the innerncheck,” the “law of measure,” thenimportance of discipline and standards,nthe values of classicism, thenimportance of common sense and experiencenas a check to rationalisticnabstraction—all these as corollaries ofntheir fundamental dualistic tenet.nBabbitt and More were generalists ofna kind rarely, if ever, encounteredntoday. Our culture and systems ofneducation simply do not produce suchnminds. In an age of academic specialization,nwe do not look for a man likenMore, who knew Latin, Greek, Sanskrit,nPali, and apparently some Hebrew,nnot to mention several modernnlanguages; who edited The Nation;nwho wrote six volumes on Greek philosophynand early Christian history;nwho published 13 volumes of literarynand social criticism on topics rangingnfrom Greek romance to Walt Whitman;nwho translated Aeschylus’ PrometheusnBound, several of Plato’s dialogues,nand a collection of Indiannepigrams; who wrote a biography ofnBenjamin Franklin, a novel, a book ofnpoems, a book of religious philosophy,nan intellectual autobiography, andncollaborated on an anthology of Anglicanismnand a literature text. And thisnlist is not exhaustive, though perhapsnexhausting to reflect upon. Babbitt’snerudition breadth of interests are similarlynimpressive.nSuch breadth of learning and concernsnpartly accounts for the lastingnappeal of these two men, whom T.S.nEliot identified as the wisest he hadnknown. It also helps to explain thenpresent renewed interest in them. Bothnliterary theory and philosophy haventurned away from the large questionsnof how men should live and what theynshould value. Evaluation and judgmentnhave been replaced by analysisnfor its own sake and interpretationnfunctioning outside the sphere of traditionalnvalues. Richard Gilman representsnthe conventional “wisdom”:n”The old Mediterranean values—thenbelief in the sanctity of the individualnsoul, the importance of logical clarity.nnnbrotherhood, reason as arbitrary politicalnorder, community—are dead asnuseful frames of reference or pertinentnguides to procedure; they are evennmaking some of us sick with a sense ofnlacerating irony.” We have come anlong way from Babbitt and More, andnsome would like to see us retrace ournsteps.nGiven the chaotic fragmentation ofncontemporary experience and the tawdrynblandishments of a consumer culture;ngiven the essential poverty of sonmuch of what today passes for thoughtnand feeling; given the weakness of ourninstitutions, the confusion of our values,nthe enfeeblement (or default) ofnsocial authority; given, finally, ourndiminished sense of personal connectednessnand the notorious frailty of ourncommunal ties, Babbitt and More’snbold defense of restraint, discipline,nstandards, and tradition is a bracingnand salutary thing to sample. And itsncurrent relevance is increased by thenstartlingly accurate predictions thesentwo men made in consequence of theirnanalyses of cultural and spiritualntrends.nThey were not without their blindnspots. No critic is ever right in thensense that he says all that could ornshould be said on a particular subjectnor that his emphasis is definitive. AsnLionel Trilling observed in connectionnwith Matthew Arnold (a figure importantnto both Babbitt and More), “Wenproperly judge a critic’s virtue not bynhis freedom from error but by thennature of the mistakes he does make,nfor he makes them, if he is worthnreading, because he has in mindnsomething besides his perceptionsnabout art in itself—he has in mind thendemands he makes upon life; andnthose critics are most to be trusted whonallow these demands, in all their particularity,nto be detected by their readers.”nThere is never any doubt aboutnwhat Babbitt and More demand of life.nTheir mistakes are in the open, but sonare the lively principles by which theynmade them. And those principles arenas vital in the 80’s as they have evernbeen. ccnJANUARY 1986 / 15n