Emerson And Bryant – Two Great Romantics Of The Nineteenth Century Essay Sample For College

Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) and William Cullen Bryant (1794–1878), were two famous, respected, nature bards of the nineteenth century. Both share an undying love for Mother Nature. Their poems reflect the strong influence that the European, particularly the English Romantics had on the two American counterparts. This essay shall briefly discuss the similarities and the differences between the two American Romantics, by comparing two poems, “To a waterfowl” (1815) by Bryant and “The Rhodora” (1839) by Emerson.

While the first poem deals with the simple theme of a waterfowl flying in the air, despite the threats of being hunted down by a hunter, finally disappears into the sky, leading the poet to introspect, and renew his faith in the Universal Power that protects and sustains one and all; the second poem by Emerson, is also on a simple theme of the poet sighting the creeper “Rhodora” or Rhododendron, with its red blooms. In the end of the poem, Emerson, like Bryant, ruminates over the “self-same Power” that guides all things on Earth.

Elements of Romanticism: Both the poems have a simple theme, which is a common characteristic of the romanticism. Mostly they may seem to be mundane happenings related to nature, like the blooming of a common wayside flower of the Rhododendron creeper (Rhodora) or the common sight of terns or waterfowls soaring into the sky (To a waterfowl). Yet, such things that seem commonplace to an uninitiated person hold extraordinary significance to the romantic poets.

These events have embedded in them some inner, hidden message communicated to them by the Supernatural “Power”; and remind the poets of the subtle harmony that governs all things seen, both animate and inanimate. “The self-same Power that brought me there brought you” (Closing line, Rhodora); “He, who, from zone to zone, Guides through the boundless sky thy certain flight, In the long way that I must tread alone, Will lead my steps aright” (Closing stanza, To a waterfowl) (Johnson, 1974).

And this harmony, by virtue of its originating from the Supernatural, has a beauty that is deeply symbolic and inspires the romantic poets to create. ‘Solitude’ often is inherent in the themes, and opened their mental doors into introspection. Thus Emerson opens the poem with line “…sea-winds pierced our solitudes” (line 1). The same is referred to by Bryant in his very first stanza, “Far, through their rosy depths, dost thou pursue Thy solitary way? ” (line 3); and later when he refers to the journey of the bird as “Lone wandering” (line 16).

The rhyme is simple in both the poems and occurs at the line-endings in Emerson, “nook” & “brook” (lines 3 & 4) etc. In Bryant’s poem too the ending-rhyme, which lends it a lyrical touch, is found in alternating lines for ex. “dew” & “pursue” (lines 1 & 3) etc. The Differences: Though both the poems are based on nature, Emerson’s poem seems to be an obvious celebration of beauty; thus Emerson calls the “Rhodora” a “rival of the rose”, whose “beauty is its own excuse for being” (Emerson, 1839, p 97).

There is no melancholy here. Bryant’s poem is more of a subtle triumph and reflects more of awe and respect, and even melancholy as in “At that far height, the cold thin atmosphere: Yet stoop not, weary, to the welcome land, Though the dark night is near” (lines 18-20). The rhyme scheme is also different in both the poems, with “The Rhodora” having the scheme: aa, bb, cd, cd; ee, ff, gh, gh. “To a waterfowl” is of the rhyme scheme: abab cdcd efef. ghgh…. opop.

Another significant difference is that, though Bryant was a child prodigy, very popular during his times and was very famous for his poems, his works do not exactly find a special place in the history of American romanticism, since his journalistic pursuits left him with little time to produce a wide variety of classical poems which would have stood to his credit (Yarborough, 1994), unlike Emerson, who through his own standing and complete devotion to scholarship, literature and poetic expression, earned himself an indelible place in the history of American Literature.


Bryant, William Cullen, (1815). Web site created and copyrighted by Ann Woodlief <http://www. vcu. edu/engweb/webtexts/Bryant/waterfowl. html> last retrieved on 14th April, 2006. Emerson, Ralph Waldo (1939). The Rhodora. An Anthology American Literature of the Nineteenth Century. Ed. Fisher Samuelson & Reninger Vaid. p 97. New Delhi. Eurasia Publishing House. Curtiss S. Johnson, (1974). Politics and a Belly-full. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, Publishers. Yarborough, Wynn (1994). William Cullen Bryant. Web site created and copyrighted by Ann Woodlief <http://www. vcu. edu/engweb/webtexts/Bryant/brybio. html> last retrieved on 14th April, 2006.

Emile Durkheim: How Would He Address Teen Peer Pressure?

Teen peer pressure is not a new thing; it has been around in one form or another since time immemorial. In the United States today, though, peer pressure is the focus of major studies from many angles: advertising, drug/alcohol/tobacco use or abuse, teen pregnancy and participation in gangs. While the statistics are startling regarding the sheer number of teens who succumb to peer pressure despite having solid family backgrounds, it must be said that the United States seems to be the front-runner in a downward spiral of social consciousness in the developed world.

Many blame these maladies on advertising, and it does appear that advertising as well as a combination of continual exposure to violence in music and television along with eroding spirituality and morals in society at large is the major players in the peer pressure success. Basic human instincts dictate that there is safety in numbers. In a very abbreviated timeline, we can see how peer pressure has evolved over the past four decades, beginning in the 1960’s with the Hippie movement as well as the introduction of Rock & Roll to the United States.

Television was still fairly new, but advertising was taking hold through the powerful new medium that replaced radio as the family’s form of electronic entertainment. The 1960’s also saw the Civil Rights Movement, the Kennedy assassination, the first man on the moon, and a plethora of new ideas as the post-war era generation took hold and began making changes to the very fabric of the nation. The advent of the 1970’s ushered in the ecological movement as well as the drug counterculture.

At this time, East Indian teaching had begun to take hold on the coasts, Vietnam War protests, the Watergate scandal, the Arab Oil Embargo and other world economics relations began to rock the security of the nation. The 1980’s saw a new psychology emerge, as well as a rise in corporate power as the United States moved out of a recession. New recreational drugs began to emerge, called “designer drugs. ” Rap music began to take hold, as well as grunge and punk.

Marijuana was prevalent, but the advent of other mind-altering drugs such as cocaine, ecstasy and others being readily available in schoolyards began to cause alarm. Dual income households began to become the norm, and the term “latchkey kids” was born as many children were left to their own devises after school for the remaining hours until a parent returned from work. The 1990’s seem to have accelerated the entire process of societal change with the availability of the Internet. The U. S. conomy flourished, more teens fell through the cracks, and everything seemed to speed up, with most families who remained intact being dual-income and workers’ hours dramatically increased. During the first half of the first decade of the 21st century, the current situation in the United States seems to be one of fear of another terrorist attack as well as a definite split between the religious right and the liberal left and everything in between. By reading and viewing mainstream material, it seems that the nation can’t make up its mind about its own identity, yet life is so accelerated it’s a wonder anyone can think at all.

Peer pressure amongst teens has now moved into a dangerous arena; the drugs now available in the streets are no longer for the purposes of “tuning in;” the most dangerous are crack cocaine and crystal meth. Societal pressure to quit smoking and drinking is seeing some amount of success due to statewide smoking bans in public places where it used to be easy for teens to sneak out for a cigarette. Even teen drinking seems to be lower than before, but drug use has risen to alarming proportions. Even though there is no advertising for drugs such as crack cocaine and crystal meth, it is readily available for anyone who wants it.

Why would a well-raised, normal teenager succumb to the pressure of drug use, especially with full knowledge of how addictive and dangerous these drugs are? This is where Emile Durkheim’s work comes in. Durkheim focused on social problems in a way that synthesized individuals and the collective through interdependence and division of labor. In terms of teen peer pressure, one timeless quote from Durkheim would suffice in addressing the problem: “The more one has, the more one wants, since satisfactions received only stimulate instead of filling needs” (Dr. Frank Elwell, 2003).

In terms of teen peer pressure, the wants focus primarily in terms of the right kinds of clothing and accessories, access to a car of a certain kind, and being seen “in the right places, with the right people. ” The definition of “right,” of course, changes from group to group depending on the focus of the particular group. Where in the past half century the United States was fairly homogenized and family-oriented, the rapid advances in our culture have created a phenomenon that Durkheim would label as the “conscience collective” being less intense and more vague and mechanical solidarity is measurably weakened (Robert Alun Jones, 1986, pp. 4 – 59). Durheim would likely see today’s teen peer pressure in terms of his division of labor observations, with labor being the filling of needs (it can here be called “emotional economy”). One example would be the need to belong, a very basic need of all animals, including humans. Strictly observable behavior would indicate that in the collective (family), the individual (teen) is not having his or her needs met. Or, perhaps, the individual conscience has progressed past the conscious collective of the family, motivating the need to seek out something different.

Since teens are especially vulnerable to peer pressure due to the chemical changes occurring in their bodies as well as being caught up in a fast-paced, highly competitive society (or even a competitive family), they will, according to Durkheim, seek to find their own expressions of the family traditions they were raised with yet simultaneously seek to carve a new niche for themselves within the context of a new unit. Durkheim would likely address teen peer pressure as further evidence of division of labor, where specialization occurs, and society changes because of it.

Those changes spawn different values, mores and norms. As these changes occur amongst social groups, the offspring of these groups are born into the changes that are already occurring. The young will not know any different way of being, and being raised in a culture that is in flux along with the bombardment of media and information during any given day, the young will obviously gain different perspectives on life more quickly due to the availability of 24 hour television and Internet availability. As American society becomes more technologically based, the Internet has become a pastime of both children and adults.

Recent studies show that use of the Internet is exceeding television viewing hours, and is also catching up with hours spent playing video games. As the American culture becomes more dependent on technology for its social life, teens are especially vulnerable to predatory dangers than ever before, due to the Internet. Because of teens’ needs to be accepted and to gain independence, they may succumb to peer pressure via electronic means in addition to the peer pressure they encounter at school or other activities involving their own age groups.

Durkheim would have recognized this as an “anomie” (Joe Dunman, 2003). An anomie is the breakdown of norms and lack of regulation, which can lead to deviant behavior. Joe Dunman’s article describes Durkheim’s anomie as a risk to today’s Western society; especially with specialization in the workplace further separating individuals from each other along with other factors of separation such as the Internet and computer technology. He goes on to point out that where before, goals were defined and limited by social order and morality.

Now goals are more vague and less accompanied by traditional morals and ethics. As Durkheim warned, goals with no direction only lead to unhappiness. When teens begin to exert their power to reach a goal that is undefined but still a strong urge, they are at risk without the foundation of the moral fiber that a stable society would offer. Durkheim, in his more mature work, stated that social facts and moral rules are effective only if they become a part of the individual’s conscience as well as existing outside of the individual (Hewett School, UK, Dept. f Sociology, n. d. ). Here is where moral obligation and imposed societal morals separate. Teens who have the bedrock of family morals and ethics instilled within them are less likely to succumb to peer pressure than those raised in a more permissive environment where decisions are left up to a young mind that are really beyond its developed ability to work out well. Durkheim was more interested in groups than the individuals who are members of the groups. Taking teens as a group, they can be separated into socioeconomical, racial, and religious groups.

Other groupings of teens can be identified as coming from a single-parent household, etc. One thing that teens have in common is media bombardment as well as the pressure to imitate what they see and hear and learn from the media (which could realistically be introduced as a society in and of itself). Since individuals cannot conceive of behaviors that they haven’t been exposed to, it is no stretch of the imagination to imagine where the young derive their ideas of what behaviors are desirable in order to be accepted.

Since the basic need of acceptance is so powerful psychologically, where Durkheim’s work stands out is in studying groups. Individuals are attracted to certain groups for a reason, and the group mind becomes a function of society. Gangs, substance abusers, and other destructive groups have their own codes of conduct and morals, even if they seem to be amoral to the larger society. The desire to succeed must be accompanied by a well-defined goal, and it is fairly obvious that in a society where only the end product is seen, the goal itself can become skewed and vague, making movement toward it fruitless.

This is the beginning of destructive behavior, individually and collectively. However, Durkheim would have been interested in the solidarity of such groups; he would not have been focused on psychological traits or motives (Hewett). Gangs have long been known to have strong bonds within their own groups and subgroups. While the individual’s reasons for joining a gang would not be of Durkheim’s concern, the growth of gangs in Western society is indicative of anomie in the context of the larger society.

Acceptance and a feeling of belonging has been a description used by gang members as to why they remained in a gang even though their individual moral structures did not condone gang activities and missions. That a society allowed such groups would be the concern of Durkheim. He would likely have questioned the integrity of a society tolerant of gang-related behaviors and actions. Peer pressure has really only changed in its expression rather than its existence. Durkheim would have taken American society’s rapid changes into account; he said that anomie occurs when a society undergoes a rapid change, whether prosperity or depression (Hewitt).

Rapid changes in American society are well documented over the last decade, especially with the “Dot Com” boom and bust of the 1990’s, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, and the widespread use of the Internet as well as the relaxation of regulations regarding television programming appropriate to young audiences. While rebellion of teens is to be expected due to the phases of growth and impending separation from the family unit, Durkheim would likely address the current problems of teen peer pressure as a product of mixed messages from society itself, likely indicating a deterioration of society.

This is nothing new, however. Both primitive and advanced societies deteriorate given the right conditions and stresses, and this can be seen among the types of pressures exerted on the young. In the United States, it seems that teens are under more pressure than ever to make decisions and choices that were relegated to adults only two decades ago. If we look at the societal changes over the last twenty years in the United States, a picture of a divided nation emerges, with the young caught in the crossfire.

In retaliation, whether conscious or unconscious, the young will gravitate to an environment where they can exert a certain amount of control and at the same time adhere to guidelines that keep the group intact. In order for a teen to belong to that group, those rules must be followed, whether it means wearing the clothing appropriate to that group, acquiring tattoos or body piercings, using recreational drugs or alcohol or undergoing gang initiation rites. To Durkheim, it would likely be no different than the influences of which he wrote.

No matter how behaviors manifest, the motives are the same over time, since humans and animals have the same needs we have always had. Only the technology has changed, not the people themselves in any significant way. Durkheim’s work is as applicable today as it was during the late 19th and early 20th centuries; by studying the groups themselves, one can gain a better insight on the underpinnings of teen peer pressure and why it is so effective. Durkheim would likely say that the pressure itself is more effective now due to its being supported by technology, but the results are the same in terms of sociological consequences.

Hypocrisy In Tom Jones Critical Analysis

Hypocrisy in Tom JonesIn Tom Jones Fielding is attempting little less than a redefinition of virtue.  Tom’s moral superiority over characters such as Blifil is established in a manner which has not always satisfied all readers, for Tom is sensual and reckless, while Blifil is prudent and law-abiding.  William Cobbett, writing in 1829 in his Advice to Young Men, asked “How is it possible for young people to read such a book, and to look upon orderliness, sobriety, obedience, and frugality, as virtues?” (quoted in Sambrock, 1973, p.

158).  Samuel Richardson in a letter in 1751 called the novel “a dissolute book” (quoted in Paulson & Lockwood, 1969, p. 238), and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu is recorded as saying that “she was sorry [Fielding] did not himself perceive that he had made Tom Jones a scoundrel” (quoted in Paulson & Lockwood, p. 359).

  Each of these critics seems to miss the point that it is the normal trappings of respectability and lawfulness that Fielding is questioning.  As Martin Price argues, “The central theme in Fielding’s work is the opposition between the flow of soul – of selfless generosity – and the structures – screens, defenses, moats of indifference – that people build round themselves” (Price, 1964, p. 287).  These defenses and screens are the forms of social order – legality, prudent self-interest, restraint – which by their very nature encourage hypocritical practices.

  It is easy to appear to be acting out of calm wisdom and with a keen eye to justice, but in Fielding’s vision this is often the disguise adopted by the crafty and malicious individual.  Hypocritical behavior is often successful in the world, and it is only by adopting a more generous and in many ways less conventional moral stance that we can see through it.Fielding is a satirist and the revelation of hypocrisy in his characters is often comic (though the underlying seriousness of his view makes the amusement “never quite that of the merely amiable comedy” (Crane, 1952, p.638)).

  Bridget Allworthy, for example, conceals her own disappointment about being seen as an old maid with a hypocritical denunciation of the physical charms of a young woman, which she “very rightly conceived … to be no better than snares for herself, as well as for others” (Fielding, 1966, p. 54).  The real reason for her generosity to the foundling Tom has to be disguised hypocritically behind the “correct” abhorrence of sexual immorality.  She will attend to Tom because it is her brother’s curious wish; “For her part, she could not help thinking it was an encouragement to vice” (61), and she denounces the fictional mother as “an impudent slut, a wanton hussy, an audacious harlot, a wicked jade” (60) and so on, all in an elaborate charade to conceal the truth of her own moral lapse.

  It is an example of what Price calls “the ways in which selfishness finds refuge in forms” (Price, 300); all the forms for the denunciation of sexual vice are ready at hand – the language, the attitudes, the judgments, the behavior – and it is easy for the hypocrite to borrow them.  It needs more than the perceptiveness of an Allworthy to see through them.Allworthy’s simplicity similarly gives him no insight into Captain Blifil’s attack on the infant Jones, which Fielding tells us is motivated by jealousy.  Captain Blifil argues that the nurturing of “the fruits of sin” (89) is against scriptural direction and contrary to the preferences of law and the Church.

  Again forms are adopted by the hypocrite, whose only real concern is for the exclusive welfare of his own child (meaning eventually an inheritance).  But it is his son who shows the greatest skill in manipulating society’s forms in his own interest.  While Jones as a child has been convicted of “robbing an orchard” (123), Blifil is a model of seriousness and restraint.  “He was indeed, a lad of a remarkable disposition; sober, discreet, and pious beyond his age; qualities which gained him the love of everyone who knew him” (123).

  It is the last part of the sentence that is most remarkable.  The hypocrite is given a charter to thrive in the world Fielding explores.  Tom refuses to betray George the gamekeeper, and endures Thwackum’s punishment, feeling anxiety only “lest his constancy should fail him, and he should be brought to betray the gamekeeper” (126).  Blifil’s malignant hatred for Jones finds an opportunity to inform on him in the guise of moral indignation.

  Blifil has abused Jones as “a beggarly bastard” (131), and Jones’s physical retaliation gives Blifil the chance to betray him.  He declares that he would never lie like Jones, announcing that “he confessed it to me, that black George the gamekeeper was there” (132).  Jones’s appeal to Allworthy not to punish George’s family “as he himself only had been guilty” (132) saves his standing with his guardian, but no one questions the actions of Blifil, so well disguised are they as moral rectitude.Thwackum and Square in some ways hold symbolic roles.

  Square is the rationalist who believes that reason is the guide to moral truth, while Thwackum is a Calvinist, who believes that men are fallen and can only be saved by grace.  Fielding is not so much at war with their principles (though he does think them absurd) as with their particular personal failings and hypocrisy.  For all their arguments about the nature of virtue “in one point only they agreed, which was, in all their discourses on morality never to mention the word goodness” (128).  Thwackum is in fact sadistic and vindictive, and Square rather spoils his moral arguments when Jones catches him in bed with Molly, and then has the shamelessness to make a moral argument to justify himself.

“I am not guilty of corrupting innocence,” he says to Jones, and “Nothing is indeed unfit which is not unnatural” (218).  Jones reminds him that his view had been rather different when Jones himself was caught with Molly.  Then Square had denounced him with hypocritical vigor.  He seized the chance to blacken Jones with Allworthy, because he hates him for his refusal to respond to Square’s dictates.

  He had been pleased, he tells Allworthy, to make “allowance for youth” (187) when Jones defended George, but now he realizes that “the sacrifice of truth…was in reality a prostitution of it to a depraved and debauched appetite” (187).  Both pedants curry favor with Allworthy by means of hypocrisy, and are themselves unable to see through Blifil’s dishonesty.  Blifil always showed a “profound respect” (135) for Thwackum and a “decent reverence” for his doctrine.  He shows the same enthusiasm for Square’s quite opposite beliefs.

  “With one he was all religion, with the other he was all virtue.  And when both were present, he was profoundly silent, which both interpreted in his favor and in their own” (135).  They both hate Jones because he is not a hypocrite.  He shows his contempt for Square’s absurdities, and demonstrates the falsehood of Thwackum’s “rule of right” by saying that “he believed there was no rule in the world capable of making such a man as his father” (135).

Sophia too is incapable of hypocrisy.  Fielding calls her “simple”, but is eager to assure us that he does not mean foolish.  “She wanted all that useful art which females convert to so many good purposes in life” (309) – she lacks the “art” to deceive and dissemble.  The episode concerning her pet bird demonstrates particularly clearly Fielding’s thoughts about hypocrisy and the way it succeeds in the world.

  Blifil lets the bird escape out of simple malice, as Jones immediately recognizes (“he cursed Blifil for a pitiful malicious rascal” (158)).  Blifil’s defense of his actions is a masterly piece of hypocritical pretence, exploiting the forms provided by the world.  He felt compassion for the bird in its captivity, “for I always though there was something very cruel in confining anything” (158).  It is “against the law of nature” and “even unchristian, for it is not doing what we would be done by”, thus serving the agendas of just about everybody present.

  All this is couched in a sanctimonious language of mimed apology.  As George Sherburn says “For ingenuity and transparency this is admirable… and incidentally it is an interesting bit of satire on many a sentimental cliché of the time” (Clifford, 1959, p.263). At least Squire Western is not fooled, even if everybody else is.

It is clear that in the world Fielding presents “reputation, which is the yardstick by which society measures its citizens, may have little to do with genuine virtue; little to do with humanity, or compassion, or vitality, or simple goodness of heart” (Dyson, 1965, p.25).  Society seems incapable of reading real motives, and so the skilled deceiver will succeed if he can borrow the disguise of class and “respectability”.  The Quaker Jones advises on human feeling changes his attitude as soon as he discovers that Jones has no social standing (334).

  Similarly, the doctor who treats him loses all sympathy when he is told that Jones is “an arrant scrub” (372).  The story of the Man of the Hill centers on the dishonesty of mankind and the way it has soured the Man’s whole view of life.  He comments on the absurdity of the Protestant establishment’s failure to support the Monmouth rebellion.  “A great party” had formed during Charles II’s reign to fight for the defense of Protestantism, and now the same people “fought with … zeal and affection” for his Catholic brother.

(Book 8, chapter 14).  Nor can the man believe that there is still a vigorous Jacobite party seeking the restoration of the Stuarts.  (Fielding toned down these passages in later editions, concerned perhaps that they preached rebellion).  For the Man of the Hill these political hypocrisies combined with his personal disappointments have driven him into misanthropy.

  There is no point in traveling to find a better world, he tells Jones, because one will only find “The same hypocrisy, the same fraud; in short, the same follies and vices dressed in different habits” (430).  Jones’s response is a noble example of Fielding’s faith in the possibilities of humanity.  He refuses to believe that all men are hopelessly corrupt because some are.  Indeed no man is totally without merit of any kind.

  “In truth, none seem to have any title to assert human nature to be universally evil, but those whose own minds afford them one instance of this natural depravity” (432).William Empson believed that “In Tom Jones [Fielding] is expressing a theory about ethics, and the ironies are made to interlock with the progress of the demonstration” (Rawson, 1973, p. 502).  This might make the novel seem too schematic, but it is certainly true that Fielding is aware that his account of human virtue is challenging, and needs thorough arguing.

  Jones’s morality centers on the satisfaction that derives from “a good mind… in the contemplation of a generous, virtuous, noble, benevolent action” (586), compared with which all the material glamour of the world is insignificant.  He wants no power over others, seeks nobody’s money, and delights in doing right.  It is he, not Allworthy, who shows Nightingale what, in all natural decency, he must do.  “And do not the warm, rapturous sensations, which we feel from the consciousness of an honest, noble generous benevolent action, convey more delight to the mind than the undeserved praise of millions?” (680).

While he is convinced that hypocrisy is all too prevalent in the world, Fielding has a notion of how it can be combated, or at least lived with.        Works CitedCrane, R.S.  Critics and Criticism.

Ancient and Modern.  Chicago; Chicago U.P.,1952.

Dyson, A.E.  The Crazy Fabric.  London: Macmillan, 1965.

Empson, W.  ‘Tom Jones’, in Rawson, C. Henry Fielding. A Critical Anthology.

  Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.Fielding, H. Tom Jones. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1966.

Paulson, R.& Lockwood, T.  Henry Fielding. The Critical Heritage.

  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1969.Price, M.  To the Palace of Wisdom.  New York: Doubleday, 1965.

Sambrock, J.  William Cobbett.  London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973.Sherburn, G.

  ‘Fielding’s Social Outlook’, in Clifford, J.L. (ed.).

Eighteenth-Century English Literature. Modern Essays in Criticism.  New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.  

error: Content is protected !!