Spring 1953 • Vol. XV No. 2 Communications |

Reply by the Author

I had thought, and still think, that my report on the Chicago critics was reasonably honest. Only twice, so far as I know, did I make a representation of them which did not tell the whole truth, and I rather think that was by way of a little foolish clowning in the course of a laborious writing. But I am sorry. I will specify the instances. First. The Aristotelians in their book attack a number of contemporary critics, engrossed in their own specialties, by accusing them of "critical monism." But towards the end of my writing I felt I could proceed to categorize the Aristotelians themselves as "monistic," and even for good measure as "monolithic." It is a fact, however, that they have been zealous to acknowledge that there are other critical methods than the Aristotelian, and to style themselves as "pluralists"; even though the enemy "monists" may not have made any corresponding acknowledgment of the Aristotelian method. So I had no business to say this. Yet I think it is also a

Already have an account? Log in

Join KR for even more to read.

Register for a free account to read five free pieces a month from our current issue and digital archive.
Register for Free and Read This Piece



Or become a subscriber today and get complete, immediate access to our digital archives at every subscription level.

Read More

Subscribe

Your free registration with Kenyon review incudes access to exclusive content, early access to program registration, and more.

Donate

With your support, we’ll continue 
to cultivate talent and publish extraordinary literature from diverse voices around the world.