Bettina Lemm
SSR- Bornstein
Bornstein, George. "Of What Is Past, or Passing, or to Come: Recent Years of Scholarship."
Modernism/Modernity 16.4 (2009): 609-14. Project MUSE. Web.
Hook: The title of Bornstein’s article is a verse that alludes to Yeats’ poem “Sailing to Byzantium.” The
author then gives us a works cited list of the five books that he will review in his article. This means that
from the start, Bornstein offers a quick outline of what his argument will be. He will look at individual
books and examine how each book is a different method for the scholarly study of Yeats.
Thesis: He spreads out his main argument across the main paragraph- “Sixty years ago those pioneers of
the first generation of Yeats scholars Richard Ellmann and Thomas Parkison had to legitimate in their
graduate programs […]the acceptance of a doctoral dissertation on so a recent writer as Yeats…The
books discussed here exemplify the impressive textual, critical, and historical scholarship of the
generation that came after Ellmann and Parkinson, and therein lies both their glory and their limit. On
the one hand, that they bring such historical, biographical, critical, and textual approaches to disparate
culminations make them worth the attention of any student modernist poetry…On the other hand,
methodologically their work displays an indifference to changes in literary study for the past three
decades that leaves plenty of territory for future scholars to investigate (610).”
Bornstein argues that the study of Yeats is relatively new and still evolving. The generation of scholars
that really solidified the study of Yeats were Vendler, Grene, Schuchard, Gould, and Finneran, who’s
books we will learn about in the article. Borstein wants to convey that the study of a text or an author
can vary depending on the approach, or context. The scholars the article investigates have different
approaches from historical to critical and although their study of Yates is thorough, there is still room for
new scholars to develop their own methods of study.
Line of argument: If Bornstein was to make an outline of his paper, his topic sentences would be headed
by the titles of the different books. He begins with Richard Finneran’s The Tower: Manuscript Materials.
Like the title suggests, Finneran collected all of the original manuscript drafts of all of Yeats’ poems.
Bornstein finds it important to note that Finneran did all of his research in the “pre-internet age of card
catalogues, handwritten lists, and often expensive travel to collections (610)”. From this sort of
compilation of work, Bornstein highlights three opportunities for scholars today: understanding the
evolving themes in Yeats’ work, understanding the orderings of the poems, and paying attention to “the
material text (611),” since Yeats paid special attention to the cover design and such. Finneran’s enabling
the study of the material text leads Bornstein to the next scholar, critical reader, Helen Vendler.
The material text is only a display for what really matters- the content. Vendler offers a thoughtful book
on Yeats in what Bornstein considers is “the best reading we have yet of Yeats in formalist terms (611).”
Vendler does an analysis of techniques in Yeats’ early poems and then organizes them by genre. Vendler
failsin paying closer attention to the form of Yeats’ poetry and his “design of individual volumes” (612)
and how intentional he was about page layout and book covers.
Third, Bornstein looks at Nicholas Crane and claims that Crane is more “relaxed” than Vendler. In his
book, Crane talks about “poetic codes”- special words that tell us “not so much of the meaning of
Yeats’s poems, but of how they mean what they mean” (613). Crane points out that Yeats would
manipulate historical context and dates in order to manipulate meaning. Apparently Yeats manipulated
the actual age of one of his characters, Maud Gonne, so that it would tie in with his story. More
importantly, Bornstein calls attention to the fact that Crane used Finneran’s volume as a reference for
the dates of composition of poems such as “Sailing to Byzantium.” This helps the reader grasp more
thoroughly how these books serve as references and make for good, scholarly research because they
complement and contribute to one another.
Next, the article touches on Ronald Schuchard’s The Last Minstrels: Yeats and the Revival of the Bardic
Arts and how the book examines Yeats’s poetry from a historical perspective through the tradition of
chanting poems orally. Finally, Bornstein brings up Influence and Confluence, Yeats Annual No. 17 by
Warwick Gould. This last text is the most specialized of the five according to Bornstein, and
specialization provides a “solid ground for broader work” because the book includes thoughtful reviews
by others (614). However, this last book is so specific on Yeats’s work that it overlooks the literary
movement that was occurring around Yeats.
In his concluding paragraph, Bornstein tells us why his quick overview of these five books is important.
He poses the question of who the intended audience for these books is. The books are all pricey, limiting
them only to an exclusive group of experts. However, Bornstein condemns that approach and suggests
that this sort of research should be made available and accessible to other scholars and not just experts.
Techniques that motivate/inspire/encourage me and some that bother me:
-Bornstein uses descriptive action verbs. “Her opening chapter on three well-known lyrics exemplifies
her pervasive virtues… (612).” ; Vendler swiftly zeroes in on telling details… (612).”
-His article is not just a summary of these five books, or a “list of grievances.” He does not just make a
critique of the books; he also offers suggestions for improvement. “His convincing argument might have
had wider effect in condensed form rather than at 447 pages, especially if he had included examples of
how knowledge of the chanting context can illuminate individual poems (613).”
-I do not like how he devotes so many paragraphs to talking about Finneran and Vendler, but by the
third writer, it is almost like he notices he has been talking too much and he shortens the length of what
he has to say for the last three, particularly the last two books. This is even evident in the way that I
analyzed his argument and how I had more to say about the first two authors and their books.