| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 109.3

You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 177 words from this article are provided below; about 665 words remain.

If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:: • login here if you have already registered for online access.; • Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.
If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:: • Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.
Instititutions can:: • Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.

| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 109.3 | The History Cooperative

Book Review

Methods/Theory

Louise Blakeney Williams. Modernism and the Ideology of History: Literature, Politics, and the Past. New York: Cambridge University Press. 2002. Pp. ix, 265. $55.00.

That many pioneers of the Modernist revolution were antimodern is not news. The reactionary proclivities of William Butler Yeats, Ezra Pound, D. H. Lawrence, and T. S. Eliot have been subject to critical scrunity for decades. In itself, Louise Blakeney Williams's uncovering of a Modernist anti-progress, cyclical "ideology of history" would not seem to add much to our understanding of this aspect of Modernism. If the present is worse than the past and change for the better is necessary, a cyclical theory of history is the only option left. In fact, however, Williams's useful contribution is to show that the cyclical historical views of the five authors she discusses—Yeats, Ford Madox Ford, Pound, T. E. Hulme, and Lawrence—were to an important extent derived from their interpretation of the history of aesthetics and significantly influenced their own aesthetic theories and (to a rather lesser extent) their literary practice.

. . .

There are about 665 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.