The Puritan Paradox: An Annotated Bibliography of Puritan and Anti-Puritan New Zealand fiction, 1860-1940. Part 2: reactions against Puritanism

Abstract

This bibliography springs from my examination of the literary, social, and cultural legacy of Puritanism in pre-1940 New Zealand. A brief overview of the aims and methodology of the thesis which embodies that study is provided here as a prelude to the bibliography. The broad contention of my thesis is that Puritanism is a dominant social, cultural, and literary influence in New Zealand. This is supported by statements made by a range of social historians, popular polemical writers, and literary critics writing during the last 50 years. For example, Gordon McLauchlan comments that ‘a strong strain of puritanism runs through the New Zealand character’ (1987: 51), Bill Pearson asserts that ‘we are the most puritan country in the world’ (209), and Lawrence Jones writes that ‘Puritanism has been a consistent concern of New Zealand writers’ (455). Flowing from this general claim are three specific contentions. Firstly, I argue that Puritanism is a complex phenomenon, consisting of antithetical elements. It is an historical force which has enduring influence. It is a body of theological principles, but also a secular code of conduct. It is, in both its theological and secular forms, conservative and authoritarian, yet radical and liberating. Secondly, I assert that the Puritan legacy in New Zealand reflects this complexity. Puritanism was imported to New Zealand in both its theological and its secular forms. The radical/conservative dichotomy is also marked in the New Zealand environment. Finally, I claim that in the literary sphere Puritanism has been a constant influence since the publication of Mrs J. E. Aylmer’s Distant Homes; or The Graham Family in New Zealand in 1862 and has inspired both pro-Puritan eulogies and anti-Puritan reactions. These specific contentions do not meet with the same degree of critical support as the general claim about the Puritan influence. When historians and critics such as McLauchlan and Pearson speak of Puritanism, they do not refer to the theological creed and social vision of the English Puritans or the Pilgrim Fathers, but only to a debased, secularised, conservative form of Puritanism. McLauchlan describes Puritanism as ‘anguished self-flagellation’ (1976: 17), Pearson defines it as ‘a contempt for love, a sour spit, a denial of life itself’ (225), and James K. Baxter regards it as an ‘austere anti-aesthetic angel’ (22). If social historians and literary critics define Puritanism in a