The belief that literary study is truthful, not formal or political, characterizes those I call humanists. Be they liberal, conservative, or Marxist, they all pursue non-partisan, seriously profound truths. For example, Matthew Arnold, who sires the tradition of liberal humanism, sees in classical objectivity and intellectual free play an ideal of truth eclipsing the political commitments of politicians, feminists, radicals, nationalists, aristocrats, philistines, dogmatists, subjectivists, and skeptics. Similarly, Georg Lukacs, who fathers the line of Marxist humanists, esteems classical realists like Balzac or Tolstoy because they overcome their ideological biases and grasp the naked, objective truth-that brutal exploitation, callous greed, and self-serving apology infest capitalist society. Humanists like Arnold and Lukacs seek profound truths; in addition, they repudiate the autonomous formalism of the New Critics. Invariably the formalists betray some ethical or theological beliefs. Inevitably unsuccessful, the search for neutral forms reveals biases and values. Formal study does not escape politics. Humanists insist that at a formal level apolitical truths are not possible; however, they do not allow that at a human level such truths are also impossible. Unlike the insubstantial New Critics, the humanist does not ignore the noisy world of politics; nonetheless, he sets an interpretation of a text above the conventions and approaches