Home Index Subscribe Conference Reviews

This review was published in Symbiosis 5.2 (October 2001)
Richard Gravil, Romantic
Dialogues: Anglo-American Continuities, 17761862. Pp. xx, 250. Reviewed by Michael ONeill, University of Durham In Romantic Dialogues Richard Gravil carries his learning lightly, thinks deeply, and writes invitingly. The result is a major study, one that is alert to and at home with textual nuance and larger questions. The book consists of two parts. The second part contains subtle accounts of the intertextual dialogue between the canonical American Romantics (xv) and British Romantic poets, especially Wordsworth and Coleridge, but also Shelley and Keats. In the first part, Gravil looks at a variety of moments in what was a slow and painful amputation of Albions republican limb (xi). What Gravil demonstrates in this overture (xii) to the book is the tangled nature of British and American literary and intellectual relations during a period often represented in terms of polarized narratives (xi). Far from the War of Independence and that of 1812 creating a breach between the two cultures, it was in reaction against surprisingly sustained continuities, so Gravil argues, that James Fenimore Cooper felt prompted to theorize and promote the desirability of such a breach (xii). Again, it is clear to Gravil that the American Renaissance sees the rebirth of Romanticism as much as of America. Old beliefs in New World cultural autonomy die hard, partly because of attitudes promoted by disciplinary and nationalist boundary-setting. As Gravil points out, The Emersonian myth of an autochthonous American literature has been very ably challenged, yet still enjoys too wide a currency, thanks to our divided profession (xii). He counters this Emersonian myth by three initial chapters (part one) that remind us how complicated Anglo-American relations are in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. In the first chapter, Gravil argues that What happened in 1776 was a British and an American event that divided British and American subjects, and British and American families (3), and he skilfully draws out the many links between English Whigs and New England Republicans. The American Revolution, on this reading, fulfils ideals associated with Algernon Sidney and James Harrington, but, precisely because the Revolution did not find realisation in England, the loss of America (21) is experienced by the English Romantics as a considerable blow to their political hopes, even if, as in Shelleys Hellas, the idea of America serves as a symbolic beacon of radical hope. Gravils thoughtful reading of Blakes America, which opens the second chapter, dwells on the works disturbing implications (27)more specifically, the fear that the vision of liberation will remain a vision (26; Gravils italics) and the view, shared with radicals such as Richard Price and Joseph Priestley, that liberty and nationhood are incompatible (29). The chapter also considers other British Romantic-period representations of America, and includes a brief but strikingly iconoclastic dig at Anna Barbaulds homiletic lines in Eighteen Hundred and Eleven about America aspiring to the learning of the mother country: the verse proceeds as lamely as one would expect from a compeer of Hannah More (35). To indicate the existence of something approaching an indigenous American Romanticismlacking only the appropriate poetic form (37), Gravil offers suggestive thumbnail sketches of the proto-Romantic attitudes of four figures: Samuel Williams; Gilbert Imlay (a possible prototype of the feckless young officer in Wordsworths "Ruth" (p.39)); William Ellery Channing; and Estwick Evans. In the final chapter of the books first part, Gravil begins with the archetypal Anglo-American spat, the Sydney Smith Affair (47). Smith offended American sensibilities by mocking the absence of culture in this self-adulating race (quoted 51; Smiths italics), asking with particular sharpness, under which of the old tyrannical governments of Europe is every sixth man a Slave ? (quoted 51). (A recent episode of Frasier, in which Frasier, in the heat of battle in a darts game with Daphne, derides the dress-sense of the Queen and the exportation by the English of soccer hooliganism, sends up the ever-present possibility of the re-kindling of old fires.) Gravils main motive for probing an open wound (48) is revisionist; Smith is expressing disappointment at the tarnishing of his own American Dream (25), according to Gravil, who even finds Smiths comments a forerunner of the political lucubrations of Walt Whitman (50). The rest of the chapter points out that there were other ways of conceiving Anglo-American cultural and literary relations in the first part of the nineteenth century. Gravil analyses Coopers stance as midwife to a separate American consciousness (58), Emersons unacknowledged appropriation in The American Scholar of British Romanticism in support of his announcement of a new national vision (61), and Elizabeth Peabodys less militant view that what is needed by America is writers who have shed post-colonial feelings of aggression and dependency, and have found the courage to enter the new era (67). In this new era America finds writers who are a match for their British Romantic forebears, and in the second part of the book Gravil fleshes out the nature of their achievement. If part one sets the critical scene, part two gives us the play proper: Gravil is superbly equal to the challenge of persuasively proving and describing a series of intricate, intertextual relationships: between Cooper and Burke; Emersons Nature and Thoreaus Walden, and their transfiguration of writings by Wordsworth and Coleridge; Melville and Coleridge; Whitman and Wordsworth; and Dickinson and a range of English poets. Gravil allows for uniqueness and difference; there is no Englishing of his American authors. But what he does supply in a brimmingly revelatory stream of suggested connections is the restoration of link after lost link. Melville and Dickinson are particular beneficiaries of Gravils labours. The chapter on Moby-Dick begins by showing that Melvilles novel is textually aware (140) of Coleridges The Rime of the Ancient Mariner. Gravils touch is unerringly sure in the identification of echoes and analogues, though Ahabs cry of dismay, This lovely light, it lights me not; all loveliness is anguish to me (quoted 140), may owe as much to Satans hateful siege / Of contraries as to Dejection: An Ode. The main body of the chapter consists of a tightly written meditation on the affinities between Melvilles and Coleridges masterpieces: these affinities include the fact that both texts question notions of perfectibility (Transcendental as well as Romantic), the way each explores the conflict between pantheism and freedom (153), and the manner in which they deploy a series of contrapuntal ironies. It is an enthralling critical performance, as is the qualification in the chapter on Dickinson of that enigmatic poets assertion in one poem, I see New Englandly. New Englandly turns out, on Gravils analysis (an analysis that acknowledges the stimulus of previous critics such as and especially Joanne Feit Diehl) to involve an incessant and creative dialogue with writers from the old world. Gravil writes too well to be easily paraphrased, but here he is, at his eloquent best, evoking the counter-Keatsian turn made by one Dickinson lyric (1540):
Dickinsons mode of allusion, Gravil argues, reveals a symbiotic complexity (193), and his chapter does much to re-locate a difficult poet in the Victorian-Romantic literary mainstream, without robbing her of a jot of her originality. The remaining chapters in the books second part are all rewarding. That on Cooper finds a parallel between the inner conflicts of Burkes Vindication of Natural Society, in which his ironic ventriloquising of Rousseauistic ideas has an unanticipated persuasiveness, and the American novelists creation in The Pioneers of a figure, Natty Bumppo, who not only walks away with the novel, but commands his creator to write four further novels, each of which takes us further from any sense of the moral superiority of white civilization or civil law (76). The chapter on Nature and Walden brings out convincingly how Emerson draws on Wordsworth and Coleridge, as when, paraphrasing Coleridge on the modes of imagination, the American author says that the poet unfixes the land and the sea, makes them revolve around the axis of his primary thought, and disposes them anew (quoted 97); it also argues that Thoreaus use of Wordsworth is far from aggressive and ultimately dismissive (111), the view ascribed to Robert Weisbuch. Gravil draws attention to the easy and unexpected transition from matter-of-fact observation to symbolic discourse (108) as evidence of Thoreaus affinity with and debt to Wordsworth. (One might, in passing, note the elegant reflexivity of the wording here, itself easy and unexpected.) In its other two chapters (there is also an Excursus Note on Colonel Gardner), Romantic Dialogues examines Hawthornes and Poes use of romance to rework Romantic motifs, and Whitmans response to Wordsworth. The former chapter includes a fascinating comparison between Hawthornes The Scarlet Letter and Wordsworths The Thorn (each narrative focusing on a deserted woman through symbolic clusters (118) and unreliable narrators); the latter contains many insights typified by the critical flair shown throughout, as the following passage reveals: Wordsworths self is capable of doubt and indirection; Whitmans, affecting to be transhistorical, is a power like one of Natures and knows no backsliding. Wordsworths listens quietly to the language of things, while Walts gorges itself upon the sublime American continent (170). Even the Lawrence-like informality of Walts has been earned by this stage of the chapter, with its exuberant yet delicate appreciation of Whitmans poetic achievement. Romantic Dialogues is a ground-breaking study which bears witness to a generous, vigilant, and witty critical intelligence, it convinces the reader that nineteenth-century British and American literatures reveal a potent strain of consanguinity and must be studied side by side. © Symbiosis, 2001 |