Jane Tompkins, Masterpiece Theater: The Politics of Hawthorne's Literary Reputation, " Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction, 1790-1860, pp. 3-39.
Scanned by Alex Lesman, The University of Virginia, 11/13/95.
Jane Parry Tompkins was born in 1940 in New York City, and was educated at Bryn Mawr College and at Yale University. She taught at Connecticut College and Greater Hartford Community College before moving to Temple University at Philadelphia in 1970, where she became a full professor in 1982. She is editor of Twenheth Century Interpretations of "The Tum of the Screw" (1970) and of ReaderResponse Criticism: From Formalism to Post-Structuralism (1980). In her first major book, Sensational Designs: The Cultural Work of American Fiction (1985), from which the current selection is taken, Tompkins combined afeminist approach with cultural criticism and reader-response theory. Her most recent work is West of Everything: The Inner Life of the Westems (1992). Tompkins is currently a professor of English at Duke University.
THE CLASSIC DEFINITION of a classic, as a work that has withstood the test of time, was formulated by Samuel Johnson in his Preface to Shakespeare. Where produc tions of genius are concerned, wrote Johnson, "of which the excellence is not absolute and definite, but gradual and comparative . . . no other test can be ap plied than length of duration and continuance of esteem." Once a great author has outlived his century, he continues, "whatever advantages he might once derive from personal allusions, local customs, or temporary opinions, have for many years been lost.... The effects of favor and competition are at an end; the tradition of his friendships and his enmities has perished; his works . . ., thus unassisted by interest or passion, . . . have past through variations of taste and changes of manners, and, as they devolved from one generation to another, have received new honors at every transmission.") The notion that literary greatness consists in the power of a work to transcend historical circumstance repeats itself in the nineteenth century, particularly in the work of Arnold and Shelley, and has been a commonplace of twentieth-century criticism.2 T. S. Eliot and Frank Kermode, for instance, take it for granted that a classic does not de pend for its appeal on any particular historical context and devote themselves to defining the criteria we should use to determine which works are classic, or to describing the characteristics of works already designated as such.3 I propose here to question the accepted view that a classic work does not depend for its status on the circumstances in which it is read and will argue exactly the re verse: that a literary classic is a product of all those circumstances of which it has traditionally been supposed to be independent. My purpose is not to depreciate classic works but to reveal their mutability. In essence what I will be asserting is that the status of literary masterpieces is owing to arguments just like the one I 1 WHAT WE READ JANE TOMPKINS am making here and that therefore the canon not only can but will change along tition," "the tradition of friendships," the "advantages" of "local customs," and with the circumstances within which critics argue. "temporary opinions," far from being the irrelevant factors that Johnson consid I have chosen as a case in point the literary reputation of Nathaniel Haw- ered them, are what originally created and subsequently sustained Haw thorne, a reputation so luminous and enduring that it would seem to defy the thorne's reputation as a classic author. Hawthorne's work, from the very suggestion that It was based on anything other than the essential greatness of beginning, emerged into visibility, and was ignored or acclaimed, as a function his novels and stories. Indeed, that assumption is so powerful that what follows of the circumstances in which it was read * may at times sound like a conspiracy theory of the way literary classics are made. As Hawthorne's success comes to seem, in my account, more and more Once Hawthorne's tales had been called to their attention, nineteenth dependent on the influence of his friends and associates, and then on the influ- century critics singled out not what we now consider his great short stories— ence of their successors, it may appear that this description of the politics of "The Minister's Black Veil," "Young Goodman Brown," "The Maypole of Hawthorne's rise to prominence is being opposed, implicitly, to an ideal sce- Merrymount"—but sketches now considered peripheral and thin. Their favor nario in which the emergence of a classic author has nothing to do with power ites, with virtually no exceptions, were "A Rill from the Town Pump," "Sunday relations. But to see an account of the political and social processes by which a at Home," "Sights from a Steeple," and "Little Annie's Ramble." Not only did classic author is put in place as the account of a conspiracy is only possible if one these critics devote their attention almost exclusively to sketches that moralize assumes that classic status could be achieved independently of any political and on domestic topics and fail to appreciate what we now consider classic exam social process whatsoever. The argument that follows is not critical of the way ples of the American short story, they "overlooked" completely those qualities literary reputations come into being, or of Hawthorne's reputation in particular. in Hawthome's writing that twentieth-century critics have consistently ad lts object, rather, is to suggest that a literary reputation could never be anything mired. his symbolic complexity, psychological depth, moral subtlety, and den but a political matter. My assumption is not that "interest end passion"should sity of composition. Instead what almost every critic who wrote on be eliminated from literary evaluation—this is neither possible nor desirable— Hawthorne's tales in the 1830s found particularly impressive were his combina but that works that have attained the status of classic, and are therefore believed tion of "sunshine" and "shadow," the transparency of his style, and his ability to embody universal values, are in fact embodying only the interests of what- to invest the common elements of life with spiritual significance.4 ever parties or factions are responsible for maintaining them in their preeminent It is these qualities that made Hawthorne a critical success among literary position. Identifying the partisan processes that lead to the establishment of a men in the 1830s and 40s, and it is on this foundation that his reputation as a classic author is not to revoke his or her claim to greatness, but simply to point classic author was built. Even the laudatory reviews by Poe and Melville, which out that that claim is open to challenge from other quarters, by other groups, critics take as proof of their "discernment" because in certain passages they representing equally partisan interests. It is to point out that the literary works seem to anticipate modern views, arise out of tastes and sympathies that are in that now make up the canon do so because the groups that have an investment many respects foreign to present-day critical concerns. In a headnote to Poe's in them are culturally the most influential. And finally, it is to suggest in partic- second review of Twice-Told Tales, Richard Wilbur, for example, comments, ular that the casualties of Hawthorne's literary reputation—the writers who, by "Poe proves his discernment by recognizing the merits of his contemporary."5 virtue of the same processes that led to his ascendancy, are now forgotten— But while Poe's reviews seem to confirm modern assessments of Hawthorne by need not remain forever obliterated by his success. pointing to his "invention, creation, imagination, originality," the chief merit To question the standard definition of the classic, and thus the canon as it is Poe recognizes in Hawthorne's tales is one that few modern commentators have presently constituted, is also to question the way of thinking about literature on seen: their repose. "A painter," Poe writes, "would at once note their leading which the canon is based. For the idea of the classic is virtually inseparable from or predominant feature, and style it repose We are soothed as we read."6 the idea of literature itself. The following attempt to describe the man-made, Hawthorne's current status as a major writer rests on exactly the opposite claim, historically produced nature of a single author's reputation, therefore, is likely namely that his vision is dark and troubled, the very reverse of that "hearty, to arouse a host of objections because it challenges, all at once, an entire range of genial but still Indian-summer sunshine of his Wakefields and Little Annie's assumptions on which literary criticism has traditionally operated.The strength Rambles" which Poe admires so much and contrasts favorably to the "mysti of these assumptions does not stem from their being grounded in the truth cism" of "Young Goodman Brown" which he wishes Hawthorne would rid about literature, however, but from the pervasiveness of one particular mode of himself of. "He has done well as a mystic. But . . . let him mend his pen, get a constructing literature—namely, the one that assigns to literary greatness an bottle of visible ink, come out from the Old Manse, cut Mr. Alcott, hang (if pos ahistorical, transcendental ground. The overwhelming force of this conception sible) the editor of the Dial, and throw out of the window to the pigs all his odd lies in its seeming to have arisen not from any particular school of criticism or numbers of the 'North American Review.'"' collection of interests, but naturally and inevitably, as a way of accounting for Melville's wonderful encomium of Hawthorne in the Literary World, which the ability of certain literary works to command the attention of educated read ers generation after generation. That this theory is neither natural nor inevitable it will be the purpose of this chapter to show. "The effects of favor and compe- *In the next section, omitted here, Tompkins discusses how Hawthorne came to be cham pioned by the New England intelligentsia, including Henry Wadsworth Longfellow. 120 121 a . . sees Hawthorne's works as "deeper than the plummet of the mere critic," char- pletely, it is worthwhile asking if there isn't a point of view from which his acterized above all by their "blackness," and possessed of a vision of truth as commentary made good critical sense. "terrific" and as "madness to utter," comes much closer to modern criticism of For Peabody, whose critical assumptions privilege the spiritualization of Hawthorne (which quotes from it tirelessly) than Poe's reviews do.8 But the ordinary and especially of domestic life, the phrase "a domesticated sun Melville's response to Hawthorne's "blackness" is not proof that he saw beam" leaps immediately into view. "The Gentle Boy"becomes visible for him Hawthorne's tales as they really are, but rather proof of Melville's own preoccu- from within a structure of norms that nineteenth-century social historians refer pation with the problem of innate depravity and original sin. What modern crit- to as "the cult of domesticity" and fulfills a definition of poeticity that values ics take as evidence of Melville's critical penetration e.g., his admiration of fanciful descriptions of commonplace things (Peabody admires Hawthorne's Hawthorne's "blackness"—testifies rather to their own propensity for project- tales because they are "flower-garlands of poetic feeling wreathed around some ing onto what is actually a latter-day Calvinist vocabulary, their mid-twentieth- everyday scene or object").11 These critical precepts intersect with widely held century conviction that a "tragic vision," elaborated chiefly in psychological cultural beliefs about the special properties of childhood and the sanctity of the terms, constitutes literary maturity. While Melville's reading of Hawthorne re- home. The child, in the nineteenth-century American imagination, is a spiritual sembles modern interpretations in some respects, many of his critical observa- force that binds the family together so that it becomes the type and cornerstone tions—his pronouncements on "genius," his constant comparison of of national unity, and an earthly semblance of the communion of the saints.12 Hawthorne to natural phenomena (e.g., "the smell of young beeches and hem- Thus the "sunbeam"—associated with nature and with Heaven—"domesti locks is upon him; your own broad prairies are in his soul"), his emphasis on the cated"—given a familiar human form—really is, in Peabody's terms, "compre "repose" of Hawthorne's intellect, on his "Indian summer . . . softness," on the hensive" yet "definite." The forms of apprehension that concretize the tale for "spell" of "this wizard"—testify to Melville's participation in the same romantic him flag the phrase as a brilliant embodiment of his critical principles and moral theories of art that dominate the mainstream reviews.9 presuppositions....* It becomes clear upon examining these contemporary evaluations of Hawthorne's work that the texts on which his claim to classic status rested were What remains to be explained is why—if it is true that literary texts become not the same texts we read today in two senses. In the first and relatively trivial visible only from within a particular framework of beliefs—it is always sense, they were not the same because the stories that made Hawthorne great in Hawthorne's texts that are the subject of these discussions rather than the texts of the eyes of his contemporaries were literally not the ones we read today—i.e., other writers. If there were nothing "in" the Twice-Told Tales that commanded nineteenth-century critics preferred "Little Annie's Ramble" to "Young Good- critical attention, why has Hawthorne's collection of stories and sketches come man Brown." In the second and more important sense, they were not the same down to us rather than Harriet Beecher Stowe's The Mayflower? Wasn't there, because even texts bearing the same title became intelligible within a different right from the beginning, something unique about Hawthorne's prose that framework of assumptions. It is not that critics in the 1830s admired different marked it as different from and better than the prose of other writers? aspects of Hawthorne's work from the ones we admire now, but that the work One can answer these questions by turning to the contemporary reviews. itself was different. Whatever claims one may or may not wish to make for the What the reviews show is that the novels of sentimental writers like Susan ontological sameness of these texts, all of the historical evidence suggests that Warner and Harriet Beecher Stowe were praised as extravagantly as what Hawthorne's contemporaries saw when they read his work is not what we Hawthorne's and in exactly the same terms. Critics who admired Hawthorne's see now. What I mean can be illustrated further by juxtaposing a piece by Haw- fondness for "lowly . . . scenes and characters," which they took as a sign of his thorne criticism written in 1837 with one written a hundred and twenty years "sympathy with everything human," also admired Warner's "simple transcript later. of country life" and "homely circumstances," which portrayed "the ordinary In praising Hawthorne's brilliance as a stylist, Andrew Peabody makes the joys and sorrows of our common humanity.''l3 They found that Hawthorne's following comment on a phrase from "The Gentle Boy": "tales . . . are national while they are universal," and that Warner's novels "paint human nature in its American type" and "appeal to universal human These Tales abound with beautiful imagery, sparkling metaphors, novel sympathy "14 Warner is commended for her remarkable grasp of religious truth, and brilliant comparisons... Thus, for instance, an adopted child is spo- ken of as “a domesticated sunbeam" in the family . How full of meaning and Hawthorne for his depiction of “spiritual laws” and the “eternal facts of is that simple phrase! How much does it imply, and conjure up of beauty, morality."15 Both writers display an extraordinary understanding of the sweetness, gentleness, and love! How comprehensive, yet how definite! "heart."l6 Who, after reading it, can help recurring to it, whenever he sees the sunny, Thus it is not the case that Hawthorne's work from the very first set itself happy little face of a father's pride or a mother's joy?'10 apart from the fiction of his contemporaries; on the contrary, his fiction did not distinguish itself at all clearly from that of the sentimental novelists—whose No wonder, then, Hawthorne's contemporaries missed the point of his great short stories: they could not possibly have understood him, given the attitudes *In the next section, omitted here, Tompkins analyzes modern commentaries on Haw that must inform effusions such as these. But before dismissing Peabody com- thorne and their dependence on contemporary beliefs and presuppositions. 122 123 r _ ~ ~. . - work we now see as occupying an entirely separate category. This is not be- ravings verge dangerously and irresponsibly on blasphemy.20 Although many cause nineteenth-century critics couldn't tell the difference between serious and critics admired Melville's daring and considered his work powerful and bril sentimental fiction, but because their principles of sameness and difference had liant, they nevertheless did not describe it in the terms they used to characterize a different shape. In the 1850s the aesthetic and the didactic, the serious and the Hawthorne. In their own day, Hawthorne and Melville were admired, when sentimental were not opposed but overlapping designations. Thus, the terms they were admired, for opposite reasons: Hawthorne for his insight into the do "sentimental author" and "genius" were not mutually exclusive, but wholly mestic situahion, Melville for his love of the wild and the remote.21 compatible ways of describing literary excellence. Differences in the way litera- It is easy enough to see that Hawthorne's relation to Melville in the nine ture is defined necessarily produce differences in the way literary works are teenth century wasn't the same as it is now; and it is easy enough to see that it classified and evaluated. Thus, if in 1841 Evert Duyckinck, who was arguably wasn't the same because the criteria according to which their works were de the most powerful literary man in New York, regarded "Little Annie's Ramble" scribed and evaluated were different and that therefore the works themselves as the high-water mark of Hawthorne's achievement, it is no wonder that other took on a different shape. But what the comparison shows is that the entire sit critics should subsequently have admired Warner's novel about the tribulations uation within which the literary works appeared and within which judgments of an orphan girl, and seen both works—moralized pictures of innocent girl- were made upon them was so different in either case that no element that ap hood in a characteristically New England setting—as exemplifying the same peared within these two situations could be the same. Not only is Hawthorne in virtues.17 Nor is it strange that when Phoebe Pynchon appeared to brighten the the 1850s not easily distinguishable from the sentimental novelists, and in most old family mansion in Salem, critics praised The House of the Seven Gables be- respects quite distinguishable from Melville; not only did antebellum critics cause it was full of "tenderness and delicacy of sentiment" with a "moral con- have different notions about the nature and function of good literature, prize stantly in view."18 The House of the Seven Gables succeeded in 1851 because it was the domestic affections, and think children were spiritually endowed; more fun a sentimental novel; that is, it succeeded not because it escaped or transcended damentally, once one has accepted the notion that a literary text exists only the standards of judgment that made critics admire Warner's work, but because within a framework of assumptions which are historically produced, it then be it fulfilled them. To critics who took for granted the moral purity of children, the comes clear that the "complex" Hawthorne we study today, the Melville we holiness of the heart's affections, the divinity of nature, and the sanctity of the know as Hawthorne's coconspirator against the pieties of the age, the sentimen home, and who conceived of the poet as a prophet who could elevate the soul tal novelists we regard as having pandered to a debased popular taste, are not by "revealing the hidden harmonies of common things," sketches like "Sunday the novelists nineteenth-century readers read and that nineteenth-century crit at Home," "Sights from a Steeple," "A Rill from the Town Pump," and novels ics wrote about. Even when nineteenth- and twentieth-century critics use the like The House of the Seven Gables and The Wide, Wide World formed a perfect same or similar words to describe some element in Hawthorne's work, one can continuum; it is not that these critics couldn't see the difference between see that what they mean by what they say is not the same thing....* Warner's work and Hawthorne's, but that, given their way of seeing, there was no difference. The idea that great literary works are those that stand the test of time might This does not mean that antebellum critics made no distinction between seem at first to have a persuasive force that no amount of argument can dispel. various kinds of work, but that their principles of classification produced differ- But the moment one starts to investigate the critical history of even a single ent groupings from the ones we are used to. The House of the Seven Gables and The work, the notion that a classic is a book that outlasts its age becomes extremely Wide, Wide World, for example, were published in the same year as Moby-Dick, problematic. What does it mean to say that The Scarlet Letter stood the test of but whereas today Hawthome and Melville are constantly seen in terms of one time and The Wide, Wide World did not? Which test? Or rather, whose? It was the another, contemporary reviews of Hawthome never even mention Melville's custom house essay and not Hester's story that drew the most unstinting praise name. While in the l850s there was no monolithic view of either Hawthorne or from contemporary reviewers of The Scarlet Letter; and it was The Marble Faun Melville, one can easily construct characterizations of their works, based on that, on the whole, Hawthome's contemporaries deemed his finest work.22 The comments from contemporary reviews, that would place them at opposite ends reason for this, as I have shown, is that the criteria by which those critics judged of the critical spectrum. According to contemporary critics, Hawthorne, like the Hawthome were different from ours. Whose criteria then shall constitute the sentimental novelists, writes a clear, intelligible prose accessible to everyone (a test? Certainly not Longfellow's: his standards belong to the "prose-like style suitable for artists in a self-consciously democratic nation); he tells stories running-waters" school. Henry James's admiration of Hawthome was highly about recognizable people in humble settings and thus, like the writers of do- qualified: he believed The Scarlet Letter inferior to John Lockhart's Adam Blair.23 mestic fiction, illuminates the spiritual dimensions of ordinary life, his works, The Transcendental defense of Hawthorne is not, as I have indicated, one that like theirs, firmly rooted in Christian precept, serve as reliable guides to the twentieth-century critics could make. But if we use only modern critical criteria— truths of the human heart.19 Melville, on the other hand, whose work is de- assuming they could be agreed upon—then The Scarlet Letter would have scribed as being full of stylistic extravagances, bizarre neologisms, and recon dite allusions, emerges as a mad obscurantist; his characters inhabit exotic *In the next section, omitted here, Tompkins reviews the process by which Hawthome's locales and rant incomprehensibly about esoteric philosophical issues; and their works were canonized through the mid-twentieth century. 124 125 WHAT WE READ JANE TOMPKINS passed a test, but not the "test of time," since that presumably would have to But, as I have been suggeshng, there is no need to account for the succession include the critical judgments of more than one generation. The trouble with the of interpretations by positing an ahistorical, transcendent text which calls them notion that a classic work transcends the limitations of its age and appeals to forth. History—the succession of cultural formations, social networks, institu critics and readers across the centuries is that one discovers, upon investigation, tional priorities, and critical perspectives—does that, and the readings thus pro that the grounds of critical approval are always shifting. The Scarlet Letter is a duced are not mere approximations of an ungraspable, transhistorical entity, great novel in 1850, in 1876, in 1904, in 1942, and in 1966, but each time it is great but a series of completions, wholly adequate to the text which each interpretive for different reasons. In the light of this evidence, it begins to appear that what framework makes available. In each case, the reading can be accounted for by a we have been accustomed to think of as the most enduring work of American series of quite specific, documentable circumstances having to do with publish literature is not a stable object possessing features of enduring value, but an ing practices, pedagogical and critical traditions, economic structures, social object that—because of its place within institutional and cultural history—has networks, and national needs which constitute the text within the framework of come to embody successive concepts of literary excellence. This is not to say that a particular disciplinary hermeneutic. The "durability" of the text is not a func The Scarlet Letter is simply an "empty space" or that there is "nothing there"; to tion of its unique resistance to intellectual obsolescence; for the text, in any de put it another way, it is not to assert that no matter what Hawthorne had writ- scribable, documentable sense, is not durable at all. What endures is the literary ten, his work would have succeeded because he had the right connections. The and cultural tradition that believes in the idea of the classic, and that perpetu novel Hawthorne produced in 1850 had a specificity and force within its own ates that belief from day to day and from year to year by reading and rereading, context that a different work would not have had. But as the context changed, so publishing and republishing, teaching and recommending for teaching, and did the work embedded in it. writing books and articles about a small group of works whose "durability" is Yet that very description of The Scarlet Letter as a text that invited constant thereby assured. redefinition might be put forward, finally, as the one true basis on which to The fact is that literary classics do not withstand change; rather, they are found its claim to immortality. For the hallmark of the classic work is precisely always registering, or promoting, or retarding alterations in historical condi that it rewards the scrutiny of successive generations of readers, speaking with tions as these affect their readers and, especially, the members of the literary equal power to people of various persuasions. It is on just this basis, in fact, that establishment. For classic texts, while they may or may not have originally been one of Hawthorne's critics has explained his critical prominence in recent years. written by geniuses, have certainly been written and rewritten by the genera Reviewing Hawthorne criticism for American Literary Scholarship in 1970, Roy hons of professors and critics who make their living by them. They are the mir Male comments "on the way Hawthorne's work has responded to shifting ex- rors of culture as culture is interpreted by those who control the literary pectations during the last two decades." establishment. Rather than being the repository of eternal truths, they embody the changing interests and beliefs of those people whose place in the cultural In the fifties it rewarded the explicatory and mythic analyses of the New hierarchy empowers them to decide which works deserve the name of classic Critics; in the mid-sixties it survived, at the cost of some diminution, the and which do not. For the idea of "the classic" itself is no more universal or rigorous inquest of the new historicists and the neo-Freudians, and now his fiction seems more vital than ever for readers aware of new developments interest-free than the situation of those whose business it is to interpret literary in psychology and related fields.24 works for the general public. It underwrites their claim to be the servants—and not the arbiters—of truth, and disguises the historically conditioned, contin ln a sense, what Roy Male describes here is a capsule version of what I have gent, and partisan nature of the texts that their modes of construction make vis been describing throughout this essay: namely, the various ways in which ible. The recognition that literary texts are man-made, historically produced Hawthorne's texts have been reinterpreted by critics of various persuasions. objects, whose value has been created and recreated by men and women out of What is at issue is how to account for this phenomenon. In Male's view, these their particular needs, suggests a need to study the interests, institutional prac successive reinterpretations show that Hawthorne's work is "more vital than tices, and social arrangements that sustain the canon of classic works. It also ever" because they testify to its capacity to reward a variety of critical ap- opens the way for a retrieval of the values and interests embodied in other, non proaches, each of which produces only a partial reading of it; the text itself must canonical texts, which the literary establishment responsible for the canon in its be deeper and broader than any of its individual concretizations, for there is present form has—for a variety of reasons—suppressed. no other way to explain how the same text could give rise to them all. The no tion that the classic text escapes or outlasts history must hold that various at tempts to capture it from within history (i.e., from within a particular NOTES perspective) are incomplete, for if one of them did succeed completely, not only would interpretation have to stop; it would mean that the classic was not uni- 1. Samuel Johnson, Preface to Shakespeare, in The Great Critics, ed. Iames Harry Smith and Edd Winfield Parks, 3rd ed. (New York W W Norton & Co , 1951), pp. 5 London: versal but limited, could not speak to people in all times and places, was not, in 2 Matthew Arnold, "The Study of Poetry," in Essays in Criticism, Second Series ( short, a classic Macmillan, 1958), pp. 2-3; Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy, in Lectures and Essays in Crit 126 127 icism. ed. R. H. Super (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962), p. 13; Percy Bysshe Shelley, A Defense `of Poetry, in The Great Critics, ed. Smith, pp. 563 64, 575. 3. T s. Eliot, "What Is Minor Poetry?" in On Poetc and Poetry (New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy. 1957), pp. 34 51; T. S. Eliot, "What Is a Classic?" in On Poets and Poetry, pp. 52-74. Frank Kemmode devotes an entire chapter to Flawthorne's work without ever raising the quesfion of why Hawthome should be considered a classic author. The Classic: Literary Images of Permanence and Change (New York: Viking, 1975), pp. 90-114. 4. See, for example, Charles Fenno Hc~ffman, American Monthly Magazine, n.s., 5 (March 1838), pp. 281-83, as reprinted in Hawthorne: The Critical Heritage, ed. Joseph Donald Crowley (New York: Bames and Noble, Inc., 1970), p. 61; Longfellow, as reprinted in Crowley, pp. 58 s9; and Andrew Peabody, Christian Examiner, 25 (November 1838), pp. 182-90, as reprinted m Crowley, pp. 64-65. 5. Major Writers of America, ed. Perry Miller (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1962), 1,p.465. 6. Graham's Magazine, (May 1842), as reprinted in The Complete Works of Edgar Allan Poe, ed. James A. Harrison (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1902), Xl, p. 105. 7. Godey's Lady's Book (November 1847), as reprinted in Harrison, X111, pp. 154-55. 8. "Hawthome and Flis Mosses," in The Works of Herman Melville, ed. Raymond Weaver (London: Constable & Co., 1922), X111, pp. 123-43. 9. The Works of Mcluille, pp 1.36, 131, 127,125. 10. Peabody, as reprinted in Hawthtorne, ed. Crowley, p. 66. 11. For an excellent discussion of the cult of domesticity, see Kathryn Kish Sklar, Catherine Beecher, A Study in American Domesticity (New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1976), pp. 151-67 Peabody, as reported in Hawthorne, ed. Crowley, p. 64. 12. See Bemard Wishy, The Child and the Republic (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968). 13. Samuel W. S. Dutto,n, "Nathaniel Hawthome," New Englander, 5 january 1847) pp. 56-69, as reprinted in Hawthorne, ed. Crowley, p. 138; Carolyn Kirkland, "Novels and Novelists," North American Review, 76 (1853), p. 114. See also two reviews of Queechy, one from Tait's Magazme, the other from the New York Evening Post, reprinted in Littel's Living Age, 34 julySeptember 18.52), pp. 57 5S. 14. Henry F. Chorley, in a review of The 81ithedale Romance, Athenaeum, 10 july 1852), pp. 741 43, as reprinted in Hawthorne, ed. Crowley, p. 247 (the remark is typical); Kirkland, p. 121. 15. Kirkland, p. 121; the Likrary World, 7 (December 1850), p. 525; Amory Dwight Mayo "The Works of Nathaniel Hawthome," Universalist Quarterly, 8 July 1851), pp. 272-93, as reprinted in Hawthorne, ed. Crowley, pp. 219, 223. 16. Kirkland, p. 221. Most of Hawthorne's reviewers make this point in one way or another. 17. Evert Augustus Duyckinck, Arcturus, 1 january 1841), pp. 125 26, as quoted in Faust, pp. 37-38. 18. Evert Augustus Duyckinck, the Literary World, 8 (April 1851), pp. 334-35, as reprinted in Hawthorne, ed. Crowley, p. 194; an unsigned review in the Christian Examiner, 50 (May 1851), pp. 508-09, as reprinted in Crowley, p. 195. 19. These characterizations of i Hawthorne are drawn from reviews by Edgar Allan Poe Anne W. Abbott, Rufus Griswold, I leery Tuckerman, E. P. Whipple, R. H. Stoddard, Samuei W. S. Dutton, Evert Duyckinck, Charles Wilkins Webber, Amory Dwight Mayo, and George Loring. All were reprinted in iiawil7wr7w, ed. Cn~wley. 20. These characterizati`~ns of Melville came fr`~m r~wiews in The Spectator, the Boston Post the Literary World. the Dc~m~crntii Rcvi~no, the L.~nd~ln Nc w Mo~ithly Mngazine, the Southern Quarterly, the AlEk~n, the At/as, the Athenacum, Today, and l'cterce'Es Magazine, as cited by Hugh Hetherington, "Early Reviews of Moby-Dick," in Moby-Dick Centennial Essays, ed. Tyrus H'llway and Luther S. Mansfield (Dallas: S`Juthern Methodist University Press, 1953), pp. 89 21. Though critics used the temms "original" and "deep" to praise both writers, Hawthome's reviewers liked to characterize him as "gentle," "tasteful," "quiet," "delicate," "subtle," "graceful," and "exquisite," while Melville's admirers constantly used words such as "racy," "wild," "extravagant," "brilliant," "eccentric," "outrageous," and "thrilling." 22. Bertha Faust, Hawthorne s Contemporaneous Reputation A Study of Literary Opinion in America and England, 7828-1864 (New York, 1968), p. 72, Hawthorne, ed Crowley, p. 21; Faust, p. 141. 23. Henry lames, Hawthorne (Ithaca: Comell University Press, 1956), pp. 90-92. 24. Roy R. Male, in American Literary Scholarship, An Annual, 1969 (Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1971), pp. 19-20. 12X