The Columbia History of the American Novel

Fliegelman has argued, one of the most perplexing issues in the early republican period, the 'conflicting claims of authority and liberty.' The tension within Brown's narrator, Clara Wieland, is precisely be-22- tween these two mutually exclusive demands, represented by Henry Pleyel, the rationalist who eschews all other forms of knowledge, and Carwin, the man of passionate will who tests and manipulates Clara in order to destroy her faith in the rational side of her being, and by implication in Pleyel as well. (He also manages to ruin her reputation, by inference rather than act, in the mind of Pleyel, who essentially abandons her.) Thus, the authority of supreme reason wars with the license of unchecked liberty, the one constrained and controlled, the other raw and raging. Clara's crazed brother, Theodore, who in his pursuit of religious certainty kills his entire family (and would have added Clara to the list of victims were he not prevented by Carwin), illustrates not only the dangers of enthusiasm but also those of submitting too readily, too pleasurably, to the demands of a higher, more potent will. In other words, Theodore combines the excesses of both authority and liberty, and he must be eliminated. But his death brings no resolution to the essential conflict, and Clara, though she regains health at the end, never achieves self- knowledge. Brown's novel, compelling and powerful in its psychological undercurrents and social implications, ends irresolutely, thus weakly. Novelistically, Brown could not resolve the tensions; culturally, he could not solve the contradictions.

At the close of this period of the 'early American novel,' James Fenimore Cooper, in all probability America's first significant novelist, if not quite a genuine 'cultural voice,' produced a novel that indeed sought to reunify the spirit of a discordant nation. In The Spy (1821), Cooper concentrates on the issue of virtuous behavior in the Republic, and though his story is set in the Revolutionary era, he means the lesson to pertain to his own, which he saw threatened by the powerful forces of discord, emanating for the most part from a populace that had turned toward the pursuit of material satisfaction at the expense of national loyalty. Cooper illustrates his meaning through the symbolic structure of the novel, which centers on the Wharton family and the patriarch's attempt to preserve the sanctuary of his home in a time of crisis. The attempt is a futile one, for the elder Wharton, like Cooper's America, has conceived the task purely in material terms. As with the businessmen whom Cooper despised, money is Wharton's bottom line, dictating relationships as well as physical movement. The complicated plot turns on the fact that -23- Wharton has placed his family in a dangerous situation because he has refused to accept the moral responsibilities of citizenship.

Dispossessed as he thought he was from America, Cooper nevertheless writes from within a comfortable position in the cultural hierarchy, and his novel is, not surprisingly, a conservative one about preserving a sense of original virtue, located in the social structure as Cooper perceives it. That structure is in tatters, an idea suggested both by the 'divided house' motif and the 'neutral ground,' the territory that, as it becomes the novel's dominant setting, represents post-Revolutionary America, with its bifurcated loyalties and shifting values. In its essence, it is a wilderness; it is fraught with conflicting passions and points of view, violence and disorder. 'The law,' Cooper writes, 'was momentarily extinct in that particular district, and justice was administered subject to the bias of personal interests and the passions of the strongest.' In addition to lawlessness, moral indifference defines the terrain. Thus, the land can only be set in order through the restoration of moral authority.

The problem with the novel — perhaps a mirror of the problem in American society as Cooper saw it — was to find a locus of that authority, and the best that Cooper can do is to invoke the archetypal father — the father of Founding Fathers — George Washington. Possessing both virtue and authority, Washington accomplishes the greater task of setting his lands in order by healing the divisions that have threatened their internal security. As the only legitimate paternal figure in the novel, he projects a sense of control that the other characters find reassuring. And when he is unable to act owing to military circumstance, he does not retreat from his sense of public duty but entrusts the task to his spy, Harvey Birch, who, by his disinterested deeds, extends the Father's virtue to the neutral ground. If Washington is Virtue incarnate, Birch is Selfless Action come to life, since his motives are clear: patriotism, not profit, has led him to sacrifice comfort, reputation, and future prospects of happiness for his country. In short, he is a saint, and when Washington smiles upon him he is beatified.

For Cooper, in a time of growing materialism, which would soon run rampant with the coming of industrialization, Harvey's selfless devotion was the single most important virtue Americans needed to practice if the Republic was to survive. But of course that was an -24- impossibility, since it had already vanished into myth and legend, signaled, though Cooper hardly means it that way, by Washington's very presence in the book. Cooper tells a great story, but unfortunately it is an irrelevant one. Whether America had ever enjoyed the golden moment of Revolutionary self-sacrifice and transcendent devotion to the ideals of the Fathers has been long debated by historians, and there will probably never be a definitive view on the subject. But again, it matters little in terms of Cooper's nostalgic vision, since in any case it would never come again. Ironically, Cooper moves the American novel forward by looking backward, for if he had one thing that all the others lacked, it was a consistent, fully realized, forcefully articulated vision of a reconstituted American society. If only all its citizens could be gods like George Washington, or even just angels like Harvey Birch.

To conclude, then, by returning to the beginning: as it turns out, an argument can be made for the existence of an 'early American novel,' though unless it accounts for the contradictions, inconsistencies, and instabilities in the genre as American writers adapted it, it is falsifying the achievement. Originality of design and form would only arrive with great romantic writers of the nineteenth century; an authentic American idiom and a genuine 'cultural voice' would have to await Mark Twain's arrival on the novelistic scene. And the American novel would not truly become 'American' until the politically disenfranchised and culturally dispossessed of American society were finally heard in the pages of our literature.

Jeffrey Rubin-Dorsky

-25-

Autobiography and the Early Novel

Concepts of social value in autobiography existed for many centuries before the word was coined. In the Western tradition, the earliest known text in this genre, The Confessions of St. Augustine, written at the turn of the fourth to the fifth century, is only one of many that were accommodated under a variety of other names. These include Plato's seventh epistle in the fourth century B.C., the Essays of Michel de Montaigne in the latter half of the sixteenth century, and the Confessions of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 1760s. As legend has it, credit for the initial appearance of 'autobiography' in the English language goes to Robert Southey, under whose name it made its debut in The Quarterly Review in 1809. In America, The Autobiography of Thomas Sheperd, the Celebrated Minister of Cambridge, New England (1830) was the first book to use the term in its title.

In contemporary studies of characterizations of autobiographical narrative, scholars like G. Thomas Couser (Altered Egos: Authority in American Autobiography [1989]) have noted the singular aspects of the word used to describe the self: its number, capitalization, and position as the only single-letter pronoun in the language. Moreover, there is its typographical likeness to the Roman numeral I, its phonemic identity with 'eye,' and its punning on the idea of a single point of view. Although its implied dominance, usually claimed by privileged racial and cultural groups, is now widely challenged by people outside of those groups, these singular qualities of the 'I' -26- suggest its elevated status — an acknowledgment of the uniqueness and independent social standing of the first person.

In addition, many Americanists have observed a particular relationship between the nature of autobiographical discourse and texts like The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin that traditionally define the dominant American identity. Almost all such critics (including voices from the margins) agree that while autobiography is not unique to this country, the form embodies peculiar American characteristics. This idea finds reinforcement in the fact that, subsuming boundaries of race and sex, the genre has become the country's preeminent form of writing. Nor is this a recent phenomenon. As early as the October 1909 issue of Harper's Monthly Magazine, William Dean Howells, an autobiographer himself, and one of America's foremost novelists and literary critics of that age, spoke of autobiography as a 'new form of literature,' calling it the most 'democratic province in the republic of letters.' Of course, literary theories of democratic equality