Nationality and The Novel: The Rise of Charlotte Temple in America (Expanded Edition)

In searching the Internet for images related to Charlotte Temple, I came across an article by Michael Winship entitled "Two Early American Bestsellers: Rowson's Charlotte Temple and Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin." As I’ve mentioned previously, I’m new to the realm of the early American novel. So I was fascinated to learn that Charlotte Temple was first published in Britain by Minerva Press; it wasn’t published in America until three years later. 

Now Davidson does mention this fact in Chapter Five. But her agenda in Chapter Two is to look at the origins of the book in regards to its materiality and economic status, so discussing Charlotte Temple's publishing history—so closely tied to how it materialized (on multiple levels) in America—seems relevant here, too. 

It has occurred to me that I am perhaps discussing things with which some of my readers are all-too-familiar, and for that, I do sincerely apologize. I likewise apologize if my proceeding discussion of Charlotte Temple is ill-informed, ungrounded, myopic, or quite simply wrong. It may well be; my knowledge (or is it information?) is limited. But, as I said, fascination is in progress here (here being in my mind). As Winship says, “the question of Charlotte Temple’s ‘Americanness’ is a vexed one.” 

My agenda, then, is to figure out what made Charlotte Temple get stamped as an American—as opposed to a British—novel. And is that stamp appropriate?

According to Winship, Charlotte Temple received little attention in England. I surely believe that—the Minerva Press churned out books of “light literature” at a rapid pace, and the subject matter of Charlotte Temple was hardly anything new on that side of the pond. (If you’d like more information about Minerva Press and eighteenth and nineteenth century publishing in England, check out Richard Altick’s English Common Reader, Second Edition.) 

But then Charlotte Temple came to America. Davidson discusses the American book industry as a triadic interrelationship among the writer, the printer/publisher/marketer, and the reader. So let's look at each of these industry components as they relate specifically to Charlotte Temple. 

1.                          The writer. One Susanna Rowson. Rowson was born in England, but spent most of her life in America. Davidson considers Rowson to be only “marginally American” (163). Winship makes note of her curious signature on the title page of the first American edition—“Mrs. Rowson, of the New Theatre, Philadelphia.” Winship asserts that this signature “seems rather to point to the work’s racy nature, written by an actress, than to the author’s American residence.” Should we read so much into the signature? By associating herself with an American theatre, but not with America itself, is Rowson setting the stage (pun intended) for some kind of subversive strategy that exists within the novel itself? That question aside, it seems we can at best give Rowson the label of British-American. Or a marginal American, if you'd prefer. Thus, it does not seem to be Charlotte Temple’s author that makes it an American novel.

2.                          Of course, it is doubtful Rowson had much control over the title page; any subversive strategies surrounding the signature likely would have been devised by the publisher. Davidson nicely details how a book “was a product of both the writer’s and the printer’s art” (79). How did printers view Charlotte Temple? The answer to that question, on at least one level, is quite easy: they viewed it as a British book, a book not subject to American copyright laws. Would Charlotte Temple have become as widely popular had it fallen under the private domain of a single printer? Winship asserts that “There can be little doubt that Charlotte Temple's great success in America depended on the fact that, as a work in the public domain, it was freely available for reprinting by any and all American printers and publishers who cared to offer an edition—and many did throughout the nineteenth century." The aforementioned title page—in addition to assigning an ambiguous label to Rowson—also includes a quotation from Romeo & Juliet. (I’m pretty sure the latter is the title of a British play, but then, I’m hardly familiar with early British works, either.) From a marketing standpoint, there seemed to be a reason for blurring the nationality associated with this book. Could it be that publishers were afraid it would be thought too subversive, too much of a scandal? Whatever the answer may be, the printer/publisher/marketer seems not to provide us with an answer to what made Charlotte Temple an American novel.

3.                          That leaves us, then, with the American readers. How did they respond to this book? Winship writes that, “as a tale of seduction and innocence lost, yet in the end somehow forgiven and redeemed, it [Charlotte Temple] struck a chord with American readers, especially during a period that saw the new nation attempt to establish itself culturally in a Eurocentric world that viewed America as innocent of artistic and moral tradition.” Indeed, Charlotte Temple is commonly hailed as the first American bestseller (Winship’s article provides a nice overview of the origin of this word). American readers related to it, learned from it, were empowered by it—and that seems to be, then, what has made Charlotte Temple come to be known as an American novel. And within the context of the time in which it was originally published, having the support and devotion of American readers certainly seems a solid enough foundation upon which a novel may stand and declare itself American.

So Charlotte Temple’s American stamp is appropriate. Not a subversive conclusion on my part, to be sure. Though to be honest, even if I thought that "American" wasn't an appropriate stamp, I might have been too afraid to say so. Even asking this question in the first place had me quickening my (typing) pace and looking behind my back for McCarthy.  

On Davidson's Introduction, or Why "Expanded Editions" may now be my new favorite kind of Edition

     I found reading Cathy Davidson’s introduction to be an enlightening, engaging experience. So much so, that I almost feel at a loss for words. I know so little about Early American Novels, and yet I was able to relate so much of what they were trying to accomplish to my own areas of interest—intertextuality truly abounds, and history (of the novel) does indeed repeat itself.

     Richard Rorty has written that literature is the new philosophy, but perhaps literature has first and foremost been “the people’s philosophy.” Davidson’s comment that “the novel as a genre was more inclusive in its audience and characters than was the new government” (9) certainly seems to serve as evidence for such a labeling. I’m not particularly surprised here, but to sit and ponder over just how much power potential a novel could have, I’m, as always, amazed. I wonder, today, what has—if anything—the same amount, the same kind of power to influence our country. (I’ll let you know when/if I come up with an answer I think sound, or at least remotely possible.)

     Christopher Newfield’s argument that “moderation” is, as Davidson puts it, “the most consistent and foundational American value” (17) rings true to me, and it is a value that these early American novels seemed to possess. Introduce the intrigues of seduction, sure, but have a nice moralizing bit at the end to tidy things up. Texts were careful not to be too extreme, and it seems that idea passed on into the minds of readers.

     On this note, Davidson’s discussion of “subversion” was of particular interest to me, given my following of Victorian sensation novels of the 1860s—subversion, subversion, subversion, is the word on the literary critics’ street. Yet I’ve always liked and disliked the word, thought it appropriate, yet not really appropriate at all. As she writes, “subversion seems like a narrow way to describe the complex operations of the literary form in the contest over how to define and create that amorphous entity called a ‘nation’” (24).

     Finally, that her work is truly of the interdisciplinary sort speaks to its power. That she sometimes met with disfavor toward such a methodological approach is something I, too, have come across, but to see that she was able to move beyond that and produce what, from the introduction, promises to be a first rate work is inspiring.

     I should also add that my interest is now that much more peaked to read some of these early American novels. I’m not sure when I’ll get to it—my reading list is always long—but get to it I shall. I may well find that further reading of Davidson’s text results in a repositioning of said list altogether.

On Starr, Chapter 4 (and tangents assuredly related)

            I approached Starr with a personal goal this week: to lesson my ire toward the kind of tale he is trying to weave for us—a tale (in my humble opinion) of how political systems gave rise to an exceptional American communications systems. I read Hayden White. I did some deep breathing. I opened the book while sitting down to sup, and I smiled. Starting his chapter with the abysmal reviews early American literature received from abroad and at home, I knew Starr was going to have some fun telling us how American literature rose from the ashes into the realm of respectability and acclaim. And I was okay with that.

I was admittedly upset that Starr ignored the transatlantic interplay of what was happening in American and British journalism and literature. He speaks of the rise of crime literature and the reporting of scandalous murders, such as the Helen Jewett case, as though it happened in a vacuum. What about, to give one example, the Newgate Novels that had become all the rage in Britain? What’s your opinion, Professor Starr? How did the British publishing world influence America, and how did the American publishing world influence Britain?  But I calmed myself down. Matters of the transatlantic sort are not part of Starr’s agenda. A history book cannot be exhaustive in its coverage, I concede. Nor can it be expected to answer all of my questions. Expecting that would make me horribly self-centered.

I did chuckle when Starr wrote about “the advent of journalism as form of entertainment in which fidelity to facts was subordinate to the interest in a compelling story” (134). What about the advent of historiography, Starr? The way you are reading the facts is influenced by the story—which you clearly find compelling—you’re trying to tell. Did Starr realize he was providing commentary on his own text within his text? If so, a humorous nod to the fact would have been grand.

            The rise of the popular press and sensation journalism, says Starr, helped to give rise to the American renaissance—writers “transformed the sensibility of their time into enduring literature” (137). I see how there is a baseline American influence for these American writers, but what about all of the British literature they were reading? (In 1820, British reprints still accounted for 70 percent of all books being published and sold in America.) What was the interplay there? Why don’t you mention that, Starr? (I know: I answered this question already. Clearly I don't find my own answer to be sufficient.) Why you don’t mention women authors is another beef I had, but Larisa’s blog writes a wonderful letter to Starr on that subject, so I shall not expand on it here.

            I think it’s great that books and thus information were able to travel so far—that there was even “village enlightenment.” And the rise in printing cheap papers and novels that were popular—sometimes tasteful, sometimes not—if nothing else helped to ensure the rise of literacy rates. What we ended up with was what Starr calls the “diffusion of useful knowledge.” Does he actually mean knowledge here, or information? Again, what are we getting from newspapers? What are we getting from books? I accept Starr’s book as a “diffusion of useful knowledge,” but now I’m not really sure what I mean when I say that.

            I found Starr’s overview of copyright struggles very enlightening, particularly when pertaining to an individual author’s rights. Poet Joel Barlow’s remark that “There is certainly no kind of property, in the nature of things, so much his own, as the works which a person originates from his own creative imagination” (120) certainly moved me, as an individual who produces works of the mind. Fighting to own the creations of one’s mind is certainly a fight worth fighting for, though these days we have given ownership of much of what we produce online to certain companies (Facebook, twitter, etc.). Of course, we let that happen. I let that happen. It’s a price to pay, I suppose, for being linked into communication superhighways. The Internet can also control our right to free speech, in a sense—if you post something a webmaster, blog writer, etc. finds offensive, it can simply be removed. You are free to say what you want, but there is no guarantee others will be free to read it. There is a level of policing going on that I fear may expand in frightening ways.

The fact that (as I mentioned above), in 1820, British reprints still accounted for 70 percent of all books being published and sold in America makes the periodical research we are doing--thanks to the Internet--invaluable. In these newspapers, in these journals, we find stories—fictictious and factual—that give us insight into what it was like to be an American during these years. Without these insights, we’re left with the bare bone facts, which historians such as Starr deliver to us in carefully constructed packages. Of course, newspapers are edited, and there is no way to really know if what we are reading is "authentic" (whatever that means), but accepting some things as basic premises is the only way to push forward, and I choose to accept what we are finding when scouring the databases as nuggets of true insight into American life.

            And the papers confirm some of what Starr tells us—reading became a source of diversion, and reading became a far more extensive than intensive activity. There was so much being produced, so much to read, and the urge for consumption of so much new material was so high that people would fly through a newspaper today to be ready for tomorrow's, fly through a book segment to be ready for the next installment—in this sense, there is little wonder as to how we (and other developed nations, too) became so information hungry. Knowledge was not being mass marketed as hip and trendy—why sit down and spend hour upon hour examining the works of Aristotle when you could read what's hot off the presses? And the prices in America! I was amazed at how cheaply things were printed here in comparison to pricing in England at the time. You could afford to be voracious.

Fast-forwarding this conversation, I question what impact the Internet has had on our reading. Without the Internet, we wouldn’t be able to access the American Periodicals database. It has done wonderful things for nonlinear reading—stories presented as hypertext often help to illuminate their meaning. But it is also that much easier to scroll and skim, to disengage. On airplanes now, everyone has an e-reader or an iPad. (I own a Kindle—I use it for pleasure reading.) Just how different is it to read on a screen as opposed to a paper page? Are we losing power and control over our reading experience?

I should like to conclude by mentioning an article Linda Hughes sent our Victorian Periodicals course from the most recent  New York Times Book Review, as I think it is relevant to our conversation as well. Lev Grossman’s “From Scroll to Screen” asserts that the digitization of books has forced us back into a nonlinear form of reading, a form the advent of the codex in the first century A.D. freed us from so that we could interact with texts in more engaging ways. By reading on the Kindle, the Nook, Grossman says, we are giving up the power to control our own reading experience. He ends by saying, “until I hear God personally say to me, ‘Boot up and read,’ I won’t be giving it [reading on paper] up.” I laughed. And I related. And I wondered what Starr version 2.0 will have to say about the creation of media in the 21^st century 100 years from now, too.

It's All About The (Exceptional) Politics: A Response to Starr, Chapters 2 & 3

Starr’s chapters certainly provide an excellent detailing of early American history as it relates to the media; he positions pre-Revolution America in a developmentally liminal space—no longer British, but also not quite American, either.  But Starr’s American exceptionalist, poli-centric slant weakens the power of the text. As a reader, I always knew what was coming.  Early in chapter two, after citing some American accomplishments in media, he notes that, during the same period, British North America (henceforth Canada), had made little communications progress. Why was America successful when Canada was not? The answer might shock you (sarcasm intended): because of “the political transformation of American society in the previous half-century” (49).

This argument setup takes place in regards to printing, too. Starr again notes America’s uniqueness, telling us, “The independent printer-publisher engaged in the newspaper business was an American phenomenon” (59). To stay true to the facts, he does backup, saying that at first, papers largely focused on foreign, British news, “ritually affirming the colonists’ participation in the imperial system” (61). It was, however, Britain’s published critiques of government control over what should be basic liberties that fueled Americans toward revolution. The press was not just a place for vertical communication—horizontal communication took place through printed debates, debates people could then go and discuss with fellow readers. The media could be a provider of more than just rote information. But the liminality ends here, says Starr, for the British arguments for liberty were used by Americans in a wholly new way—to ignite a revolution. Americans were not satisfied to have demands for their liberties stay on the page—politics motivated them to take action against the British government. American exceptionalism at its finest.  

            Starr’s hard-hitting, predictable approach to bringing everything he talks about back to politics and American exceptionalism has made me reflect on what strategical tactics I use to help make my point in papers. Am I just as nauseating? Is that how one should be, or has to be, even? What does it take to be an effective writer? I realize there are a myriad of ways to answer the latter. I also realize that other readers may not find Starr’s approach nauseating at all—maybe my problem is that I do not fully buy his core argument.

            I was particularly interested in Starr’s discussion of the evolution of free speech. As Starr notes, the first document to be issued in print in the English colonies was the freeman’s oath. He writes that the oath expressed a “political philosophy that was radical for its time” (51). But the Puritan elite certainly did not read the oath as radical in any way. The interpretative controversy regarding the oath immediately brings to mind Stanley Cavell’s question: must we mean what we say? And are we any more bound to mean what we say when words are in print? In this case, the oath said what it meant, but what it meant was determined by what the higher powers wanted it to mean at any given time. Leaders did not let the radical nature of the oath come to life, and when it did, punishment ensued. “Bodily correction” is an intriguing euphemism, and I was equally intrigued by the decision to punish offenses of the cerebral sort through bodily torture. Banishment from the colony, as sometimes happened, makes more sense—if you’re not there, no one can hear what you have to say. (Unless you write down your opinions and send them to your now far-away friends through the postal service. But wait! One would have to be educated. And have assured protection of one’s private letters…) Likewise, when the Virginia General Court bore through Richard Barnes’s tongue with an awl, it made (horribly gruesome) sense. Yet neither of these punishments are silencing the true culprit—the mind. It seems that American leaders subscribed to a physicalist view of the body—the mind is not a separate entity. The crimes, then, are of a bodily (specifically brain) sort, so they should be punished as such. Considering that the notion of Descartian dualism was circulating around at this time, and considering the pervasiveness of religion (where the mind/soul surely does exist) in America, too, I find the evolution of corporeal punishment for intellectual crimes fascinating. Perhaps dualism simply does not lend itself well to the realm of discipline and punishment. (I could easily bring in Foucault’s Discipline and Punish here, but Foucault? He was so last week.)

            Of course, for awhile, freedom of speech in regards to print culture was just as policed as public orations. William Berkeley writes that printing “divulged” incorrect opinions to the masses, thereby putting the media in a position it still holds, in a sense, today: a secret breaker. Even the postal system struggled with secret keeping—were people’s letters going to be opened? Was a letter to be just as public as a newspaper, if the government so chose? Starr particularly notes the Fourth Amendment’s inclusion of “papers”—papers should be secure, people should not have to send encoded letters.  

            The background information Starr provides on education came to life in the articles I found when searching the databases this week, particularly in regards to male versus female learning. One article—admittedly to the shock, the writer supposes, of his readers—recommends spinning as a useful undertaking for women. Another article gives credit to the progress that has been made in regards to female education, but also calls for the forward-moving action America used to propel the Revolution to continue to be applied to female education—women should be given more opportunities, a chance to rise higher in intellectual circles. Settling for the status quo leads only to stagnation, and America is a place of progress. The press really was a place people could freely and now fairly safely go to read or even write their own opinions in regards to education (and anything else).

Starr talks of schools as providers of “useful knowledge.” After his previous dismissal of Habermas, I was not surprised he attacked Marxist theories of the rise of education. I was also not surprised that he ended chapter three with another plug for American exceptionalism and the central role of politics in shaping the advances of communication and literacy. I was surprised—or maybe just sad—that, as part of an overview of education in the South, Starr did not mention UNC-Chapel Hill, the oldest public university in the nation and the only institution of its kind to give out degrees during the 18^th century. Carolina shows the investment people were willing to make not just in “useful knowledge”—how to read, write, do basic math—but in advanced knowledge, the kind of knowledge that can help to empower powerful, continued advancements in the nation. Without advanced knowledge, how would America continue to stand out? After all, it’s not easy being exceptional, Starr.