PRINT and the CULTURES of CRITICISM by MICHAEL GAVIN A
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
PRINT AND THE CULTURES OF CRITICISM by MICHAEL GAVIN A Dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in English written under the direction of Jonathan Kramnick and approved by ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ ________________________ New Brunswick, New Jersey May, 2010 ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Title By MICHAEL GAVIN Dissertation Director: Jonathan Kramnick Print and the Cultures of Criticism reconsiders Restoration and eighteenth-century literary criticism as a material practice of writing and publication. In prefaces, pamphlets, libels, and mock-epics, poets used print as an instrument of literary rivalry and in the process gave shape to a cultural field of poetry and criticism. Through tracing their controversies, I revise the consensus view that early criticism disciplined readers with a disinterested discourse of polite taste. Rather, criticism was forged in a turbulent print marketplace where authors’ commercial and political interests often collided with their intellectual and professional ambitions. Placing factionalism at the center of criticism’s history suggests that literary ideas proliferated through conflict and became most powerful when subject to the most vocal objection. My project focuses on moments of literary controversy to explore how printed disputes shifted as they moved across the still-fluid genres of critical writing. From 1660 to the first decades of the eighteenth century, sporadic debates between playwrights had evolved into a widely shared practice of literary rivalry. The success of John Dryden’s heroic dramas sparked heated debates over prosody and dramatic form: opinions came ii out in play performances, verse prologues and epilogues, prefatory essays, pamphlets, and eventually manuscript satires. By the turn of the century, poets, critics, playwrights, scholars, booksellers, and even readers were seen to engage in a special kind of combat— the mock-epic battles of “Parnassus”—that divided them into factions while binding them together in a common project of public dispute. I then turn to writers who, in very different ways, attempted to insulate poetry from the turmoil of literary factionalism. Anne Finch and Alexander Pope concluded that modern criticism had become irredeemably dysfunctional. Critics haunt their poems with ambient violence. Through these case studies, I argue against the prevailing notion that early criticism regulated culture while dictating to a passive readership of anonymous book-buyers. Taking a broader view that accounts for the wide range of genres at critics’ disposal suggests that few had the clout to impose their judgments and that literary value emerged most powerfully from below. iii Acknowledgement and Dedication I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank my advisors for their tireless advocacy through every step of my graduate career. Inspired direction and careful reading on their parts has been instrumental to the success and completion of my project. This dissertation is dedicated to them. Support for my graduate work was provided by the Rutgers University Department of English, the Mellon Foundation, Rutgers School of the Arts and Sciences, the Rutgers Center for Cultural Analysis, and the Rutgers Writing Program. I am especially indebted to the CCA for funding my participation in the year-long program, “New Media Literacies, Gutenberg to Google,” and to the Huntington Library and Botanical Gardens, for assisting my archival research. An earlier version of the conclusion will be published by SEL: Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 in their Summer 2010 issue, and a version of chapter four has been accepted for publication in ELH: English Literary History. iv Table of Contents Abstract of the Dissertation ii Acknowledgement and Dedication iv List of Tables vi List of Illustrations vii Introduction: Literary Factionalism in England, 1660-1730 1 Chapter One: Writing Print Cultures Past: How the history of literary 25 criticism can contribute to the history of the book Chapter Two: Dramatic Criticism and the Print Marketplace, 1664-1675 51 Chapter Three: Politics of Parnassus 118 Chapter Four: Critics and Criticism in the Poetry of Anne Finch 167 Chapter Five: The Dunciad and the Place of Criticism in the History of Print 206 Conclusion: Boswell & Co.: the Afterlife of Literary Factionalism 233 Bibliography 255 Curriculum Vitae 269 v Lists of tables Table 1. New playbooks published by Henry Herringman (1656-1678) 64 Table 2. New plays published by Thomas Dring (1667-1675) 81 Table 3. New Plays Published by William Cademan (1669-1677) 83 Table 4. Pamphlet Criticism, 1668-1675 103 vi List of illustrations Figure 1. 106 Figure 2. 108 Figure 3. 116 Figure 4. 224 vii 1 Michael Gavin Rutgers University Literary Factionalism in England, 1660-1730 Print and the Cultures of Criticism reconsiders Restoration and eighteenth- century literary criticism as a material practice of writing and publication. In prefaces, pamphlets, libels, and mock-epics, poets used print as an instrument of literary rivalry and in the process gave shape to a cultural field of poetry and criticism. Through tracing their controversies, I revise the consensus view that early criticism disciplined readers with a disinterested discourse of polite taste. Rather, criticism was forged in a turbulent print marketplace where authors’ commercial and political interests often collided with their intellectual and professional ambitions. Placing factionalism at the center of criticism’s history suggests that literary ideas proliferated through conflict and became most powerful when subject to the most vocal objection. I focus throughout on moments of literary controversy to explore how printed disputes shifted as they moved across the still-fluid genres of critical writing. From 1660 to the first decades of the eighteenth century, sporadic debates between playwrights had 2 evolved into a widely shared practice of literary rivalry. For example, the success of John Dryden’s heroic dramas, especially The Conquest of Granada (1672), sparked heated debates over prosody and dramatic form: opinions came out in play performances, verse prologues and epilogues, prefatory essays, pamphlets, and eventually manuscript satires. Such debates gave the literary field a sense of itself. By the turn of the century, poets, critics, playwrights, scholars, booksellers, and even readers were seen to engage in a special kind of combat—the mock-epic battles of “Parnassus”—that divided them into factions while binding them together in a common project of public dispute. In England, I argue, the idea that literature and criticism occupied a peculiar cultural space predated by many decades the idea that literature was a peculiar kind of discourse. Carving poetry into social parts gave literature a social whole. Other writers who attempted to insulate poetry from the turmoil of literary factionalism. Anne Finch and Alexander Pope concluded that modern criticism had become irredeemably dysfunctional; in their view, destructive back-biting had perverted the public sphere to the point that disparagement was now the only trustworthy barometer of literary prestige. Critics haunt their poems with ambient violence. I analyze Finch’s poetry as it appears in fair-copy manuscripts, published miscellanies, and a print edition to show how she cultivates a readership free from the contravening disruptions of critics and satirists. For the Scriblerians such disruptions could only be folded into burlesque narratives, a technique most famously and fantastically encapsulated on the pages of The Dunciad Variorum (1729). Through these case studies, I argue against the prevailing notion that early criticism regulated culture while dictating to a passive readership of anonymous book-buyers, a conclusion scholars draw almost exclusively from the 3 periodicals of Joseph Addison and Richard Steele. Taking a broader view that accounts for the wide range of genres at critics’ disposal suggests that few had the clout to impose their judgments and that literary value emerged most powerfully from below. My research extends a line of inquiry following in the footsteps of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu and literary theorist John Guillory, who have argued that tracing the history of transformations in the “field of cultural production” is the best way to unlock a history of artistic or literary value.1 During the Restoration and early eighteenth century, the book trade was the most important cultural institution of criticism.2 Book history offers useful insights to the historian of criticism. In the past decade or so, scholars have shown the book trade to be central to, for example, canon-formation,3 early modern science,4 and the Scottish Enlightenment.5 For criticism in particular, such a view is especially useful because so much critical writing was conducted between authors who shared this cultural space, often publishing through the same booksellers. I find 1 Pierre Bourdieu, The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature, ed. Randal Johnson (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); John Guillory, Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993). 2 For the argument that the book trade should be considered in this light, see Thomas Bonnell, “Speaking of Institutions and