THE CRISIS of ACTION in NINETEENTH- CENTURY ENGLISH LITERATURE Markovits FM 3Rd.Qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page Ii Markovits FM 3Rd.Qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page Iii
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page i THE CRISIS OF ACTION IN NINETEENTH- CENTURY ENGLISH LITERATURE Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page ii Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page iii THE CRISIS OF ACTION IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY ENGLISH LITERATURE Stefanie Markovits The Ohio State University Press Columbus Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page iv Copyright © 2006 by The Ohio State University. All rights reserved. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Markovits, Stefanie, 1971– The crisis of action in nineteenth-century English literature / Stefanie Markovits. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978–0-8142–1040–6 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0–8142–1040–6 (cloth : alk. paper) ISBN-13: 978–0-8142–9118–4 (cd-rom) ISBN-10: 0–8142–9118-X (cd-rom) 1. English literature—19th century—History and criticism. 2. Literature and society—Great Britain—History—19th century. 3. National character- istics, British, in literature. 4. Character in literature I. Title. PR451.M35 2006 820.9'358—dc22 2006013139 Cover design by DesignSmith. Type set in Adobe Garamond Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials. ANSI Z39.48–1992. 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page v For Inga and Dick Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page vi Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page vii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS IX INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 1WORDSWORTH’S REVOLUTION: FROM THE BORDERERS TO THE WHITE DOE OF RYLSTONE 11 CHAPTER 2THE CASE OF CLOUGH: AMOURS DE VOYAGE AND THE CRISIS OF ACTION IN VICTORIAN VERSE 47 CHAPTER 3“THAT GIRL HAS SOME DRAMA IN HER”: GEORGE ELIOT’S PROBLEM WITH ACTION 87 CHAPTER 4HENRY JAMES’S NEFARIOUS PLOT: FORM AND FREEDOM IN THE HANDS OF THE MASTER 129 AFTERWORD: ADVENTURE FICTION 171 NOTES 179 WORKS CITED 225 INDEX 241 Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page viii Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page ix ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This book could not have been written without aid from a number of teachers, friends, and colleagues. The ideas in it go back to thoughts I was developing as an undergraduate, in particular in a seminar with Jonathan Lear on Aristotle’s Ethics and one on Georgic poetry led by Kevis Goodman. Joseph Bristow, Paul Fry, Pericles Lewis, Lucy Newlyn, Annabel Patterson, and Linda Peterson have read and commented helpfully on portions of the manuscript. Alexander Welsh has also been generous in sharing his thoughts with me. My friends and former fellow graduate stu- dents Molly Murray, Marco Roth, Charlotte Taylor, and Emily Wilson have sent me many a useful quotation. Sarah Bilston, not only a friend and colleague, but also a sister-in-law, has read and discussed drafts of my work and sympathized with my trials along the way. In the final stages, Sandy Crooms has been a wonderful editor to work with: friendly, prompt, and patient. I am especially thankful to my erstwhile supervisors and present colleagues, David Bromwich and Ruth Bernard Yeazell. To Ruth my debt is particularly great: her undergrad seminar on Jane Austen made me want to become an English professor; her rigor, intelligence, and kindness have kept me going since then. But above all, I would like to thank my fami- ly—Inga, Dick, Daniel, Benjamin, Julia, and Rebecca; my daughters, Nelly and Florence, born during the revision of the manuscript; and my husband, Ben. Their patience and support have been beyond measure. An earlier version of chapter 2 appeared in Nineteenth-Century Literature under the same title (in vol. 55, no. 4, pp. 445–78; © 2001 by the Regents of the University of California); I would like to thank the jour- nal and the University of California Press for permission to reprint this in extended and revised form. Similarly, an earlier version of chapter 3 appeared in Studies in English Literature, 1500–1900 as “George Eliot’s Problem with Action” (vol. 41, no. 4 [Autumn 2001]); it is reprinted in a much-extended form, with permission. Finally, I would like to thank the Frederick W. Hilles Fund of Yale University for providing assistance with the publication of this book. ix Markovits_FM_3rd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:24 PM Page x Markovitz_Intro_2nd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:25 PM Page 1 Introduction It was the dream itself enchanted me: Character isolated by a deed To engross the present and dominate memory —W. B. Yeats, “The Circus Animals’ Desertion” WE THINK OF the nineteenth century as an active age—the age of revolu- tions and railroads, of great exploration, colonial expansion, and the Great Exhibition. Yet reading the works of Romantic and Victorian writers, one notices what amounts to a crisis concerning the role of action in literature. The crisis manifests itself regularly in authors’ critical reflections: from Wordsworth’s claim in the Preface to Lyrical Ballads (1800) to have writ- ten a new kind of poetry in which “the feeling therein developed gives importance to the action and situation, and not the action and situation to the feeling”; to Arnold’s dismissal of Empedocles on Etna (1852) because in it “suffering finds no vent in action”; to Henry James’s discussion of “nefarious” plot in his Preface (1908) to The Portrait of a Lady (1881), in which he explained his decision to focus on character from the first, mak- ing an “ado” out of very little to do, replacing external action with “an ‘exciting’ inward life.”1 These writers were all responding to, and frequently reversing, the familiar dictum set out by Aristotle in his Poetics: 1 Markovitz_Intro_2nd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:25 PM Page 2 2 Introduction All human happiness or misery takes the form of action; the end for which we live is a certain kind of activity, not a quality. Character gives us qual- ities, but it is in our actions—what we do—that we are happy or the reverse. In a play accordingly they do not act in order to portray the Characters; they include the Characters for the sake of the action.2 In the nineteenth century, Aristotle’s statement about the relative impor- tance of action and character in drama was transformed into a critical bat- tleground. Writers involved in the struggle over these two categories effected a revolution in literature. In what follows, I will map out the ter- ritory of the conflict by focusing on four participants in the combat— William Wordsworth, Arthur Hugh Clough, George Eliot, and Henry James. I will trace the course of the debate from its origins in the sea of Romantic poetry, through the hills and valleys of Victorian narrative verse, up into the highlands of the great Victorian psychological novel. But I will also show how difficult the terrain proved to be and at what cost the ground was gained. I begin here with Aristotle because that is where so many of the writers of the nineteenth century, trained in the classical traditions of the univer- sities, themselves began. In Lothair (1870), when the General declares his conviction that “Action may not always be happiness, . but there is no happiness without action,” he demonstrates Disraeli’s discipleship under the great Greek philosopher.3 It is the very frequency of such allusions that first led me to see the problem of action as a central concern of the post-Romantics. The generic division of the novel into novels of plot and novels of charac- ter shows the dominance of the debate over action and character in the Victorian age; it was in this period that these two Aristotelian categories became indis- pensable tools of the critical trade. But they became so for a reason—or rather, for many reasons. So my story is also one of the hows and whys that lie behind the crisis in action. Aristotle’s belief in the primacy of action stands behind his description of the relative importance of character (ethos) and action (praxis) in drama. Because action is prior to character (rather than character to action), it is the more essential category. As his Nicomachean Ethics makes particularly clear, morality cannot be achieved without action: “of all the things that come to us by nature [such as the senses] we first acquire the potentiality and later exhibit the activity . ; but the virtues we get first by exercising them.”4 But his definition of character (at least in drama) as “that which reveals the moral purpose of the agents”5 also demonstrates his belief in the Markovitz_Intro_2nd.qxp 10/16/2006 3:25 PM Page 3 Introduction 3 lucidity of the moral life. We can see what a person is like by looking at what he or she does—“character isolated by a deed,” to use Yeats’s formu- lation.6 By the time Yeats and his generation were writing, though, such clar- ity had become the stuff of dreams. In the modern world, the relationship between the internal and external had gained significantly in complexity, clouding over the moral mechanism. The problem is one most famously addressed by Kant. His quest to under- stand the connections between things visible and invisible (phenomenal and noumenal) lies behind his most powerful thought. But in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), Kant described an immovable veil obscur- ing the face of virtue: “even the strictest examination can never lead us entirely behind the secret incentives, for, when moral worth is in question, it is not a matter of actions which one sees but of their inner principles which one does not see.”7 A seemingly benevolent deed may mask vicious purposes, and those purposes—rather than the actions they result in—determine the virtue of the agent.