1 Daemonic Allure: Material Experiences in Nineteenth
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DAEMONIC ALLURE: MATERIAL EXPERIENCES IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICAN POETRY A dissertation presented By William Bond to The Department of English In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy In the field of English Northeastern University Boston, Massachusetts April 2021 1 DAEMONIC ALLURE: MATERIAL EXPERIENCES IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICAN POETRY A dissertation presented By William Bond ABSTRACT OF DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the College of the Social Sciences and Humanities of Northeastern University April 2021 2 Abstract This dissertation examines a neglected “proto-aesthetic” strain of nineteenth-century American poetry. The major authors of this project – John Neal, Margaret Fuller, Adah Isaacs Menken, and Sidney Lanier – articulate both an attraction to nature and an awareness of how the material world exceeds human powers of conceptualization. Their work is the core of a tradition of American poetry in which the contemplation of nature results in ambivalent and ephemeral experiences of attraction while the asymmetry between material nature and the human mind is foregrounded. This tradition represents a departure from the Romantic organicist aesthetics of Transcendentalism. In tracing this poetic current, Daemonic Allure offers an alternative history of post-Kantian American aesthetics. I examine the relationship articulated by these writers between the a-conceptual contemplation of nature and experiences of autonomy from aesthetic consensus. In contrast to Kantian and post-Kantian aesthetic theory, these poets imagine encounters with the alterity of nature that are unshareable. The a-conceptual reflective encounter with nature grounds not a disinterested subject position and model for universal experience (as it does for Kant), but a mode of a-social experience, freed from aesthetic theory’s demand for assent. I argue that this a-social nature-aesthetic has been largely invisible to Americanists and Romantic scholars because of the prevailing influence of organicist and post-organicist models for nature-representation. In the counter-Romantic poetry examined in Daemonic Allure, the unmooring of the aesthetic contemplation of nature from the demand for social agreement has two consequences. Nature’s innate nonhuman value becomes visible and a critique of the naturalization of social relations is instigated. 3 Acknowledgements My doctoral work has only been possible because of support I have received throughout the process from numerous colleagues, mentors, and friends. In the first place, I owe a huge debt of gratitude to my dissertation committee. I am enormously grateful to Theo Davis, my dissertation chair – for her sustained mentorship, guidance, generosity, and belief in the project, and for reading numerous chapter drafts. I must thank Elizabeth Maddock Dillon for her critical insight as well as for her advocacy on behalf of graduate student labour. I want to sincerely thank Sari Altschuler for her unwavering support and guidance throughout the writing process. This research began during a fellowship centered on the Margaret Fuller Transnational Archive. The support and critical engagement of my colleagues at the MFTA, Sonia DiLoreto, Sarah Payne, Elizabeth Maddock Dillon, and Ryan Cordell, was crucial in the formative stages of this project. I am especially indebted to the dialogue and critical feedback afforded me by the community of scholars at the 2018 Futures of American Studies Institute, and especially to Colleen Glenney Boggs and Sean Pears for their generous and incisive feedback on early chapter drafts. I owe huge thanks to Lori Lefkowitz and the fellows at the Northeastern Humanities Center who have been an inspirational and supportive community during 2020-2021: thank you to Heather Streets-Salter, Elizabeth Maddock Dillon, Elicia Cousins, Bilge Erten, Rachel Rosenbloom, Shalanda Baker, Danny Faber, and Laura Kuhl. I also want to extend my gratitude to the English department at Northeastern – I am lucky to have been part of a large and dynamic community of scholars, critics, friends, and writing partners while working on this dissertation. Special thanks to Arsalan ul Haq, Nicole Keller, David Medina, Liz Polcha, Param Ajmera, Greg Palermo, Eric Sepenoski, Jonathan Osbourne, and Kate Simpkins, all of whom contributed to my thinking about this project through dialogue, 4 critique, and friendship. I want to thank the English department’s American Literatures and Cultures Group for generous feedback on an early version of the second chapter. Thank you also to Heather Hardy and Melissa Daigle for their consistent support throughout the dissertation process. Support from outside of Northeastern has been critical to the composition of this dissertation. I want to thank Dorri Beam whose mentorship and encouragement early in my graduate career was fundamental to my decision to pursue American studies. I want to thank Lynde Folsom whose support through several stages of the project was critical to its development. Thank you to Michael Kalisch and Chris Stoj whose insights along the way have proved crucial to my thinking about American Romanticism. Thank you also to Patrick Riedy whose generosity and expertise on American poetics have been a key influence on this work. Finally, I want to thank Stephanie Lamprea for her support and belief in the project which have been fundamental. Lastly, I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my parents and family, whose love and support throughout the dissertation process has been unwavering. 5 Table of Contents Abstract............................................................................................................................................3 Acknowledgments............................................................................................................................4 Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................6 Introduction......................................................................................................................................7 Chapter One: “The Weight of Prophecy”: Nature and the Nation in John Neal’s Poetry.............27 Chapter Two: “A Force Feared Yet Loved”: Margaret Fuller’s Daemonic..................................76 Chapter Three: “Let us Live Alone”: Adah Isaacs Menken’s Aesthetics of Genius...................110 Chapter Four: “Rhythmic Atoms”: Sidney Lanier’s Ecopoetics.................................................164 Bibliography................................................................................................................................214 6 Introduction I. Poetry, as Jonathan Bate puts it, is “ecological in two senses.” On the one hand, poetry is that special kind of language which “restores” us to our home in nature. On the other hand, it consists merely in a “melancholy recognizing”1 that we are trapped in language and alienated from nature. This is Romantic nature poetry’s perennial impasse. Either poetic language can provide the means to overcome what Paul De Man calls the “eternal separation” of the “mind” from “the originary simplicity of nature”2 or, it is merely a self-conscious emblem of the fall into language which alienated the human subject from that “originary simplicity” in the first place. Romantic critics (like Bate) and many of those scholars now engaged in the growing field of ecopoetics have often argued optimistically for the first option: poetry alleviates our modern ailment of alienation and overcomes the separation between mind and nature. Skeptical and deconstructionist critics (like De Man) take the other view: the Romantic claim to make the “presence”3 of nature in some sense immediately available to us is self-defeating and the project is riven by contradiction. 1. Jonathan Bate, The Song of The Earth (London: Picador, 2001), 281. 2. Paul De Man, “The Dead-End of Formalist Criticism,” trans. Wlad Godzich, in Blindness and Insight: Essays in the Rhetoric of Contemporary Criticism, 2nd ed. rev., (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1983), 229-245; 239. Bate himself cites this passage from De Man, perhaps surprisingly, as part of his argument in favor of ecopoetics (Bate, The Song of the Earth, 75). What Bate and De Man agree on is that the “separation” between mind and nature is a major cause of Romantic (and, by extension, modern) melancholy and alienation. Where they differ is on the question of whether the separation can be overcome. 3. Paul De Man argues, in his influential reading of Hölderlin, poetic language registers an “ambivalent aspiration toward a forgotten presence.” The aspiration, for De Man is self-defeating because poetic language (like all language) “is always constitutive, able to posit regardless of presence but, by the same token, unable to give a foundation to what it posits except as an intent of consciousness.” (Paul De Man, “Intentional Structure of the Romantic Image,” in The Rhetoric of Romanticism [New York: Columbia University Press, 1984], 1-18; 6). The language of presence derives from Heidegger (against whom De Man is writing here). For Heidegger, artworks are distinguished from other kinds of tools because they possess “self-sufficient presence.” Martin Heidegger, “The Origin of the Work of Art,” in Poetry, Language, Thought, trans. Albert Hofstadter (New York: Harper Perennial, 1971),