University of Nebraska Press

Authorial Affiliations, or, the Clubbing and Collaborating of Brander Matthews Author(s): Susanna Ashton Source: symplokē, Vol. 7, No. 1/2, Affiliation (1999), pp. 165-187 Published by: University of Nebraska Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40550457 Accessed: 25-10-2015 14:26 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Nebraska Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to symplokē.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Authorial Affiliations, or, the Clubbing and Collaborating of Brander Matthews

Susanna Ashton

Boththe friends and enemiesof Brander Matthews attested to his sociability.Clayton Hamilton wrote in 1929 thatMatthews had a "geniusin thegentle art of friendship" (86). NicholasMurray Butler, Presidentof ColumbiaUniversity, observed that Matthews "knew everybodyand everybodyknew him" and MarkTwain even jokingly inscribedone of his books, "To B. M. From his only friend."1 AlthoughMatthews counted among his friendsmany prominent critics,writers, and politicians,(especially notable was his intimate friendshipwith ), his congenialityand relentless socializingwas notpart of a programof professional networking. For Matthews,the ability to socializewas partof his identityas a specific kindof cultural figure, that of a professionalman of letters. As the culturalprestige accorded the romanticand solitaryauthor waned, Matthewscame to embodya phenomenonthat assignedcultural prestigeto thepractice of authorship as an activitymost suited for men who could "mix." Throughhis collaborativefiction, critical essays, indefatigablesocializing, and, most importantly,his exchangeswith other writers and literaryfigures, Brander Matthews drewtogether conflicting theories about the practiceof writingin orderto bolster the vision of romantic authorship for what he saw as the new and resolutelyunromantic twentieth-century literary marketplace. BranderMatthews was seen as one ofthe last Genteelliterary criticsin America. His lifeand workepitomized the last standof

*Bothquoted in "BranderMatthews, Educator" (10).

© symplokë Vol. 7, No. 1-2(1999) ISSN 1069-0697,165-187.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 166 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations writerswho sought the culturalstatus of "theartist" even as they participatedin themarketplace. In responseto theProgressive era's emphasisupon professionalization, many writers such as Matthews triedto place the nineteenthcentury "man of letters"into a more moderncontext, creating, in effect,a "professional"man ofletters. The clubbing,conversing, and collaboratingthat Matthews engaged in throughouthis life were all part of an attemptto promote authorshipas the natural outpouringof an almost spiritual commonalitybetween individuals. Writersof this periodwho embracedthe collaborationistparadigm, managed to retain a romanticunderstanding of authorship as solitary,even though the solitary nature of their vocation paradoxically lent them commonality.In contrast,writers more commonly identified with thisperiod of American letters such as TheodoreDreiser, Stephen Crane,Kate Chopin,or the manyauthors who went on to join the moreradical factions of the Authors League of America, did not share the literaryor social values of the "genteel"establishment. They exemplifieda literary individualism, one thatgave them a different kindof commonality. These writers saw thatthey had in commonan identitypredicated upon a particularkind of marketplace status. The tensionsbetween these two visions of literaryidentity eventuallycreated the great schism that split the Authors League of Americain 1916 overwhether or notto affiliatewith the American Federationof Labor. Whilethe Progressive writers saw affiliationas a logicalexpression of commonalitywith other groups of writers whoseidentities also wereconstructed by marketplace relations, the genteelwriters (led by BranderMatthews and his AuthorsClub cronies)opposed such affiliation because they saw authorialidentity as predicatedupon a sharedreverence for romantic individualism. The collaborationsof the 1890sattest to a sociabilityof authorship promotedto reap the advantagesof a collectiveidentity without sacrificingthe patricianindividualism of the nineteenth-century writer.Matthews' participation in collaborativewriting was partof a concertedeffort to promotea visionof authorship that would allow theromance of inspiration to be wellpaid. Being"well paid" was a relativeterm. Matthews was theonly son of a millionairewho lost his fortuneduring the panic of 1873. Enoughmoney remained, however, so thatMatthews never had to relyon incomeearned as eitherauthor or professor. As his oldfriend ClaytonHamilton put it, Matthews "could practice the profession of a manof letters without ever being required to earnhis livingby his authorship"(84). Matthews,moreover, "was able to flourishhis professionof authorship as a sortof cane - an ornamentalinstrument of elegance whichwas not requiredseriously for support" (84). Matthews'spectacular success as a "Man Of Letters"well intothe

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokê 167 twentiethcentury, demands a carefulunderstanding of just how "authorship"was involvedin such a title,for Matthews was no romanticessayist of the early nineteenth century tradition. He may have"flourished" authorship as an accessorybut he was able to do so preciselybecause ofhis professionalism.He lived,by choice,as a professionalman of letters- a fact his friendHamilton fails to appreciate.By conductinghis lifeas a professionalman ofletters, Matthews'career marks a curious developmentin the cultural understandingof authorship. Professional men of letters used their skills to participatein the marketplace,but their marketplace activityconsisted in thetrade of symbolic capital as muchas it didin monetaryexchange. To be a manof letters was, for the writers who aspired to sucha role,to possess a loyaltyto conservativetraditions and a certain culturalversatility. In 1908 BarrettWendall defined the "Man of Letters"as a manwho specialized in notspecializing in anything:"It is theprivilege of the man of letters that he mayventure on occasion to discussmatters in whichhe makesno pretenseto be expert"(3). Expertise,at the turn-of-the-century,was an idea weighteddown withsignificarne Declaring oneself an expertwas to partakein a modernmarketplace culture - one in whichexpertise was equated withprofessionalism. According to Wendall'sdefinition, to be a man ofletters was almostprecisely the opposite of being a "professional." To be "professional"has historicallymeant that one definedand honeda sphereof knowledge that would then become increasingly esotericand specialized.A manof letters, with his broadknowledge andvague authority, would necessarily elude any professional status. WhileChristopher Wilson has demonstratedin his studyThe Labor of Words:Literary Professionalism in theProgressive Era, that a "professional"writer at the turnof the century defined himself in relationto marketplacesforces, Wilson does not fully account for how symboliccapital was exchangedin this marketplace. To be a professionalman of letters, as mensuch as BranderMatthews sought tobe, meant that one was professionalinasmuch as onetook part in a discourseessentially inaccessible to the mass public. A doctor,for example,is understoodas professionalin part because he has attendedmedical school and can employincomprehensible medical jargon. Fora manof letters to professionalize,therefore, he needsto make sure the "letters" appear difficultto master. The professionalizingofa man ofletters assumes, moreover, that there are otherprofessional men of letters who have createdstandards by whichthe professionalizing task can be judged.As ThomasStrychacz explainsin his studyof the relationshipbetween early twentieth centuryliterature and professionalism,ifto becomeprofessional is to masteran esotericknowledge, it "presupposesthe formationof a

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 168 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations

'communityofcompetence* - a groupof experts distinguished by their shared competencein a particularbody of knowledge"(24). Professionalizingdemands the grouping of individuals as muchas it demandsthe grouping of knowledges. By constructinga career aroundclubbing and collaborating, BranderMatthews assembled individuals in muchthe same way that he assembledideas. Tacitlyopen, yet tautlyelite, the circles Matthewsinvolved himself in perpetuateda discourseof literary authorshipfraught with anxieties and hopes about what a professionalizedliterary world could be. The many literary collaborationsthat Matthews initiated underscored his beliefthat by bandingtogether one mightdefine a practiceof writing.Even if collaborativewriting or even cooperativesocializing wouldn't necessarilycreate art, it woulddefine the practice in whichart could be created.This view was proudlyelitist. The extentsto whichlate nineteenth-centuryindividuals and organizationswent to exclude anyonethey saw as differentis indicativeof the extremepressures thesegroups felt themselves to be under. By assemblingtogether in orderto exclaimhow they didn't really need to do so; mensuch as BranderMatthews created a visionof authorship that was, in itsown contradictorymanner, unique to the turn of the century.

Disappearance of theEnemy Matthewswrote several major critical works including French Dramatistsof the NineteenthCentury (1881), The Developmentof Drama (1903), Molière, His Life and His Work(1910) and Shakespeareas Playwright(1913). He was a Professorof Dramatic Literatureat ColumbiaUniversity from 1892-1924 and was generally acknowledgedto be the foremostexpert on dramatictheory and criticismin the UnitedStates in the last part of the nineteenth century.Matthews' position at Columbiawas createdespecially for himand he used thatProfessorship to teachcreative writing and to promotethe, then radical, conceptof dramaticliterature as a legitimatefield of study. Foran individualwho later came to represent all thatwas stodgy and genteelin academiclife, he was somewhatrebellious in his early career. His Introductionto theStudy of American Literature (1896) sold a quarterof a millioncopies and was one of the veryfirst textbooksin the fieldof AmericanLiterature. His essay on the "Philosophyof the Short-Story"(1901) is generallyagreed to be the firstsignificant analysis of the short story as a literarygenre and his otheressays on a widerange of literary subjects (including "The Art

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 169 and Mysteryof Collaboration") reveal a broad-basedknowledge and expertisein a huge varietyof fieldsfrom theories of plagiarism, speechmaking,clowns, bookbinding, and simplifiedspelling, to HippolyteTaine, Edgar Allen Poe, Cervantesand the popularityof Molière. His storycollection, Vignettes of Manhattan(1894) was frequentlyacclaimed as theone ofthe best urban local colorstudies writtenup to thattime. By one scholar'scount Matthews wrote 65 books(which included three novels, many collections of short stories and a numberof plays). Eightof his plays wereproduced and he managedto findthe time to editfifteen volumes of poetry, biography, and literarycriticism (Westbrook 272-280). His literaryscholarship earned him the FrenchLegion of Honor in 1907, and he was promotedto honoraryofficer of the Legionin 1922. His critical writingson an immensevariety of topics led WilliamDean Howellsto praiseMatthews' work as betterthan that of any other critic of your generationamong us" (qtd.in Oliver,95). His play,"The Gold Mine," written with his friendGeorge Jessop, supposedlysparked 's first interest in thetheater. The narratorin TheodoreDreiser's novel Sister Carrie(1901) observes with some rancorthat "the play was one of those drawing-room concoctionsin whichcharmingly overdressed ladies and gentlemen sufferthe pangs of love and jealousy amid gilded surroundings. Such bonmots are everenticing to thosewho have all theirdays longed for such materialsurroundings and have neverhad themgratified" (248). Dreiser'suse ofMatthews and Jessop'splay was buta passing referencein SisterCarrie, but it spokevolumes. Carrie's appreciation for "A Gold Mine" was a testamentto her own naivete and intellectuallimitations. Thanks to the work done by ,H. L. Mencken,George Santayana, and RandolphBourne, even an oblique referenceto Brander Matthews immediately conveyed the image of an effete,posturing, and outdated understandingof literature and its construction.For thesecritics and manyother early twentieth century pundits, Matthews came to embodyall thatwas wrongwith literary culture. Yet evenas villain, he hasn'taged well. Contemporaryscholars overlook even his straw- man statusbut theirvery neglect actually testifies to the singular weightMatthews held during his lifetime. This ratherextraordinary "absence is presence"argument is predicatedupon an understandingof what preciselyit was about Matthewsthat so irritatedthe groupof writersMatthews1 friend StuartSherman referred to as attackinglike "Mohawks" and whatis gained by the effacementof Matthews'career (251). Matthews1 culturalroles as professor,pundit, agitator, stick-in-the-mud and irritantworked together to consolidateconsiderable power. The phrase "workingtogether" is key here because I see Matthews1

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1 70 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations conceptionof the role of the intellectual as intimatelyrelated to the culturalconsolidation ofvarious literary institutions ofthe period. Figuresof far less consequencethan Matthews appear throughout scholarshipof the ProgressiveEra. The majorbooks of American literaryhistory that chronicle the turn of the century omit Matthews even fromtheir canon of genteelconservatives. In The Literary Historyof the UnitedStates, Spiller utterlyignores Matthews. Larzar Ziff,in The American1890s, devotes a chapterto genteel writerstitled, "Being Old Fashioned,"but he nevernotes Matthews1 famein thefield - a manwhose front page NY Timesobituary called him"One of the last ofthe 'eminent Victorians' of American origin" ("BranderMatthews, Educator" 10). ThomasBender's New York Intellectmakes only passing references to Matthewsand tellingly refersto himas a "Columbiaprofessor-about-town": evidence of just howhard it was topin down what Matthews ever did to makehimself notable(223). EvenLawrence Oliver's excellent study of Matthews, BranderMatthews, Theodore Roosevelt, and thePolitics of American Literature,1880-1920, attends more to the traditionof genteel progressivismand politics than it does to the internecine relationshipswhich characterized literary authorship of the period.2 Matthewshas essentiallydisappeared from the literary and historical canon. To the manyyoung moderns who railed against Matthews' literary,social, and culturalpolitics, Matthews' wealth of friendships meant that his powerfulconnections allowed him to promotea conservativeand outdated understandingof literature. His friendshipsgave him the social legitimacythat allowed him to promotea fundamentaldisdain for literature as whatBourne called a "comprehensionoflife" (235). This is a complexaccusation. In his essay "On WorkingToo Much and WorkingToo Hard" (1916), for example,Matthews admits that the pace of compositionis no measureof a writer'sskill but he doessay, Thereare now, there always have been and there always willbe, men who write too fast and who write too much, becausethey are writingchiefly with a desireto make money.These men write themselves out and they write themselvesdown; and there is noneed to waste words over whatthey do and howthey do it. Theyare beneath criticism,not because they write too much and too fast or chieflyfor money, but because they are whatthey are.

^Oliver(1992). I wouldlike to call attentionhere to the greatdebt my essay owes to thecareful research and analysisfound in Oliver'swritings.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokê 171

Theirfailure is notdue to a defectivemethod; itis dueto a deficientcharacter. (214)

With sweepingstatements such as this one, which essentially correlatesjournalism with corruption, Matthews no doubtalienated boththe writers who considered themselves journalists and themany writerswho had been journalists at onepoint in theircareers. In his essay "Literatureas a Profession"(1899), Matthews observed:"the boundaries of the professionof literature are not a littlevague. Is a collegeprofessor a man of letters? Is a lecturer?Is an editor?And, more particularly, is a journalista literaryman?" (194). He generouslyconcluded that editors, college professors and lecturerswere all literarymen - notbecause they wrote more than journalists,or even because the quality of their productwas intrinsicallybetter than that of a newspaperhack. Rather,it was the intentand attitudeheld whenthey sat downto writethat really mattered.The productof their intent was less significantthan the intentitself: "the work of the journalist, as such,is forthe day only; thework of the manof letters, as such,is forall time"(196) purred Matthews.While Matthews admitted that there was occasionally literarywriting in newspapersand non-literarywriting in whatwere supposedto be literarybooks, to him the mediumof publication matteredless thanthe temporal goals a writerhad foreach wordhe wrote. As Matthews'reasoning went, the producta man of letters producedwas less significantthan the manner in whichhe produced it- an idea quite in keepingwith Matthews' formulation of the "professionalman of letters." For another common standard by which to measureprofessionalism was production.To be a professionalin thelate nineteenthcentury meant that your labor did notresult in tangible or easily quantifiableproducts. Creating a literary reputationbased uponwitticisms and unpublishedsatirical poems, forexample, would be a perfectlyrespectable "production" of a professionalman of letters. A professionalman of letters might well die withlittle to showfor his lifein literature,but during his lifetime he wouldhave the moraland culturalclout that journalists or non- literarywriters would lack. Thusto theyoung moderns, Matthews was a formidableenemy. Theirdismissals of him are fraughtwith the realizationthat their own culturalclout was verydirectly threatened by his presence. BurtonRoscoe, for example, believed Matthews wrote "with the crabbedgeneralities of the merelygarrulous and disgruntled"and that Matthewsoften sounded like a "provincialeditorial writer engrossedin anotherWither Are We Drifting?'lamentation" (223). One of Matthews'major offenses was, forRoscoe, that he made

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 172 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations pronouncementsabout contemporary literary culture without reading "the columnsof the moreprogressive reviews and newspapers," paperswhich were the bread and butterof criticssuch as Roscoe (223). Not all youngwriters felt threatened by men like Matthews. EllenGlasgow, for one, characterized the grand old literary men who had survivedinto the twentiesas genialbuffers, unaware of their waningstatus: "the more I saw ofthese agreeable authors, the more I likedthem. The trouble was thatI thoughtof them as oldgentlemen, and theythought of themselves as old masters"(141). This sortof bemusedbut friendlytolerance was likelya commonassessment of Matthewsand his crowdduring the 1920s. The professionalizedmen ofletters were viewed as ineffectualgenteel writers of the nineteenth centuryrather than as the relativelysavvy chameleons they often were. While shored up in universitiesand clubrooms,these "agreeable authors" nonetheless managed to dominate prize committeesand popularmagazines such as the SaturdayEvening Post. Crowingover their demise was thusan importantrhetorical movefor the manyyounger writers who could, in part,bring about suchdemise by pronouncing it prematurely. It is perhapsthis feeling of unacknowledged hubris that causes thenervous petulance apparent in thewritings of many of Matthews' critics.Even Mencken begrudgingly acknowledged Matthews' status. In an attemptto getMatthews' signature on a petitionprotesting the censorshipof Dreiser'snovel, The Genius,Mencken wrote, "the signatureof such an old ass as BranderMatthews would be wortha greatdeal" (Riggio 25). One mustrecall too, that 's assured acerbityspouted from a thirty-two-yearold criticwhile Matthews,who was in his eightiesduring the 1920s, was busy collectinghonorary awards and givingpublic lectures right up until his deathin 1929. In short,Matthews was partof a literaryand culturalphenomenon that was tremendouslypowerful well into the 1920s. When Sinclair Lewis, in acceptingthe Nobel Prize for literaturein 1930,railed against both academism and the genteel writerswho had previouslydominated American life and letters,he was quitedirectly attacking men like Matthews.3 Yet Lewis'railing

3Lewis recountsmeeting an unidentifiedBrander Matthews-ish professor who was a famousmember of the AmericanAcademy of Letters and a muchpublished essayistof the old school. Lewis recalledwith disdain, "from these essays I learned,as a boy,that there is somethingvery important and spiritualabout catchingfish, if you have no need of doing so" (10). Brander Matthews may well have been on the committeeto award the PulitzerPrize in the 1920s. Membershipwas keptsecret but the memberswere largelydrawn from . Lewis, who had turned downthe PulitzerPrize in 1926 as a public show of disgustfor the values and taste

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 173 was donefrom the safety of the Nobel platform. The factthat Lewis feltthe need to devotehis Nobelacceptance speech to attackingthe professionalizedmen of letters stands as testament to the tremendouspower of men such as Matthews,shored up as theywere in universities,literary societies, and club rooms.

AnEminently Clubbable Man

Even a partiallist ofMatthews' club activities is numbing.He helped establishthe Player'sClub, the Dunlap Society,and the Author'sClub, while he was an enthusiasticmember of the Kinsmen, the GrolierClub, the CenturyClub, the Nineteenth-Century Club, theSavile Club, the Rabelais Club and theBritish Athenaeum.4 His workwith professional associations often overlapped into his clubbing activities. He helpeddevelop the NationalInstitute of Arts and Lettersand servedas its presidentfrom 1912-1914. He workedto organizethe National Institute's offshoot, the American Academy of Artsand Letters,and servedas its chancellorfrom 1920-1924. From 1910-1911 he served as President of the Modern Language Association. This kindof elite standing distressed Bourne and his crowd. It notonly gave Matthews'pronouncements tremendous clout, but it also puthim in theposition of defining a professionwhich seemed to excludethe iconoclastic,independent writer who came to dominate AmericanCriticism in thetwenties and thirties.These later critics didn'tobject to his clubbing;they objected to the wayin whichhis clubbingexcluded what they saw as theirprofession. It was common, forinstance, for the largerNew York Societyclubs such as the Metropolitan,to includein theircharters a formalprohibition of any journalistsor newspaperwriters on the premises,much less as members(Porzelt 4). The prohibitionwas ostensiblyto prohibit gossip columnistsfrom gaining access to high societyevents, but had broaderimplications as well. Evenif they were not on thepremises in a formalcapacity, journalists were not of an acceptablesocial standingto minglewith the elite. Thiswas no surprise,of course, for membershipin thesesocial clubs was highlyelite and expensive.But forclubs whichwere supposedlyorganized around professional promotedby the Pulitzercommittee, would likely have knownBrander Matthews and his circlequite well. TTherewas greatinconsistency about the use of an apostrophe"s" at the end of Author'sClub, even in the publicationsauthorized by the club. I have standardizedall referencesto theclub throughout this essay.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1 74 Susanna Ashton AuthorialAffiliations affiliations,such as the Author'sClub whichMatthews helped found in 1882, excludingreporters and journalists became a much more controversialact and indicatedmuch of the tensionsurrounding the ways in which the burgeoningprofession of writing was being defined. The club scene in New York was not one to be negotiatedby the unwary. The late nineteenthcentury was the boom periodfor New York clubs, and the intricate social hierarchies of these clubs constantly shifted. Clubs could be formed and dissolved very suddenlyand the competitionto belongto the mostprestigious clubs was tremendous. The changinglandscape of the Club scene is well illustratedby a look at the rosterof names listed in Rossiter'sClub Men of New York,a book firstpublished in 1893 which was the "Who'sWho" of the fabulouslyrich. Rossiter'slisted 119 clubs in its firstissue, and in 1901 it listed 157 clubs withover 38,000 members (Porzelt3). The clubs springingup all over New York were part ofthe world in which Brander Matthews had been raised. He had the social connectionsand certainlythe culturalleanings to have made himself quite at homein the wealthiestclubs ofNew York. He was, afterall, the ex-millionairewho Lionel Trillingreports "rode a shiningcoupe drawnby two fat horses"to Columbia fromhis luxuriousWest End Avenue home (24). Yet the clubs Matthews was a memberof and helped foundwere, on the whole,not the mostexclusive clubs of the uppersociety set. Theywere, rather, the mostexclusive "intellectual" clubs foundedupon shared interestsrather than mere wealth and bloodline. The Century Club, for example, probably the most prestigiousof his New York associations, was predicated upon an appreciationof arts and letters. Foundedin 1847 by WilliamCullen Bryant,the CenturyClub quicklydeveloped into what called "the mostunspeakably respectable club in the United States, perhaps" (88). This excruciatinglyelite Club counted most of the prominentmale writersand paintersof New York as its members, but even among such glitterati,Matthews held a special role. One account of The Century during this era, for instance, described Matthewsas "almostthe professionaljester of the Club" competing forthis title with JohnKendrick Bangs, HenryVan Dyke, Edward Eggleston,and the manyother genteel humorists who regularly dined together(Commager 70). Most of the otherclubs Matthewsbelonged to were considerably less posh and well established than The Century. Some, like the Rabelais Club in London were just drinkingand dininggroups that wouldregularly gather in restaurants,while others, like the Author's Club duringits early years, borrowedother club's facilities. The "floating"clubs obviouslydidn't have as much social cachet as the

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokè 175 more established ones, but these forumsfor networkingand socializingwere nonetheless elite. Dues weretendered and members neededto be votedupon. The moreopen atmosphere of his "floating" clubs, especiallythe theatricalones such as The Players,gave Matthewsthe cachet of Bohemia without really forcing him to mingle withthe masses. Morethan any individual club, however, it was the accumulationof clubs and his abilityto moveamong them all that marks Matthews' spectacular success at negotiating and consolidatingthe mostpowerful cultural circles of the both the nineteenthand the twentieth century.

BranderMatthews and theAuthor's Club

In 1882, when RichardWatson Gilder, the editorof Century Magazineand a prolificpoet, decided to inviteseveral friends over to his house in orderto discussthe formationof an Author'sClub, Matthewswas one ofhis mostimportant guests. With the launching of the Author's Club, Matthews became part of a series of pronouncementsabout what his circlewould recognize as thepractice ofauthorship.5 The originalpolicy of the Author'sClub restricted membershipto individualswho were either "author of a published bookproper to literatureor held a recognizedposition in otherkinds ofdistinctively literary work" (Osborne 5). While"Technical books and journalism"were barred,editors of literaryperiodicals and authorsof periodical literature were still eligible for Author's Club membership.Although literary editors and periodicalwriters never joinedin significantnumbers, the club itselfdid increasefrom 25 membersin 1882to 239 membersby 1913. In 1896,ostensibly to limit numbers but clearly intended to retain the natureof the organization,the club'sconstitution was altered. The eligibilityclause now read that "the candidatemust be the authorof a publishedbook proper to literature,or ofcredible literary workequivalent to sucha book"(Osborne 21). Technicalwriters and journalistswere still barred and editorsor periodicalwriters were no

^he originalseven were Matthews;Gilder (1844-1909); Charles de Kay (1848- 1935), a poet and art critic; Noah Brooks (1830-1903), who althoughoriginally a newspaper and magazine journalist also wrote a popular boy's book, The Boy Emigrants (1877), a local colorcollection, Tales of theMaine Coast (1894); Edward Eggleston(1837-1902), best knownfor The Hoosier Schoolmaster(1871), also wrote manymelodramatic western romances and historicaltexts; Lawrence Hutton (1843- 1904),a New Yorkdrama critic who wrote over 50 bookson traveland the theater;and Edmund Clarence Stedman (1833-1908),a well knowngenteel essayist and poet as well as a successfulWall Streetbroker.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations longerwelcome in the Author'sClub. This movewas part of a campaignto identifyitself as a craftorganization, unlike, say, the CenturyClub. The newrestrictions were still vague enough to allow loopholesfor magazine essayists who had nevermanaged to assemble theirwork into a book,but the restrictionmade clear that an individualwho identified himself primarily as a journalistwas notan authorand by default,not welcomein the club (Osborne27).6 Althoughthis restrictionin no way preventedjournalists and reportersfrom associating, unionizing, organizing, and networking throughother venues, it was indicativeof a patricianpremise about the definitionof authorshipheld by manyof the mostpowerful individualsin thefield of letters. By 1912 the Author'sClub became even stricterabout their admissions. Previously(in accordancewith the 1898 revision)an individualneeded to havewritten a literarybook or "enoughcredible literarymatter to constitutea book,"but by 1912,members were concernedthat these terms were dangerously vague (Osborne36). Osbornewrites: "it was feltthat, while there had beenno tendencyto take improperadvantage of such equivalents, and no abuses ofthe alternativeclauses, there was, stilla dangerouslaxity in any that could be devised"(36). The problemwas apparentlynot in the definitionof literary matter, but in theidea ofwhat might constitute "enough"and "credible."What might the threatening "equivalents" be? Couldthey include a seriesof essays that occasionally used an artfullyturned phrase but were otherwisesimply technical literature?It is difficultto imaginejust whatthe danger might be, butthe alterations of 1912 eliminated the phrase "or enough credible literarymatter to constitutea book" and replaced it with a requirementthat everycandidate need to have publisheda book whichwas "properto literature,science or art"(36-37). Workmight be "credible"as literary,(as had beendefined in theearlier charter) but accordingto the 1912charter, that did notnecessarily render it "properto literature,science or art" To be "credible"was thus constructedas virtuallythe antithesisof being true and properto literature.A bookthat was "credible"as a literarywork, was not necessarilyan actualliterary work, and thusthe writer of it had no business calling himselfan author. To be crediblewas to be believable,not necessarily to be true. Thusthe Author's Club in 1912

^Membershiprecords are not entirelyclear, but HarrietBeecher Stowe was the only womanawarded honorarymembership before 1912, and I have not seen any otherindication that women were included in the club. Explicitlyethnic names, with the exceptionof the Norwegian-Americanwriter Hjalmar HjorthBoyesen, are notable absent fromthe Author'sClub roster,and thereseems to have been littleinternal or externaleffort to alterthis state of affairs.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 177 furtherrefined and restrictedtheir notion of authorship:to be an authorwas to createa workthat was genuinelyliterary. And to be literarydefied specificity. The bestdefinition the Club could come up withat thispoint was to demand"published book authorship of a workthat involves the elements of literary construction and diction" (37). By refusingto categorizethe aspectsof a workwhich would makeit credibleor notliterary, the clubfortified its positionas an organizationthat simply recognized authorship when it saw it: as an ineffable,transcendent phenomenon. Understandingliterary work as transcendentor simplyof a qualitythat defieddescription did not mean,however, that the Author'sClub was promulgatinga romantic view of authorship. The motivationfor writing might be important,but it was nonetheless required that an individual publish a book in order to join. Essentially,the Club leftit to the arbitersof the marketplace,the publishersand editors,to deemwho was and whowas notan author. The Author'sClub used its membershipcriteria to articulatean understandingof authorshipas both romanticallyineffable and preciselydocumented. The modernauthor was, to theAuthor's Club, a professionalman of letters. Professionalboth because he had recourseto othervocations, but also implicitlyprofessional because he had successfullynegotiated the literary marketplace. Althoughthe Author's Club membersorganized many copyright lobbyingactivities and soughtto regularizeand normalizemany publisher/authorcontractual relations - evento thepoint of keeping historiesof author/publisher disputes on recordfor the public - their primaryconcern was socializingamong themselves. Promoting an identityconstructed around an affinityfor literature, rather than a commercialdependence upon it may have been the factorthat allowed the Author'sClub to survive. While similar author's advocacy groups and organizationsthat focusedupon specific legislationoften fizzled out once their particular bill was votedfor or voteddown, the clubs and organizationsbased upon personal affinity, ratherthan professional affinity, tended to last farlonger. Thus by makingthe "professional" aspect of a professionalman of letters refer to extra-literaryactivities, Brander Matthews and his circleat the Author'sClub couldensure a continuityof associationamong like- mindedmen. Admittedly,the Author'sClub was a smallorganization and it wouldbe irresponsibleto use theirshifting membership criteria to argue fora broad-basednational antagonism towards journalists. Evenby 1912,the Author's Club had only239 members.But these 239 memberswere choice. Theirinfluence on the nationalscene

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1 78 Susanna Ashton AuthorialAffiliations cannotbe discounted.7Henry James, Thomas Bailey Aldrich,Samuel L. Clemens,Frank R. Stockton,,and James Russell Lowell were some ofthe mostprominent members. Matthew Arnoldwas an honorarymember, as were Oliver Wendall Holmes, John Greenleaf Whittier, and the only woman member as of 1913- Harriet Beecher Stowe. Andrew Carnegie, who was an honorarymember and frequentguest at the club, donated a suite of roomsfor their use as testamentboth to his own abidinginterest in all things literary,and to the Club's cultural importance. This cultural importancewas significant,for although there were other Authors organizations in the United States; the Author's Club representedsomething very special to the publicat large. According to Publisher's Weekly,for example, membersof the Author's Club were oftensent complimentarycopies of books or other "valuable gifts"as "bait for their own subscriptionsor to bait hooks forthe unwarypublic with their testimonials" ("Questionable" 976). The men who belongedto the Author'sClub were,by virtueof theirsupposed disinterestin the market,perceived by at least some book marketers as having a special "authority"to pronouncethe fitnessof books to succeed in the literarymarketplace. While the Publisher's Weekly articletitled "Questionable Means of Selling Books" may have found this methodof securingendorsements troubling, the practicereveals a popular understandingof how the cultural clout of the Author's Club couldbe marketedcommercially. As bastion of Victorian gentility,their club rooms gathered publishersand writerswho willinglyembraced and promulgateda highlycharged definitionof what it meant to be an author. The threatsthat caused the Author'sClub to workover their membership criteriaso manytimes were clearlycoming from a powerfulcultural movement.Despite what the elite authorsof the club mightsay, the merefact that the gentlemenof the Author's Club had to resortto the rhetoricof the marketplace,(say, the judgmentof publishersrather than to the historicalsurvival of greatness),meant that writerswho identifiedthemselves as literaryworkers, were making their presence known. And even thoughthe youngergeneration of writersin the early twentiethcentury were excluded fromthe kinds of clubs

^Prominentmembers may have lent theirname to the Club,but it is hard to say if theyregularly attended meetings. Althoughmost mentionsof the Author'sClub testifyto the livelyencounters of prominentwriters, I have come across at least one accountthat was not impressed. Afterattending one of his firstgatherings of the Author'sClub, popular novelistPaul LeicesterFord wrotein a privateletter to his mother". . . it seemsto me thatthe menwere for the mostpart of small calibreminds, and therewere painfully few men one had everheard ofbefore. But that maybe my painfulignorance of the newpoets and authors."

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 179

BranderMatthews helped form and support,Progressive Era writers forcedthe traditionaliststo engagewith them in termsthat would havebeen anathema to the Romantic writers of an earlierera. Althoughpredominantly a social organization,the spectacular culturalclout wielded by the Author's Club circle was illustratedin 1916 whenanother group, the AuthorsLeague ofAmerica (ALA), soughtto affiliate itself with the American Federation of Labor (AFL). The proposedaffiliation between the ALA and theAFL was toprotect writersagainst contractual exploitation and generallyshow support forthe labor movement. Unlike the patrician Author's Club, many of thepeople involved in theALA wereyoung radicals. Muckraker Ida Tarbell,for example, was one of the earliestmembers. The ALA though,was a broadcentrist organization and BranderMatthews signedon to theALA as an honoraryVice-President as did severalof his closefriends, including Theodore Roosevelt and HamlinGarland. Whenthe vote to affiliatewith the AFL came up, the old-guard writers- manyof whom were Author's Club members- campaigned hardagainst the proposition.Former radical Hamlin Garland was firmlyopposed to the affiliation.He wroteto Matthews: "[Our Opponents]may call us all Old Foagiesbut I don'tfeel any call toline up withengineers and cloak makers"(qtd. in Oliver,176). This observationwas quite probablyanti-Semitic, as well as genuinely disdainfulof trade,and is indicativeof the generaldisdain the Foagiesseem to have feltfor the working classes in general,and for thewriters who identified with them in particular.Matthews, who wrotepetitions, solicited letters, and threatenedto resignfrom the ALA if the votewent through, used his Author'sClub friendsand connectionsto successfullybeat downthe proposed affiliation. The ALA,in variousformations, survived far longer into the 20th century thanthe Carnegie-sponsoredAuthor's Club, but was formany years controlledby a groupof self-professed "Old Foagies." The hullabalooraised overthe 1916 affiliationvote swung the ALA so far to the rightthat the ALA's 1919 ProgramCommittee actionplan set goalsthat read morelike the Author's Club's charter than like a labor federation's. The ALA wished to raise "the standardsof literary criticism" and to secure"for American Books the attentionundoubtedly due them."It evenproposed that "admission to theLeague itself should be in thenature of an honorconferred on thosewho have Arrived'or whohave donenotable and prideworthy workin literatureor art." Althoughthe ALA's pendulumwas to swingleft again, the networkingpromoted by the Author'sClub circleskept organizations such as the ALA fromdisseminating a visionof authorship as tradefor quite a longtime.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 180 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations

WithHis Friends

Matthews'continual musings on collaboration(he published several variationsof his essay on the theoriesof collaborative composition)need to be understoodas partof a discourseseeking to identify,if notregulate, the rulesfor the art offiction.8 Matthews' positionwas that the individualityof authorshipleads to art. Collaborationwas valuableonly inasmuch as it led to the personal relationshipsthat fosteredthe individualpractice of writing. Matthewswrote:

Collaborationhas always been very attractive tome; and it has alwaysbeen the result of the intimacy of friendship withits corresponding sympathy ofinterest ... It is a fact thatthe "artistic temperament" isjealous and touchy .... It maybe thatI am lackingin the"artistic temperament," sincemy varied associations only cemented the friendships whichpreceded them. (These Many Years, 252) Withthis rather coy approach, Matthews admits that it mayhave been his ownlimitations that forced him to understandwriting in sucha way,but his artisticlimitations let himhone his truetalent, thatfor friendship. Matthews'essay, "The Artand Mysteryof Collaboration"was writtenin 1890 and to thisday it is stillone ofvery few scholarly treatmentsof the principles,history, and significanceof literary collaboration.In it he sets forthan analysisof collaboration that is largelyanecdotal and often contradictory. He detailssome of his own experiencesin co-authoringliterary works and ultimatelyassesses collaborationas a marginaland, withthe exceptionof dramatic collaboration,light literary game. As Matthewsexplains: "no great poemhas everbeen written by two men together, nor any really great novel"(162). Yet Matthews'interest in collaborationwas notsimply tojustify or explain his owncollaborative ventures. His essayreveals a seriesof assumptionsabout authorship that combine to paint a pictureof it as an activitydemanding contradiction. Despite being somewhatof a game, Matthewssaw that collaborationcould

^Matthewswas evidentlypleased withhis collaborationessay forhis thoughtson the subjectwere reprinted in a numberof different forms. It originallyappeared in a 1890 issue ofLongman's magazine, was reprintedin his 1891 collectionof collaborative fictionWith My Friends: Tales Told in Partnership,and was laterincluded in his 1896 essay collectionAspects of Fiction. None ofthis, of course, is surprisingfor an author whoalso wrotean essay titled"On theRight of a Authorto RepeatHimself (1926).

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 181 nonethelesstap intodeep-seated issues surrounding the mythology of authorship. But what do we reallylearn fromhis theoriesof collaborative writing?Brander Matthews admits that he reallyhad no idea how collaborationworked. His essaypostpones the question until nearly theend of the essay in orderto illustrate how a numberof historically successfulpairs (Dumas and Maquet,Besant and Rice)theorized and practicedtheir collaborations. By the time he movesinto a discussion of"how it is done,"Matthews admits, "such an explanationis at best a doubtfulpossibility." The vaguenessstems out of what he sees as an essentiallymystical relationship. He sets out as if to definea genre,but ends up engagingin a lengthydescription of practice. Whatcan best be gleanedfrom his essay is a beliefthat two authors,in partnership,could be truecollaborators and couldcreate serious work,if not great art. Larger gatheringswere merely "curiositiesof literature." Matthews' disdain for such gatherings, if not alreadyobvious, was made even morepointed by the financial metaphorshe invokes to describe what has ceased to be an intellectualeffort: "Nothing of real value is likelyto be manufactured by a joint-stock company of unlimited authorship .... The literary partnershipswhose paper sells on "'Changeat par [sic]have but two members"("The Art and Mystery"159). He describesthe workof severalauthors on one pieceas "a woefulwaste of effort" (158). For the son of a millionairewho had lost his fortunein speculation, imagesof the StockExchange carried an especiallyheavy semiotic burden.By invokingthe marketplacelanguage, Matthews suggests that the wholepoint of collaborationcan be lost whentoo many writersengage in it. If collaborationwas supposedto be a vacation fromthe marketplace,it certainlyshouldn't have to be describedin marketplacelanguage. And even more significantly, ifcollaboration's greatvirtue was to providean opportunityto reinforceone's faith in theindividuality of the literary, the involvement of too many writers in a collaborationcould cause chaos, rather than clarity. The dispersalof literary activities over a broadsphere smacked of a Tayloristapproach to literaryactivity: a virtualassembly line in whichthe minutiaof tasks couldbe delegatedwith such efficiency thatno singletask would require much thought or effort.Matthews explainsthat despitewhatever advantages collaborative writing mightoffer, collaboration should not be undertakenunder the illusion thatless workis requiredin theproduction of a giventext: Notthe saving of labour, but the improvement ofthe work shouldbe thereason of partnership. Two minds working uponthe same idea, having the same object in view,and agreedupon the group of characters tocarry out the plan of

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 182 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations

thepiece, ought to arrive, more certainly and more clearly thanone mind alone, not only at thepossibilities but also at thecertainties. (207)

The point of collaborationwas not, therefore,to reduce labor. Instead,collaboration served to generatea textthat would be the resultof "certainties."Certainties might manifest themselves best in conciseplot lines or vivid dialogue,but the final implicationof Matthews'point is thatas valuableas certaintiesmight be, they shut down possibilities. And it is the infusionof possibilities,the engagementwith the trulyimaginative aspects of literarywork, whichleads to the riskier work of creating art. Becausecollaboration was, forMatthews, a methodof asserting howindividuality conceives genius, it wouldbe reasonableto assume thatthe more participants, the better his pointcould be made. But thatis notthe case. As we have seenin his distastefor "joint-stock companiesof unlimitedpartnership," for Matthews, "combination ventures"were demonstrations of"intellectual poverty," not extensive individualism(159-158). This is consistentwith his beliefthat the exclusivitynecessary to determineprofessionalized knowledge needs to be defended. Collaborationmight be amateurishenough an activityto attractwriters who recognize their own weakness, but it is notan activityin whichthe talentless man could make his wayinto theworld of letters. Matthews fills his discussionsof collaboration withcautionary tales. It mightnot be forthe greatest authors, but it was notto be takenup bythe masses.

The Documentsin the Case

If the individualityof geniuswas to emergein collaboration, writersneeded to worktogether with an understandingthat their jointlabor would result in literatureable tohide the specific traces of its assembly,but wouldnever be able to entirelysmooth over its intrinsicnature as a jointproduction. As his actual collaborative shortstories illustrate, Matthews steadily exploited the gimmicks and goofinessof collaborative literature to demonstratethe method's shortcomingsas well as itsvirtues. AlthoughMatthews wrote many short stories with a varietyof collaborators,one examplebest demonstratesmy argument that he and his collaboratorswere interestedin foregroundingthe intrinsicallyunnatural state of collaborative merger. Afterworking with humorist H. C. Bunneron the shortstory "TheDocuments in theCase," Matthews and his friendsent a copyof

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 183 theirstory to EmileZola statingwith juvenile disingenuousness, that Zola's interestin Naturalismas approachedthrough the novelist's studyof "humandocuments" had influencedthe constructionand theorizingbehind their own collaborative piece.9 Zola, fortunately, wroteback that he was unableto read Englishand the stupidityof thejoke had thereforebeen lost. Thejoke lay in thefact that Bunner and Matthewsconceived the projectas a seriesof documentsthat whenjuxtaposed would tell a story.The conceitin "TheDocuments in the Case," that a pile of newspaperclippings, pawn tickets, telegrams,and correspondencecould single-handedly tell the tale of an Americanromance, was nothingparticularly original. Both Gothic traditionsof layered narration and the 18thcentury epistolary novel had longworked with similar ideas. "The Documentsin the Case" meritsexamination though, because not only was it Matthews'first forayinto collaborative composition and set a precedentfor many of the concernsto appear in his later collaborativeventures, it also contains a numberof particularfeatures that play upon its collaborativeorigins. By highlighting its origins as a seriesof textual productions,"The Documents in theCase" presents an understanding of authorshipand responsibilitythat became part of Matthews1 broadertheories about the cultural position of the writer for the late nineteenthcentury. The storyfollows a missingBritish nobleman who is trackedto theAmerican West. He diesand his youngdaughter is kidnappedby Indiansand thenlater adopted by a troupeof traveling actors. The storychronicles attempts by lawyers and privatedetectives to follow a papertrail that will lead themto themissing heiress. Much of the humorderives from the juxtaposition of the formal British documents pertainingto the legal search forthis man with the awkward languageof the American frontier. An obituaryfrom the Illustrated LondonNews opens the story by announcing in themost dignified of languagethe "lamented death" of a Sir WilliamBeauvoir, while later clippingsfrom a newspaperin "Bone-Gulch,"California, boast the arrival of the "Hon. Mr. Beaver" who "has come here to stay permanentlyand forever[sic]." The discordof such differenceis soundedthroughout for comic effect. The naiveteembodied by the Americanvernacular is further highlightedby the many visual and typographicalploys Bunner and Matthewsuse to underscorethe constructed nature of the text. Not onlydoes the Bone-Gulch newspaper, The Palladium, lack a complete

9One of BranderMatthew's closest friends, H. C. Bunner(1855-1896) edited and wrotefor Puck magazinethrough the 1880s and early 1890s, establishinghimself as one ofthe foremost American humorists of the late nineteenthcentury.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 184 SusannaAshton AuthorialAffiliations set oftype and hencemust replace the letter "n" with "ñ," but it also lacksa letter"w" and printsits theletter V usingtwo "v"s instead, a movewhich the rivaltown's newspaper notes with glee. "[T]he Palladium'seleven unhappy readers . . . are gettingvery tired of the oldtype cast forthe Concha Mission in 1811,which tries to makeup forits lack of w's by a plentifulsuperfluity of greaserv's." The contrivanceof note here is thedissolution of the V (doubleu) which signifiesthe naturalizedmerging of twoentities, two Vs (YOUS) that is. No such facileglissance is possiblefor the Bone-Gulch newspaper.The naivereaders of California, because of their limited culturalresources, force the separation of what should be a natural doubleu (w) into an awkwardawareness of the two Vs which actuallycompose the illusion of singularity (uu). Thejoke is rather simplereally, but it is indicativeof the emphasis the story puts on the distancebetween two individuals. The lettersjoin and function effectively,but they necessarily make evident their forced construction.Collaboration in this storyemphasizes the jointsin jointactivity.

Conclusion

Matthews'mediocrity is surprisingly central to my argument. His inabilityto publishanything that was acclaimedas a greatbook or whichradically changed the courseof literarycriticism actually indicateswhat was significantabout his rolein thetransformation of theidea ofauthor in thenineteenth century. Matthews' identity and success was predicatedupon the authorityof his positionas a ProfessionalMan ofLetters. His positionat ColumbiaUniversity was toutedon thetitle page of virtually every one of his books, yet he wasn'theralded as an academic.Matthews was theembodiment of a reactionarycritic, but his reactionswere well-enmeshed in powerful culturaltradition. When the critics of the nineteen twenties mocked him ("ProfessorMatthews was and is as naïve as JackieCoogan" sneeredan anonymousessayist for The Bookman in 1923), they mockedsomeone they thought of, with somejustification, as an outdatedVictorian ("The Literary Spotlight" 434). Yet despitehis predilectionfor nostalgia, Matthews was moreRooseveltian than Victorian,as ably demonstratedby LawrenceOliver, who devotes much of his book on Matthews to puttingMatthews into a "Rooseveltian"tradition of practical idealism. Yoking"practical" and "idealism"together was a specificallyfin- de-siécleideology, one in whichthe inconvenientincursions of the modernworld, (women, Jews, journalists) could be ignored,while the

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokë 185 new opportunitiesthe modernworld presented for men of letters (professorships,and well-paideditorial soapboxes) could be exploited. It was a precariouspretense and didnot survive in itspure state very long. But it was openlyacknowledged as an innovativebridge spanningtwo worlds. Matthews recognized this precarious duality, whichhe saw as an outgrowthof the modern university system. He describedhimself when he notedthat at Columbiaa new kindof professorhad emerged;one who"is bothurban and urbane,who is notonly a gentlemanand a scholar,in thegood old phrase,but also moreor less a man of the worldand even on occasiona man of affairs"(These Many Years,411). HenryMay, in his studyof the periodsingled out Brander Matthews as theepitome of the Columbia professor.According to May,Matthews "brought to the campusa specialNew York flavor combining, as onecould now do withcaution, thegentleman's club and the most respectable Bohemia" (63-64). The needto yoketogether these two worlds demonstrates that an increasinggap was seenbetween them. Thisvoid seems to fitwhat manycritics have characterized as a prevailinganxiety of the period; an anxietystemming from a naggingfeeling that the restructuring of theGilded Age had resultedin wellorganized spheres of knowledge, but these spheres only masked massive slippage of cultural assumptions.In thewords of T. J.Jackson Lears, As therationalization ofAmerican economic and social life unfoldedin thelast thirty years of the nineteenth century, professionalgroups arose to managenew corporate and bureaucraticstructures of power,and in the process attaineda powerfuleconomic and socialstatus. The authorityachieved by professionals, however, was limited by theircomplicity with the structuresof corporate capitalismthey sought to guide and control. As supposedly expertguides to newand disorientingsocial structures, professionalswere themselves subject to widespread fears of a "weightless"existence, (xi) WhenBrander Matthews and his friendswrote together, they were doingso out ofthe same urgesthat led themto formclubs, rather thanunions. The manycollaborations of the 1880sand 1890swere partof an attemptto connectin a meaningfulway; to form a chainor a linkwhich would, in effect,prevent a man of lettersfrom fully disappearinginto the void of weightless professionalism. The schismbetween a genteelunderstanding ofauthorship and a "professional"understanding of authorship was neverreally bridged by Matthews'promotion of the professionalman of letters. But Matthews' attemptsto build such a bridge with his tireless conversing,clubbing, and collaboratingsignifies the extent to which

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 186 Susanna Ashton AuthorialAffiliations the professionalizationof authorship was seen as a threat to be combatedon manyfronts. Collaborationwas, in manyways, a last stand against the increasinglyhostile divide between the twovisions ofwriting. By collaborating,writers who believedin inspirationand a vision ofthe writeras apart fromthe worldcould demonstratean engagementwith like-minded individuals.

CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

References

Bender,Thomas. New YorkIntellect: A Historyof Intellectual Life in New YorkCity, from1 750 tothe Beginning of Our Own Time. NewYork: Knopf, 1987. Bourne,Randolph. "A VanishingWorld of Gentility/' Rev. ofBrander Matthews, These Many Years. Dial 64 (14 March1918): 234-235. "BranderMatthews, Educator, is Dead." New YorkTimes 1 April1929: 10. Brooks,Noah. Tales ofthe Maine Coast. New York: Scribner's,1894. . TheBoy Emigrants. New York:Scribner's, 1914. Commager,Henry Steele. 'The Century,1887-1906." The Century1847-1946. New York:Century Association, 1947. 25-53. Dreiser,ineoaore. sisteruame. isiewïorK: üantam, iy»z. Eggleston,Edward. TheHoosier School-Master. New York: Orange Judd, 1871. Ford, Paul Leicester. Letterto Emily EllsworthFowler Ford, 21 May 1891. Ford FamilyPapers, 1833-1910. New York Public Library,Rare Book and Manuscript Collection. Glasgow,Ellen. The WomanWithin. New York:Harcourt Brace, 1954. Hamilton,Clayton. "Brander." Scribner's 86 (July1929): 82-87. Lears, T. J. Jacksonand Richard WightmanFox. Introduction. The Cultureof Consumption:Critical Essays in American History,1880-1980. Eds. Richard WightmanFox and T. J. JacksonLears. New York:Pantheon, 1983. vii-xvii. Lewis, Sinclair. Addressby SinclairLewis beforethe SwedishAcademy, December 12, 1930." "WhySinclair Lewis Got the Nobel Prize." Address by Erik Axel Karlfeldt,permanent secretary of the Swedish Academy,at the Nobel Festival, December10, 1930, and address by Sinclair Lewis beforethe Swedish Academy, December12, 1930. NewYork: Harcourt, Brace, 1931. "TheLiterary Spotlight- XX: BranderMatthews." Bookman 57 (June1923): 432-436. Matthews,Brander. "The Philosophyof the Short-Story."Lippincott's 36 (Oct. 1885): 366-374. . 'The Artand Mysteryof Collaboration." Longman's 15 (1890): 157-170. . "On the Rightof an Authorto Repeat Himself."In Rip Van WinkleGoes to the Play and OtherEssays on Plays and Players. New York: Charles Scribner'sSons, 1926. 81-100. . "On WorkingToo Muchand WorkingToo Fast." The Tocsinof Revolt and Other Essays. NewYork: Scribner's,1922. 203-215. . "Literatureas a Profession."The Tocsinof Revolt and OtherEssays. New York: Scribner's,1922. 193-213. . Letterto Charles ScribnerII. 15 February1889. "BranderMatthews." The House of Scribner,1846 - 1904. Dictionaryof LiteraryBiography Documentary Series. Vol. 13. Ed. JohnDelany. Detroit:Gale, 1996. 205-209. . Aspectsof Fiction and OtherVentures in Criticism.New York: Harper, 1896.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions symplokê 187

. TheseMany Years,Recollections of a New Yorker.New York:Scribner's 1917. Matthews,Brander and GeorgeH. Jessop. A Gold Mine: A Play in ThreeActs. New York:French, 1908. Matthews,Brander, and H. C. Bunner. "The Documentsin the Case." In Partnership: Studiesin Storytelling.New York:Scribner's, 1884. 31-84. Matthews,Brander, and H. C. Bunner,Walter Henries Pollock, George H. Jessop,F. Anstey. WithMy Friends: Tales Told In Partnership.1891. Freeport,New York: Booksfor Libraries Press, 1972. May, Henry. The End ofAmerican Innocence - A Studyof theFirst Yearsof Our Own Time1912-1917. New York:Knopf, 1969. Oliver, Lawrence J. Brander Matthews,Theodore Roosevelt, and the Politics of AmericanLiterature, 1880-1920. Knoxville, TN: U ofTennessee P, 1992. Osborne,Duffield. The Author'sClub: A HistoricalSketch. New York:Knickerbocker, 1913. Porzelt,Paul. TheMetropolitan Club ofNew York.New York:Rizzoli, 1982. "QuestionableMeans ofSelling Books." Publisher's Weekly. 25 March1905: 975-976. Riggio, Thomas P., ed. Dreiser-MenckenLetters. 2 vols. Philadelphia: U of PennsylvaniaP, 1986. Roscoe,Burton. "Three American Critics." Bookman 56 (Oct. 1922):222-224. Sherman,Stuart. "BranderMatthews and the Mohawks." Pointsof View. New York: Scribner's,1924. 251-260. Spiller, Robert E., Willard Thorp, Thomas H. Johnson,Henry Seidel Canby, and RichardM. Ludwig,eds. LiteraryHistory of the UnitedStates, 3rd ed. London: Macmillan,1963. Strychacz,Thomas. Modernism,Mass Culture, and Professionalism. Ed. Eric Sundquist. New York:Cambridge UP, 1993. Trilling,Lionel. "The Van Amringeand Keppel Eras." A Historyof ColumbiaCollege on Morningside.New York:Columbia UP, 1954. 14-48. Twain, Mark. Mark Twain's Travels withMr. Brown. Ed. FranklinWalker and G. Ezra Dane. New York: Knopf,1940. Wendall,Barrett. The PrivilegedClasses. New York: Scribner's,1908. Westbrook,Perry. "BranderMatthews." AmericanShort StoryWriters, 1880-1910. Dictionaryof Literary Biography, vol. 78. Ed. BobbyEllen Kimbeland WilliamE. Grant. Detroit:Gale, 1989. 272-280. Wilson,Christopher. The Labor of Words:Literary Professionalism in theProgressive Era. Athens:U ofGeorgia P, 1985. Ziff,Larzar. The American1890s: Life and Times of a Lost Generation.New York: Viking,1966.

This content downloaded from 130.127.238.233 on Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:26:48 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions