“TO COLLECT, DIGEST, AND ARRANGE”: AUTHORSHIP IN THE EARLY AMERICAN REPUBLIC, 1792-1801 DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Jennifer A. Desiderio, M.A. * * * * * The Ohio State University 2004 Dissertation Committee: Professor Jared Gardner, Adviser Approved by Professor Susan Williams Professor Elizabeth Hewitt ____________________________ Adviser Department of English ABSTRACT “‘To Collect, Digest, and Arrange’: Authorship in the Early American Republic, 1792-1801” examines the role of the author in the postrevolutionary marketplace. Early American authors often held various occupations and wrote in multiple genres, which to many scholars have made them appear amateurish. I argue, however, that it is the very range of professional identities and genres in which they worked that informs the project of the postrevolutionary author—a project which, as Crèvecoeur terms it, was “to collect, digest, and arrange” the stories, letters, and citizens of the new nation. By adopting different identities and genres, postrevolutionary authors attempted to abandon the autocratic voice of the narrator in favor of a more democratic and collaborative model of authorship. Yet, at the same time, their texts reveal a commitment to retaining the autocratic voice as a means of instructing, monitoring, and uniting their readers. I term the balancing act between these two commitments “republican authorship,” a model of authorship indebted to the tensions of the Constitutional debates. By situating these authors and their texts within the historical context of the early Republic, I show how the postrevolutionary author sought to complete the machinery of citizenship left unfinished in the scene of the nation’s founding. ii In my Introduction, I offer a brief analysis of the Constitutional debates and a definition of republican authorship. Chapter One reveals the connection between authorship and surveillance in Judith Sargent Murray’s The Gleaner (1792-98). While Murray performs a type of authorial espionage on her readers, I describe in my second chapter how Hannah Webster Foster in The Boarding School (1798) instructs her readers in a model of authorship that enables them to become monitorial authors themselves. Chapter Three traces Charles Brockden Brown’s gradual authorial effacement in his novels as evidence of his increasingly complex commitment to promote the reader’s involvement. In the last chapter, I argue that Susanna Rowson in Reuben and Rachel (1798) insists that the historical progress of the nation depends upon the exchange of stories. Finally, I conclude by gesturing towards the affinities between the republican and antebellum authors. iii To my parents and Matt iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I owe an enormous debt to the Americanist faculty in the English Department at The Ohio State University. From offering exciting and informative classes on American literature to sage advice on professional development and the job market, they have made my graduate experience both enjoyable and rewarding. My dissertation adviser, Jared Gardner, has been an exceptional mentor, who has always been willing to meet at the last minute, or read another draft, or discuss one last time a particular problem. He has been consistently encouraging and enthusiastic in regards to my work. I have profited in so many ways from his example as an adviser, teacher, and friend. My committee members, Susan Williams and Beth Hewitt, have read drafts of the individual chapters; they have given me extensive and useful criticisms that will significantly help turn this dissertation into a smart study on the author in the early American Republic. I cannot express my gratitude enough to the members of my committee, as well as to Marlene Longenecker, for their kind support, their insight, and their interest in me and my project. I thank the English Department at The Ohio State University for awarding me three internal fellowships, all of which have given me the much needed time to write and finish my dissertation. I also thank the PEO which honored me with the Scholar Award. I want to express my gratitude to the Graduate School at The Ohio State University v which generously paid my tuition and fees for one quarter, so I could use the PEO Scholar Award to write and remain enrolled at the university. I thank my dear friends, Theresa Kulbaga, Scott Galloway, Jen Camden, James Weaver, and Chris Gose who have listened to and supported me in uncountable ways throughout my graduate career. Finally, my family deserves my deepest gratitude. Al and Nancy Giordano have always encouraged and offered me their kind words and support. I am extremely grateful to my parents, Nicholas and Cathy Desiderio, and siblings, Brent, Michael, and Kristin, whose enduring love and support enabled me to stay the course. Without their many reaffirming phone calls, visits, and emails, I would never have completed my dissertation. My parents and my sister deserve a special thank you for always patiently and kindly listening to my woes and worries and gently easing them. I also want to recognize my grandfather, Ed Jeske, whose cheerful voice on the other end of the phone and short notes would instantly cure my blues; I wish he were here so that I could send him a copy of the dissertation (which I know he would have read in completion). And, of course, I must express my gratefulness, gratitude, and love to Matthew Giordano, for all I have accomplished in the last six years. vi VITA August 3, 1975. Born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 1997. B.A., English and History Marquette University Milwaukee, Wisconsin August 1998 - June 2004. Graduate Teaching Assistant Department of English The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio August 1999 - August 2000. Peer Mentor First Year Writing Program Department of English The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio June 2000. M.A., Department of English The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio August 2000 - August 2003. Editorial Assistant for Prose Studies Department of English The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio PUBLICATIONS None FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: English vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Abstract. ii Dedication. iv Acknowledgments. v Vita. vii Introduction: Republican Authorship. .1 Chapter 1: Constantia’s and Mr. Vigillius’s Constant Vigil: Monitoring the New American Subject in Judith Sargent Murray’s The Gleaner . .22 Chapter 2: Becoming the “Directing Hand”: Modeling Authorship in Hannah Webster Foster’s The Boarding School; Or, Lessons of A Preceptress to Her Pupils. .68 Chapter 3: Revising Charles Brockden Brown’s Career. .110 Chapter 4: Authoring Cultural Cohesion in Susanna Rowson’s Reuben and Rachel; Or, Tales of Old Times. 166 Conclusion: Republican Authorship in the Antebellum Era. 212 Bibliography. 222 viii INTRODUCTION REPUBLICAN AUTHORSHIP Traditionally dismissed as overly didactic, generically sloppy, and too contrived, the literature of the early American Republic has received a significant amount of scholarly attention in the last twenty years.1 With the advent of feminism, critical race studies, and new historicism, literary scholars have turned to the nation’s founding as a compelling and untapped era that demands critical attention. The republication of primary texts and the emergence of an impressive body of literary criticism on the period have resulted in the reassessment of a substantial amount of literature from the early Republic.2 While the popularity in this literature has sparked numerous discussions on various aspects of the period, critics have neglected to situate the author in the newly independent nation. “‘To Collect, Digest, and Arrange’: Authorship in the Early American Republic, 1792-1801” amends this gap in American literary history by examining the role of the author in the postrevolutionary marketplace. Situating these authors and their works within the larger historical and political context of the early Republic, I show how the postrevolutionary author sought to complete the machinery of citizenship left unfinished in the scene of the nation’s founding. During the ratification process of the Constitution, American politicians were involved in a heated debate concerning the distribution of power between the governor 1 and the governed. The Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, argued for a central government capable of exerting far-reaching powers over its citizens. Performing the role of vigilant watchdog, this government was needed to monitor and control the masses. Representative of the Federalist mistrust of the individual, Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist Number VI, writes, “Has it not…invariably been found that momentary passions, and immediate interest, have a more active and imperious control over human conduct than general or remote considerations of policy, utility or justice?”3 The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, favored a weaker central government with power resting in state and local governments. They held a firmer faith in the individual and believed that power should emanate directly from “the people.” In a letter to Edward Carrington, Thomas Jefferson pens, “I am persuaded myself that the good sense of the people will always be found to be the best army. .They will be led astray for a moment, but will soon correct themselves.”4 Jefferson thought that “the people,” rather than a centralized government, could serve as a more effective authority—that “the people”