John Gretchko is, in my opinion, the best researcher in the public records in the Melville field today.
Gretchko announced some time ago that he had found a trove of documents more important, as I recall his wording, than the Augusta Papers. Soon he gave a tantalizing sample. He reported that on 21 September 1847, one day before her marriage, Sophia Thurston signed an ante-nuptial agreement with her fiancé, Allan Melville. In it Allan Melville establishes a trust for his wife with her brother, Charles Thurston, and Alexander S. Johnson as the trustees. Sophia by her right of dower through her mother, Rachel Thurston, is entitled to 1/5 of the house at 7 Bond Street, 1/5 of a house and other real estate in Newport, Rhode Island, 1/5 of her father's estate which has not been divided, and several stocks in debt and securities, namely $4,000 of the debt of the state of New York, issued to the New York and Erie Railroad; $2,000 of the debt of New York issued to the Auburn and Syracuse RR Company; $1,000 of the debt of New York issued for the Chemung Canal; $300 for the improvement of the Oneida River; $400 for the Genesee Valley Canal; $600 of the debt if the state of New York for the enlargement of the Erie Canal; $6,200 of the debt for the Black River Canal; $4,000 of the debt of the city of New York commonly called the Water Loan. $5,000 is to be lent to Herman Melville upon a bond and mortgage for a house and lot in Leyden Place [Fourth Avenue] in New York City for the joint residence of Herman and Allan with the loan to be simultaneous with the assignment of the lease to Herman Melville.
I hope that is an accurate reporting of what Gretchko put out.
Of course, I would love to see the document and the other important documents Gretchko has discovered.
Not too long ago he sent me a room-by-room inventory of the house in Gansevoort. How I wish I had had that while I was making up my room placements for the 2nd volume of my biography—for of course I made a floor plan of the house, as best I could.
I hope I have always showed proper respect to Gretchko as a researcher in the public records.
Some people are reluctant to share their discoveries. Dr. Murray sat for decades on important documents. He reveled in knowing more than the rest of the Melville world. I disapprove of that sort of miserliness. I shared important discoveries even when a rival biographer was sitting in the front row taking notes, taking notes fast oh fast.
Now, some people accused me of hiding Melville’s marginalia in his Milton. No. You can’t do everything. If you stop for weeks to make something available, something else suffers. For a long time my job was as news giver and after a certain point my job was to hold my strength together long enough to finish the biography.
Gretchko may feel it is not his job to make his discoveries public right away. Well, then please don’t tease us, John. I’m 75 and I may not have a long time to wait. Sure, I want to see the original of the ante-nuptial document, sure I want to know whatever else Gretchko has found. But I have gone as far toward begging as I reasonably can!
Showing posts with label John Gretchko. Show all posts
Showing posts with label John Gretchko. Show all posts
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
New lies about me & Harry H & Harry M: What's a blog for if not to slap down new lies?
Instant Self-Defense from False Reports!! Let’s Hear it for the Blog!!
A couple of days ago I had a Google alert from Ishmailites, a Melville group. John Gretchko, it turned out, had been reviewing and defending Jeanne Howes’s claims that Melville must have written REDBURN OR THE SCHOOLMASTER OF A MORNING which had been published anonymously soon after his return from the Pacific. Jeanne Howes developed an obsession about Melville’s authorship of the poem so strong that it overwhelmed her discovery of the truth. She did the right scholarly thing—she conducted a census of copies, and in one copy discovered that the author was John Carroll. Then she could not rest but continued with increasing anger to criticize anyone who was skeptical of her claims. I was as tactful with her as I could be, but I have seen a letter berating me for my unbelief. Well, people have their obsessions. A biographer of Melville first came to my attention with the claim that Melville wrote REDBURN (HIS book REDBURN) in 1839 or 1840, just after his voyage to Liverpool. What else was there to do when he was just teaching school?
I was astounded to see Gretchko’s claims. This in italics is Gretchko in an Ishmailites post:
Yes, the many obvious coincidences between Herman Melville and the
“Redburn” poem are all solidly documented on known facts of Melville's life
prior to the publication of the poem and on recognized characteristics of
Melville's literary style as noted by Melville scholars. The particulars of
Melville's school teaching career: the associations with his uncle Thomas,
cousin Robert and the farm; the contemporary mood of Berkshire County;
allusions to his Manhattan and Albany background; to his brother
Gansevoort's failed hat business, invalidism, and political
ambitions---together with that clear opportunity and apparent motive aboard
the “United States” for writing the poem; and the date of its
publication---all fit precisely into the proper time frame of Melville's
life. In addition, certain remarkable passages and points of view, the basic
themes, range of imagery, quirks of vocabulary, playful tones, and the
vibrant mix of realism and reverie, clearly present in the “Redburn” poem,
are traits forecasting the unique style of Melville's mature works."
Then I must wonder why Hershel Parker made no reference to this poem at
all in his book about Melville as poet. Even if one believes that the poem
had been written by someone else, it should be mentioned because of all the
similarities. But Parker believes that this work is beneath Melville. Or so
he indicates elsewhere. But if Melville had been writing this poem with a
girl friend in mind, that fact could not jibe with Melville as homosexual.
Parker along with Hayford, Murray, and Vincent and others form that branch
of Melville studies who want to believe that Melville was homosexual---for
which there is no proof. This is probably the real reason that the
“Redburn” poem has received short shrift.
Those two paragraphs are Gretchko.
This is me again, HP.
What Gretchko says here is not true. I know what Hayford thought, I know what Murray told Hayford, and I know what I thought. It is not true that we “want to believe that Melville was homosexual.” And that false statement has nothing to do with the poem’s receiving “short shrift.” I gave that theory long, long, longsuffering shrift in replies to Howes, far more shrift than it deserved. And I did not mention it in MELVILLE: THE MAKING OF THE POET because I was dealing with important poems that Melville was exposed to or actually read.
When I read this I wrote a long eloquent untesty comment on Howes, very scholarly, and a comment on the last accusations and posted it and saw it disappear into the ether of Ishmailites. Well, I can’t recreate such fine spontaneity, I realized, so I waited a day and tried again, and failed again. But now things were worse: Gretchko was claiming that Hayford and I had privately told him something which I knew we had not done.
Here is the new message from Gretchko, again in italics to keep it visible:
Just look at the cover to volume one of Parker's biography.
Melville is made to look as some kind of fruitcake. But I am not completely
put off by Sendak's drawing.
No, I cannot point to anything in Parker's or Hayford's writing
which paints Melville as anything but heterosexual. However, talking to
these two privately revealed their true feelings.
That’s the end of the new comment from Gretchko.
Is there any possibility that my posting something on this blog really will have any effect?
Let me try. It is absolutely false that Hayford, Murray, and I ever said that Melville was a homosexual. I don’t know Howard P. Vincent’s views. I am not being coy. I just did not know him well. And I know Hayford’s opinions and my own so well that I can tell you that neither of us ever “privately revealed” to Gretchko anything that does not fit with our public comments. It is not true that Hayford, Murray, and I thought or said that Melville was a homosexual.
In my second lost post I went into some detail about Melville’s slow awareness of homoerotic components in his early enthusiasm for Hawthorne. See CLAREL for Melville’s great good humor in portraying Clarel’s feelings with full understanding of their eroticism. He knew about buggery on ships and he knew, at least after the fact, about the erotic component of his admiration for Hawthorne. Erotic arousal, we should recognize, is part of every intense compositional process. See Albert Rothenberg’s THE EMERGING GODDESS! He’s perfect. In my biography I described what happened as a consequence of Melville’s not understanding his own arousal as he finished the essay on MOSSES. This is a far cry from saying that Melville was a homosexual. I was very clear and very funny about this scene only to have professional gay critics declare that it was too bad I did not understand what I was describing. Duh!
I thought when Wineapple, Brodhead, Delbanco, and Schultz steamrolled over me I could pick myself up and not be treated this badly ever again! Alas, no. But, here’s my blog at work!
A couple of days ago I had a Google alert from Ishmailites, a Melville group. John Gretchko, it turned out, had been reviewing and defending Jeanne Howes’s claims that Melville must have written REDBURN OR THE SCHOOLMASTER OF A MORNING which had been published anonymously soon after his return from the Pacific. Jeanne Howes developed an obsession about Melville’s authorship of the poem so strong that it overwhelmed her discovery of the truth. She did the right scholarly thing—she conducted a census of copies, and in one copy discovered that the author was John Carroll. Then she could not rest but continued with increasing anger to criticize anyone who was skeptical of her claims. I was as tactful with her as I could be, but I have seen a letter berating me for my unbelief. Well, people have their obsessions. A biographer of Melville first came to my attention with the claim that Melville wrote REDBURN (HIS book REDBURN) in 1839 or 1840, just after his voyage to Liverpool. What else was there to do when he was just teaching school?
I was astounded to see Gretchko’s claims. This in italics is Gretchko in an Ishmailites post:
Yes, the many obvious coincidences between Herman Melville and the
“Redburn” poem are all solidly documented on known facts of Melville's life
prior to the publication of the poem and on recognized characteristics of
Melville's literary style as noted by Melville scholars. The particulars of
Melville's school teaching career: the associations with his uncle Thomas,
cousin Robert and the farm; the contemporary mood of Berkshire County;
allusions to his Manhattan and Albany background; to his brother
Gansevoort's failed hat business, invalidism, and political
ambitions---together with that clear opportunity and apparent motive aboard
the “United States” for writing the poem; and the date of its
publication---all fit precisely into the proper time frame of Melville's
life. In addition, certain remarkable passages and points of view, the basic
themes, range of imagery, quirks of vocabulary, playful tones, and the
vibrant mix of realism and reverie, clearly present in the “Redburn” poem,
are traits forecasting the unique style of Melville's mature works."
Then I must wonder why Hershel Parker made no reference to this poem at
all in his book about Melville as poet. Even if one believes that the poem
had been written by someone else, it should be mentioned because of all the
similarities. But Parker believes that this work is beneath Melville. Or so
he indicates elsewhere. But if Melville had been writing this poem with a
girl friend in mind, that fact could not jibe with Melville as homosexual.
Parker along with Hayford, Murray, and Vincent and others form that branch
of Melville studies who want to believe that Melville was homosexual---for
which there is no proof. This is probably the real reason that the
“Redburn” poem has received short shrift.
Those two paragraphs are Gretchko.
This is me again, HP.
What Gretchko says here is not true. I know what Hayford thought, I know what Murray told Hayford, and I know what I thought. It is not true that we “want to believe that Melville was homosexual.” And that false statement has nothing to do with the poem’s receiving “short shrift.” I gave that theory long, long, longsuffering shrift in replies to Howes, far more shrift than it deserved. And I did not mention it in MELVILLE: THE MAKING OF THE POET because I was dealing with important poems that Melville was exposed to or actually read.
When I read this I wrote a long eloquent untesty comment on Howes, very scholarly, and a comment on the last accusations and posted it and saw it disappear into the ether of Ishmailites. Well, I can’t recreate such fine spontaneity, I realized, so I waited a day and tried again, and failed again. But now things were worse: Gretchko was claiming that Hayford and I had privately told him something which I knew we had not done.
Here is the new message from Gretchko, again in italics to keep it visible:
Just look at the cover to volume one of Parker's biography.
Melville is made to look as some kind of fruitcake. But I am not completely
put off by Sendak's drawing.
No, I cannot point to anything in Parker's or Hayford's writing
which paints Melville as anything but heterosexual. However, talking to
these two privately revealed their true feelings.
That’s the end of the new comment from Gretchko.
Is there any possibility that my posting something on this blog really will have any effect?
Let me try. It is absolutely false that Hayford, Murray, and I ever said that Melville was a homosexual. I don’t know Howard P. Vincent’s views. I am not being coy. I just did not know him well. And I know Hayford’s opinions and my own so well that I can tell you that neither of us ever “privately revealed” to Gretchko anything that does not fit with our public comments. It is not true that Hayford, Murray, and I thought or said that Melville was a homosexual.
In my second lost post I went into some detail about Melville’s slow awareness of homoerotic components in his early enthusiasm for Hawthorne. See CLAREL for Melville’s great good humor in portraying Clarel’s feelings with full understanding of their eroticism. He knew about buggery on ships and he knew, at least after the fact, about the erotic component of his admiration for Hawthorne. Erotic arousal, we should recognize, is part of every intense compositional process. See Albert Rothenberg’s THE EMERGING GODDESS! He’s perfect. In my biography I described what happened as a consequence of Melville’s not understanding his own arousal as he finished the essay on MOSSES. This is a far cry from saying that Melville was a homosexual. I was very clear and very funny about this scene only to have professional gay critics declare that it was too bad I did not understand what I was describing. Duh!
I thought when Wineapple, Brodhead, Delbanco, and Schultz steamrolled over me I could pick myself up and not be treated this badly ever again! Alas, no. But, here’s my blog at work!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)