“Not
magnitude, not lavishness,
But Form—the site;
Not innovating willfulness,
But reverence for the Archetype.”
Timoleon was Melville’s final
book, published in an edition of twenty-five copies four months before his death. The poem above is part of its
“Fruit of Travel Long Ago” section, eighteen poems inspired by the poet's visit
to Greece, Italy and the Holy Land in 1856-57. In “Greek Architecture,”
Melville suggests the importance of preserving what is most precious in our
cultural inheritance. Odd that he should decry “magnitude,” surely the most
obvious quality possessed by Moby-Dick,
not to mention the “lavishness” of its prose, but the novel is steeped in Shakespeare,
Milton, Burton and much else drawn from the Western literary tradition. A Greek temple, without “innovating
willfulness” (hardly a virtue to the Greeks), is built in a location
appropriate to its form – “the site” -- just as Moby-Dick mirrors the vastness of the whale and of America. In
Chapter CIV, Ishmael says, “To produce a mighty book, you must choose a mighty
theme.” In “`Reverence for the Archetype’: The Pragmatic Conservatism of Peter
Viereck” (Part I, Part II), Robert J. Lacey quotes “Greek Architecture” and observes:
“Informed
by a tragic sense of the human condition, conservatives demand a reverence for
the law and established forms and remain forever suspicious of creative and
outlandish invention. Whenever uncertainty reigns, conservatives err on the
side of caution, preferring the old to the new, the known to the unknown, the
tried to the untried, facts to theories, the concrete to the imagined. The law
of unintended consequences never escapes the conservative mind.”
The
poem’s first citation by Viereck I’ve been able to find is in Conservatism Revisited (1949). In the
1962 revised edition, Viereck asks, before quoting Melville’s poem:
“How
can thoughtful new conservatives, avoiding the political pitfalls that so many
have failed to avoid, apply fruitfully to American life today what we have
called non-political `cultural conservatism’ – the tradition of Melville,
Hawthorne, Thoreau, Henry Adams, Irving Babbitt, William Faulkner? Let them
apply our classical humanist values against what Melville called `the impieties
of progress [sic].’ Hence the even
greater relevance for the 1960s of the Melville poem with which Conservatism Revisited ended in 1949;
thereby Melville was rejecting both bourgeois and Marxist materialist from a
classic humanist viewpoint…”
The
phrase “impieties of `Progress’” is drawn from Canto XXI of Melville's Clarel: A Poem and Pilgrimage in the Holy
Land (1876): “`Against pretenses void or weak / The impieties of 'Progress'
speak.’” In the Autumn 1952 issue of the Antioch
Review, in “Will America Prove Marx Right?” (incorporated into Shame and Glory of the Intellectuals, 1953), Viereck uses the poem as an epigraph
and adds four lines from another poem on a related theme in Timoleon, “The Ravaged Villa”:
“The
Spider in the laurel spins,
The
weed exiles the flower;
And,
flung to kiln, Apollo’s bust
Makes
lime for Mammon’s tower.”
Viereck
identifies the author as Melville, who was, he says, the “great American conservative, on traditional
values versus the nihilistic materialism of Economic Man.” Finally, in Conservative Thinkers: From John Adams to
Winston Churchill (1956) he quotes the poem again, prefaced like this: “The
ideal inspiring America’s cultural conservatives has been best expressed by a
little-known quatrain of Melville…”
In
another volume, Strict Wildness:
Discoveries in Poetry and History (2011), Viereck identifies two
conflicting American literary traditions, one “romantic and progressive,” the
other “classical and conservative.” Sounding much like Yvor Winters, Viereck says
the former, represented by the “Whitman-Emerson literary tradition,” “cracked
up.” The latter (“literary pessimists”), in which he places Melville, is “just
as authentically American as the first one but has never received the same
popular recognition, being less comforting.”
2 comments:
It seems to me that it would have astonished Thoreau to hear himself considered a cultural conservative, and that it takes a pretty narrow focus to call Henry Adams one. How distinguish Emerson and Thoreau, and leave Thoreau on the conservative side of the divide?
The opposition of "romantic and progressive" and "classical and conservative" seems to me found more than reasoned. A good number of the early Romantics were conservative, reacting to the innovating ways of the classically-minded rationalists, weren't they? Was Chateaubriand (on the whole) a progressive, or Novalis?
Have heard it argued by a mathematician that the front of the Parthenon (as originally constructed) embodied the so-called "golden ratio," where (base)/(height)=[(1+sqrt(5))/2)]=1.618. I raised the point with a classicist who said he had never heard of it, and that it sounded like fantasy to him.
Post a Comment