Multi-Media RomanticismsA Romantic Circles Praxis VolumeSpeaking with the Artful Dead in Romantic PeriodicalsEmma PeacockeAndrew BurkettJames Brooke-SmithRomantic CirclesGeneral Editor,Neil FraistatGeneral Editor,Steven E. JonesPraxis EditorOrrin N.C. Wang Romantic Circles, http://www.rc.umd.edu, University of Maryland College Park, MD
Material from the Romantic Circles Website may not be downloaded, reproduced or disseminated in any manner without authorization unless
it is for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, and/or classroom use as provided by the Copyright Act of 1976, as
amended.
Unless otherwise noted, all Pages and Resources mounted on Romantic Circles are copyrighted by the author/editor and may be shared only
in accordance with the Fair Use provisions of U.S. copyright law. Except as expressly permitted by this statement, redistribution or
republication in any medium requires express prior written consent from the author/editors and advance notification of Romantic Circles.
Any requests for authorization should be forwarded to Romantic Circles:>
Romantic Circlesc/o Professor Neil FraistatDepartment of EnglishUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742fraistat@umd.edu
By their use of these texts and images, users agree to the following conditions: These texts and images may not be used for any commercial purpose without prior written permission from Romantic Circles. These texts and images may not be re-distributed in any forms other than their current ones.
Users are not permitted to download these texts and images in order to mount them on their own servers. It is not in our interest or
that of our users to have uncontrolled subsets of our holdings available elsewhere on the Internet. We make corrections and additions to
our edited resources on a continual basis, and we want the most current text to be the only one generally available to all Internet users.
Institutions can, of course, make a link to the copies at Romantic Circles, subject to our conditions of use.
praxis.2016.multi-media.peacockepraxisSpeaking with the Artful Dead in Romantic PeriodicalsEmmaPeacockeMulti-Media RomanticismsPraxis SeriesRomantic Circles, http://www.rc.umd.edu, University of MarylandCollege Park, MDOctober 11, 2016
All quotation marks and apostrophes have been changed: " for “," for â€, ' for ‘, and ' for '.
Any dashes occurring in line breaks have been removed.
Because of web browser variability, all hyphens have been typed on the U.S. keyboard
Em-dashes have been rendered as #8212
Spelling has not been regularized.
Writing in other hands appearing on these manuscripts has been indicated as such, the content recorded in brackets.
& has been used for the ampersand sign.
£ has been used for £, the pound sign
All other characters, those with accents, non-breaking spaces, etc., have been encoded in HTML entity decimals.
margin-left: 1em;margin-left: 1.5em;margin-left: 2em;margin-left: 2.5em;margin-left: 3em;margin-left: 3.5em;margin-left: 4em;margin-left: 4.5em;margin-left: 5em;margin-left: 5.5em;text-align: center;text-align: left;text-align: right;font-size: 12pt;font-size: 16pt;font-size: 18pt;font-size: 10pt;font-style: italic;font-style: italic; text-align: center; font-size: 12pt; vertical-align: super;vertical-align: sub; NINES categories for Genre and Material Form at http://wiki.collex.org/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Ccollex:genre.3E on 20014-02-27 NINES categories for document type at http://wiki.collex.org/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Cdc:type.3E on 2014-02-27 NINES categories for discplines at http://wiki.collex.org/index.php/Submitting_RDF#.3Ccollex:discipline.3E on 2014-02-27 museumsprint cultureprosopopeiaperiodicalsvisual arthistoriographyDavid Rettenmaier2016-10-09TEI encoding the issue
In several Romantic periodicals, a first-person narrator witnesses the spirits of the distant past return to reanimate artworks in museum
settings. This essay focuses on two such playful texts, which show how Romantic literary magazines used this rhetorical device to convey
their visions of Britain’s recent history and probable future as well as to communicate a sense of their own place in Romantic print
culture.
Speaking with the Artful Dead in Romantic Periodicals
Emma PeacockeQueen’s University
In May 2007, the National Gallery (London) broadcast its seventh podcast, devoted to “the
National Gallery After Dark.” It swiftly immerses listeners in the gallery, with the public announcement system crackling into life to
inform listeners that “it is closing time [. . .] the Gallery closes at 6pm,” and bringing us into the room with a genial guard
asking lingering art-lovers, “Can we make a move please?” The podcast allows us to linger into the night and to meet the unseen people
behind the National Gallery’s workings. The next voice, like the public announcement system, comes filtered through broadcasting
equipment—but this time without crackle and distortion. It is the voice of the works of art themselves, as imagined by the poet Jacob Sam
La-Rose. “We are many, never silent,” the voice begins, and promises that “even in darkness,” there is something to behold; “light sighs
from our surfaces like sap from wounded trees.” La-Rose’s words assert the life inherent in museum works: they “demand” attention and
fearlessly “meet” the onlooker’s gaze. In the National Gallery podcast, novelist and academic Marina Warner examines why we like to assert a
secret life inherent in the artworks. Indeed, the National Gallery podcast reprises many of the themes of a particular subgenre of Romantic
writing—the museum visit in which objects (or their long-dead creators) come to life to speak with the narrator.
Gillen D’Arcy Wood notes the profound disquiet that many from the Romantic era felt at spectacles and artifacts that blurred the
boundary between “visual” or sculptural “representation” and “the real thing” (3-4), while Sophie Thomas writes that “the fantasy of art
speaking or coming to life has had, and still has, a potent appeal” (73). Christopher Rovee explores the Romantic fascination with an
earlier text, William Shakespeare’s
The Winter’s Tale (comp. circa 1610), for its scene of the statue of the
maligned Queen Hermione coming to life: “The statue scene itself [. . .] undoes the opposition between original and copy, human
and statue” (100). Rovee also notes how depictions of the statue scene were imbricated in print media, as “the print of a painting of a play
about a statue of a queen” (100). As Warner notes, from fairy tales to Freudian theory, our preoccupation with the hinterland between
inanimate object and living, speaking subject is perennial. Where the National Gallery turns to the auditory through a podcast, the
Romantics tended to mediate their experiences through print.
By re-packaging the visual world of the art museum into the auditory experience of the podcast, the form of the old becomes the content of
the new medium. “Each new medium represents its precursors,” as Lisa Gitelman writes (4); or, in the words of Celeste Langan, “the invisible
. . . [new] medium frames and delivers all the [older medium’s] audiovisual information that is redefined as its ‘content’” (54).
This essay examines a moment when two historical media, the literary periodical and the museum, ceased to be transparent and intersected.
Romantic literary periodicals contain a genre of prosopopeic writing halfway between the hallucination and the gallery visit. These magazine
pieces conform to both of the
OED definitions of “prosopopeia”: “A figure of speech by which an inanimate or
abstract thing is represented as a person, or as having personal characteristics, esp. the power to think or speak,” and the less common
“rhetorical device by which an imaginary, absent, or dead person is represented as speaking or acting” (“Prosopopeia”). In several Romantic
periodicals, a first-person narrator witnesses the spirits of the distant past return to reanimate artworks in museum settings. This essay
focuses on two texts: one in the London Magazine in which a massive pharaonic statue smiles at the narrator and
chants its own history to him, and one in Ackermann’s Repository in which the ghosts of illustrious painters pay a
raucous visit to a London art exhibition. Romantic literary magazines combined serious historical work with more self-consciousness and
playfulness. As David Stewart argues, successful Romantic periodicals intertwined a serious cultural mission with an equally strong sense of
gamesmanship (61-65). Prosopopeia offered an engaging, direct device for periodical writers to provide their readership with artistic and
historical information, with a touch of whimsy to lighten the pedagogical agenda.
I focus on prosopopeia within a museum setting; however, prosopopeia was perhaps even more common in Romantic periodicals than my examples
suggest. For instance,
Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine, in its February 1822 issue, features “Letters from the Dead
to the Living” from the deceased academic, the Rev. Dr. Barrett. The piece concludes with the ringing declaration that “there’s the sorte
[sic] of an obituary you ought to have made for me” (211). Washington Irving’s The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon
(1819-1820) twice features elements of museum prosopopeia: in a library belonging to Westminster Abbey (itself half cathedral, half museum),
an ancient book admonishes Geoffrey Crayon, who then recounts a dream-vision in which a whole gallery of scholars’ portraits adorning the
British Museum’s Reading Room surge into life to chastise contemporary authors who are plagiarising from their works.
The subgenre in Romantic-era periodicals of museum-based prosopopeia provides lasting insights into the senses of taste and of history of the Romantic
reading public. “If history is a term that means both what happened in the past and the varied practices of representing that
past,” Gitelman argues, so “media are themselves denizens of the past” and are “also historical because they are functionally integral to
[conveying] a sense of pastness” (5). By analysing how literary magazines, and the
London Magazine in particular,
convey that “sense of pastness,” we also gain insight into the magazine medium at a particular historical moment in the 1820s. In declaring
an identity for itself and its readers, the London Magazine trumpeted its reliance on a new feature in its print
medium: the illustration.
Paul Westover’s
Necromanticism (2012) argues persuasively that Romantic literature often understood itself through
physical and literary pilgrimages to writers’ graves. Periodicals’ prosopopeia seem to give us the perfect obverse—it is the artwork that
undergoes the journey. But Romantic authors’ desire to position themselves in history through dialogue with the dead resonates in both.
As Miranda Burgess writes, “transport”—both in the sense of rapture and of carriage—“is everywhere in the intellectual history of the early
nineteenth century” (234-235). Attentive to “the communicative medium of print,” Burgess highlights “the intersection of communication and
transport—that is [. . .] the geographies of circulating feeling—as the meeting point for Britain’s national and global situation”
(241). Museum artifacts mediate two kinds of history in the pages of periodicals: the distant history of the eras when the artworks were
created and the recent history of the Napoleonic wars, which brought the objets d’art to Britain. In the eighteenth
century, objects relate their own stories; Romantic periodicals’ prosopopeia feature a first-person narrator who is witness to the
artifact’s animation. This narrator stands in for the new Romantic readership, acting as mediator between the aesthetic, the historic, the
fanciful, and the middle-class reader. As Marjorie Levinson acknowledges, defining the place of the fragment and ruin in English Romantic
consciousness has proven to be a surprisingly slippery endeavour (9). Rather than deal with categories of ruin and fragmentation
per se, I explore the spaces that they opened on to and particularly how Britain filtered its response to the
Napoleonic Wars through its imaginings of past “Golden Ages” in the pages—printed and illustrated—of its literary periodicals.
On the very first page of the February 1821 issue of the
London Magazine, a detailed and elegant engraving of an
Ancient Egyptian statue faces the table of contents. The caption of the engraving identifies the statue as “MEMNON’S HEAD.” The table of
contents lists the customary “Lion’s Head” article by the magazine’s editor, John Scott, then “Memnon’s Head—Oracular and
Poetical. WITH A PLATE,” then a “Table Talk” article (William Hazlitt’s “On Reading Old Books”). In his “oracular and poetic”
piece, Horace Smith writes in the first person of a visit to the British Museum to sketch the head then called the “young Memnon.” This bust
in fact represented Ramses II, the pharaoh also behind Percy Bysshe Shelley’s “Ozymandias” (1818) (“Statue of
Ramesses II, the ‘Younger Memnon’”). As Stephanie Moser writes, “The significance of this single sculpture for the reception of
Egyptian antiquity cannot be overemphasized, for once it was installed in the Townley Gallery [of the British Museum], the aesthetic
qualities of Egyptian antiquities finally became more widely recognized” (115).
Smith wrote “Memnon’s Head” before Jean-François Champollion published his decipherment of the Rosetta stone in 1824 (Bianchi). Smith once
refers to a blank in “History’s pages” (“Address to the Mummy” 138); that blank concerning Ancient Egypt was only just starting to be filled
in thanks to the theater of war, in which the French began to occupy the Mediterranean and Egypt. French soldiers discovered the Rosetta
Stone in 1799, and it was ceded to the British in 1801 (its inscription having already been copied), along with other ancient artifacts
through the Treaty of Alexandria. Part of the significance of both the Rosetta Stone and the bust of Ramses is that they helped Europeans to
see Ancient Egypt afresh; another part of their significance is their role as trophies—transported between nations and victors—of
inter-continental war (“The Rosetta
Stone”).
“Memnon’s Head” curiously mixes genres and tones. It begins as an impersonal, third-person, and highly factual recapitulation of writings
from classical antiquity, modulates through Smith’s narrator’s first-person account of visiting Memnon’s Head in the British Museum, and
ends as a prosopopeic poem, which the colossal statue addresses to the narrator. I argue that the
London Magazine’s
frontispiece illustration (Figure 1) is integral to Smith’s construction of “Memnon’s Head” as a representation of both sober classical antiquarianism
and hallucinatory poetry. Smith begins by declaring that “it is well known” that “there were two statues of Memnon” (“Memnon’s Head” 125).
He then differentiates between “the smaller one, commonly called the young Memnon,” and installed in the British Museum, “and a larger and
more celebrated one,” still in Egypt, “from which, when touched by the rays of the morning sun, harmonious sounds were reported to have
issued.” Smith enters into a page-long learned exegesis of what “ancient writers,” like Strabo, Pausanias, Pliny, and Tacitus have recorded
concerning the larger bust (“Memnon’s Head” 125-126). In this, the opening movement of his article, Smith’s tone echoes a piece from the
previous issue of the magazine. The January 1821 London Magazine ran an article called “The Apotheosis of Homer,”
subtitled “AN EXPLANATION OF AN ANCIENT BAS-RELIEF . . . REPRESENTING THE APOTHEOSIS OF HOMER: COLLECTED FROM THE WRITINGS OF
SEVERAL LEARNED AUTHORS AND ANTIQUARIES” (81). Like Smith on “Memnon’s Head,” the brief “The Apotheosis of Homer” draws on “many authors”
who “have written on the subject of this beautiful piece of sculpture,” and who “very much differ in their accounts” (81). Both Smith’s
article and “The Apotheosis of Homer” are rather interpolative, conjuring up a learned audience of London Magazine
readers who are conversant with classical history, mythology, and texts. Smith begins his article by implying that the existence of two
statues will be “well known” to his readers (“Memnon’s Head” 125); “The Apotheosis of Homer” tactfully explains that “the following
extracts” from “works” on the Apotheosis bas-relief “will clear the matter up,” implying that its readers may be confused by conflicting
accounts but are certainly not reading for the first time of such a sculpture’s existence (81). Like “Memnon’s Head,” “The Apotheosis of
Homer” leans heavily on the British Museum, placing its readers alongside “the student, and the rational observer,” whom the “forms of
admission [. . .] preserve [. . .] from the inconvenience and unpleasantness of ignorant crowds” that would obstruct
“contemplation and feeling” (81). As the London Magazine’s editor, Scott wrote in the same issue as Smith’s “Head
of Memnon” that “We are happy to find that the Plate of the Bas-relief, in our last Number, gave satisfaction; and
we anticipate as much for the head of Memnon, in the present” (Scott 124). A small image of Exmouth wrestlers, taking up less
than a third of the page, was the first illustration in the London Magazine in December 1820 (“Exmouth Wrestling”
613); the Ancient Greek “Bas-Relief” was the second, occupying the entire page facing the table of contents; the Ancient Egyptian bust was
the third. In the next month’s issue, a male statue from the Elgin Marbles would be the subject of the fourth engraving, also illustrating a
prosopopeia by Smith.
Although “the success of all media depends at some level on inattention or ‘blindness’ to the media technologies themselves
[. . .] in favor of attention to ‘the content,’” nonetheless there are moments when “forgotten questions about whether and how
media do the job bubble to the surface” (Gitelman 6). Periodicals in Romantic Britain were a highly “self-conscious” and changing medium
(Stewart 11-12; 1-2), and part of their self-definition sprang from their meditations on museum display. For Scott, articles like “The
Apotheosis of Homer” and “Memnon’s Head” defined the
London Magazine, and the plates that accompanied them were
integral to their message. The plates signaled the magazine’s investment in these pieces and made them the flagship articles whose banners
preceded even the table of contents. Scott believed that the success of his magazine was better served by bringing the media technology of
engraving to the forefront, rather than permitting readerly blindness or inattention. In February 1821, Scott proudly points out that his
magazine is taking a “novel course” in “pretty frequently offering to our readers representations of the most celebrated objects of art in
sculpture and painting, as embellishments of our Magazine, accompanied by papers on their peculiar character, and merits” (Scott 124). The
visual “representations” and the “papers” reinforce each other’s power. Scott makes a lovely hyperbolic claim for the importance of articles
like Smith’s on objects of antique sculpture; he explains that “The LONDON MAGAZINE [. . .] must play its part, as occupying a
distinguished place in the noise and bustle,” especially in an era when “we apprehend that Magazines will soon form the only
literature of the country!” (124). It therefore behooves them to be edifying.
Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin posit that “we see ourselves [. . .] in and through our available media,” whether those media
are at the cutting edge of technology or are “older, verbal” in nature (231). The readers of the
London Magazine
are certainly invited to see themselves as erudite participants in British cultural institutions through the London
Magazine and its illustrated articles on antiquities like the bas-relief or pharaonic sculpture. Writing independently about
antiquarian endeavours, Ina Ferris and Maureen N. McLane focus on studies of Britain’s own past. As McLane suggests in “Mediating
Antiquarians in Britain,” some of the most significant work that British antiquaries carried out was textual and focused on documents.
Ferris observes that the pages of these “antiquarian publications” were “typically broken up with footnotes and marginal notations,” rather
accurately reflecting the “work” of the learned authors to “refram[e]” and “reshap[e]” the past (para. 6). Readers were, in Yoon Sun Lee’s
terms, obliged to replicate the “foraging” of antiquarians through the past (82). Likewise, the classically-minded readers of the London Magazine had to flip between the text and illustration, thus replicating antiquarian endeavours and collaborating
in the experience of putting the magazine and its meanings together.
Having continued the instructive and interpolative work of “The Apotheosis of Homer” in the previous issue, “Memnon’s Head” modulates into
whimsy. Throughout the account of ancient authors and histories, Smith writes in the omniscient third person; Smith’s narrator now begins to
use the first person and declares that “unless I have been grossly deceived by imagination, I have good grounds for maintaining, that the
Head, now in the British Museum, is endued with qualities quite as inexplicable, as any that have been attributed to its more enormous
namesake” (126). The narrator then claims to have witnessed something “marvellous” and “supernatural” while drawing the statue late one
afternoon at the British Museum (126). The narrator’s is still a highly textual world; when the colossal bust’s features seem to shift and
smile to him, the narrator reminds himself that “Belzoni says, that it seemed to smile on him” before he excavated the statue. The narrator
thus “endeavour[s] to persuade [him]self that [he] had” simply been “deceived” by his memory of Giovanni Belzoni’s printed
Narrative (1820) (126). However, the narrator soon receives more incontrovertible sensory evidence: “the broad granite eyelids
slowly” blink, “as if the Giant were striving to awaken himself from his long sleep,” and the narrator hears the mighty statue’s “low
whispering voice” chant his own history (126).
Smith’s narrator simultaneously inhabits a highly textual world and some of the conventions of a more bardic Romanticism. While “Memnon’s
Head” reaches toward classical texts and recent issues of the
London Magazine, it also claims authority on the
grounds that “‘I was there, I remember’”—a kind of “poetic authority” inextricable from balladeering and minstrel traditions (McLane, Balladeering 190). “The authoritative editor” of ballad collections “would strive to mediate distinct kinds of sources,
oral, manuscript, and print” (McLane, Balladeering 189). McLane comments that “editing offered” Sir Walter Scott
“an opportunity to meditate on and discriminate among kinds of sources and kinds of mediation”; in the place of Scott’s “ostentatiously
elaborate headnotes” and “scrupulous documenting” (Balladeering 189) of each ballad and each person who transmits
it, Smith gives his circumstantial account of visiting the bust in the museum and lingering after other visitors depart, and the London Magazine itself gestures self-consciously toward the visual and textual apparatus that it places around the
museum visit. Roland Barthes writes of “a particular form of imaginary projection,” a dubious claim to “objectivity” in which “the historian
is claiming to allow the referent to speak all on its own” (11). However, as Bolter and Grusin observe, while sometimes media attempt
invisibility, there is also a “pleasure of the act of mediation” and that pleasure in the hypermediated is historically long-standing (14).
With its anonymous narrator acting as intermediary, its complex structures of related articles and of illustrations, the London Magazine article is certainly heavily mediated—even hypermediated—in its engagement with a museum object, especially as
the “young Memnon” already evokes its own histories, texts, and associations. This quality of hypermediation allows Smith’s brief text to
gesture toward both antiquarian precision and toward the power of poetic vision and hallucination, and in doing so it establishes the London Magazine’s own unique appeal to its readers.
The supernatural communication, or hallucination, takes place in the “awful, but not alarming” atmosphere of the museum when the narrator
discovers that “every visitor had retired, and that I was left quite alone with the gigantic Head” (126). As the warder puts it in the
National Gallery podcast, “night-time is good because [. . .] you can actually sit down and let your mind go and let the paintings
take you over [. . .] you see things what [sic] you don’t normally do during the daytime, because during the daytime you’ve got
the clutter” and noise of other gallery visitors. The warder here describes both a sense of heightened attention and of drift. He observes
details that he “normally” would not “during the daytime” but can simultaneously let go, allowing his mind to roam, as though sharing in
Smith’s sense of dream and of night-time hallucination among the relics of bygone ages. Overcoming his desire “to quicken [his] steps to the
door,” Smith’s narrator sees “an air of living animation [. . .] spread over [the colossal bust’s] Nubian features, which had
obviously arranged themselves into a smile” (126). Langan notes that “reading—especially reading poetry—might be thought to produce an
effect that is not merely visual [. . .] but audiovisual hallucination,” an effect which triggers the Romantic “reading public’s
desire [. . .] for numerous illustrated editions” (49, 65-66). The engraved frontispiece shows the statue’s faint smile, allowing
the reader to share almost literally in Smith’s vision of its regal, beneficent face.
Despite his punctilious circumstantial accounting for himself, Smith acknowledges that he may “have been grossly deceived by imagination”
(126), admitting the possibility of hallucination. As Langan points out, Romantic poetry often uses hallucination to signify the power of
the page and the printed word as well as how they open up a new and much desired vista (69). Smith’s other writings give a sense of the
force of his desire for communion with the ancient world. In “Address to the Mummy at Belzoni’s Exhibition,” Smith pleads with the embalmed
man to discuss life on “Thebes’s streets three thousand years ago” (137). The narrator cannot get past his wonder that the mummy belongs to
a civilization that so long predates Greece and Rome: “Antiquity appears to have begun / Long after thy primeval race was run” (“Address to
the Mummy” 138). This poem is written as a second-person address to a mummy—with a mounting frustration at the ancient corpse’s resounding
silence.
In “Memnon’s Head,” Smith’s narrator has far better luck, as the ancient statue spontaneously smiles on him and recounts its own history.
The poem opens with the statue describing how it “soar’d aloft, —a man-shaped tower, / O’er hundred-gated Thebes” (126), through the
invasion of the Persian Cambyses, and through “[t]wenty-three centuries” (128) of desolation and neglect. Smith is thinking of the fall of
empires. The statue dwells on images of ruin, its “[d]eep . . . silence” interrupted only as “some vast / And time-worn fragment
thunder[s] to its base” and as wildlife encroaches where “throngs” and “armies” used to pass (127). The statue universalizes its experience,
declaring that “Nature o’erwhelms the relics left by time” and warns that “vain is each monarch’s unremitting pains” (127). The frontispiece
engraving shows a crack traversing the statue’s chest and the irregular edge where the statue’s left arm is missing, thus facilitating the
reader’s imagination of “time-worn fragment[s]” of the statue falling away.
When it recalls its journey “o’er the western wave” to London, the statue anticipates the possible fall of the British Empire from its
current glory, too: “Saint Paul’s may” come to “lie—like Memnon’s temple—low,” and “London, like Thebes, may be a wilderness” (128). This
reference to what Jonathan Sachs calls “the antiquity of the future” (307), when Regency Britain takes its place with Classical Greece and
Ancient Rome, connects Smith with texts like Anna Barbauld’s
Eighteen Hundred and Eleven, a Poem (1812) and Felicia
Hemans’ Modern Greece (1817). Barbauld, Hemans, and Smith all imagine a distant future in which visitors from North
America contemplate the antiquity of a disempowered and desolate Great Britain. Smith imagines that the “hand” of some such “Transatlantic”
visitor may “bear” the “young Memnon” to a “new seat of empire in the west” (128). The engraving provides a tacit, un-remarked-upon
reinforcement of the statue’s sentiment. The statue’s right shoulder is marred by a hole made by French engineers in an abortive attempt to
move the colossal statue and to ship it to the Louvre.
To read “Memnon’s Head” in conjunction with the engraving of “Memnon’s Head” is to be reminded of the fall of empires—from Egypt and Persia
through Napoleonic France and perhaps, ultimately, to the British Empire’s own downfall. As Mark Parker convincingly argues, John Scott
had been “alienated from both sides” of British politics since the Peterloo Massacre of 1819, “oppos[ed] to popular movements
[. . .] ang[ry] at ministerial cynicism, and [. . .] disgust[ed] at the opposition’s opportunism” (35-36). Scott’s sense
of the “political present” of the early 1820s was that it was an “intolerable” situation (42). “Memnon’s Head” removes readers from this
intolerable present, immersing them in classical antiquity and pointing ahead to a world where power has shifted definitively away from its
unworthy possessors in Britain. It is only in the last stanza that the statue uses its “melancholy [. . .] but sweet” (126) voice
to address Smith’s narrator directly, with a vocative: Mortal! —since human grandeur ends in dust,And proudest piles must crumble to decay;Build up the tower of thy final trustIn those blest realms—where nought shall pass away! (128) Smith’s poetic communions with Ancient Egypt are ostensibly about capturing and conveying a sense of pastness, to have the
mummy’s or the statue’s own eyewitness testimony as to what life was really like, but ultimately his explorations turn to the future.
Our second example of periodical prosopopeia provides us with a perfect instance of poise between the “noise and bustle” and of edifying
colloquy with the mighty dead, and it is one that also concludes with a turn to the future, albeit a much closer future, which it embraces
with far more optimism. This example is found in an anonymous article from the November 1816 issue of
Ackermann’s
Repository, set “ON the last day of the celebrated EXHIBITION OF DUTCH and FLEMISH PICTURES at the BRITISH INSTITUTION.” In the
National Gallery podcast and in Smith’s reading, the noise and bustle of numerous visitors trammel and hinder the poetic imagination from
communing with the artworks; in the Ackermann’s Repository article, however, sociability and the discussion of the
artworks on display is integral to the supernatural communication.
The British Institution was founded in 1805; the celebrated exhibition opened in May 1815, about six weeks before the Battle of Waterloo.
This exhibition of Dutch and Flemish Paintings was rather a landmark event, the earliest exhibition of loaned Old Master paintings ever
recorded (Haskell 63). These particular paintings were certainly not war art. However, the stirringly written preface to the exhibition
catalogue made “wide appeals to patriotism” (Haskell 65) and overtly linked the Golden Age of Dutch and Flemish art with the Regency. “Who
can doubt,” demanded the catalogue’s preface, “that the genius of a WELLINGTON will create future heroes to achieve the most brilliant
exploits for the glory of our country? Let us hope that the genius of Rubens may produce Artists to record them” (qtd. in
Haskell 65). The preface emphasizes how “great examples” will inspire the artists of Britain’s Regency to “emulation” and ever-greater
“excellence” in the near future (Haskell 65). As we shall see, the anonymous writer in
Ackermann’s Repository put
his own highly original slant on this optimism.
Just as our final narrator is thinking how “gratifying” their “lasting fame” would be to the “old masters” whose works are on display,
“immediately a voice near me exclaimed, in a hollow tone, ‘Mighty gratifying truly!’” (“Nature and Use” 269). The narrator realizes at once
that “It was Rembrandt himself”—a “huge figure wrapped in an old black silk mantle” and surrounded by the other major painters
(269). This portrayal of Rembrandt as a sublime yet almost formless mass of shadow fits perfectly with Romantic interpretations of the
artist. As Johann Fuseli expressed it to the Royal Academy, Rembrandt was “a genius of the first class in whatever relates not to form”
(qtd. in Carasso 111). It is only right that Rembrandt be the first and most impressive among
Ackermann’s ghosts,
for, according to Fuseli, “If ever he had a master, he had no followers,” for none were adequate “to comprehend his power” (111). At his
materialization, a “few persons [. . .] still remained in the rooms” and “discovered” the artists’ spirits “at the same moment” as
the narrator (“Nature and Use” 269). One rather affected connoisseur flings himself on his knees to Rembrandt and begins a florid speech:
the ghosts set up such a raucous “horse-laugh” that the connoisseur flees down the staircase (269).
Remarkably, in the
Ackermann’s piece, it is the dead past that yearns for the insights of the living present. The
1816 piece is titled “The Nature and Use of Day-light: A Recent Discovery in the Philosophy of the Fine Arts,” and it is a discovery that
the living share with the dead. Just as Smith repeatedly beseeches the mummy to reveal what it has witnessed, so the ghost of David Teniers
the Younger needs to ask a polite young gentleman in the gallery twice before the living young man will say “what deficiency” there is in
Teniers’ outdoor scenes (270). In return for his eventual explanation, the painter Aelbert Cuyp proposes a sound, practical scheme for the
Royal Institution to build up a library of sketches for the benefit of art students (275). Writing of the late-nineteenth century, John
Guillory notes how “common” the “use” of the word “medium” was to denote a person “who mediated communications with the dead” (347-348).
Although the media technology that shifted “communication” from “face-to-face exchange to one premised on distance” belongs to the
later-nineteenth century, such exchanges across time and space are prefigured by the heavily mediated ghostly encounters in the pages of
Romantic periodicals (Guillory 348). Cuyp and Teniers act as mediums themselves; they make highly appropriate ambassadors between the living
and the dead, for both of them enjoyed popularity both in their own native cities and with a more far-flung audience abroad (Kloek 1, 47;
Vlieghe).
The polite young gentleman’s eventual reply is what gives the article its title: a commentary on the nature and use of daylight in
painting. He thinks that the Golden Age painters, despite the luminous skies over their landscapes, failed to notice perpendicular sunbeams
and the contrast throughout the day of “golden” and “azure” light (“Nature and Use” 270). Teniers is entirely receptive to the criticism.
“By heaven! you have hit it,” he cries, and he runs “directly to call his brethren” (270). They are delighted, as Teniers explains, because
“the great source of our happiness in this after-life [. . .] [is] to enjoy the delight of seeing that our successors
have not only profited by our example, but freed themselves from our prejudices” (270).
Ackermann’s offers us an arresting statement of national confidence, as the nation in the era of Waterloo is quite
certain that the Old Masters have just as much to learn from Regency Britain as they do to teach. As James Chandler and Kevin Gilmartin
observe, the coachmaker, publisher, and artistic entrepreneur Rudolph Ackermann “blurred key distinctions between amateur and genius,
commerce and patriotism” (35). The polite young amateur’s ideas about the nature and use of daylight in painting find a far more sympathetic
reception with the ghosts of geniuses than they do with even a practicing portraitist who is also in attendance. To have a thriving class of
amateur connoisseurs (and purchasers) was to demonstrate strength as a nation and to suggest that political and taste-making power were both
in the right hands. Indeed, as Ann Bermingham has noted, “For many, like [. . .] Rudolph Ackermann, [this thriving class]
signified that England had arrived at the pinnacle of cultural sophistication and refinement” (“Urbanity” 151).
“Repository of the Arts” referred to both Ackermann’s shop in the Strand, established in 1797, and to the monthly periodical he founded in
1809, and the magazine was, in Ann Bermingham’s words, “what we today might call a commercial spin-off” (
Learning to
Draw 127). To buy a copy of the monthly periodical was powerfully akin to visiting the enticing shop with its art supplies,
painting, home décor, galleries, circulating library, tea room, and weekly conversazioni (Learning to
Draw 127). In Ackermann’s print ventures, “the absorption of the arts into the [commercial] life of the city was a sign of human
progress” (Bermingham, “Urbanity” 165). To promote the fine arts as accessible and desirable, Ackermann’s
Repository does not, like the London Magazine, involve its prosopopeia in a complex of illustration,
antiquarian knowledge, and editorial interjection. Rather, it relies on the text to encourage readers to consider “Fine art
[. . .] in terms of its instrumentality and sociality, as an aspect of the broader urban culture” (Bermingham, “Urbanity” 165).
Where the London Magazine imagines the past warning Britain’s present of ruin yet to come, Ackermann’s Repository posits a triumphant commercial “modernity” for Great Britain in which London has “emerge[d]” as such a
“sophisticated European capital” that it can teach even the Golden Ages of other nations a thing or two (Bermingham, “Urbanity” 165).
“Here we seem to be in both worlds at once,” remarks the narrator of the piece from
Ackermann’s Repository, as the
British Institution is occupied by the living and the dead (275). Periodical narrators are typically in the museum at dusk, right before it
closes. Not only do they hover between night and day but also between past, present, and future. This is the moment when the public museum,
which makes antiquities and artworks available to all alike, becomes most private. No wonder periodicals took such an interest in museums’
treasures. In exploring this new, special category of Romantic import, magazines staked their claim to deal with timeless artistic concerns
and timely historical and political ones in a form that echoes the liminality of the museum. The literary magazine is a highly public forum,
yet—like the National Gallery podcast—it is welcome inside private spaces, and it stocks the reader’s own musée
imaginaire of ideas and information. Like Memnon’s Head or the work of Golden Age painters, it seemed to speak directly to the
lucky reader and, in doing so, posited Britain’s place among history’s great empires. By announcing Britain’s exalted place in the world,
the literary magazine could claim a little of that lustre—however ephemeral—for itself.
Works Cited
“The Apotheosis of Homer.” London Magazine 3.13 (1821): 81-83. Print. Barbauld, Anna Letitia. Eighteen Hundred and Eleven, a Poem. Selected Poetry and Prose. Ed. William McCarthy
and Elizabeth Kraft. Peterborough: Broadview, 2002. 161-173. Print. Barthes, Roland. “The Discourse of History.” Trans. Stephen Bann. Comparative Criticism 3 (1981): 7-20.
Print. Belzoni, Giovanni. Narrative of the Operations and Recent Discoveries within the Pyramids, Temples, Tombs, and
Excavations in Egypt and Nubia; and of a Journey to the Coast of the Red Sea, in Search of the Ancient Berenice, and Another to the
Oasis of Jupiter Ammon. London: John Murray, 1820. Print.Bermingham, Ann. Learning To Draw: Studies in the Cultural History of a Polite and Useful Art. New Haven:
Yale UP, 2000. Print. ---. “Urbanity and the Spectacle of Art.” Romantic Metropolis: The Urban Scene of British Culture, 1780-1840. Ed. James Chandler and Kevin Gilmartin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 151-176.
Print. Bianchi, Robert Steven. “Champollion, Jean-François.” The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt Online. Web. 4 Jan. 2015. Bolter, Jay David and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2000.
Print. Burgess, Miranda. “Transport: Mobility, Anxiety, and the Romantic Poetics of Feeling.” Studies in Romanticism
49.2 (2010): 229-260. Print. Carasso, Dedalo. “A New Image: German and French Thought on Dutch Art, 1775-1860.” The Golden Age of Dutch Painting
in Historical Perspective. Ed. Frans Grijzenhout and Henk van Veen. Trans. Andrew McCormick. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999.
108-129. Print. Chandler, James and Kevin Gilmartin. “Introduction: Engaging the Eidometropolis.” Romantic Metropolis: The Urban Scene of British Culture, 1780-1840. Ed. James Chandler and
Kevin Gilmartin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2005. 1-42. Print. “Exmouth Wrestling.” London Magazine 2.12 (1820): 608-613. Print. Ferris, Ina. “Unhinging the Past:
Joseph Strutt and the Antiquarian Poetics of the Piece.” Romantic Circles Praxis Series: Romantic
Antiquarianism. Ed. Noah Heringman and Crystal B. Lake. Series Editor Orrin N. C. Wang. June 2014. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.Gitelman, Lisa. Always Already New: Media, History, and the Data of Culture. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 2006.
Print. Guillory, John. “Genesis of the Media Concept.” Critical Inquiry 36.2 (2010): 321-362. Print. Haskell, Francis. The Ephemeral Museum: Old Master Paintings and the Rise of the Art Exhibition. New Haven:
Yale UP, 2000. Print. Hemans, Felicia. Modern Greece.Felicia Hemans: Selected Poems, Letters, Reception Materials. Ed. Susan J. Wolfson. Princeton: Princeton UP,
2000. 34-69. Print. Irving, Washington. The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent. Ed. Haskell Springer. The
Complete Works of Washington Irving. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978. Print. Kloek, Wouter Th. Aelbert Cuyp: Land, Water, Light. Amsterdam: Rijksmuseum, 2002. Print. Langan, Celeste. “Understanding Media in 1805: Audiovisual Hallucination in The Lay of the Last Minstrel.”
Studies in Romanticism 40.1 (2001): 49-70. Print. Lee, Yoon Sun. Nationalism and Irony: Burke, Scott, Carlyle. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004. Print. “Letters from the Dead to the Living.” Blackwood’s Edinburgh Magazine 11.61 (1822): 207-211. Print. Levinson, Marjorie. The Romantic Fragment Poem: A Critique of a Form. Chapel Hill: U of North Carolina P,
1986. Print. McLane, Maureen N. Balladeering, Minstrelsy, and the Making of British Romantic Poetry. Cambridge: Cambridge
UP, 2008. Print. ---. “Mediating Antiquarians In Britain, 1760-1830: The Invention of Oral Tradition; Or, Close Reading Before Coleridge.” This is Enlightenment. Ed. Clifford Siskin and William Warner. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2010. 247-264. Print. Moser, Stephanie. Wondrous Curiosities: Ancient Egypt at the British Museum. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 2006.
Print. “The Nature and Use of Day-light: A Recent Discovery in the Philosophy of the Fine Arts.” Ackermann’s
Repository 2.11 (1816): 269-277. Print. “Prosopopeia.” The Oxford English Dictionary Online. 2nd ed. 1989. Web. 1 Mar. 2015.Parker, Mark. Literary Magazines and British Romanticism. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000. Print. “The
Rosetta Stone.” The British Museum Online. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.Rovee, Christopher. Imagining the Gallery: The Social Body of British Romanticism. Stanford: Stanford UP,
2006. Print. Sachs, Jonathan. “The Time of Decline.” European Romantic Review 22.3 (2011): 305-312. Print.Scott, John. “The Lion’s Head.” London Magazine 3.14 (1821): 123-124. Print. Smith, Horace. “Address to the Mummy at Belzoni’s Exhibition.” Gaieties and Gravities, A Series of Essays, Comic
Tales, and Fugitive Vagaries. Vol. 1. London: Henry Colburn, 1825. 137-139. Print. ---. “Memnon’s Head—Oracular and Poetical.” London Magazine 3.14 (1821): 125-128. Print. “Statue of Ramesses II, the ‘Younger Memnon.’” The British Museum Online. Web. 18 Jan. 2015. Stewart, David. Romantic Magazines and Metropolitan Literary Culture. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011. Print. Thomas, Sophie. Romanticism and Visuality: Fragments, History, Spectacle. London: Routledge, 2008. Print. Vlieghe, Hans. “Teniers.” Grove Art Online. Oxford Art Online. Web. 5 Jan.
2015.Warner, Marina. “The National
Gallery Podcast: Episode Seven.” The National Gallery Online. May 2007. Web. 18 Jan. 2015.Westover, Paul. Necromanticism: Travelling to Meet the Dead, 1750-1860. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2012. Print. Wood, Gillen D’Arcy. The Shock of the Real: Romanticism and Visual Culture, 1760-1860. Basingstoke: Palgrave,
2001. Print.