2017 University of South Carolina
Published by the University of South Carolina Press
Columbia, South Carolina 29208
www.sc.edu/uscpress
26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data can be found at http://catalog.loc.gov/
ISBN 978-1-61117-772-5 (cloth)
ISBN 978-1-61117-773-2 (ebook)
Publication of this book is made possible in part by the generous support of the Watson-Brown Foundation, together with the Caroline McKissick Dial Publication Fund of the South Caroliniana Library and the University Libraries of the University of South Carolina.
PREFACE
William Gilmore Simms deserves his reputation as perhaps the best known and certainly the most accomplished writer of the mid-nineteenth-century South. Born in Charleston in 1806, he lived all of his life in South Carolina; he was no mere provincial, though. With lifelong connections in the publishing industries of New York and Philadelphia, multiple travels into the American western frontier, and encyclopedic knowledge of the nations history, Simms earned the status of a literary citizen of the country as a whole, as well as of his region. His literary ascent began early, with his first book publication appearing when he was nineteen years old and his reputation as a literary genius secured before he turned thirty. Over a career that spanned nearly forty-five years, he established himself as the American Souths premier man of lettersan accomplished poet, novelist, short fiction writer, essayist, historian, dramatist, cultural journalist, biographer, and editor. None was more prolific than he. Sadly, as the political separation of the country intensified in the course of the nineteenth century, Simms was forced more regularly to choose his allegiance, to America or to the South. The two were not as compatible as once imagined, and Simms the southerner won out. At the end of his life with his career and status tied securely to his region, Simms found himself on the losing side. When he died on a summer day in 1870, his literary reputation was already beginning its long decline.
Flash forward to a summer day in 2011 in the offices of the Simms Initiatives, the massive digital humanities project sponsored jointly by the Watson-Brown Foundation and the University of South Carolina Libraries and designed to promote and disseminate Simmss legacy and work. I sat in our office that afternoon listening to two prominent Simms scholars, David Moltke-Hansen and Jim Kibler, banter about the authors views on progress. At the risk of over-simplifying their positions, the former tended to see Simms as cautiously optimistic about societys ongoing development into newer forms of itself, whereas the latter saw the author as a traditionalist suspicious of progress. Moltke-Hansen at the time was the director of the Simms Initiatives, a post he would soon bequeath to me, and Kibler was the Simms Visiting Research Professor at the South Caroliniana Library that summer. The debate they were having was an old oneI had heard versions of it periodically throughout Kiblers residence at the libraryone of the reasons for which was that both scholars were able to cite a vast amount of support from Simmss extensive published works. Seeking a temporary truce by taking a moment to marvel at the complexity of thought available in Simmss work, Kibler remarked that, really, before one could write on Simms with confidence, one had to read everything the author had written. Immediately, all three of us laughed.
It was not exactly that Kibler was trying to make a joke; he was at least half serious in his declaration. Rather, it was that the mere suggestion that any one person could (much less, would) ever read everything Simms wrote was somewhat preposterous. The collection is just too big. Even the most learned nineteenth-century and southern cultural scholars, even those who have read dozens of Simms works, have only scratched the surface of Simmss canon. Two of the most well-read Simms scholars on the planet were the ones having that summer argument, and even they cackled at the suggestion of reading all of his work.
To offer some context, the Simms Initiatives digital collection of the authors works, which features more or less all of his book publications, his scrapbooks, and some secondary material, contains nearly 45,000 pages by Simms. That would be an astounding number on its own, but even it does not represent the full collection of Simmss writing. The number, after all, only accounts for his book publishing and a portion of his manuscripts. Because of his lifelong involvement in the periodical industry of the nation, Simms is reckoned to have produced an amount of uncollected work in the pages of journals and newspapers at least equal to his book publishing throughout his life. In fact, Moltke-Hansen and Kibler agree that Simms wrote on average one poem and one review per week for every week of his working life, a span of over forty years. Add the fugitive periodical material to the books, throw in the unpublished manuscripts, and the page count becomes staggering. No wonder readers can find a sufficient array of perspectives in those pages to sustain a debate all summer long.
That volume of writing is impressive, certainly, but it also marks one of the single largest barriers to the study of William Gilmore Simms. To even dabble in his ideology is a rather significant commitment. Complicating things is the popular and critical disregard that Simms has suffered for most of his posthumous existence. An unfortunate fate for the man Edgar Allan Poe famously declared to be the nations finest writer. The ebbing of Simmss reputation has received various explanations. Some argue it results from progressive William Peterfield Trents largely dismissive 1892 biography of the author; others that it stems from the changing tastes of the American reading public which no longer cotton to verbose and ornate Romantic writing; some claim the identity-based jettisoning of white male authors in the wake of the canon revisions of the modern academy accounts for Simmss decline; others suggest it has been primarily due to a lingering distaste for the proslavery and pro-confederate values Simms held and that became wildly outdated in the postbellum world. These contentions all contain some truth, but even in aggregate they do not justify Simmss erasure.