University of Virginia Library

Dwight's Triumph of Infidelity: Text and Interpretation
by
Jack Stillinger

Inevitably Timothy Dwight's poems will be reprinted, and among them The Triumph of Infidelity, the satirical narrative of 778 lines in which Satan visits America, speaks lengthily on the progress of "infidelity" since the birth of Christ, and then contrives the downfall of all Americans by inspiring the Reverend Charles Chauncy to preach the anti-Calvinist doctrine of universal salvation. The poem was twice published anonymously, "in the world," in 1788. Although the texts of the two editions differ from one another at many points, and although the poem is in current use even to the extent that parts of it are assigned in sophomore surveys, there has been no serious attempt to establish the sequence of these editions or to determine a proper text. On several grounds a tentative case for ordering the editions can be made. At one point, at least, establishing a proper text is important to the interpretation of the poem, which, in any case, has frequently been misunderstood by the critics.

I

The two 1788 editions of the Triumph are listed in Jacob Blanck's Bibliography of American Literature, II (1957), 520, item 5041, arbitrarily as A and B.[1] In the same order they may be described more fully as follows:

A. THE | TRIUMPH | OF | INFIDELITY: | A | POEM. | PRINTED IN THE WORLD, | M,DCC,LXXXVIII.

• Collation: 8°: a4 B-E4; 20 leaves, pp. [i]-[iii] iv [5] 6-40.
• Contents: p. [i], title (verso blank); pp. [iii]-iv, dedication, beginning "[thick-thin rule] | To Monſ. de Voltaire."; pp. [5]-40, the poem complete, beginning "[thick-thin rule] | THE | TRIUMPH | OF | INFIDELITY. | [flat-diamond rule]".
• Copies examined: Houghton Library; American Antiquarian Society.

B. THE | TRIUMPH | OF | INFIDELITY, | A | POEM. | [flatdiamond rule] | Printed in the World, | M.DCC.LXXXVIII.

• Collation: 12°: i 4 A2 B4 [C]2 (signing A1 as "A2"); 12 leaves, pp. [1]-[5] 6-24.
• Contents: p. [1], title (verso blank); p. [3], dedication, beginning "[thin-thick rule] | To Monſ. de VOLTAIRE," (verso blank); pp. [5]-24, the poem complete, beginning "[line of type ornaments] | THE | TRIUMPH | OF | INFIDELITY. | [flat-diamond rule]".
• Copies examined: Massachusetts Historical Society; American Antiquarian Society.

For each edition the format is in doubt. Neither contains watermarks, and while the vertical chain lines of A suggest an octavo format, one has only the horizontal chain lines and smaller size of B (very roughly two-thirds the size of A) on which to guess duodecimo. For B, Blanck provides "<A>4, A22, B4, <B2>2" — and adds, "Collation in doubt." My own collation is based on the signing ("A2" on the fifth leaf, "B" on the seventh) and on the evidence of conjugate leaves in an imperfect copy, consisting of the first ten leaves, in the Connecticut Historical Society. After snipping some of the stitching, Mr. Thompson R. Harlow, Director of the Society, was able to report the following leaves conjugate: 1 and 4, 2 and 3; 5 and 6; 7 and 10 (in doubt), 8 and 9. The absence of leaves 11 and 12 (only) suggests that they also were a conjugate pair.

The poem has been reprinted twice.[2] A British edition of 1791 follows the text of B, making changes and corrections, and adds Dwight's name for the first time to the title-page.[3] The other reprint, the only recent printing

of the poem, is that in Vernon L. Parrington's The Connecticut Wits (1926), pp. 248-272. Parrington (or James E. Ernst, "who is largely responsible for the text" of the anthology) omits lines 159-176, and claims (p. xlix) to have used "the edition of 1797." Undoubtedly he erred in the date, for he prints in quasi-facsimile one of the 1788 titles at the head of the poem, and his text is a modernized version of A. An edition of 1797 is otherwise unknown. Perhaps Parrington's date represents a momentary confusion of the poem with Dwight's two sermons on The Nature, and Danger, of Infidel Philosophy, delivered in September 1797 and published in the following year.

Were it known that the two editions of 1788 were issued by the same printer, it would be relatively easy to infer a sequence. The fact that the compositor of A ran out of apostrophes just above the middle of page 23 (where five are missing, and spaces left for them, in five consecutive lines), but received a new supply for the lower half of the page, may suggest that the type of A was distributed immediately after each forme was printed; and the smaller format, compression of text, and poorer quality of paper in B suggest that it is a cheap reprint, possibly set up when, unable to reissue A as more copies were demanded, the printer was called upon for a second edition. But nothing about the ornaments, footnote symbols, methods of paging, signing, dating, and the like can be used to show that the editions came from the same house.

One may reasonably infer an authorized manuscript source for one of the editions from the words of an anonymous correspondent to the Hartford American Mercury, 7 April 1803, who, writing in the midst of a newspaper controversy over Dwight's authorship of the poem, asked the editors: "Do you suggest doubts whether Dr. Dwight wrote the Triumph of Infidelity? I know he was the author of it. The man who copied it for the press is not deceased — you may digest these things at your leisure."[4] The correspondent himself may have been "the man who copied it for the press"; at least he had inside information about Dwight's authorization, or he would not have offered for "digestion" the fact of a "copied" text.

The usual possibilities that one edition is a straight (uncorrected) reprint of the other, or that both editions derive from the same manuscript, are ruled out by a consideration of the variants between them — more than 350 in all, mainly accidentals, but also a number of substantives (e.g., "the Lord" / "our Lord" 157 n.; "Cherburg's" / "Herbert's" 200 n.; "or" / "and" 296; "blest" / "new" 405; "lie" / "curse" 464 n.; "even him" / "him e'en" 487; "principle" / "scale" 574 n.).[5] Where accidental variants occur, the text of B, from the reader's point of view, is the better version roughly three times out of four; that is, its spelling is preferable, its punctuation is more reasonable (and more often grammatically correct), and it more frequently

(and more nearly consistently) uses apocopated forms (e.g., "plung'd" 31, "heav'n" 90) to emphasize its metrical regularity. Where substantives occur, the preference for B is somewhat stronger, and in addition B offers clearer hints to the identities of "blank" names in lines 355 ("* * * * * * *" / "E - - - - - -" for "Edwards"), 381 ("* * * * * * *" / "L - - - - - -" for "Ledyard"), and 734 ("* * * * *" / "S - - - -" for "Smith"). Given such variants, if one edition came from an authorized manuscript, the other can have taken its text only from another manuscript, whether or not also authorized, or, if it is the later edition, from an altered copy of the earlier edition. Since it is unlikely that Dwight would have provided an inferior text for a second edition, we must suppose that B, whatever its source of text, is the later of the two editions.

Further evidence may lie in the reasons for suggesting that B was printed from a corrected copy of A. Typographical similarities — the same disposition of words on the title-pages, the use in both editions of the double rule above the heading of the dedicatory epistle to Voltaire, their similarities in title printed at the top of each first page of poetical text (a double rule in one vs. a line of type ornaments in the other; the same disposition of words, followed by flat-diamond rules beneath), their use of italics in lines 345, 573, and 716 — may not in themselves constitute proof that B was printed from a (corrected) copy of A, but one has to suppose a number of coincidences and fairly well detailed manuscript sources to explain them otherwise. More to the point is the fact that while A generally uses asterisks for "blank" names and B generally uses spaced hyphens, they both depart from their systems to print alike "-----" (23 n., for "Christ"), "A---n's" (391 n., for "Allen's"), "C-----'s" (492, for "Chauncy's"), and "J-----n's" (601, for "Johnson's"). The best evidence, however, comes from the variants.

There are, first of all, omissions from B of four words that appear in A: "very" (157 n.), "other" (335 n.), "&c." (411 n.), and "Scriblerus." (671 n.). None is important; but if we apply the general rule that a compositor reprinting an earlier edition may naturally omit words but is not likely to add any, the omissions may suggest, or at least support other evidence, that the printer of B worked from a copy of A rather than from a manuscript. Secondly, there are two uncorrected errors common to both editions: "salute" (402, for the singular verb form "salutes") and "mens" (555, for

"men's").[6] These, like the omissions, may be explainable in other ways, but they are most readily seen, since a number of similar errors in A are corrected in B, as resulting in B from the printer's too faithful following of the text of A. Finally, there are two variants in B that are best explained as new errors resulting from corrections to the text of A. The first is "pow'rs" (44, for the possessive singular form "power's" as in A, or the hypothetical "pow'r's" — since the word is to be read as a single syllable), which clearly came about from the attempt, evident through much of B, to print apocopated forms of two-syllable words pronounced and scanned as one syllable; the possessive ending was lost in the alteration. The second, "were" (278, for "wore"), apparently came about through the misreading (or misprinting) of an alteration of A's "wears" to the past tense.

None of the evidence is conclusive, but taken together it allows the assumption that the supposed later edition B was printed from a corrected copy of A; and it follows, then, that A represents the text of the inferred authorized manuscript. There the matter should rest until new evidence turns up. According to the principles of Greg and Bowers,[7] a proper text of the poem should be based on A rather than B, and should incorporate such variants from B as in each case can best be attributed to the author. One of these variants, though a mere matter of typography, is discussed at the end of the next section.

II

To those who have read it, The Triumph of Infidelity has been many different things: an attack on Voltaire and Hume, or their influences; an attack on deism and democracy; a general defense of Christianity, or Calvinist orthodoxy; the outpouring of personal abuse. Arthur H. Quinn, The Literature of the American People (1951), pp. 186 f., represents the critics who find a variety of purposes in the poem, which he describes as "a satiric attack in verse upon the divine who does not believe in Hell; the Roman Catholic Church; modern philosophy; the Chinese and other institutions, via Satan, whose praise, of course, condemns them. It is also a defence of . . . Calvinistic theology." Even Leon Howard, who has read the poem more carefully than any of the others, is unsure of Dwight's intention: "There may be some doubt as to whether Dwight originally intended to satirize deism and materialism . . . and turned to heterodox Calvinists only for lack of better material or whether he planned a New Divinity satire from the beginning and wrote the first three-fifths of the poem merely as an introduction" (The Connecticut Wits [1943], p. 215).

One may attempt to resolve the "some doubt." I think the critics have erred in several ways: in their failure to appreciate what humor there is in the poem, in their failure to recognize Dwight's use of a variety of satirical techniques, even in their failure to find the real weaknesses of the poem. But

they have erred most often, it seems to me, in the matter of Dwight's purpose. The poem attacks, purely and simply, the liberal "Old Light" theology that Dwight hated, and it suggests, with an indirection that is (in Dwight's plan, if not in his fulfillment) the very essence of satire, the possible consequences of a wide acceptance of such doctrine. From beginning to end the various elements in the poem work toward this single satiric purpose.

The poem's application to America is established in the opening lines (1-16), which describe Satan's arrival in this country. The reader will learn, as the poem unfolds, that Satan makes such personal visits only when his cause, "infidelity," is seriously endangered: thus, for example, he had earlier gone to Scotland to write Hume's works and to France to inspire Voltaire (237-306). The specific reason for his American visit appears still later (353-392): Jonathan Edwards is too great an adversary against materialism and deism, and something extraordinary must be done "to plunge the New World in the gulph of sin" (406). The reason for Satan's special desire, however, is implied at the beginning of the poem, in the first description of America (11-14):

The idea that America was destined to be the scene of "new Edens" of freedom, virtue, and godliness was as old as the first generation of colonists, but no less strong for the "revived Puritan" Dwight in the eighteenth century. To him it was perfectly logical for Satan to consider a victory over America the greatest possible triumph of infidelity.

Satan does not act at once, but instead makes a long speech (17-452) on the history of infidelity up to the present day. Dwight included this section for three good reasons. First, he won the immediate sympathy of his reader. In condemning the pre-Reformation Catholics (73-98), the "fashionable" deism of Restoration England (133-182), and Hume and Voltaire (237-306), and in praising the early rise of Christianity (23-50) and the Protestant Reformation (99-132), he voiced sentiments that both the Old and New Divinity adherents could approve. Second, by reviewing the entire history of Christianity, he considerably increased the importance of his own subject, as Leon Howard suggests (p. 215). Satan's battle for the aggregate soul of America is made the supreme test of his power. Finally, the poet established a large background of evil with which he could associate his real object of satire, the Old Divinity men. The parallel that he subsequently draws between Satan's operations in the New World and his previous work in the Old provides the core of the poem's satire.

This large parallel can be illustrated by a brief outline of the remainder of the poem. With European infidelity well established, and the American

campaign very much in need of a boost, Satan turns to what has been the chief business of his visit ever since the opening of the poem, and hits upon a "glorious project," the "best, / That ever Satan's bright invention blest" (409 f.). His project is the promulgation of the doctrine of universal salvation, and his mouthpiece is the Reverend Charles Chauncy of Boston. Satan ends his speech, effects his plan, and Chauncy proclaims the doctrine (453-470). The project is immediately successful, and Dwight provides a long series of "characters" or satirical portraits, some of real persons, some of types, to show what happens when the fear of an eternal hell is removed (471-638). For a final triumph, Satan has Chauncy deliver a sermon fully expounding the Old Divinity theology (639-734). With this second blast all truth and virtue are defeated, sin and error reign, and even the "decent christian" grows liberal; infidelity has triumphed completely (735-778).

Two important points to be observed are these. First, Chauncy has, with Hume and Voltaire, now become one of the three principal agents of Satan. Satan's visit to America, his inspiration of Chauncy, and the results of the new philosophy exactly parallel his operations upon the Scottish and French philosophers. Chauncy's case differs from the earlier infidels' only in that the American victory, more desirable and harder won, is the greatest success of all, just as Chauncy is the greatest of Satan's tools. Second, it should be emphasized that the long series of portraits that follows Chauncy's first announcement of Satan's doctrine are, however abusive, in every instance clearly concerned with illustrating the effects of that announcement.

Altogether 620 lines of the poem are related to Chauncy and the American triumph of infidelity, as follows: description or speech of Chauncy, 120 lines; the results of his collaboration with Satan, 234 lines; the European infidels who function for Satan in the same manner as Chauncy, 70 lines; Satan's other forces with whom Chauncy is shown to be allied, 106 lines; the destiny of America and the situation necessitating Satan's personal visit, 90 lines. All but a handful of the remaining 158 lines are concerned with structurally necessary accounts of the early Christians and the European opponents of infidelity. The whole poem, then, can be seen as a series of descriptions and speeches centered on one major event, America's acceptance of infidelity through the efforts of Satan and Chauncy. And since the latter was dead in 1788 (appropriately Dwight designated a time for the poem before the end of the Revolutionary War), the chief target of satire is not the particular man, but what he represented, the theological liberalism that worried Dwight by its growing popularity.[8]

Leon Howard (p. 212) believes that the poem was "misnamed in an excess of irony," because Satan "was shown, at the close, fleeing in confusion

rather than advancing in triumph." The last six lines (773-778) of the A version read: The point is, however, that infidelity has also triumphed over Satan. From the first of the poem, he has desired "The final victory o'er my struggling foes" (24), and now, with supreme success at hand on the American battlefield, it turns out that he has conquered not a single virtuous man. Confirmed in the Calvinist belief in the depravity of man, Dwight had written a few lines above (761 f.), "The decent christian threw his mask aside, / And smil'd, to see the path of heaven so wide," implying that even the most virtuous are only superficially good, ready to uncover their wickedness at the slightest suggestion. What surprises Satan, then, is that he has been wasting his time, that his "final victory" is, in effect, a pushover, because the enemy has all along been on his side, and there was "no friend of virtue" to conquer (776). Recourse to the second edition for a variant in typography that must be attributed to the author illuminates Dwight's final intention and explains the meaning of his title. To make clearer the reason for Satan's ultimate dismay, to emphasize the hollowness of his victory, the B text prints line 776 thus: "And to his cause no Friend of Virtue won."[9] Admittedly the theological reasoning at this point is a little shaky, but the explanation would seem to be that, for Dwight, the natural susceptibility of men toward sinful behavior made the liberal Old Divinity doctrine all the more dangerous.

Notes