Echoes of Albany: The Transatlantic Reflections of Anne Grant in Memoirs of an American Lady
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis essay not only provides an original reading of Grant’s Memoirs of an American Lady but also compellingly challenges our understanding of eighteenth-century and Romantic-era travel writing. Most interesting in this last respect is the author’s exploration of “dwelling” as a form of vertical travel and of the role that memory and mental processing might play in travel accounts. The author casts this as a “mental journey” that continues after the physical travels have ended. Grant is a particularly interesting case study for examining these ideas because although she is often categorized as a travel writer, much of her prose describes stasis rather than movement.
I have a couple of substantive suggestions for revising this essay, one related primarily to structure and the other to content.
To make the essay’s argument clearer, I wonder if it would be possible to consolidate, or at least to create more continuity between, the sections of the essay that discuss Mrs. Schuyler’s influence on Grant and Grant’s use of Schuyler as a mouthpiece for her own opinions. The essay’s discussion of the role of foster mothers and mothering both in the content and the production of Grant’s works was fascinating, but it is disconnected from the other discussions of Mrs. Schuyler’s role in Grant’s writing. This creates a rather disjointed feel in the second half of the essay. The author might consider reorganizing the argument to bring together these sections on Mrs. Schuyler.
The second suggestion regards the opposition that the author constructs on page 8 between the stadial theory of Smith and Hume on one hand and Rousseau on the other. The author is correct to point to Rousseau’s noble savage and Grant’s Mohawks as the antithesis of Smith et al.’s barbaric savage. But in many eighteenth-century contexts, the noble savage is not the isolated figure he is in Rousseau’s account. In fact, in many accounts his sociability was integral to his nobility: that is, many of his noble qualities involved a kind of public spirit or community orientation. These versions of the noble savage often rest on the assumption that the tribe or clan—supposedly the basic unit of social organization for primitive peoples—is a big family. In Scottish literature, this community-orientated noble savage is exemplified in Ossian and is developed by Grant herself in Essays on the Superstitions. This is not to say that the author’s opposition between Rousseau’s isolated noble savage and Smith’s socially embedded barbarian is wrong, but simply that there were other models of noble savagery available to Grant than just Rousseau, including ones she participated in constructing. The essay will be stronger if it takes account of these. There is a discussion of the community-orientated noble savage in Grant’s Essays in ch. 4 of Juliet Shields, Sentimental Literature and Anglo-Scottish Identity (2011), which might be a useful starting place.
I also have a couple of minor suggestions regarding the
1. “Mohawk” is a name given by European settlers. It’s becoming common practice to acknowledge the tribe’s name in its own language. In their own language, the Mohawk people are the Kanien'kehà:ka. The author should acknowledge this original name the first time they mention the Mohawks, both in the abstract and the essay. In subsequent mentions it’s fine to use the term Mohawk.
2. On a related point, it might be worth pointing out that the Grant’s claim that the Mohawks have no concept of property (“Property there was none…” [pg. 8]) was a very convenient fiction at the time that settlers were brutally stripping Indigenous peoples of their land.
Overall, this essay stands to make a valuable contribution to our understanding of eighteenth-century travel writing in general and to research on Anne Grant in particular. I look forward to seeing it in print.
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read my work consider and offer advice as to how the piece could be improved.
Point One: 'To make the essay’s argument clearer, I wonder if it would be possible to consolidate, or at least to create more continuity between, the sections of the essay that discuss Mrs. Schuyler’s influence on Grant and Grant’s use of Schuyler as a mouthpiece for her own opinions'. - I have moved the suggested sections around so that the disjointed feel has (hopefully) been addressed.
Point Two: 'But in many eighteenth-century contexts, the noble savage is not the isolated figure he is in Rousseau’s account. In fact, in many accounts his sociability was integral to his nobility: that is, many of his noble qualities involved a kind of public spirit or community orientation'. - I think this is the point that I was trying to establish. Just because Grant is at odds with Smith and Hume, does not necessarily mean that she aligns with Rousseau. Grant conveys the notion (as you state) that the Mohawk and Scottish Highlanders were both more sociable than Rousseau perhaps gave them credit. I refer to Rousseau in this piece because, in the Memoirs I Grant takes umbrage with him. I have reworded the introductory paragraph to this section and hope that this is a bit clearer now. With regards Juliet Shield's book Sentimental Literature and Anglo-Scottish Identity, I have placed an inter library loan request for this item.
Point Three: '“Mohawk” is a name given by European settlers. It’s becoming common practice to acknowledge the tribe’s name in its own language'. - I have completed the suggested corrections.
Point Four: 'On a related point, it might be worth pointing out that the Grant’s claim that the Mohawks have no concept of property (“Property there was none…” [pg. 8]) was a very convenient fiction at the time that settlers were brutally stripping Indigenous peoples of their land'. - I have now qualified Grant's expression here by adding discussion around Grant's use of the term property.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsYour article presents a highly original and insightful analysis of Anne Grant’s Memoirs of an American Lady and it makes a significant contribution to our understanding of 19th-century travel writing. The depth of your engagement with Grant’s work, particularly the ways in which it challenges conventional tropes of indigenous representations and romanticized landscapes, is commendable. Your analysis successfully contextualizes Grant’s memoir within the broader intellectual and cultural movements of the time, adding a layer of complexity to the conventional readings of her text. The discussion of how memory, identity, and travel intersect in Grant’s narrative is particularly well-developed, offering a new perspective on the complexities of travel writing.
Furthermore, you effectively critique the romanticization of indigenous societies that is prevalent in many early travel narratives, distinguishing Grant’s approach as more nuanced and thoughtful. Your argument that Grant’s depictions of Mohawk society do not fall into idealized representations but rather present a more complex encounter is compelling. The connection you draw between her representations of landscape and contemporary aesthetic theories further enriches the analysis, offering a more comprehensive view of her work.
I would also like to emphasize your examination of how travel affects personal and cultural identity, which is another strong aspect of the article. The suggestion that travel is not simply a physical journey but a mental process that shapes memory and perception challenges the conventional understanding of travel writing as a linear, isolated experience. This idea has the potential to shift how scholars approach travel literature, emphasizing its ongoing, dynamic impact on the traveler’s sense of self.
Apart from this, while the article is overall strong and well-researched, there are a few areas where additional clarity and expansion would improve its impact. First, the structure of the analysis could benefit from more clear delineation between the different themes you discuss. The examination of Grant’s portrayal of indigenous cultures and her representation of landscapes could be more distinctly separated to help guide the reader through your complex arguments. Additionally, while you critique the romanticization of indigenous societies, further engagement with other travel writers who adopt similar tropes would provide a more robust comparison. Addressing counterarguments or alternative interpretations would also enhance the overall balance of the article, presenting a more rounded critique of Grant’s work. Lastly, a more explicit discussion of gender in Grant’s travel writing would offer a valuable perspective, especially since gender plays a crucial role in many early travel narratives.
To sum up, overall, your article presents a valuable contribution to the field, and with some revisions for clarity and depth, it could become a significant scholarly resource for those studying Grant and 19th-century travel writing. Congrats!
Author Response
Thank you for taking the time to read my essay and offer advice on how it can be improved.
Point One: 'The examination of Grant’s portrayal of indigenous cultures and her representation of landscapes could be more distinctly separated to help guide the reader through your complex arguments'. - I have included some additional signposting to distinguish the two (separate but interconnected) themes.
Point Two: 'Additionally, while you critique the romanticization of indigenous societies, further engagement with other travel writers who adopt similar tropes would provide a more robust comparison.' - I have included some information around James Adair (1709-1783) and his experience among the Chickasaw.
Point Three: 'Addressing counterarguments or alternative interpretations would also enhance the overall balance of the article, presenting a more rounded critique of Grant’s work. Lastly, a more explicit discussion of gender in Grant’s travel writing would offer a valuable perspective, especially since gender plays a crucial role in many early travel narratives.' - While I am by no means attempting to claim that Grant is unique as a woman traveller of the time, the purpose of this article was partly to highlight how, even at an early age, she possessed more empirical knowledge than most people that were writing about Native American tribes. Undoubtedly issues pertaining to gender inform how we as readers interpret a text, but I feel that addressing gender specifically would necessarily lead me to discuss Grant's attitude to women, and that is a thesis in itself.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI enjoyed reading "Echoes of Albany: The Transatlantic Reflections of Anne Grant in Memoirs of an American Lady." The article provides an important, indeed original, discussion of a brace of texts and manages to place that discussion within a fairly well organised set of broader issues, questions and contexts. I will single out sections which I think are especially noteworthy, but then sugggest one area for minor development. I will also have a list of absolutely necessary stylistic and grammatical corrections to be made before publication.
First, the Introduction (pp. 1-2) should be noted as providing an intriguing, careful framing of the issues and contexts to follow. Pages 6-7 delivers an intriguing segment on foster-mothers in (American) Mohawk and (Scottish) Highland cultures as well as Anne Grant's own life: very nicely done and persuasive! Pages 8-9 (lines 379-459) provides an excellent discussion of Anne Grant in relation to David Hume and Rousseau on the nature of 'the savage', primitive societies and anthropological discourse. Excellent material and judicious linkages are discussed here. Indeed, this material alone could provide the basis for an original and probing article on another occasion. And finally, the Conclusion on pages 13-14 (lines 673-702) is fair and warranted, though it tends to underplay a lot of the findings of Part II of the article, especially the material on Hume and Rousseau and the significantly gendered issues argued on pages 11-13. I would strongly suggest that the three paragraphs of the current conclusion be broadened and enriched with stronger claims, especially with regard to the Part II of the article. It seems timid and perfunctory to read after an otherwise very engaging, issue-laden article.
List of necessary minor corrections:
1. There are a number of missing close quotations marks scattered through this quotation-rich article. For example, note lines 47, 70 and 619. Please proofread all quoted passages carefully.
2. There are a handful of problems with phrasing and spelling of personal names. For instance, is it Tod or Todd (lines 410 and 413) on page 8? And Schuler on page 12, line 606? Please check and correct problems with phrasing on lines 285, 288, , 513, and 571 (Schuylers, no 's).
3. There are two awkward split infinitives in lines 593 and 644 (pp. 12 and 13). Please correct.
4. There is a missing comma in line 620 (p. 13) before the word 'then,' and its lack disrupts the point or claim you're trying to make. Also there is an unneeded, indeed counterproductive, comma after the word 'informal' in line 666 on page 13. Please delete. Both lines make far more sense with these crucial changes to punctuation.
Author Response
1. There are a number of missing close quotations marks scattered through this quotation-rich article. For example, note lines 47, 70 and 619. Please proofread all quoted passages carefully.
2. There are a handful of problems with phrasing and spelling of personal names. For instance, is it Tod or Todd (lines 410 and 413) on page 8? And Schuler on page 12, line 606? Please check and correct problems with phrasing on lines 285, 288, , 513, and 571 (Schuylers, no 's).
3. There are two awkward split infinitives in lines 593 and 644 (pp. 12 and 13). Please correct.
4. There is a missing comma in line 620 (p. 13) before the word 'then,' and its lack disrupts the point or claim you're trying to make. Also there is an unneeded, indeed counterproductive, comma after the word 'informal' in line 666 on page 13. Please delete. Both lines make far more sense with these crucial changes to punctuation.
Thank you for taking the time to look over my writing. As most of the above suggestions pertain to spelling, grammar and punctuation, I thought it best to address them all in one comment. Where possible I have identified the precise errors in accordance with the lines / page numbers provided. For some reason, the line numbers in the piece do not always correlate with the line numbers in the suggested corrections. For example, the missing comma in line 620 of the suggested corrections shows as line 634 in my version of the article.
It seems that the layout of the piece has changed since I uploaded it initially. The block quotations seem less pronounced and it is sometimes difficult to distinguish them from the embedded quotations. I have however checked the quotations to ensure that those that are embedded have close quotation marks.
I have given the piece a further proof reading with an emphasis on correcting the presentational errors that you have highlighted. Once again, thank you for reading my piece.
