The Japanese Journal of American Studies, No. 26 (2015)
Copyright © 2015 Takuya Nishitani. All rights reserved. This work may be used, with thisnotice included, for noncommercial purposes. No copies of this work may be distributed,
electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part, without permission from the author.

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction in“The Apple-Tree Table”

Takuya Nishitani*

Melville and the Magazine Market
When branching out to write stories for magazines, after the commercial
failures of Moby-Dick (1851) and Pierre (1852),1 Herman Melville used a
middle-class narrator in “Bartleby, the Scrivener” (1853), who boasts, at theoutset of the story, of his ability to gratify the tastes of contemporary readers:“[I] could relate divers histories, at which good-natured gentlemen might
smile, and sentimental souls might weep”(13). We could take these words
as Melville’s expression of his own ambition to be a popular magazine
contributor, and Melville indeed wrote “diverse” stories for Harper’s New
Monthly Magazine and Putnum’s Monthly Magazine in a period of four
years from 1853 to 1856, a fact which proves his versatility in the craft offiction. As Sheila Post-Lauria argues, Melville used different writing styles
for the two magazines according to their editorial principles and the interestsof targeted readers. For Harper’s, which was “a mazagine of ‘light’ literature
aimed at ‘parlor’ readers,” Melville contributed stories that had sentimental
façades and plots, while in the stories for Putnum’s, which “appealed to amore intellectual, politically liberal, and thus smaller audience,” he dealt
with contemporary social problems such as poverty, the working*Professor, Kobe University

57

58

Takuya Nishitani

environment, and racial issues (Post-Lauria 167, 177).2“I and My Chimney” and “The Apple-Tree Table: Or, Original Spiritual
Manifestations,” published in March and May 1856 respectively, are thelast two of Melville’s magazine stories. The two stories do not necessarily
make up a “diptych,”3 but they are companion pieces that share a group ofcharacters consisting of an old husband (the narrator), his wife and two
daughters, Julia and Anna, and a female servant called Biddy.4 Thoughwritten for Putnum’s, they are both light literature depicting the comic fussover a cumbersome chimney or a haunted piece of furniture in a household
where the strong-minded wife has ascendancy over the husband. “I and My
Chimney” and “The Apple-Tree Table” are variations on the domestic
fiction that was a very popular literary genre in antebellum America. The
genre was associated with the idea of what has been called “the cult ofdomesticity,” which celebrates the home as sanctuary. Stories of this groupwere written and read mostly by women. “I and My Chimney” and “TheApple-Tree Table,” though written and narrated by males, belong to thecategory of domestic fiction in the wider sense of the term.
As for the critical acclaim they received, these two stories are not equal.
“I and My Chimney” has provoked a very broad range of interpretations: inan autobiographical reading, the chimney suggests either Melville’s
precarious physical condition or threatened position as a writer; in light ofthe politics of the time, the chimney could stand for the American slavery
system attacked by abolitionists. Critics and scholars have tended to “findin the apparently inexhaustible symbolism” of the story “a reflection of
their own compelling concerns” (Newman 251).
“The Apple-Tree Table,” in contrast, has been relegated to obscurity andmuch less critically acclaimed; the story may seem, even to Melvillescholars, to be a far less serious work or to be a mere farce or slapstick.
Warner Berthoff finds fault with the story’s narration, which “quite
noticeably runs out of steam and drags to a flat, anti-climactic ending”(362). Another critic considers the old apple-tree table of the title to be
insufficient as an “‘objective correlative’ for the underlying dark anddangerous stuff of his [the narrator’s] emotions” (Fogle 8). Newman
concludes, after a survey of readings of the story, that its status as “one ofMelville’s minor works” will not change (17). In spite of these negative
comments, “The Apple-Tree Table” is, in my view, one of Melville’s
masterpieces, especially in its art of narration. As Newman notes, “Melville’s‘verbal facility’ is ably demonstrated” (17) in the story, which demonstrates
the author’s artistic control of the distance between the narrator (the person

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction

59

who narrates a story) and the narrated (what is told in that story), a distancethat is indispensable for the production of comedy and laughter. The purposeof this article is to examine the narrator’s dexterous storytelling in detail andto show that Melville critically used the mode of domestic fiction and recast
the conventions of the genre in “The Apple-Tree Table.”

Different Styles and the Comic Distance
The narrator of “The Apple-Tree Table,” who lives in an old New Englandhouse and is himself an old man, finds a strange, ancient table in the attic
and puts it into everyday usage, but strange sounds begin to be heard, andthen a bug, followed by another, gnaws its way out from within the table.
The same kind of events were seen in New England’s earlier history andwere reported in Timothy Dwight’s Travels in New England and New York(1821), and A History of the County of Berkshire, Massachusetts (1829)
edited by D. D. Field. Henry D. Thoreau also refers to a similar incident in
Walden (1854) as a symbolic example of the immortality of the human soul:
Every one has heard the story which has gone the rounds of New
England, of a strong and beautiful bug which came out of the dry leafof an old table of apple-tree wood, which had stood in a farmer’s
kitchen for sixty years, first in Connecticut, and afterward in
Massachusetts,—from an egg deposited in the living tree many years
earlier still, as appeared by counting the annual layers beyond it; which
was heard gnawing out for several weeks, hatched perchance by theheat of an urn. Who does not feel his faith in a resurrection andimmortality strengthened by hearing of this? Who knows what beautiful
and winged life, whose egg has been buried for ages under many
concentric layers of woodenness in the dead dry life of society,deposited at first in the alburnum of the green and living tree, which
has been gradually converted into the semblance of its well-seasoned
tomb,—heard perchance gnawing out now for years by the astonishedfamily of man, as they sat round the festive board,—may unexpectedly
come forth from amidst society’s most trivial and handselled furniture,
to enjoy its perfect summer life at last! (222–23; emphasis added)
As these references show, the story of the revival of a bug entombed in an
old table was circulated through antebellum New England, and it wasinterpreted scientifically as well as preternaturally as a kind of spirit rapping

60

Takuya Nishitanior transcendentalism, as seen in Thoreau. Melville read Walden in 1854 or1855 and A History of the County of Berkshire (Sealts 93–94), but it is notclear whether he read Dwight’s Travels. Melville’s point in using the wellknown story in “The Apple-Tree Table” might have been to give it adifferent, and in this case comic, treatment in order to subvert Thoreau’s andothers. In my opinion, Melville intended to experiment with the distance
between the narrator and the narrated or between the narrator and thenarrative style. (As we shall see, Melville used an assortment of styles in thetale.)To begin, let us examine the description of the table in the opening
paragraphs of the story and see how it is well in accordance with Gothic
conventions. The narrator finds “a necromantic little old table as might havebelonged to Friar Bacon” in “the old hopper-shaped garret” (378). The table
is “set out with broken, be-crusted old purple vials and flasks” as if it had
been used in the laboratory of a magician or alchemist, and there is also “aghostly, dismantled old quarto” on top of it, which later turns out to be
Cotton Mather’s Magnalia Christi Americana (378). The pillar of the table
is so twisted and forked into “three crooked legs, terminating in three clovenfeet” as to look very devilish (378). The narrator’s house, which he purchased
five years earlier, is itself very old and located in “an old-fashioned quarterof one of the oldest towns in America” (378). Melville’s artistry is often
displayed in the depiction of this kind of mystic architecture or space, and,here also, the repetition of the word “old” and the concentric setting of thehouse have much to do with deepening the Gothic quality of the story.
The ghostly atmosphere is soon countered, however, with the narrator’sconfession, which seems a sort of joke: he says that he did not willingly
refute, at the time of buying the house, the rumor that it was haunted,
because “it tended to place the property the more conveniently within [his]means” (378). This distancing from the Gothic rhetoric is already seen in
the repetition of the word “old,” which also has a comic effect. In anotherinstance, the narrator goes still further away from the gloominess by
revealing the true reason why he entered the garret, which he had initiallybeen afraid of going into. He had not gone up there, he says, because there
had been no need to do so. One day, though, he happened to pick up in thegarden a rusty key that turned out to be to the garret door, and he decided to
explore the place. The act was “from a mere instinct of gratification,”
according to the narrator, and “irrespective of any particular benefit toaccrue” (379). The fact is that he was drawn there by the expectation offinding a hidden treasure. The narrator is consciously tickling the reader by

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction

61

pretending innocently to betray his pecuniary interest and calculation.
The narrator discovers the apple-tree table and refinishes it to use as his
own reading desk. His wife, though disliking the narrator’s “idea ofdomesticating the table” (381) at first, takes a fancy to the newly varnishedlook of the wood and decides to employ it as a breakfast and tea table. The
table thus joins in “the polished society of more prosperous furniture” andgains “an honorable position in the cedar-parlor” (381). It is noteworthy
here that the parlor meant “a repository for consumer objects that attested to
the family’s financial success and refined taste,” especially for middle-classwomen in antebellum America (Shamir 38). In this way, the once devilishlooking table is “domesticated” and even accepted as a valuable, antiquarianpiece of furniture in one of the most cherished interior spaces of the home.
As the story proceeds, however, the domestic peace is threatened bystrange sounds coming from inside the table. On a quiet December midnight,
when the narrator is alone drinking punch and reading Mather’s Magnalia
in the parlor, a ticking or rasping noise seems to come from nowhere. He
wonders whether it is a noise from the clock in the room or his watch or “adeath-tick in wainscot” (383). The horrified narrator goes to the bedroom
and consults with his wife, who is already in bed and gives little heed to his
concerns:“Wife, wife,” hoarsely whispered I, “there is—is something tick—ticking in the cedar-parlor.”“Poor old man—quite out of his mind—I knew it would be so.
Come to bed; come and sleep it off.”“Wife, wife!”“Do, come to bed. I forgive you. I won’t remind you of it tomorrow. But you must give up the punch-drinking, my dear. It quite
gets the better of you.” (384)The contrast between the narrator’s repeated anxious calling “Wife, wife”
and his wife’s pitying but nonchalant response clearly shows that he isdependent on or dominated by his wife. The above passage, with the reversalof the traditional, hierarchical relationship between husband and wife, is
one of the funniest lines in the story or, perhaps, in all the antebellum
domestic stories.
The husband is not to be despised, though. He may be weak anduntrustworthy as the head of the family, but his narrative technique should
not be made little of. He knows the right buttons to push to make the reader

62

Takuya Nishitani

laugh. Let us corroborate this with another instance of comical exchange
among the family members. The following morning, when the narrator goes
downstairs for breakfast, he finds the whole family in a panic caused by theticking noise. The scene constitutes not a comedy of speech but of action. It
is almost a farce or slapstick. The wife is frantically ransacking, on her
knees, the carpet for the source of the noise, and the daughters Julia andAnna are running around the room, crying hysterically, “The table, thetable!” and “Spirits! Spirits!”(385)—maybe an echo of the narrator’s “Wife,
wife!” The narrator stands still, looking at the fuss, and will not move evenwhen his wife orders him to come to her. The excitement of the women andthe stillness of the husband make a comic contrast here, but, in truth, he isafraid of the strange noise and does not want to get closer to the table. He
suggests that his wife have breakfast in the next room, instead of the parlor,and begins to move toward it “in high self-possession” (385), hiding his realwish to leave the parlor as quickly as possible.
His wife then bids the maid Biddy to remove the table from the parlor andbring hammers to take up the carpet. “Now, husband, do you take up thatside of the carpet, and I will this,” the wife, dropping on her knees, says tothe narrator, who “follow[s] suit” (386). From this moment on, the husbandnarrator’s apparent aloofness is encroached on by his wife’s agitatedmovements. Unable to find the source of the noise under the carpet, the wife
commands Biddy to bring back the table to the room, which Biddy refuses
to do. The wife then turns to the husband and asks him, “in a frightful,businesslike manner,” to bring back the table: “Shall I go to the wood-housefor it, or will you?” (386). The husband “immediately” goes out and“hurriedly” returns with the table (386). Biddy refuses again the wife’sorder to set the table and asks to quit her job and leave the house by saying,“Will you pay me my wages?” (386). The narrator, infuriated by her attitude,
insists that she set the table, threatening that he will “go for the police” if
she will not do what she is told (386). The narrator “follow[s] suit” and join
forces with his wife, because his fear of the uncanny table is superseded by
the fear of displeasing her. It is quite an undignified attitude, to add, that hedepends not on his own patriarchal authority but on that of the police inorder to make the servant Biddy obey.
These flustered responses of the husband to his wife are very amusing
and well written, but their ludicrousness lies in his actions and not in thewords used to depict them. In the above scene, the narrator looks at himself
rather ironically and laughs at his own ludicrous actions. The ironical lookputs a distance between the narrator and the narrated (i.e., the narrator

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction63

himself, in this case). That distance is deftly implanted in the sentences, andthey help to effectively amplify the comical quality of the parlor scene.
What is laughed at here, however, is not exactly the language itself but theexcited behavior of the characters.
The situation is different in the following passage from a later scene, inwhich the sentences come to the fore with their oddities. Out of the tableappear two bugs, the first of which is captured by the narrator, but,unfortunately, is soon put into the fire by Biddy. Yet there comes the ticking
noise again, and the whole family sits up all night, waiting for the appearanceof another bug. The narrator makes a record of the night as follows:
I shall here transcribe from memoranda kept during part of thenight:“One o’clock. No sign of the bug. Ticking continues. Wife getting
sleepy.
“Two o’clock. No sign of the bug. Ticking intermittent. Wife fastasleep.
“Three o’clock. No sign of the bug. Ticking pretty steady. Julia andAnna getting sleepy.
“Four o’clock. No sign of the bug. Ticking regular, but not spirited.
Wife, Julia and Anna, all fast asleep in their chairs.
“Five o’clock. No sign of the bug. Ticking faint. Myself feelingdrowsy. The rest still asleep.”
So far the journal. (395)
The family members fall asleep one after another, and finally the narrator
himself goes off into a doze. The scene looks all the more comical becauseof the great gap between the narrator’s inadvertent lack of resolution and thepseudoscientific style of his “journal” that pretends to be a careful andprecise recording of fact. Here, not merely the narrator’s behavior but also
his peculiar literary style is made fun of.
Another instance of the ridicule of scientific language can be found in thepassage where, toward the end of the story, a Dr. Johnson tries to explain thetable rapping as a natural phenomenon, using mathematical terms:
The wood of the table was apple-tree, a sort of tree much fancied byvarious insects. The bugs had come from eggs laid inside the bark of
the living tree in the orchard. By careful examination of the position of
the hole from which the last bug had emerged, in relation to the cortical

64

Takuya Nishitani

layers of the slab, and then allowing for the inch and a half along thegrain, ere the bug had eaten its way entirely out, and then computing
the whole number of cortical layers in the slab, with a reasonable
conjecture for the number cut off from the outside, it appeared that theegg must have been laid in the tree some ninety years, more or less,before the tree could have been felled. But between the felling of thetree and the present time, how long might that be? It was a very oldfashioned table. Allow eighty years for the age of the table, which
would make one hundred and fifty years that the bug had lain in theegg. Such, at least, was Professor Johnson’s computation. (396–97;
emphasis added)
The narrator makes the most of Dr. Johnson’s way of explaining thewondrous phenomenon, referring to the latter’s “careful examination,”“reasonable conjecture,” and so on. Dr. Johnson’s “computation” turns out,
however, to be so problematic that, by his calculations, ninety and eighty
years make “one hundred and fifty years.”
As we have seen so far, there are a variety of comic distances in the story:
the distance between the narrator and the narrated and the distance between
the narrator and the language he uses in his narration widely differ fromscene to scene. The narrator looks ironically sometimes at his own actions,sometimes at those of the others, sometimes at his own language or narration
itself, and, at other times, he looks at all these things together. This isbecause his attitude toward the table fluctuates. It is a spooky “necromancer”’stable at first, but it becomes, having been revarnished, the narrator’s favorite
piece of antiquarian furniture. He, at one time, works alongside his wife intrying to find the source of the noise, but, at another time, he becomes asfrightened as his daughters are of the haunted table. It is not clear what hereally makes of the table.
In “I and My Chimney,” the relationship between the narrator and thechimney does not change so much throughout the tale. He is strongly
attached to the gigantic chimney, which is placed at the very center of thehouse, and desperately defends it against his wife and daughters, who want
to destroy it to make a wide, elegant hall in its place.
It is now some seven years since I have stirred from my home. My city
friends all wonder why I don’t come to see them, as in former times.
They think I am getting sour and unsocial. Some say that I have becomea sort of mossy old misanthrope, while all the time the fact is, I am

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction65

simply standing guard over my mossy old chimney; for it is resolved
between me and my chimney, that I and my chimney will neversurrender. (377)This is the basic stance of the narrator, and it shall not be changed or shaken
by any means.
In “The Apple-Tree Table,” though, the narrator’s reactions to the table
are much more ambiguous. He considers his wife, who cannot accept
mystery but seeks a rational explanation of the ticking table, to be “a female
Democritus” (394), an ancient Greek philosopher who reduced natural
phenomena to the workings of atoms in a void. At the same time, the narrator
speaks self-consciously of his ambivalent attitudes as follows: “For my own
part, my present feelings were of a mixed sort. In a strange and not unpleasing
way, I gently oscillated between Democritus and Cotton Mather”—that is,
between positivistic elucidation and spiritual mystification. “But to my wifeand daughters I assumed to be pure Democritus—a jeerer at all tea-tablespirits whatever” (394). As one scholar says, the narrator is laughing at
himself, and that laughter is for the purpose of “accepting the swaying self
in order to survive” (Noma 63). To misuse the literary term “unreliablenarrator,” one might say the narrator of “The Apple-Tree Table,” who thus
drifts to and fro, may be unreliable as husband and head of the family. As
for the narrative technique, however, he is such a subtle and formidable
storyteller as to deftly use several sorts of prose for various situations and to
make the reader laugh by keeping a proper distance with each of the styles
he adopts. As if to prove this, the narrator admits, in a relaxed tone, that it is“not unpleasing” to oscillate between extremes.
Another key phrase in the above passage is the narrator’s reference to his
feelings as being of “a mixed sort.” These words could be taken as an
oblique signal to the reader that the narrator is well aware of the true natureof his story in which a variety of literary modes are used. In its multiple
narrative forms, “The Apple-Tree Table” has something in common with
Moby-Dick, parts of which are made up of realistic fiction, romance, andmetaphysical allegory, while other parts consist of the ecological study ofthe life of whales and the historical record of whale fishery. The language of
Moby-Dick, too, swings widely from Ishmael’s jolly sailorly colloquialisms
to Ahab’s Shakespearean harangues. Touching on the heterogeneouscomposition of Moby-Dick, Sheila Post-Lauria links the novel to the genreof “mixed form” narratives that were “a popular yet radical trend in both
English and American antebellum literary cultures” (111). It could not be

66

Takuya Nishitani

said that “The Apple-Tree Table” is a work of the mixed form like MobyDick, yet the narrator of the story is an able storyteller who can handle avariety of literary genres, as Melville did in Moby-Dick.

Escape from the Domestic Sphere
If the narrator turns out to be very clever and deft in telling a story, though
untrustworthy in practical household matters, there arises a vague
apprehension in the mind of the reader: we have laughed at his actions or
narration, but isn’t it we, the readers, who are being made fun of by thenarrator? As if to corroborate the idea, the jeerer and the jeered at exchange
their positions toward the end of the story. The narrator gives an ironicallook, not at himself as in the first half of the story, but at the other characters.
Following the explanation by Dr. Johnson, the narrator asks his daughter
Julia: “after that scientific statement of the case (though, I confess, I don’t
exactly understand it), where are your spirits? It is very wonderful as it is,but where are your spirits?” (397) “Where, indeed?” (397), the wife says, in
perfect accordance with her husband. This is a pointed difference from theformer part of the story: they also have changed places. Julia answers inwords that remind us of Thoreau’s in Walden:“Say what you will,” said Julia, holding up, in the covered tumbler, theglorious, lustrous, flashing live opal, “say what you will, if thisbeauteous creature be not a spirit, it yet teaches a spiritual lesson. Forif, after one hundred and seventy years’ entombment, a mere insect
comes forth at last into light, itself an effulgence, shall there be no
glorified resurrection for the spirit of man? Spirits! spirits!” sheexclaimed, with rapture, “I still believe in spirits, only now I believe inthem with delight, when before I but thought of them with terror.”(397; emphasis added)
Just like Thoreau, Julia regards the bug as quite a “beautiful” creature,
which, having been “dead” in the “tomb” for a long period, resurrects toverify the “immortality” of the human soul (Thoreau 222–23). Contrary to
her optimistic view, however, the life of the insect is very short; it dies thenext day. “Embalmed in a silver vinaigrette” (397), it is put on the appletree table in the parlor, and the daughters are “happy to show the bug and thetable,” the narrator says, to “whatever lady [who] doubts this story” (397).
In the concluding paragraphs, the narrator slips away to the backgroundMelville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction

67of the story and makes as if to play the role of pure narrator. It is thedaughters, not the narrator, who show the bug to the skeptical ladies. He
takes a step aside or backward and observes his womenfolk and those
doubting ladies at an ironic distance. With regard to the distance between
the narrator and the narrated, it was mainly the narrator himself and his
actions that were ridiculed in the earlier part of the story. Now, at its ending,the narrator is laughing at his daughters and the female readers of the story
who take the trouble to visit his house out of skepticism or disguised
curiosity. There are several details to suggest his ridicule of them. He draws
our attention first to the “silver vinaigrette” the bug was put into. It hadprobably been used as a bottle to hold smelling salts; but how can the deadbug regain consciousness from smelling salts? The narrator then compares“the two holes made by the two bugs” to “the spots where the cannon balls
struck Brattle Street Church” (397), which, during the Revolutionary War,was occupied by the British and was hit by the American batteries. Thishistorical comparison is so far-fetched that we cannot take it as anythingother than a sarcastic joke on the part of the narrator.
Yet is the narrator truly making fun of his daughters and his female
readers? Or is he making fun of Thoreau’s transcendental interpretation on
the wondrous emergence of the insect? If we return to the beginning of thestory and read carefully the following passage there, we can find that thenarrator makes a peculiar gesture that corresponds to that of the bugs. The
attic of his house has been closed for years; it is so dark and stifling that heseeks to open the scuttle slide, or garret window, for light and air. He finds
the padlock to the slide “imbedded, like an oyster at the bottom of the sea,amid matted masses of weedy webs, chrysalides, and insectivorous eggs”(380):
With a crooked nail, I tried to pick the lock, when scores of small ants
and flies, half-torpid, crawled forth from the key-hole, and, feeling thewarmth of the sun in the pane, began frisking around me. Others
appeared. Presently, I was overrun by them. As if incensed at thisinvasion of their retreat, countless bands darted up from below, beating
about my head, like hornets. At last, with a sudden jerk, I burst open
the scuttle. And ah! what a change. As from the gloom of the grave andthe companionship of worms, man shall at last rapturously rise into theliving greenness and glory immortal, so, from my cobwebbed oldgarret, I thrust forth my head into the balmy air, and found myself
hailed by the verdant tops of great trees, growing in the little garden

68

Takuya Nishitani

below—trees whose leaves soared high above my topmost slate. (380;emphasis added)
This is the scene just before the narrator’s discovery of the apple-tree
table. When he “thrust[s] forth [his] head” from the gloomy garret like a“grave” into the open air, he pre-enacts or anticipates, without knowing it,
the movements of the bugs gnawing their way out of the table. It is as if he
has a latent desire for his own revival.
As in Julia’s case, the narrator’s wording here is very similar or exactly
the same as the language in the above-cited passage of Walden. Thoreau
celebrates the marvelous fact that the egg of the insect hatches after having
been “buried for ages under many concentric layers of woodenness in the
dry life of society” and the imago “come[s] forth . . . to enjoy its perfectsummer at last!” (223). If the narrator desires his own revival, is it not a
rebirth from his “dry” domestic life? Every Saturday night, the narrator
treats himself with “a tumbler of warm punch,” a favorite custom of his that
his wife, who does not drink any wine, has “long remonstrated; predicting
that, unless [he] gave it up, [he] would die a miserable lot” (383). On one ofthose Saturday nights, when the narrator is drinking punch alone in the
parlor, he hears ticking noises come from the table. He informs his wife of
the event, but, as we have seen, she gives little heed but says that he must be
out of his mind because of the alcohol:“Don’t exasperate me,” I cried now, truly beside myself; “I willquit the house!”“No, no! not in that state. Come to bed, my dear. I won’t say anotherword.” (384)The wife does not take the husband’s words seriously and gets him to go tosleep as if he were a fretting child. If the narrator is not happy with a life
dominated by a strong wife, the “tick, tick” sounds from the table represent
his desperate wish, throbbing in his innermost heart, to “quit the house.” Itis very suggestive that the strange noises start only after the sinister-looking
table is domesticated—that is, after it is refinished and put into daily use
and the eggs of the insects are stimulated by the heat of the pots placed on
the tabletop.
If the narrator feels dissatisfied with domestic life, his criticism of Julia(and Thoreau) should be taken to be only pretense; he is, in reality, embracing
the transcendental interpretation of the revival of the bug more earnestly

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction

69

than anybody else. Viewed in this light, “The Apple-Tree Table” is a story
about the narrator’s latent craving to escape from a domestic prison. He
may be trying to hide this truth; if so, his despair at family life and the selfridicule about it turn out to be very serious. This story looks merely to be an
entertaining light comedy, but it contains, in its recesses, a vein of dark
pessimism about domestic life in mid-nineteenth-century America.5

Escape from the Domestic Fiction
The narrator’s pessimism of this kind should not be found in domestic
fiction, for, according to Nina Baym, the genre celebrates “home as haven”
and makes repeated references to “calm, quiet, the unpretending” (204). In
domestic novels, the family may become troubled and split in the course of
the story, yet it must be restored finally to peace and harmony.
Let us look at two examples of domestic stories written about a decade
before and after “The Apple-Tree Table.” In Sarah Hale’s novel, Boarding
Out: A Tale of Domestic Life (1846), the wife, weary and ill from thevexations of housekeeping, insists on moving from their elegant suburban
residence to a boardinghouse in the city. The husband tries to persuade her
against it by listing the merits of their house that an urban boardinghouse
could not provide her with:“And so you feel no reluctance, wife, to giving up this convenient
house, with its finely-warmed apartments; the bathing apparatus; thelibrary, with its shelves so laden with books to amuse, to instruct, anddivert you; the conveniences of good closet-room, and those sparechambers, where your friends are so well accommodated; thecommodious yard, the fine prospect of the surrounding country, and all
the many advantages which this residence possesses, and which youwere so anxious I should procure?”“No,” said Mrs. Barclay, “not any.” (13)Mrs. Barclay’s strong will, or obstinate determination, to board hassomething similar to that of the wife in “I and My Chimney” who wishes torenovate her house. The Barclays’ moving to the city, however, does notmake the wife and the family happier but leads to a series of misfortunes.
One of the daughters, while wishing to go back to the former house, dies ofwhooping cough, and the husband, who is a commission merchant, fails in70

Takuya Nishitani

a business venture and speculation and goes bankrupt. At the end of thestory, though, he has got a new job as overseer of a cotton mill, and thewhole family moves again to a residence in the country, where “[t]emperance,order, and ‘domestic peace’ seemed to have made their abode in thisdwelling” (128) and “if ever a murmur is heard in the family, it is instantly
checked, as Mrs. Barclay is reminded of ‘Boarding Out!’” (128–29). Thus,
the complaints of the wife are subdued, and the home becomes stable again.
In “The Ravages of a Carpet,” a story contained in Harriet Beecher Stow’s
House and Home Papers (1865), Crowfield, the narrator and husband,
expresses his love of old things, just like the narrator of “I and My Chimney,”and keeps guard against the women’s desire to bring something new into thedomicile: “of all radicals on earth, none are to be compared to females thathave once in hand a course of domestic innovation and reform” (13). The
daughters insist on replacing the old carpet in the parlor with a new one, andthe wife finds a bargain and buys it. With the installation of the carpet, thewife reforms the parlor by introducing a new sofa and chairs and removing
whatever looks unfashionable. After all the fuss and exertion, however, theparlor becomes a room where it is difficult to get the guests to sit comfortably
and have a good time:
In fact, nobody wanted to stay in our parlor now. It was a cold, correct,
accomplished fact; the household fairies had left it,—and when thefairies leave a room, nobody ever feels at home in it. No pictures,
curtains, no wealth of mirrors, no elegance of lounges, can in the least
make up for their absence. (22)The parlor is made better as a room in the “house” but worse as part of a“home”; but, paradoxically enough, through this failure, emerges the idealof domestic life. The story finally strengthens the traditional value of homeas “haven.”
There is another important difference between the two stories and “TheApple-Tree Table,” and it is related to the consistency of the narration inthese works. Though Boarding Out deals with the opposition of values
between the husband and the wife and the tragic events that arise thereof,
the divided house plot resolves itself, as Milette Shamir argues, into “asmooth, unified narrative”(21), and the fundamental stability of the home isrestored at the end of the novel. As for “Ravages of a Carpet,” the story is
steadily narrated through the husband’s calm voice with gentle humor in it.
In these stories, the sober and well-balanced narration itself guarantees theMelville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction

71

security and immutability of the home. Compared with these stories, thenarration of “The Apple-Tree Table” is quite irregular. It is true that thenarrator’s voice is skillfully controlled to vary from scene to scene, but, toexpress it negatively, his narration is not constant but wavering and evensometimes unreliable. This unstableness is not appropriate for a domestic
story if it seeks to prove the ultimate security of the home. “The Apple-Tree
Table” thus contains an antithesis to the generic stability of contemporary
domestic tales.
As we have seen, the narrator of “Bartleby” works as a kind of mouthpiecefor Melville, but Bartleby could be taken as another authorial persona if weregard his repeated “I would prefer not to” as Melville’s own reluctance towrite for magazines. “Bartleby” has a subtext about Melville’s attitude
toward magazine writing. Richard Brodhead once addressed the friction
between the authorial visions of Hawthorne and Melville and the conventionsof the genre they chose to “work in”:
Their careers as novelists are made up of repeated efforts to stabilize
this tension, to discipline their imaginations, on the one hand, and on
the other to modify and reconstruct the constitutive conventions of
their genre in such a way as to make it a more fit vehicle for theirpeculiar visions. This tension is as central to their best work as it is totheir worst, and it is the secret link between the new formal possibilities
that they created for the novel and the dead ends that they encountered.
(4)“The Apple-Tree Table” is free from neither Melville’s friction with nor
his ambivalence toward the literary mode he adopted for the tale. Like
“Bartleby,” “The Apple-Tree Table” is a story with a dual nature: Melvillecomposes it within the framework of domestic fiction, but, at the same time,is undoing the generic conventions from within. Such manipulation of thenarrative distance and the multiple-layered structure of comedy as we havediscussed with “The Apple-Tree Table” is still further refined andcomplicated, and reaches an artistic apogee, in the novel The ConfidenceMan published in the following year. In this sense, the narrator of “TheApple-Tree Table,” who thrusts his head out of the garret window, isexpressing Melville’s wish not to be “domesticated” in magazine writing
but to escape into a new genre of fiction.

72

Takuya Nishitani

Notes
In November 1851, Harper and Brothers sent Melville an account showing that
1,535 copies of Moby-Dick had been sold (Parker 30); and in March 1853, they sent an
account to say that they had sold 283 copies of Pierre (Parker 150).
2 Harper’s started in 1850 and had “a circulation surpassing one hundred thousand by
1860,” while Putnum’s’ audience “ranged from two thousand to twenty thousand
subscribers, averaging around sixteen thousand readers monthly” (Post-Lauria 167,
177).
3 A “diptych” is a story consisting of two separate but corresponding pieces—a form
Melville made the most of in such tales as “Poor Man’s Pudding and Rich Man’s Crumbs”(1854) and “The Paradise of Bachelors and the Tartarus of Maids” (1855).
4 The same characters also appear in “Jimmy Rose” (1855). They move from thecountry to the city and live in a very old house that seems identical to that in “The AppleTree Table.” William Charvat surmises that “Melville intended to link city and country
stories in one collection” (258).
5 The narrator’s situation might in some ways be a reflection of Melville’s in the mid1850s. The biographer Laurie Robertson-Lorant notes that Melville “began drinking
heavily” at this time to lessen “physical and mental stresses” from his economic
predicament, the farm work, and strenuous writing for hours (29). In addition, his
marriage is said to have been strained. Robertson-Lorant also refers to Melville’s“volatile personality, given to mood swings” and continues, “He could be kind andconsiderate one minute, cold and cruel the next” (29). These traits of Melville’s might berelated to the narrator’s fluctuating attitudes and his mixed mode of narration.
1

Works Cited
Baym, Nina. Novels, Readers, and Reviewers: Responses to Fiction in Antebellum
America. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1984.
Berthoff, Warner. Preface. Great Short Works of Herman Melville. New York: Harperand Row, 1969.
Brodhead, Richard H. Hawthorne, Melville, and the Novel. Chicago: U of Chicago P,
1976.
Charvat, William. The Profession of Authorship in America, 1800-1870: The Papers ofWilliam Charvat. Ed. Matthew J. Bruccoli. Columbus: Ohio State UP, 1968.
Fogle, Richard Harter. Melville’s Shorter Tales. Norman: U of Oklahoma P, 1960.
Hale, Sarah Josepha Buell. Boarding Out: A Tale of Domestic Life. New York: Harper
and Brothers, 1846.
Melville, Herman. “The Apple-Tree Table: Or, Original Spiritual Manifestations.” The

Melville’s Experiment with Domestic Fiction

73

Piazza Tales. 378–97.
———. “Bartleby, the Scrivener. A Story of Wall-Street.” The Piazza Tales. 13–45.
———. “I and My Chimney.” The Piazza Tales. 352–77.
———. The Piazza Tales and Other Prose Pieces 1839–1860. Ed. Harrison Heyford,
Alma A. MacDougall, and Thomas G. Tanselle. Evanston and Chicago: Northwestern
UP and the Newberry Library, 1987.
Noma, Shoji. Yomi no kairaku: Melville no zen-tanpen wo yomu [The pleasures ofreading Melville’s short stories]. Tokyo: Kokusho-kanko-kai, 1999.
Parker, Hershel. Herman Melville: A Biography, 1851–1891. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
UP, 2002.
Post-Lauria, Sheila. Correspondent Colorings: Melville in the Marketplace. Amherst: Uof Massachusetts P, 1996.
Robertson-Lorant, Laurie. “Melville and the Women in His Life.” Melville and Women.
Ed. Elizabeth Shultz and Haskell Springer. Kent: Kent State UP, 2006. 15–37.
Sealts, Merton M., Jr. Melville’s Reading. Rev. and enl. ed. Columbia: U of South Carolina
P, 1988.
Shamir, Milette. Inexpressible Privacy: The Interior Life of Antebellum American
Literature. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2006.
Stowe, Harriet Beecher. “The Ravages of a Carpet.” House and Home Papers. Boston:
Ticknor and Fields, 1865. 1–22.
Thoreau, Henry D. Walden and Resistance to Civil Government. 2nd ed. New York:
Norton, 1996.