Art's Influence on the Consumer's Interpretation

Throughout history, men have created works or been patrons to the creation of art to honor the women they love.  This tradition seen not just in poetry but also artistic forms like paintings.  For instance, Jean Fouquet was commissioned by King Charles the VII's to create the Melun Diptych.  The left side of the diptych is a traditional prayer scene, but the right half is layered with meaning.  It is a classical representation of the madonna and child, but the figure used to represent Mary isn't typical.  Mary was modeled after King Charles the VII's mistress Agnès Sorel.  Using the mistress as a model lead to the overt sexualization of Mary.  The diptych pays honor to Mary but also to the mistress.  The representations of the women directly relates to what the patron or the artist wants.

Melun Diptych, Jean Fouquet

In the tradition of art paying homage to the love of women, Felicia Hemans told the story of Lady Arabella Stuart.  Where the paintings give artistic representations, they depict the physical attributes.  Poetry chronicles in detail what the writer wants to include.  With a lot of the novels and poems we've discussed in class, we've discussed the pros and cons of things like the epistolary novel and how in that form the characters chose to leave things out.  "Arabella Stuart" is written from the point of view of Arabella.  She sets up the entire experience like it's a dream, "Twas but a dream!"  Although she goes into describing a deer leaping though a forest, it left me think about dreams and the after effects of dreams.  How sometimes a dream can feel so real you're not sure if it was reality. The beginning of Arabella's journey is like a dream that turns into a nightmare.

Point of view is something that continually comes up when discussing each work that we've read in class.  Lots of questions about the legitimacy of point of view inevitably come up.  Are the characters concealing things they don't want the reader/ other characters to know?  Is the point of view from that of a man or a woman?  Can we trust the author's portrayal of the historical events that all of the works have grasped at in some way?  Is the author manipulating certain historical events to aid their argument?  Looking into the life of this historical character can help inform our analysis of any work of art that is supposed to detail or emulate a person.  Here's an interesting link about Arabella and her history.

Discussion Questions

1. What is Hemans' portrayal of Arabella and how does that compare to the other portrayals of women that we've encountered in class?  We've read a few texts from the point of view of men does that affect your opinion of the legitimacy of the narrator?  Why or why not, and how?

2. Does the time period that Hemans is sourcing from influence the way she describes Arabella, or does it seem like she is warping history to fit her needs like in Peru?  

Romanticism and Nature

One of the most important ideas that flourished during the Romantic time period was that of the goodness of nature.  Romantic writers were creating their stories during the time of the Industrial Revolution, leading to an increase in people inhabiting the cities.  This was a time that many people were nostalgic for the simple life in the country and a life in tune with nature.  These ideas are the main feature in Felicia Hemans poem "Edith, a Tale of the Woods."

Walden Pond featured in Henry David Thoreau's Walden

In "Edith, a Tale of the Woods," Hemans presents a field where a battle has just taken place, killing Edith's husband, along with many others.  Obviously, these deaths due to combat are very tragic, but the poem makes nature into a force that can alleviate the evils of the battle.  Edith sits all night with her husband's body and at one point the moonlight shines upon his face and "cast fitful radiance o'er the warrior's face" (40) which lets her see for the first time the "gathering haze" (42) that signals his death.  She yells out in agony over the death and only the forest hears her and seems to absorb her sadness.  She has the entire night to be sad and remain in the same state, but once the morning comes, nature seems to give her a fresh start and tries to make her move on:

 The pines grew red with morning; fresh winds play'd / Bright-colour'd birds with splendour cross'd the shade, / Flitting on flower-like wings; glad murmurs broke / From reed, and spray, and leaf, the living strings / of Earth's Eolian lyre, whose music woke / Into young life and joy all happy things (56-61).

 The next thing Edith knows, she has been taken in by an Indian chief and his wife, who traditionally are symbolic of being in tune with and respecting nature.  They too know the sadness of loss and together the three of them are able to find some happiness.  While her time with the chief and his wife was happy for them all, nature again takes its course and Edith dies.  Again, though, death is made to seem natural and peaceful because she is described as "to her home / was journeying fast" (155-156). Hemans also speaks about the moments just before the death and mentions the "'sounds and odours with the breezes' play, / Whispering of spring-time, thro' the cabin-door'" (165-166) as if to say that the process of dying is peaceful and that just before death a person can notice just the sound of the wind, instead of worrying.  At the very end of the poem, the chief tells Edith "Dim our cabin will be, and lone, / When thou, its light, art fled," (222-223) meaning that Edith is a light, or another nature symbol.

The fact that this entire poem was about nature and romanticized even the most sad and gruesome events is an important part of the culture at the time.  To some extent it was inspired by the Enlightenment, which encouraged a more spiritual take on the world, but it was also inspired by an opposition to the revolutionary time period that came before.  "Edith" is a good example of the kind of thinking that really was prominent in this time period.  In this poem, everything has a good aspect to it and it natural and fits in with the harmony of the world, unlike the turbulence that had been caused by the time of the revolutions.

Note: The epigraph translates to:

"My heart is broken, and dead to the world

And nothing remains of my joy and desire,

Oh heaven'y father-take home your child-

My journey in life now is over and done."

Links:

• This article talks about Romanticism more broadly and has a lot of historical perspective.
• This one is more specifically about Romanticism and nature.

Discussion Questions

1. Why do you think Hemans decided to have Edith be fostered by an Indian chief and his wife rather than a different family or none at all?

2. Do you think the epigraph, a quote from "The Maiden's Lament," supports the ideas of the poem or contradicts them?  How does that relate to Romanticism and nature?

Unrequited Love Representing Femininity

All through modern culture are representations of unrequited love and the consequences of that type of relationship. Currently, our minds may go to examples in our realities or culturally centered television shows, magazine articles, movies, etc., but these options were not prevalent at the time of Felicia Hemans's writing and life. Published in 1828, the author's collection of poetry does not subscribe to our conceptions of unrequited love, femininity, or social roles, but provides her own definitions and ideas about these topics.

When reading "Properzia Rossi," the author is clear that she has loved and lost the love of the subject of her poem. However, the unrequited love does not just reflect the feelings of the author, but also represents a larger idea of femininity within its points. Beginning with somewhat of an outcry regarding all of the qualities that the author has that should ensure her happiness and presence of a husband, but she finds herself alone and thinking death may offer some relief to finding a lover. The idea of having a lover or the love of the poem's subject is certain to offer a fulfilled life for the speaker, "Tell me no more, no more/ Of my soul's lofty gifts! Are they not vain/ To quench its haunting search happiness?" (29 1-3). The woman admits she has such gifts as we learn later to be her artistry, along with other talents and personality traits, but this is not enough for her to feel happy with her life. Although this poem is almost 200 years old, its representation of femininity is still believed today - a woman is no woman alone. As the poem continues, there are an abundance of examples as to why the female subject of the poem cannot possibly live a life alone or without a companion of some sort.

Continuing to read the poem, the reader sees that the author is creating this sculpture to somehow express her grievance of a lack of love, and is having trouble getting through the art form despite her talents, because she has no sense of belonging and the man she has loved will not accept this love or reciprocate it. Speaking to just the sculpture itself, the author further establishes her priority for her companion as she is trying to finish her work, "I cannot make thee! Oh! I might have given/ Birth to creations of far nobler thought,/ I might have kindled. with the fire of heaven,/Things not of such as die! But I have been/ Too much alone; a heart whereon to lean." (31 65-70). Yet again, the talent of the author and artist is mentioned and her great accomplishments are obvious, but she cannot separate herself from this problem of love and need for a man. Allowing this supposedly amazing woman to lose herself in a problem of love or loneliness establishes a message that a woman of this time period not only needs a man at her side to ensure her social class and future due to society's expectations, but perhaps for her own sense of security and longing. There are still many modern ideals we hold that say you must have someone in this life to truly be happy or accepted into society, granted these ideas affect both genders, but there is a clear expectation that women need men more than men need women. By writing this poem, the author has made the reader accept that you can be the most talented sculptor in the world, but if you do not have a man to show for this, you have nothing in society's eyes and your own. 

Reading this poem really reminded me of the show How I Met Your Mother, which has the same type of story-line, but with a male character needing a wife in order to be happy. The main character, Ted Mosby, is an amazing architect with all sorts of his own accomplishments to take up his time and friends to enjoy seeing, but he cannot get past the lack of a lover in his life and is always on the hunt. Ted also has a spread out unrequited love in the last part of the show with Robin, a woman he has loved since the moment he met, and when she finally shuts him down he appears to be just as broken as the author, which you can view here. My apologies for the bad quality, there were no better clips!

Questions:

1) Are there other ways that femininity is shown through the poem? Is my interpretation too far one way, and could the actual love and yearning the author expresses be a good way to show more feminine power?

2) Does this poem's picture of women fit with the other poem's representations? Why or why not?

Property, Identity and Maria Edgeworth

In the essay "Homage to the Empty Armor" Natasha Tessone explores the roles that identity and property play within Maria Edgeworth's Harrington. Tessone argues that these themes are the primary reason behind the "fairy-tale" like ending. In the concluding chapter of the novel, we learn that Berenice's mother was a Christian Protestant, thus removing the issue between a husband and wife being of different religions (Edgeworth, 290). Likewise, this allows Harrington to once again be eligible for his father's inheritance. Considering that Tessone argues that "Edgeworth's ideologically inflected need to deessentialize, deflate, and indeed destabilize the political category of property," it would seem that this ending does the exact opposite (Tessone, 460).

Further issues that Tessone raises with Harrington include Edgeworth's blending of historical events to conform to what she is trying to say through her novel. The antisemitism displayed in the 1780 riots wasn't quite as present as Edgeworth leads readers to believe. Tessone argues that making the focus of the mob to be both Catholics and Jews, "religious identities collapse into one another to emphasize the damaging effects of an irrational prejudice" (Tessone, 461). Throughout the duration of the riots, Mr. Montenero and Harrington are protected by "the orange lady," a character of the lower working-class, yet who nevertheless shows herself to be cunning and earnest. Through the orange lady an entirely different perception of religious identity is offered. Unlike Harrington, who has had to go through a great deal of inner turmoil in order to reconcile his antisemitic beliefs, the orange lady shows that ignorance does not always lead to discrimination.

Further obscuring both property and identity is the scene in chapter ten where Harrington is forced to address the intolerance of both himself and his country. Tessone says it best when she states that: "The tower of London, thus, figures as a site where England's ideal of heritage, its persistent history of xenophobic intolerance, and the pathology resulting from both of these notably English traditions converge" (Tessone, 451). In terms of identity, this scene depicts that the inner struggles Harrington has been having with his own antisemitism reflect the difficulty that the whole of England has with confronting and acknowledging its own racism. Regarding property, the Tower of London mirrors the dichotomy found in Harrington, and by extension all of England. Along with functioning as a museum emphasizing English heritage, during the French revolution the tower was used to hold and interrogate French spies. Confronted with this blatant duality, "Once forced to reflect on the horrors of his childhood, Harrington's associative mind can no longer interpret these national icons without referencing murder and torture" (Tessones, 451).

Discussion Questions:
1) Aside from the Orange Lady, what other characters obscure the conventional perceptions of identity?
2) Is Edgeworth's manipulation of historical events tactful or does it needlessly insert her own personal opinions? From the other authors we have read, where else does the manipulation of history occur and how does Edgeworth compare?

related articles:
James Harrington's "The Commonwealth of Oceana; and, A System of Politics" cited throughout Tessone's article.

Karma/Sin and Penitence: the Christian Way

In Maria Edgeworth's Harrington, there is an obvious dichotomy created between Christianity and Judaism.  We have previously discussed how Harrington's Antisemitic illness is a result of what society and the Christians within it have taught him about Jews.  A divide between the Christian British and the Jewish British is established very quickly in the novel because of this.  That divide is only emphasized as the Christians of the novel discriminate and actively hate the Jewish people throughout the entire novel. Instances of this are when Harrington and Mowbray bully and abuse the Jew Jacob and through the representations and references to Shakespeare's Jew Shylock.  The Jewish people are constantly discriminated against in some way, and there is never an instance of the Christians apologizing for this discrimination.  In fact, as we have discussed, there is a focus on how a Christian regrets discriminating against the Jews, but not an instance of the Christian realizing how the Jew might feel about being discriminated against.  This focus on the Christian's point of view on Antisemitism is carried throughout the novel and shows an inherent tendency for Christians to be self-centered.  In fact, this tendency is especially prominent in the last section we read through the reveal of Mowbray and Fowler's "jest."  The reveal of the jest and the consequences that Mowbray and Fowler face in relation to it show the karma of their self-centered actions, and their request for penitence from Harrington shows another tendency to be self-centered.  In this instance, Fowler shows a tendency of being self-centered that can attributed to her status as a Christian than Mowbray.

We see Fowler's first tendency toward self-centeredness in the first chapter of the novel when she tells Harrington the story about Simon the Jew in order to force him into "passive obedience" and "get [him] to bed, and out of her way" (70; 74).  She then proceeds to tell him more terrifying stories about Simon and Jews in general in order to "reduce" his "rebel spirit" so she would have an easier time managing him (70).  As we know, Fowler's selfish actions to make her life easier scar Harrington and give him his Antisemitic sickness and fits.  Even after Fowler is dismissed as his nursemaid, Harrington still suffers from her self-centeredness and lies.  Instead of apologizing to Harrington for essentially ruining his childhood and most of his life, Fowler demands that Harrington "never tell anybody the secret she has communicated" with him so she is not in "disgrace with [his] mother" (71).  Fowler shows no real repentance for her actions until she too begins to suffer because of them, which in turn leads her to try and correct them.  Unfortunately for Harrington, she only makes the problem worse and then, in a fantastic display of self-centeredness, runs off to become the nursemaid of the young Lady Anne Mowbray.

When we see Fowler again at the end of the novel, it is revealed that Fowler has once again committed a heinous act in her self-centeredness that directly affects Harrington.  She worked with Mowbray in his "jest" to ruin Harrington's reputation with Berenice when Mowbray bribed her with the marriage between a rich apothecary and her daughter.  This marriage is one that Fowler was desperate to see come true, and she leapt at the chance to see it happen despite how the jest might affect others - an act of selfishness.  Her entire treachery is only revealed when Harrington is about to accuse her of stealing from Lady de Brantefield, and it is Fowler who reveals her treachery in its entirety in an effort to save herself.  It is Fowler's self-centeredness that causes her to reveal everything to the Harringtons while she throws Mowbray under the bus as being the one who "knew better" and was "the wickedest" of them both (282-283).  Even as Fowler reveals what she has done, she bases her reveal around how sorry she is and if Harrington will ever forgive her.  Fowler tries to show her penitence as she begs for forgiveness for her sins.  Now, sin is a Christian concept similar to karma in that both are a cause-and-effect relationship between one's actions and the results of those actions.  However, sin is a concept that is focused more on how the self is affected by its actions as opposed to how the actions can affect others.  In addition, a Christian can ask for forgiveness for their sin as a means of counteracting that karma.  So Fowler insisting she is a "great sinner" that is not the "worse one" shows that Fowler is trying to excuse her heinous actions by begging for forgiveness for those sins and implying that her sins should be forgiven because they are not nearly as bad as the sins of others (read: Mowbray) (279).  She even asks for forgiveness for her actions when Harrington was a child and she was his nursemaid.

Fowler shows a great tendency towards self-centeredness that can be tied in with her status as a Christian and their concept of sin and penitence.  Fowler focuses on how she is affected by her own actions and only begins to beg forgiveness for her misdeeds once she begins to suffer some consequences.  This penchant for only asking forgiveness and feeling penitence when it affects her shows how Fowler uses her religion as a way to excuse her actions and lessen her own suffering.

This article explains the similarities and differences between "karma" and "sin" in Christianity.  It's a short but informative read that gives you the impression that Christians focus more on how they are affected by something than how others can be affected by it.

Questions

• We've seen how self-centered Fowler is in her actions and how that leads to a focus on the self in karma/sin and penitence.  How does Mowbray show a focus on the self in karma/sin and penitence? If possible, how does Mowbray's karma/sin and penitence tie in with his status as a Christian?
• Who, if any, are the other characters who have a tendency towards self-centeredness?

Harrington's "Jewess"

We have talked before about how Harrington, as the speaker of the novel, is speaking from a place of reflective enlightenment.  We see him explaining his past perspective with hindsight's advantage.  Harrington goes through a genuine transformation and that transformation is fueled by his passion for Miss Montenero.   Edgeworth is saying that the pursuit of genuine love is a catalyst for change because it has more personal meaning than hatred built by society.  Miss Montenero and Harrington have to truly resolve and traverse the psychological barriers that keep them separated. Harrington has to fight the battle on two levels.  He has to overcome the battle within himself and he has to defend his actions to his friends and family.  Harrington's father, who helped ingrain the antisemitism into his son represents a influential standpoint in Harrington's life. We see his father's backlash in chapter 12 when he states, "if he marry a Jewess! Every inch of my estate shall go from him to his cousin Longshanks in the North, though I hate him like sin. But a Jewess for my daughter-in-law I will never have".  In this moment we get a feel for the type of backlash that Harrington's actions warranted.  With the threat of ostricism,  he conciously took a leap of faith to continue his pursuit of Miss Montenero even though he is risking his livelihood and security.  This action was a catalyst for change because the farther Harrington went with his attachment to Miss Montenero, the more his family found his love had genuineness.  He was able to change his mom's frivolous mind because there were social benefits that came with a union with Miss Montenero that swayed her form her position. Miss Montenero was wealthy and people wanted her and for that reason his mother was changed her perspective about the marriage.  Over time it became increasingly apparent that Harrington's decision was steeped in truth and his family was force to understand.  In the 18th chapter when Harrington's father finally admits his wrongdoing but still won't give , Harrington says, "But you ought to eat your own words, sir," said I, venturing to jest, as I knew that I might in his present humour, and while his heart was warmed; "your words were a libel upon Jews and Jewesses; and the most appropriate and approved punishment invented for the libeller is—to eat his own words."   In this moment we see Harrington  gain his father's respect for his decision and see him come to terms with his own shortcomings.

What does this say about bridging the social gap between Jews and Christians?
Does this play out in society today?

Mr.Montenero:The Good Christian Jew

     I initially though I would be focusing on Harrington's assumption that Bernice would convert to Christianity upon their supposed marriage despite his previous acceptance of her religion (196). Yet, while reading the newest chapters in Harrington, a phrase kept jumping out at me; a phrase that I thought to be even more important than Harrington's presumption . More than once in the chapters read for today, Mr. Montenero was referred to as a Christian.  For example, the orange woman talked to Mr.Montenero, stating, "Jew as you have this day the misfortune to be, you're the best Christian any way ever I happened upon" (236).  This happens once again when Lady Anne and Lady Brantefield are taking refuge in Mr. Montenero's home, the widow states, "There goes as good a Christian . . . Oh, if he isn't a jewl of a Jew!" (243).  Mr Montenero also embodies positive christian values when he disregards the state of his house in efforts to keep the two women safe. Mr.Montenero is a rich man, and more than that, he is a rich Jew. Yet, he willing to put his possessions into the line danger to protect the two "papists" while they sat worrying over the state of their own home (264).
   
     It is common knowledge that Christians and Jews hold different beliefs when it comes to Jesus. As a result a it is a peculiar decision to call a Jewish person a Christian. Mr.Montenero is a character who works to break down the previously held conceptions about Jewish people. Edgeworth paints an easily favorable picture of Montenero which, in the context of the novel, important to be recognized by the main character.  Through the novel, we have witnessed Harrington's views toward Jewish people change. That is why transformation and recognition of the goodness in Mr.Montenero is so important. His realization leads the audience to possibly make the same connection in their own lives.

What is the affect of Characterizing Montenero as a Christian/ What parts of her characterization either weaken or strengthen her case for the better treatment of Jews?
What may the affect have been if Edgeworth portrayed Montenro solely as "good Jew"?



   

   

Harrington's Various Impressions of Jews: Nature vs. Nurture

Throughout Harrington, the way that Harrington perceives the various Jews he comes into contact with changes. This is important to consider as Harrington develops as a character as he grows into adulthood, since his opinions on Jews goes from very polarized at a very young age, to much more complex as he grows older.

The first Jewish man that Harrington is exposed to is Simon the Jew, who is a poor peddler who comes to his family's estate in the evenings in an attempt to make a living. His nurse, Fowler, in an effort to convince him to behave tells his a story about a Jew who would wait for small children, capture them, and then eat them She continues to tell him stories that make him so fearful that he actually develops a mental and physical aversion to even the mere sight of a Jew. Simon is a reminder of the myth still surrounding Jewish people, even into the early 19th century, that they are somehow related to evil, or are corrupted by magic of sorts. Simon is representative of a mythical stereotype that kept with the Jews, even though the assertions were clearly outlandish.

This early impression is strengthened by Harrington's parents. As we discussed last class, his parents are against the naturalization of Jews in England, because they consider themselves of higher rank in the political, social, and religious spheres. His mother makes him a form of entertainment to her friends, and allows Harrington to indulge in his fright in order to show her friends that he already identifies with their ideology. His sickness is a testament to the perceived evil and lowliness that Jews are thought to bring, as even a child with no knowledge of them can be so put off by their nature. His father, on the other hand, justifies Harrington's "natural" aversion in reason. He feeds Harrington's initial fear by adding his own hatred into Harrington's mix of negative emotions. Much like his parents' reinforcement of a false attitude, the next Jews to appear in Harrington's life are the mobs of peddlers that show up after his mother pays Simon to go away. On both ends, we see the affirmation of a polarized stereotype. The stereotyping and myths surrounding Simon and the other peddlers are representative of Harrington's simplified notion of the Jews as a child.

The hatred instilled in Harrington by his parents towards Jewish people translates in Harrington's schooling, when he comes into contact with Jacob, the son of Simon, who is also a peddler. Harrington, Mowbray, and other "party members" berate Jacob simply because of his Jewishness. He, like his father, also falls into a stereotype. However, after the incident at school with Mowbray, Harrington is able to see the boy in a new light. He is finally able to see Jacob as a human, and to empathize with him, even though it goes against the ideology that he was bred to believe in. This is a massive turning point, and is made even more important following Harrington and Jacob's discussion while on the road to Cambridge. Jacob, once again, offers a new perspective to Harrington. He is educated, and of good morals. Jacob turns Harrington into a more understanding person, especially after revealing that he is the son of Simon, a man that Harrington had associate with fear and disgust. Yet, Jacob was an upstanding young man. He begins to shatter the preconceived ideas that Harrington had surrounding the Jews.

Harrington respects Jacob enough to read the magazine that he lends him, telling the story of Mendelssohn, a well respected philosopher, which is eye opening. He even agrees to meet Israel Lyons, who is another man that completely goes against the image of the Jew that Harrington knew and believed to be true at such a young age. Israel had a "lively disposition" and was "genius," and completely shocked Harrington. He provides the counter to his father's reason. Israel's reason comes from a point of understanding and knowledge, whereas his father's came from blind ignorance. Harrington, as an educated young man, is better able to understand the position that the Jews are in.

This leads to Montenero, who completely flips Harrington's perception of the Jews in relation to Christianity. Upon discussing the role of Shylock in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice, he allows a completely new perspective on the stereotype so often used against Jews with a negative connotation. Montenero draws light on the portrayal of Shylock, saying that it was the Christian who demanded the retribution, as so often the Jews are portrayed. Montenero is the final character in Harrington's development who completely reverses his idea surrounding the Jews, and is the person who allows Harrington to see his moral folly with believing in the sickness surrounding learned prejudice.

Here is the scene from The Merchant of Venice that the two are discussing.


Discussion Questions:

Why do you think Edgeworth takes Harrington's character down the developmental path that she does? What boundary does each character aid in breaking in regards to Harrington's preconceived ideas surrounding the Jews?

What effect does each character have in shaping a new identity regarding Jewishness? Why does Edgeworth choose to use a non-Jewish person to shape this identity?

Prejudice and Domestic Upbringing in Harrington

Maria Edgeworth's 1817 novel Harrington provides us with a surprisingly modern look at how racial and religious prejudices are passed down through the generations.  This text is somewhat different from what we have read previously this semester, as instead of being told from the perspective of the radical or the minority, the novel is told from the perspective of the privileged and prejudiced white Englishman Harrington who must learn to overcome his deep-seated preconceptions.  While Harrington does display racial biases towards Jewish people and participate in their ridicule, the novel invites us to sympathize with Harrington and view his prejudices as the consequences of being raised by problematic and equally ignorant caregivers.  Harrington's childhood story reveals not only the racial dilemmas of England in the 18th and 19th centuries but also its more nuclear issues as well.  By being divvied up between his maid Fowler, his mother, and his father throughout the early years of his life, Harrington has no proper sense of family or unity, naturally seeming to lead to his unfavorable attitude towards Jews.  Thus while the novel is primarily concerned with overcoming racial animosities, it makes clear that these issues arise from the wrongful upbringing of the nation's children.

We see quite early on how Harrington is both made to believe that Jewish people are subhuman and largely ignored by the adults in his life.  The first paragraph shows Harrington standing on a balcony with his maid-servant while looking down at a man on the street.  Fascinated, and being disregarded by his maid, Harrington concludes that the man has "a good natured countenance" (1).  This feeling quickly turns to fear and terror as his maid threatens to call Simon the Jew up should he not go to bed.  Realizing that her tactic has worked, the desperate maid continues to tell stories of Jews who steal and sacrifice small children.  Harrington notes that "the less [he] understood, the more [he] believed" (2).  What is particularly interesting about this is the relationship between Fowler and Harrington and the power she has over him.  Being from a rather wealthy family, Harrington is often in the hands of his maid and seems to be around her more often than his actual parents.  Her power over him is seemingly absolute, and yet she is still under the authority of the boy's mother, forcing Harrington to keep her tales a secret.  He describes this as the "moment [he] became her slave, and her victim," (3) as he develops extreme anxiety and fear if she is not by his side.  It becomes clear that Fowler is overwhelmed by her responsibilities to the boy, asking permission to transfer over to nursery-maid for a much younger child of a different family.  While Fowler uses her stories to keep Harrington in line, they ultimately produce deep psychological traumas and the inability to ever reveal the source of his fear.

Harrington's mother, who is always concerned about his health but never about his well-being, instills in him feminine values that are later denounced by his father.  Most of Harrington's issues seem to have been kept from his mother, as she only finds out about his fear of Jews when his nightly screaming wakes her up.  She confirms what Fowler had led Harrington to believe, getting upset that she should let him see "such a sort of a person," (4) and finally paying Simon the Jew and the other 'Jewish' beggars to leave Harrington alone, a plan that fails disastrously and terrifies the boy all the more.  The novel seems to want to compare Harrington with his mother, "a woman of weak health, delicate nerves, and a kind of morbid sensibility" (5).  His fears and her coddling impart in him a type of feminine anxiety that is observed and gawked at by his mother's acquaintances.  When he meets Simon the Jew again Harrington's laugh is "hysterical," and this fear is soon perceived to be a "positively natural antipathy to the sight or bare idea of a Jew" (6).  While Harrington is around "grown-up wise people" for the first time, public interest soon wears down and his mother, under advise from her physician, keeps away from the house and begins to attend parties each night.  Once surrounded by the genteel for his feminine nerves, even his house staff ignore him now and find him "vapoursome-ish and tiresome," leaving him confused, "unpitied and alone" (7).

Harrington's father, who previously had very little involvement with his son, soon believes he "should be taken out of the hands of the women," and laughs "at the whole female doctrine...of sympathies and antipathies" (10).  Worried that the women are making a "Miss Molly of his boy," and commenting that "the Jews were all rascals," (10) his father assembles a team to uproot the Jews in the area, forcing them to either flee the parish or be locked up in roundhouses, asylums, workhouses, or penitentiaries.  This violent action taken by his father leads to Harrington obtaining some 'manly ideas,' and he recalls how his "father made [him] ashamed of that nervous sensibility of which [he] had before been vain" (11).  For Harrington, each stage of his life undermines the stage before, and the only piece of continuity seems to be his feelings toward the Jews, whom he begins to view with pain, embarrassment, and eventually contempt.  By separating his upbringing into these piecemeal stages, Harrington grows up with a conflicting sense of identity and a distaste for community and integration. 

As evident by our own country's racial issues as of late, preconceived biases and violence are unfortunately still a problem among the seemingly civilized parts of the world.  Here are the results of a poll recently reported by The Guardian, which found that almost half of Britons still hold antisemitic views.

Discussion Questions:

1) How do Maria Edgeworth's characterizations of Harrington's parents and division of parental responsibilities affect Harrington's fear and contempt for Jewish people?

2) While Edgeworth creates ineffectual parents, it is clear she does not condone their parental style herself.  How do you think Edgeworth's ideas about gender and parenting would line up with those of Mary Wollstonecraft?
  

Slave Trade and Colonialism

Helen Maria Williams' poetry seeks to unpack many of the social justice issues of the period she was writing in.  Peru tells the cautionary tale of colonialism through the eyes of those being colonized and A Poem on the Bill Lately Passed for Regulating the Slave Trade  was written a year after a committee was formed to organize against slavery.  In Peru, she focuses on Spanish colonialism.  She told the tale of the Incan people in such a way that supported her stance.  Firstly, she wanted to take the reader on a journey.  She wanted it to be an adventure.  She described Peruvia as a lush world of vibrant colors filled with beautiful plants and wildlife.  This description of Peru draws upon a prelapsarian notion.  Peru was beautiful and perfect until the Spanish came and destroyed it just like Eden was perfect before the fall.  Secondly, she rewrote history to justify her stance against colonialism.  She left out key facts about the scientific advances the Inca made and their militaristic society.  They were not as naive as Williams made them out to be, but had she included all of that information, the Peruvians would have been less sympathetic characters.  She rewrote history to justify her stance against colonialism.

Pizarro with the Inca

It is easier to critique an institution that her own country takes part in when she uses an example that is not British.  By relating the story of the Spanish colonizing the Inca, her readers have an easier time empathizing with the Inca.  When she removes the British Crown from her critique, it is a much more palatable truth for the reader to digest.  They are not blinded by their loyalty to their country.  As an extension of her critique of Spanish colonization she is actually critiquing an institution that is happening within her own society.  She also seeks to examine another institution that was happening during her life time: slave trade.  During her lifetime, she would see the abolition of slavery, but she would never see the end to colonization.  England abolished the slave trade in 1807, but living in a British colony was a different type of slavery.  They abolished one form of slavery only to cling harder onto the institution that Williams wanted to dismantle more than anything--colonialism.  It is the exact institution that HMW sought to reform with Peru.

Photograph of the Punjab Lieutenant Governor

Williams wrote A Poem on the Bill Lately Passed for Regulating the Slave Trade in 1788.  That was almost 200 years after the British colonized India.  The idea of colonization was so engrained in British society that it was championed as what should happen.  After her death, from 1858 to 1947, it was considered a period of luxury and excess for the British citizens living in India, but not so much for the natives.  She worked so hard to change the thinking of the time period, but she didn't effect much change.  The need to spread cultural values that Barbauld wrote about in Eighteen Hundred and Eleven seemes to fuel the colonial mindset even after everything the HMW wrote.  The British traded one form of slavery for another believing that colonizing the "savages" was actually bringing the native peoples enlightenment, but what we know from the history of the Inca, even though Williams left out these parts in her depictions of the natives in Peru, the native peoples didn't actually need the help of the colonizers.  The Dutch, Spanish, and British generally only brought death and destruction.

Here is a link to an article of a bunch of pictures that were taken in India during the British Raj.  It's a more modern look on the effect of colonization in a contemporary world.

In the world after Helen Maria Williams' death, the institutions that she wrote about were still intact.  Do you think she would have been happy with the progress the world has made with colonization, or do you think she would still call for more reform?  Why or why not?

Williams saw the abolition of slavery during her lifetime, but never saw the end to imperialism and colonization.  In the modern world, do we still grapple with any type of colonization or have the changes Williams called for been made?  Why?

Peruvian Tales as an Atonement

Thirty nine years after Helen Maria Williams published the poem Peru she returned to it and made rather extensive edits and republished the work as the Peruvian Tales, which was tactful in differences that had been made.  Williams had learned even more about the actual statistical science of Peru after translating Alexander von Humboldt's Personal Narratives of Travels to the Equinoctial Regions.  It gave her better insight than the previous histories she read and she felt the need to correct misconceptions that she had written about in Peru.  In addition, von Humboldt's work that she translated was later blamed for much of the frenzy surrounding the idea of the profits that could be made from mining in South America.  So for Williams, Peruvian Tales was not only a correction of the facts that she got wrong the first time, but it was also trying to distance herself from "the wave of late-colonial publications of the 1820s that thematized European expansionist projects in their writings" (Damian).

It is also important to note the political shift that Williams personally experienced in the period between the publishing of Peru and Peruvian Tales.  During the time of Peru being published, Williams was more liberal.  This publication also coincided with the Peruvian revolution led by Tupac Amaru, which Williams supported openly, but also rather clearly through her writing.  She felt that people of Peru should be able to take some of the main principles from the French Revolution and apply them to their own lives and create positive change.  By the time that the Peruvian Tales were published, Williams had become far less liberal, in part because she and her family had been imprisoned during the Reign of Terror.  After that experience Williams became far less interested in supporting dissent, which is evident in her edit of Peru.

Beginning of the Reign of Terror

The edits of Peru were mainly focused on removing the bulk of the descriptions of the landscape, which she had previously written in such a way that it inspired anger towards the Spanish and supported the idea of revolution.  As Damian points out, Williams used the earth in a way that was symbolic of a suffering human body by having "tears, sighs, groans, and moans, all palpable corollaries of its altered state, foreshadow the enslavement of the landscape" and later she uses less of these kinds of descriptions.  In addition, Williams really stressed the idea that her poem was a story, not the reality of the situation.  She does this by calling it a Peruvian "Tales" instead of just Peru, which seems to assert that everything in her poem was true.  Additionally, Williams focuses much more on human interactions rather than descriptions because the land was what was being exploited and it seems that she felt somewhat responsible for this exploitation.  The more the Western people became interested in South America, the more exploitation it saw.  It seems that Peruvian Tales was a way to try and pacify conflicts and to make South America seem less desirable to the people who wanted to go mine it and take the natural resources.

Discussion Questions
1. Why do you think Williams focused Peruvian Tales less on the landscape scenes than Peru?
2.  Do you think Peruvian Tales is successful at making a person look differently at South America and colonialism than Peru did?

Turning to Tales

The common cliche that hindsight is 20/20 is very applicable to Williams' writing of Peruvian Tales after waiting until 1823 to release her revisions of her original epic poem, it is important to analyze the differences  and similarities among the versions. Between Peru and Peruvian Tales there were historical moments for South America as well as the imperialist powers. When circumstances change, the way literature is written changes along with its interpretation. I plan to examine Canto I and Alzira Tale I in the changes that were made to describing Peru and its inhabitants from the first poem to its revisions.

By naming the tale after Alzira, HMW has already established that Alzira's role in this tale is the most severe just as she writes the rest of the tales with female characters in the title. As a character, Alzira may not seem imperative, but she gives a face to the usual woman of Peru and provides insight into what the women of both times looked like. In Peru, the first canto gives the reader an idea of the beauty within Peru and all that it offers its blissful race. Discussing the "lib'ral ray of mercy, lovelier than the smile of day," leaves the reader to have a picturesque image of the society as the perfect place for a race of people and sets it up to be thought of as the victim in whatever happens to this nation (61-62). Moving through the poem, Alzira is defined as the apple of Ataliba's eye with all the right traits of a woman in any culture with tenderness and charm. As the epic poem continues, Alzira makes the ultimate sacrifice and is left to give any reader a guilt in her death and the loss of herself as the Spanish break into her culture and take everything from her - the love of her life. However, with this first write of the poem, things are left to interpretation. It can be seen by the British audience that although Alzira is a lovely character and has all of the positive images given to her, she chose her fate and there is not a direct fault for the imperialists.




In her second write as Peruvian Tales, HMW does not leave the fault of the imperialists to interpretation. One large change that Williams makes that seems minor has a large impact on the reading of the first tale, "A selfish purpose, or a thought untrue;/ not as on Europe's shore, where wealth and pride,/ From mourning love the venal breast divide..." (39-44). The author is taking the time to add her opinions on Europe and what is assumed the imperialist powers. Peru's society is mirrored in Alzira's characteristics, loving and charming with natural resources just as Alzira is filled with new life and love for her future family and present husband. Europe directly refutes these images being concerned mainly with the monetary value of wealth and pride of meaningless things like social constructs or advantages to the individual instead of a collective society. Europe expects to improve Peru and take their resources for personal gains. Their purposes are always selfish and ultimately revolve around the single advantage of the conquistadors and as we read through the poem the countries cannot even function adequately to take the area over. These four lines are bringing the reader a definite idea of how Europe operates in the eyes of the Peruvians and makes clear what its priorities are. The female character that kills herself rather than be conquered represents the female Peruvian without any selfish purpose or thought untrue as she is bringing herself to be with the love of her life rather than to live in the land that those concerned with wealth have taken as their own.




The world of Peru is described as blissful and efficient. Before Spain comes to the shore and creates any issues, the author makes a compelling argument that this is an independent civilization that has no problem thriving in its area and creating a government that appears to be working. With the revisions, there is no doubt that Europe is a selfish place with a lack of real priority or a well-established society.While focusing on the reputations and elements of society in Peruvian Tales more so, HMW also removes a lot of the Edenic imagery and leaves less nature descriptions in the poem. Through these changes the author provides less background of the resources and landscape, but more ideas linked to imperialism. These ideas may have been more appropriate in the shift to tales and the end of the French Revolution.

When thinking about this blog, I looked at articles that would give me a better sense of Britain after the French Revolution, and found information that made it easier to understand its effects on life and government, you can read it here.


Questions:
1) Why does HMW remove some of the nature landscapes from Canto I to insert thoughts of European society, and is this an effective revision?
2) Are the revisions cohesive with sounding less radical? Is it the change in writing or the change in circumstance that effects this?

The Fifth Canto of Aciloe

There is a focus in canto five of Peru on Aciloe.  In fact, the entire canto revolves around Aciloe in some way.  The canto starts off with a character description of Zamor and his love of Aciloe, goes into Aciloe describing her sire and his ruling of the tribe, and then a tender moment between Aciloe and Zamor being ruined by the invasion of the Spanish.  The rest of the canto follows directly alongside Aciloe as she struggles with her father's torture, the "death" of and the reunion with her lover, and Aciloe's, Zamor's, and her father's freedom from Alphonso.  Then Jessica Damian accounts in her article "Helen Maria William's Personal Narrative of Travels from Peru (1784) to Peruvian Tales (1823)" that Helen Maria William's added subheadings to her cantos "privileging the gendered perspective of its female protagonists," such as Aciloe being the subheading of canto five (10, paragraph 25). This focus on Aciloe in canto five is HMW's way of keeping a character with "British" attributes at the forefront of the audience's mind in the canto and creating a character with which a British audience can sympathize.  HMW further humanizes the Peruvians in canto five through this focus on Aciloe by making Aciloe a character that a British audience can easily relate to.

"Alphonso and Aciloe"

A Peruvian Inca mummy (c. 14th-15th cent.)
with natural blond hair and fair skin.

When Zamor's love for Aciloe is being described, we begin to see the beginning of the attributes most favored in British society.  Zamor's love is founded by "Aciloe's beauties his fond eye confest,/Yet more Aciloe's virtues warm'd his breast" (Peru 25-26).  Physical beauty and virtues are attributes we have seen throughout the class, especially talked about by Wollstonecraft, and are ideal attributes for a "British" woman to have, as seen in Desmond.  In fact, Aciloe's virtue is what makes Alphonso ultimately fall for her after her beauty catches his attention during the lines "Yet, as he gaz'd enraptur'd on her form,/Her virtues awe the heart her beauties warm;" (113-114).  Her "snowy" white skin, while a true common physical attribute of Inca people (see article), is another ideal attribute for Aciloe as pale skin signified a high social standing in European societies (98).  The fact that HMW made a point to include this in her epic poem further pushes the British ideals and makes Aciloe a more relatable character to a British audience.



Another way that HMW makes Aciloe a more relatable character to the British audience that they can sympathize with is when she has Aciloe lament over the "death" of Zamor and talk about killing herself.  Like in the last class, we discussed that the act of killing yourself over a lover is one that was famous due to a slave narrative where a female slave, promised marriage with a wealthy European male, stabs herself in the heart upon entering England and finding out the man now owns her and will not marry her. We specifically linked this occurrence with Alzira stabbing herself in the heart over Atiliba's (her husband's) death. This occurrence is echoed again when Aciloe speaks of killing herself over Zamor's "death" in the lines "Death shall for ever, seal the nuptial tie,/The heart belov'd by thee is fix'd to die" (193-194).  By echoing a previous scene that's nearly the carbon copy of an already famous one, HMW draws the British audience in even more with a familiar tale of woe brought on by colonization.  The reason that Aciloe's talk of suicide over a lover would make her more relatable is because it is a familiar concept to the British audience.

This long article talks about the lost civilizations of the Andes, specifically the Incas and Pizarro's conquest of them.  It really helped clear a few things up for me (A.K.A. misconceptions I had), like Incas actually having incredibly pale skin and characteristics very similar to Europeans (towards the end of section 3 "Transoceanic contacts").  If you read/skim it, focus on the first and third sections, which clear up the most misconceptions I had about the Incas.

Discussion Questions

• Why do you think that HMW focuses the fifth canto on Aciloe?  How do the "British" attributes shown in Aciloe affect the influence the canto has?
• How, if at all, does HMW's edited subheadings to "privelege" a "gendered perspective" help or hinder her work as a whole?

The Sixth Canto

     Of the revisions made by Helen Maria Williams between "Peru" and "Peruvian Tales," the sixth Canto, titled "Cora" underwent the most change. For the most part, the types of lines that were removed by HMW pertain to character descriptions and scenery. Most of the excisions made  were similar to lines 117-120, wherein she describes birds singing and the beauty of the atmosphere. While these lines add to the atmosphere of the story, they aren't exactly necessary. However, some of the lines, like those from 215-232, provide a great deal of insight into both Williams and the characters she's writing about. In these lines, Williams is going into deeper detail regarding Cora's "sensibility." It's hard to say what kind of effect the removal of these lines had on the poem as a whole.

     What's more interesting is HMW's decision to remove the lines that focused on the descriptions of characters, particularly Pizarro and Capac. For instance, lines 177-180 in "Peru:" "But vainly from his lips these accents part, Nor move Pizarro's cold, relentless heart, That never trembled to the suff'rer's sigh" have been removed for "Peruvian Tales." Considering the important role that Pizarro plays as the primary antagonist, it is interesting that HMW would choose to leave this description out.

     In terms of Capac, HMW cuts several lines describing his emotional state. Lines 3-6 of "Peru," wherein Capac's "anxious woe" have been cut. The four lines that described Capac's emotional turmoil from lines 31-34 have been edited down to only two lines. Furthermore, around lines 110 of "Peruvian Tales" HMW forgoes calling Capac "wretched" when he looks at his child.

Questions:
1) Why did HMW choose to revise her descriptions of Capac and Pizarro?
2) How did her revisions reflect changing opinions?

Helen Maria Williams' manipulation of history

     In Canto the second, HMW manipulates history to serve her own agenda. The second canto helps to set up the tone for the rest of the contos; in order to set the desired tone, HMW distorted the truth. It is in this canto that first truly describes the Peruvians as simple loving people and the conquistadors as heartless villains. HMW frames three different historical moment in this canto skew the truth; either by depict the Incas in a more positive light or the Spanish in a more negative one.
     The first instance is found on page 59, in these lines she describes Ataliba and his interaction with the bible, stating "He dropp'd the hallowe'd volume from his hands./Sudden, while zeal each breast inspires" (24-25). She frames the historical interaction  as one in which Ataliba is so amazed by the bible and the religious enlightenment he received that he could not even hold on to the book. Yet, it is revealed in the footnote that not only was Ataliba not impressed by the bible, and not only did he drop it to the ground on purpose, but threw it, with "disdain" stating "This is silent; it tells me nothing" (59).
     The next instance is found on the following page. This time HMW adds a female character, lover to Ataliba, that is not found in the Robertson history book.  Alzira is her name, and though her name is not in the history book, it does happen to be the name of a town in Spain. Alzira is mentioned in the lines that read "Soon Alzira felt affliction's dart/ Pierce her soft soul, and rend her bleeding heart"(51-52). The rest of the poem is devoted to her and the pain she experiences due to Ataliba's capture. The canto ends with and almost Romeo and Juliet like ending where she plunges a dagger into her breast after Ataliba has been killed, which calls into question the final slant on history HMW applies to her second canto.

     The last twist on history that HMW spins is the death of Ataliba. HMW spins a heart wrenching story of the nearly immediate death of the Inca's ruler meanwhile he was held for ransom for some time. HMW's tale of his death works to further tarnish the already blackened character of the Spanish. Not only did they terrorize and kill the people, but they took their leader and killed him before anything could be done. It was like adding salt to a wound.HMW's used her manipulation of history to support her own agenda; each change with its own effect on the implications of history.

Link to a this day in history article about the capture of Ataliba (Athualpa).

Though her changes seem to effectively support her poem, how might/ in what ways does HMW's manipulation of history either strengthen of weaken her work? 

What is the effect of adding Alzira to the poem?   

Romanticism and the Relation to Conquest

Helen Maria William's poem Peru, written in six cantos, tells the tale of Spanish conquest in a Utopian-like Peru during the 16th century. Williams, writing at the end of the 18th century, was a known opposer of war, an avid supporter of abolition, and aligned herself as a sensible female (Duquette). She wrote Peru in 1784, which is a testament to the dangers that European war and conquest bring about to native peoples, cultures, and environments. 

However, William's writing style is unique. Not only is she writing about a controversial topic, she is doing so within the style of the Romantic canon. We saw within Barbauld's poem Eighteen Hundred and Eleven the discussion of the trials and tribulations that come with war, such as the ousting of culture. However, Barbauld does so in an epic and cryptic form, asking her reads to consider not physical imperialism of foreign lands, but rather intellectual imperialism. Similarly, Williams also advocates against war, but does so in keeping with Romanticism.


She begins Canto I by describing, at great length, the beauty that makes up Peru, appealing to every sense with imagery. She makes the setting seem like a Utopia, filled with colors, animals, a lack of disease, and warmth. Ataliba and Alzira are described as star-crossed lovers, who are "Pure and gen'rous," "gentle," and "peaceful" (lines 63-73). Here, Williams keeps in line with the love and appreciation for nature that surrounded the Romantic period. She also uses these descriptions as a device to evoke emotion for the Peruvian natives as innocent victims to the threat of imperialism. Before the love story even goes awry, William's "Advertisement" that prefaces her poem tells that she is making these descriptions up, but that the action should be taken as the story of a slaughter of innocent people. However, Williams must know that by describing at great length the description of the land and the people that she intends to incite sympathy for the Peruvians. After all, that was the aim of Romantic authors.

Engraving by Theodor de Bry of the Spanish conquest, 16th century 

However, Williams is unique in her manipulation of the subject matter. Williams chooses to set her story over 200 years earlier than when she is writing, when the Spanish were at the height of their imperialistic ventures. This was interesting of Williams to do, since both the English and the French were the imperialistic threats during her time of writing. Though it is almost identical to Barbauld's idea of imperialistic conquest in Eighteen Hundred and Eleven, Williams' Romantic writing style truly does fall in line with Romanticism. She appeals to her audience's emotions by having two lovers torn apart, the village lose their ruler as well as their spiritual guide, and the attack on defenseless people without weaponry. Her use of language goes from bright and beautiful in Canto I, to tempestuous throughout Cantos II and III. The strong contrast between the Spanish and the Peruvians is evident in Canto III, stating "The meek Peruvians gaz'd in pale dismay, / Nor barr'd the dark oppressor's sanguine way" (lines 3-4). William's strong appeal to the Romantic sensibility is what drives her argument that opposes conquest and war for European gain, and condemns the destruction and devastation of other cultures.


This link is just a really great source I found for understanding better Williams as a writer, which got me thinking about my blog topic initially.


Discussion Questions:


1. Why did Williams choose to write in the Romantic style? Do you think that this bolsters or weakens her argument? How does this relate to the fact that she chose the Spanish conquests of the 16th century as her topic to relate to Britain in the 18th century?


2. Williams uses very strong descriptive language, which leave little to the reader to determine about the characters. What do you think is her reasoning behind this? Does it help or hurt her argument by being so direct?

Helen Maria William's Representation of Conquistadors

In her poem "Peru: A Poem, in Six Cantos," Helen Maria Williams tells the tale of the downfall of Peru and attributes this disaster to the Spanish conquistadors, who she believes are causing the problems with no regard for the Peruvian people.  Starting on line 170 in the first canto, Williams says:

 "Consum'd, and fading in its early prime.
But not in vain the beauteous realm shall bleed,
Too late shall Europe's race deplore the deed.
Region abhorr'd! be gold the tempting bane,
The curse that desolates thy hostile plain;
May pleasure tinge with venom'd drops the bowl,
And luxury unnerve the sick'ning soul" (170-176).  

This exact part of the poem is actually Peruvia's Genius, meaning the "general character, spirit, of a nation or age" (56, footnote 2) speaking about the conquistadors.  The "spirit" of Peru is upset with what the conquistadors are doing to her land.  She is saying that because of the conquistadors the entire land has been consumed and will be gone in its early prime because of the Europeans.  In addition, Peru hopes that the pleasure the Spanish get from ruining Peru will be tinged with drops of venom so that Peru is not destroyed in vain.  The spirit of Peru even asks for vengeance at the beginning of her prayer when she calls for the "avenging spirits of the deep" (151) and later asks they to make the "condors stray" (162).  She also wants the avenging spirits to "bid the stern foe retire with wild affright, / And shun the region veil'd in partial night...I read thy doom" (165-168).

Clearly, the Peruvian Genius is displeased by what the conquistadors are doing and what they have done to Peru, which is a fairly common theme with the Spanish conquerers of the time.  The Spanish have had a long history of exploring and taking from "new lands." As far back at 1519 Cortes was exploring Mexico and found gold in the Aztec Empire.  His success was what inspired many others to go out and search for their own land to take riches, including Francisco Pizzaro, who is featured in the poem.  He was basically in charge of Peru by 1533 and is one of the main people that Williams blames for the downfall of Peru.

The idea of the gold of Cortes is so popular, it was the main concept in Pirates of the Caribbean.

Francisco Pizzaro

As we can see with the Hollywood representation of the Cortes gold, there seems to be a theme long after the departure of the conquistadors that all of the gold and other resources they stole is not something they could have completely gotten away with.  In more recent years it has been reimagined that these items would have been cursed, since the native people had no other way of truly protecting themselves.  Even in Williams' poem, she speaks of the idea of cursing the Spanish and having their decline not be in vain.  It is some consolation for the Peruvian people that perhaps their decline may not be in vain.  Additionally, the idea that the gold of Cortes was such a powerful idea is important as to why so many places were forced to deal with the greed of the Spanish.  His fortune was even later a motivation for the British settlement of Jamestown.

This link talks more about conquistadors in general.

Discussion Questions
1. At the beginning of the poem, in the Genius speech, it talks very specifically about what the Spanish are doing by speaking specifically about their direct actions.  Later, in the regular cantos, the focus is more on the effects the actions have by focusing the story line on the Peruvians.  Why do you think Williams makes this change?
2. Why do you think Williams uses so many mythological beings, like Cora (one of the virgins of the sun) and the Peruvian Genius, to tell this story?

From Eighteen Hundred and Eleven to Peru: The Promise of 'Cultural Imperialism'

While Anna Laetitia Barbauld's poem Eighteen Hundred and Eleven discusses the physical decline of the British Empire, informing Britain that "Yes, thou must droop; thy Midas dream is o'er," (61) Barbauld offers a different form of immortality through, as Francesco Crocco refers to it in his critical essay, "The Colonial Subtext of Anna Letitia Barbauld's Eighteen Hundred and Eleven," cultural imperialism.  Indeed, she notes in her last stanza that although "The worm is in thy core, thy glories pass away," (314) "-to other climes the Genius soars" (321).  We see this idea expanded upon in Helen Maria Williams' poem Peru, where the bloodthirsty Spaniards colonize Peru and conquer the native Incas.  Barbauld mentions Peru specifically in her poem as well, saying that "lo, even now, midst mountains wrapt in storm, / On Andes heights he shrouds his awful form" (323-324).  At the time Peru was fighting in the Spanish American wars of independence, through which they sought to escape the tyranny of the Spanish Empire and become an independent entity.  Thus Barbauld would seem to be endorsing their fight for independence, or at least criticizing the cruelty of the Spaniards, as she later swears that "thy world, Columbus, shall be free," (334) suggesting that through British culturalization of South America, its people (in this case, Peruvians) would be free from the needs of men like Columbus.

Although not part of the same conversation completely, since Barbauld discusses the culturally significant Britain and Williams ruthless Spain, Peru too seems to take a condemning stance on militarism and greed.  However, Williams extends her narrative a bit farther by showing Peru as an already civilized landscape that need not be conquered by any 'culturally superior' powers, which here represented by the Spaniards, are themselves described as savage and barbaric.  I found it interesting that Williams reinterpreted some of the historical 'facts' about the meeting between Atahuallpa and Pizarro (although we already know the cultural prejudice inherent in many of these travel narratives) in order to better fit her narrative.  Perhaps this indicates Williams' unwillingness to believe and participate in the perpetuation of racial stereotypes.  

Williams presents the landscape, animals, and people of Peru as cohesive, fertile, and happy, creating in the poem a beautiful and untouched Eden for her doomed Peruvians.  She introduces the "lost Peruvia," where there "rose thy cultur'd scene" (3).  As it mentions in the footnotes, by combining elements of civilized society with images of Eden and Paradise Lost, Williams creates a utopia where the fertility of nature and the intellect of man coalesce into something greater.  This is a place where from abundant plant life, "Disease, and pain, and hov'ring death retires," (20) where even the bird "...seeks with fond delight the social nest / Parental care has rear'd, and love has blest," (35-36) and where men, "whose origin from glowing suns they trace; / And as o'er nature's form, the solar light / Diffuses beauty, and inspires delight" (58-60).  Despite the exoticness of the Peruvian landscape and the Incas 'primitive' worship of the Sun, Williams combines these 'otherly' images in a way that makes them seem rather familiar and even superior to the British way of life.  Like 19th century British society (or maybe not), these 16th century Incas form meaningful familial structures, fall passionately in love, have a stable and revered form of government and a matrimonial ceremony built around religious institution.  As if to combat Britain's 'Genius' in Barbauld's poem, Williams' too establishes "Peruvia's Genius" (139) to show the unnecessary need for outside imperialism, whether cultural or militaristic.  With the introduction of the Spaniards in the second cantos, Williams consistently uses images of blood, metal, and gold to depict, as the footnotes refer to it, "the rape of the virgin landscape" (pg. 57) by the deceptive Pizarro and his men.

For some quick context about the Spanish conquest of the Incan Empire, click here.

Discussion Questions:

1) In what way are Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Helen Maria Williams in conversation with each other on topics such as cultural and militaristic imperialism? On what points do they seem to agree and disagree?

2) How does Williams' interpretation of historical figures and events affect the image and story she wishes to portray?

History According to Barbauld

When people are discussing their accounts of any situation and how it developed, person to person memories always are different. For Anna Barbauld, her account of the war between France and England and other things England has done lie differently than we would think. We would expect the author to portray her homeland in a positive light and to depict it as a strong and proud nation, but she decides to be honest with her readers about her own thoughts and what she recalls of England's historical actions. Due to this honesty, Barbauld lost readers and faced harsh criticism, giving this poem a terrible reputation.

England has risen to power in this time and holds many imperial nations. In a usual native English perspective, the colonized are better off being taken over and taught the 'right' way to worship, eat, work, and ultimately live. Imperialism is expected to be beneficial to everyone. Considering this, Barbauld has a very different view of England's rise to power, realizing how little autonomy the nation has within its own citizens and what it chooses to spread among the places it conquers. Giving examples of the past imperialism to the reader allows understanding of its vast effects, "Wide spreads thy race from Ganges to the pole/ O'er half the western world thy accents roll;/ (81-82). People are speaking in these accents across the world not because they had the choice - but were given no option to live their own lives. This continues with the memories of living inside of England and the inequality that comes from this. The readers are given a new slant on England and its hypocrisy, "Whose image to my infant senses came/Mixt with Religion's light and Freedom's holy flames!" (68-70). The author is explaining how freedom does not actually exist for the Englishman and despite the bright and proud history the population may claim, she recognizes the reality of the government that she and her fellow citizens are under. Freedom of religion does not exist for English men and women, and the author herself feels that pressure as she believes differently than Anglicans do. To pride themselves as a progressive nation and a supreme world power, it appears to be thought that the English should allow their people to worship as they wish and live independently of any harsh structures making the average person unhappy by the author. Barbauld is writing to subtlety let her feelings known on the history of England as to how they pride themselves on freedom and a great life for the citizens but actually oppress people's beliefs and force people to conform.

Another memory of history within the poem is when the author discusses the Battle of Trafalgar with the heroes of the battle and the perspective history takes versus the perspective of the author. In history it seems that the naval officer, Nelson, and his crew are put on a pedestal of great service and upheld as the highest of bravery and valor. The author is pointing out such acts of violence that this naval battle committed and the entire ill-humanity of war is not as glorious or well-meaning as England would have its citizens and readers of its acts believe, but are hugely harmful and wrong. When describing the aftermath of the battle and the real consequences of it, Barbauld references other negative points in history, "And Nature's coyest secrets were disclosed;/ Join with their Franklin, Priestley's injured name,/ Whom, then each continent shall proudly claim" (202-205). Unlike history likes to paint these public figures with great courage and discovery, Barbauld remembers the reality of the damage done, humanity lost, and problems caused by these wars and imperialistic actions England takes.

Discussing "Eighteen Hundred and Eleven,” a Poem requires us to look at what the author's real opinions are and how she describes past events and upcoming events, and the warnings she gives to England's way of life and government. Barbauld warns her readers that all that glitters is not gold, and that the empire that England has tried to create can fade, "And when midst fallen London they survey/the stone where Alexander's ashes lay,/ Shall own with humbled pride the lesson just/ By Time's slow finger written in the dust" (211-215). The author recognizes history for what it is, knowing that it is the biased version of what her country has done. Within this account of great knowledge, art, and morals that England has supposedly made, she states to the reader that this will not last because the wars and imperialism are not sustainable, and this nation will turn to dust just as ones before it if there is no reform.

While thinking about Anna Barbauld's account of her country's lack of insight to its own history, I could not help thinking about the United States and the recent movie I saw, Selma. When established, it was justice for all, equality, the pursuit of happyness, and the United States still likes to brush over its own history with how freedom flies and we are all equal. The movie remembers the history differently, with a reminder of how civil rights were a problem only fifty years ago, and are still very much in progress now. The song from the movie, "Glory," can be found here, with lyrics that speak to these issues. 

Questions:

1) Does Barbauld make her readers appreciate her viewpoint? Do you think she was right to use her methods of comparison and rhetoric to give history a realistic element?

2) Does the author succeed in her accounts of history, or is she too far on the other side? Are her negative thoughts well-received by a neutral audience (like that of our class)?

Femaleness, Political Opinion, and Romantic-era Writing

Francesco Corocco's article, "The Colonial Subtext of Anna Letitia Barbauld's Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" discusses Barbauld's perceived "counter-patriot" stance to British militarism: "Man calls to Famine, nor invokes in vain,/ Disease and Rapine follow in her train;/ The tramp of marching hosts distrubs the plough,/ The sword, not sickle, reaps the harvest now, And where the Soldier gleans the scant supply,/ The helpless Peasant but retires to die;/ No laws his hut from licensed outrage shield,/ And war's least horror is the ensanguined field" (Barbauld 15-22).  Barbauld makes the argument that death on the battle field is not the worst thing that happens during war.  The famine that the peasants encounter when armies march through their fields and take their crop is worse than the death of soldiers.  Stolen crops affect the lives of so many people.  If they are starving, they cannot mind the field, and if they cannot mind the fields they cannot feed their families.  The stolen crops create a vicious cycle that leads to more death than that on the battle field.  Not only does she make the connections between armies stealing crops and the death of peasants, she also denounce Napoleon as a leader, "Prostrate she lies beneath the Despot's sway,/ While the hushed nations curse him--and obey" (Barbauld 9-10).  She says that Britain cowers at Napoleon's feet.  She admonishes England for this.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps by Jacques-Louis David

Barbauld's negative stance towards British militarism and imperialism garnered her poor reviews in the Eclectic Review and the Quarterly Review; landed her in Richard Polwhele's "poetic diatribe" The Unsex'd Female.  Her caustic political views caused her to garner a negative opinion of her work.  She had a few things working against her at the time of her publication: her political opinion and her womanhood.  "Because writing was already a transgressive act for Romantic-era women, writing about politics constituted what Marlon Ross calls the "double dissension" of women deigning to write about politics for a public audience" (Corocco 91).  Writing for public consumption was considered to be a profession or activity that only men could do.  When women crossed over the line into a male dominated sphere, they were then considered to be not feminine.  In texts like Wollstonecraft's, there is a call for reform of education of women, but also what is considered feminine.  Wollstonecraft called for education to no longer be only for men.  She wanted an equal opportunity for women as well.  With this reform, Barbauld could have written this poem and had a constructive review on her writing not her womanhood.  She could have published this piece under a pseudonym or even anonymously but she chose not to.  She could have decided to do this, but decided to connect her name to the epic poem.  A male pseudonym could have brought her poetry positive notoriety, but she decided to let all who read her poetry know that the writer was a woman.

Portrait of who is thought to be Anna Barbauld by Richard Cosway

Here's a fun article about famous female writers who chose to use male pseudonyms at one point in their writing careers.  There is a mixture of writers from the past and more contemporary authors.

She chose to publish the poem under her own name instead of a pseudonym.  What do you think her purpose in doing that was?  Why do you think she decided to attach her name and femaleness to this poem?

Barbauld was know as a dissenter and as having an unpopular political opinion.  What do you think her purpose was in writing this poem?  Do you think that she achieved that purpose and how or how not?