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?

War of Genders

Throughout Eighteen Hundred and Eleven, a Poem by Anna Barbauld, there are interesting occurrences of gender at play.  Barbauld appears to apply these genders with no other motive aside from society thinking of a muse as female and as power being a masculine trait, yet Barbauld has created a war between the genders while criticizing a war between Britain and France.  Barbauld sets up two sides to her gender war: One, men with their desire to colonize and rule; and two, women with their nature of nurturing and creation.

Apollo and Daphne

In the poem, man is associated with characteristics that were ideals about the gender during this time. Men were expected to hold the power in society and possess genius to make art and expand the British Empire (colonize).  There is a list of what Barbauld genders as male, but the main one I want to focus on is power.  The first appearance of a masculine power is in the first stanza where Barbauld sheds a negative light on the power that men wield.  It is a "Colossal Power with overwhelming force" that "bears down each fort of Freedom in its course;" and forces others to obey (Eighteen 7-8).  Barbauld says that power is the cause of the war between France and Britain, and she emphasizes that this power can be Britain's downfall.  She associates Britain with Babylon and Troy, two cities that were once great before their respective powers created an arrogance that lead to their downfall.  Barbauld says that the men of Britain are becoming arrogant as they move to colonize the New World while leaving chaos in England.  Man has destroyed commerce by abolishing the slave trade and left England floundering for a way to keep up their lifestyle of "Enfeebling Luxury and ghastly Want" (64).  Now the men of Britain have lead a struggling country into a war that could be their downfall, and the men are not there to clean up the mess that they have made.  They leave it to the women to do.

Barbauld characterizes things that inspire, bring about life, and actually create something feminine.  She says that England is a woman that is left influx due to the power of man, and that commerce, nature, and muse have been tarnished by man.  This creates a dichotomy in the poem as something (power) that should protect these things has instead lead to a degradation of those things (commerce, nature, the muse, England itself).  Barbauld characterizing these things as feminine has now created a war itself in the poem where the masculine characteristics are laying siege to the feminine characteristics.  As we stated in a few previous classes, men and women should be working together in this society as they can further the society as a whole, and this still holds true.  Man has the power and the genius, another masculine trait in the poem, to make the innovations while woman has the attributes that will keep the country going, such as a muse and nature to inspire and commerce to provide.  Instead, man is looking ahead to the West where he hopes quantity will make up for lack of quality while woman is stuck in England, tending to house and cleaning up the disaster man has left.

"Apollo and the Nine Muses" by Gustave Moreau

This whole article about gender in England from the 15th-20th is interesting, but you only have to read "The Nineteenth Century: Separate Spheres?" in order to understand the change in gender ideals from women being lustful temptresses to loving, domesticated mothers.  It's also important to understand the ideals of gender that were during this time and how the gender personifications are related to those ideals.

Discussion Questions:

• In the poem, the West is associated with man while the East is associated with woman ("Gems of the East her mural crown adorn,/And Plenty at her feet pours forth her horn" (307-308)). What is the significance of these associations? How does it shed new perspective on colonization and the war with France?
• Barbauld creates a war within a poem criticizing war.  This creates an internalized chaos within the poem. Does this help Barbauld's argument that Britain should not engage in war? Why or why not?

Eighteen Hundred and Eleven

In the poem "Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" by Anna Barbauld the relationship between Great Britain and the United States is thoroughly explored. Barbauld believes that Britain's authority throughout the world is diminishing, and in order to convey this sentiment to her audience she incorporates conventional gender roles and a weird sense of timelessness.

Look at that, timelessness and femininity

By associating certain countries with either specific masculine or feminine traits, an author can drastically manipulate the perception of their audience. In the case of Barbauld's poem, Great Britain is consistently described with feminine features. This can be seen from the very beginning: "To the stern call still Britain bends her ear," clear through to the end: "on London Art bestows Her summer ices and her winter rose." Furthermore, in comparison to her description of the burgeoning United States, Great Britain is illustrated as a country whose years of prosperity are in the past; "The golden tide of Commerce leaves thy shore." Yet rather than resent the United States for its own deteriorating status, Barbauld describes Britain with a characteristically maternal outlook. From Barbauld's point of view, the relationship between Britain and the United States is similar to the bittersweet sentiments that accompany every mother when they watch their child leave home and develop into their own person. This relationship is shown most clearly in the poem towards the end, when Barbauld describes the "Spirit o'er the peopled earth." In this analogy, the "spirit," which is notably masculine, represents the potential and opportunity that can be found in the Americas. Typical of most developing children, the spirit grows to resent his predecessors, namely Great Britain and the European nations that helped spawn the American colonies.

Because a picture of George Washington never is always relevant

It is with this newly felt scorn that much of the rest of Barbauld's poem begins to make sense. On the surface, it almost seems as if Barbauld is randomly bringing up the history of the human race. Her inclusion of everything from the ancient Egyptians to renaissance painters makes it easy to lose sight of why she's bringing up all of these past events in the first place. With regards to the Americans, the purpose of this poem is meant to serve as a reminder, to never forget their origins. In conjunction with that, to the people still living in Great Britain, this poem could kind of be seen as a morale booster, kind of like "yea life is kinda shitty now, but remember all that great stuff we did?"

Discussion Questions:
1) In what other ways did Barbauld utilize gender roles or other themes?
2) Do you think it's okay to use gender roles to manipulate the perception of the audience?

Links:
https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-243479399/the-colonial-subtext-of-anna-letitia-barbauld-s-eighteen

Olivia's Outside Perspective

The essayist of our short reading, Helena Woodward, talks about novelists during the 1700s writing of far off lands and observing them under a western European magnifying glass and perpetuating a negative image for readers to digest.  The Author of A Woman of Color clearly intended the novel to serve a social purpose.  The author wants the novel to influence the prejudiced English perspective.  Looking at Olivia Fairfield, her status, how she conducts herself, how she perceives English society and how English society perceives her, is the author's interpretation of the cultural perception and alignment. 

First the author presents to the reader the hurdle that Olivia's race creates for her.  We even see the person who is supposed to love and marry her, Augustus, talk about that first instant when he was repulsed by her skin.  He said "for I confess to you, that the moment when my eyes were first cast on the person of my cousin, I started back with a momentary feeling of disgust for I beheld a skin approaching the hue of a negroes,". (91) In this statement, we get a sense of the inherent prejudice in his uncontrollable association.  That skin color association is a barrier that Olivia already understands when she sets foot in England. Giving the reader the opportunity to look at the world through Olivia's eyes, is beneficial because it lets the reader see a norm that they might just accept, from the other side of the situation in order to show its complexity.

Olivia comes from an environment that suggests her having a very acute sense of race. She comes from Jamaica where she would have witnessed the brutal conditions of slavery and saw how the aristocracy was built on a sense of racial entitlement. She would have had experience dealing with a society that practiced real racism instead of being influence by it like English society.  When talking to Mrs. Milbanke she is not shocked by the shocked by peoples perception of her but rather anticipated it. "They walked up in pairs hanging one on anthers arm, and with a stare of effrontery, eyed your Olivia, as if they had bee admitted purposely to see the untamed savage at a shilling a piece!" (85)   Here we see her readily accepting it and planning to overcome it in every which way she could.  She's tough and unflinchingly aware of the racial and gender inequality of the society in which she lives. 

Olivia comes into the situation from the outside and the author chooses to convey Olivia's perception of English culture to her friend in an unflinching and unapologetic way.  She talks about this curious racism  judges people harshly for the values they hold dear and she makes it a point to step back and understand that she does not fully understand their way of life. In A Woman of Colour, we see Olivia, an outsider who is very consience of her surroundings and her status observe English society and people with a watchful eye. She has the opportunity to express to her pen pal Mrs. Milbanke the negative and positive of English life.  When she talks about Lady Ingot and Sir Marmaduke she sees the way they position themselves in society as very problematic.  "Ease and elegance, are in my opinion, are terms nearly synonymous; hence I have made a point of letting him lounge, and loll and curvet in every interesting and carless attitude." (119) Here we see her show upper elites laziness and willingness to excel being taught from mother to child.  Through this situation the author does a good job of conveying a reality that sheds light on England's societal issues.   

Olivia says that she is "studying" them.  How much does her observation from the outside reflect English values? Does it add to the readers understanding of English culture?

Is the author making a political statement about prejudice and judging foreign culture?

 

Select: Helena Woodard_Dampier's Hottentots, Swift's Yahoos, and Equiano's Ibos- Imaging Blackness in a Colonialist Discourse.pdf

Helena Woodard_Dampier's Hottentots, Swift's Yahoos, and Equiano's Ibos- Imaging Blackness in a Colonialist Discourse.pdf

The fault in her sex

     Throughout the novel Olivia Fairfeild is characterized as the ideal woman, as long as her color is not being addressed. Insights about her  moral character are shown through her actions, her words, and how others perceive her. Though it is not stated explicitly in the novel, Olivia is characterized as the type of woman that other women  should aspire to be like. Though I believe the latter statement to be true, the improvement that women could gain from acting more like Mrs. Fairfield is much less radical than women who act in the ideal presented by Wollstonecraft. Olivia is an improvement from the general female population in England, but she is still clearly in a woman's place,  

     Olivia is a christian, learned woman who defies the negative stereotypes of women in her day while reaming in her "place". A phrase that often stated by Olivia in reference to her sex, or specifically negative dissociation from her sex. A sex that has been characterized by other characters in the novel as "superficial characters" with "frivolous pursuits" and "worse than childish behavior" (65). Her statements include but are not limited to her sex's "vanity" ,"weakness", or "limits".

                                                        
While other women, though not all, have been portrayed in this negative light, Olivia has been described as having "numerous and unrivaled virtues and perfections"(93). Throughout the book, Olivia is put up on a pedestal for her moral perfections. The way she is shown and the way other women are show are vastly different.  Through these themes, the novel subtlety encourages for more women to act in a manner more like that of Mrs. Fairfield   

Interesting website of pictures portraying the daily life of people in London during the 1800's.

The exotic down and outs of Victorian London


What effect did you perceive/ was intended by the author,about Olivia's character through the letters from other characters?

If Olivia is the "ideal" woman, what purpose did the author have in making her a mulatto woman considering the strong negative connotations that are carried with brown skin. 

Olivia as the Middle (Wo)Man

In The Woman of Colour, we see through Olivia that even more of the limitations that were put on women, especially women who were not of the European middle to upper classes. She says on the very first page, "The illegitimate offspring of his slave could never be considered in the light of equality by the English planters" (53). However, because Olivia is in a strange place socially, she is better able to discuss the prejudice that black people face in a white community that ostracizes them. She recognizes the social inequality, as she is treated worse because of her situation as half black and half white, but is in a unique place because of this to be able to gain empathy. She is of a lower social class, but is exposed to the upper class because of her father.

Olivia has a great understanding of her odd position, and uses that to make people see her as more of a person, and less as property. This comes about when she is talking to Mr. Honeywood, when he says, "You will shame our English ladies - or rather, you are going where your virtues will not be known or appreciated!" to which she wittily responds, "Does Mr. Honeywood imagine that he only has discernment to discover those great and extraordinary virtues that I possess?" (65). Honeywood is essentially saying to Olivia that he has found a diamond in the rough when it comes to her, but that no Englishwoman will acknowledge this. She, however, says that virtue is not only visible to him, and that she will not only make an impression on him, but everyone, simply because of her skin tone.

Olivia, then, begins to serve as the person that incites empathy to her situation. Olivia is well spoken, beautiful, and quick, and regardless of the fact that she is black and thought unable to, she is still behaves like the woman of the upper class would. Even critical Augustus aligns herself with her emotions, saying, "I feel for her situation and pity her, - a stranger in a strange country, where she is more likely to receive contumely than consideration; at the next, I see in her a superior being; and again I behold the child of humanity, the citizen of the world, with  a heart teeming with benevolence and mercy toward every living creature!" (102-103). He is almost surprised by her heart, and feels pity that she will be treated poorly simply because of her skin color. This is interesting, because it wasn't necessarily in line with the upper class thoughts on slavery.

Because of her unique situation, she gets both extreme ends of the social spectrum. She is born of a slave, which is the lowest of the low, sadly. However, she is also born to a higher class man, and interacts with people of that class despite her mother's lower social class. Because of her beauty and wit, she is admired, but in a way that people admired animals in a zoo, as a marvel instead of an upstanding citizen. Throughout the letters, Olivia straddles the line of these two classes, and because of this, we as the readers are better able to empathize with her situation, and understand that perhaps it isn't your social class that defines virtue, but rather the opposite.

This article explains what was going on in the 17th and 18th centuries with European slavery, so we can better understand the position of slavery in English society.

Discussion Questions:

1. What is Olivia's social position, and what effect does that have on her reputation, or how people perceive her?

2. How does this unique position between two majorly different social structures allow the character of Olivia to shed light on bigger social injustices? 

Sympathetic Characters in The Woman of Colour

The Woman of Colour, an epistolary novel told from the perspective of its biracial protagonist Olivia Fairfield, provides us with an interesting look at the racial politics of early 19th century England.  Born to a wealthy slaveowner and slave, and yet raised by her father and governess in Jamaica, Olivia grows up in undoubtedly unusual circumstances.  Her unique upbringing affords her a more comprehensive understanding of slavery and the treatment of blackness, and while she is certainly aware of the prejudices against her and the ridiculousness of the people she meets in England, she really isn't defiant or noticeably offended by them.  She seems to play the role of dutiful woman just as Geraldine does in Desmond.  While her descriptions of the more outlandish figures are quite perceptive and comical, perhaps because these characters are rooted in such obvious prejudice, I found the people she speaks more highly of (most noticeably her father, Mrs. Honeywood, and Augustus) particularly interesting because even these 'likable' characters appear driven by unshakeable biases.

Though Olivia recognizes her father's prejudices toward her mother and the vulnerability of his will, she forgives and obeys him, portraying him quite sympathetically to Mrs. Milbanke.  She is unquestionably loyal to him, for when she does lament having to leave Jamaica, she checks "these useless interrogatories, these vain regrets, by recollecting that it was the will of him who always studied the happiness of his child" (53).  He is painted out to be the benevolent master figure, and after purchasing Marcia, Olivia's mother, "his kindness, his familiarity, his humanity, soon gained him an interest in her grateful heart" (54).  After she becomes Christianized and learns of the sins she and Mr. Fairfield have committed, she quickly points out his hypocrisy, since he, "who, educated under the influence of the Gospel, lived in direct opposition to its laws!" (54).  Though Olivia becomes increasingly upset at the condition of slaves in Jamaica, her father, on his deathbed, "could not adopt a line of conduct which would draw on him the odium of all his countrymen: he contented himself, therefore, with seeing that slaves on his estate were well kept and fed, and treated with humanity, but their minds were suffered to remain in the dormant state in which he found them" (55).  He refuses to marry Marcia for similar reasons, for while "he loved Marcia with fervour... the pride of the man, the quick feeling of the European, the prejudices which he had imbibed in common with his countrymen, forbade his making this affectionate and heroic girl his wife" (55).  Despite his love for Olivia and her mother, Mr. Fairfield distances himself from them in order to preserve his own reputation.

Mrs. Honeywood too becomes a sympathetically portrayed, yet inherently prejudiced character that Olivia cares for deeply.  She is familiar with Mr. Fairfield's will, "and frequently and studiously refers to [it]," although it seems as though "she sometimes wished to remind her son of this; and yet there is nothing to fear for him.  An unportioned girl of [Olivia's] colour, can never be a dangerous object" (56).  While Mrs. Honeywood and Olivia get along nicely, Mrs. Honeywood seems quite fearful of her son taking a romantic interest in Olivia, especially "in the habits of intimacy which [their] present situation naturally produces" (56).  Later on she offensively imitates Dido, saying how she "would give something to be able to take dat brush and dat bit of paper...and paint your lady and yourself" (57). And she frequently mortifies Olivia about her upcoming betrothal, saying how "the manners, the customs of different countries are so widely different, and there ought to be so many corresponding traits of character, to form any thing like comfort in the connubial state, that it is [her] wonder when any one of these matches turns out merely tolerable" (58).  Mrs. Honeywood views Olivia's blackness as something that could be potentially repulsing for her betrothed (something that later turns out to be true).  However she respects Olivia's virtue, telling her that "no one could [refuse her], who knew her," (60) implying that her character alone will earn her a husband.     

Augustus' relationship with Olivia seems to be a little more complicated and shrouded in an as of yet unsolved mystery concerning his deceased love.  We learn through his letter that upon first encountering Olivia he "started back with a momentary feeling nearly allied to disgust; for [he] beheld a skin approaching to the hue of a negro's, in the woman whom [his] father introduced to [him] as [his] intended wife" (102).  However, like Mrs. Honeywood, Augustus admires and respects her character, despite his recurring melancholy and initial detachment.  While he is a dutiful and benevolent husband, I think it is worth discussing his character more fully in class since I am not sure how I feel about him, especially since Olivia blames all of his unhappiness and despondency on herself.   

Ultimately, the only character in the novel who doesn't seem to view Olivia with disgust or as a curiosity is Mrs. Honeywood's son, who I anticipate will make a reappearance later on in the novel.  While Olivia judges and criticizes, although fairly lightheartedly, those who are openly ignorant and prejudiced, she is more sympathetic towards the characters who, despite their flaws, try to overcome a way of thinking that has become ingrained in the culture.  

As I was looking up the painting from the front of the novel I noticed that the woman depicted was not only real, her name is Dido Elizabeth Belle, but has an interesting life story that is quite comparable to Olivia's.  There are even a few film adaptations about her.  Here is a link to the Wikipedia page.


Discussion Questions:

Coming into the novel with a 21st century perspective, how are we to judge or interpret the actions and beliefs of these more sympathetic characters? 

Likewise, how are we to understand Olivia's favorable, or at least tolerant, opinions of these characters, especially considering that of all the people in the novel Olivia is most critical of herself?

    

Judging Books by Their Covers

When a novel is written from the first person, we as readers gain insight about the author's personality and personal thoughts, but we also are given a different sense of other characters. By reading Olivia's descriptions of various people she comes across in the novel, we are automatically biased and basing our opinions of these characters off of her thoughts and notions about them. In order to properly analyze Olivia and the author's messages, it is imperative that the other characters are addressed and analyzed as well. 

 Mr. Merton and Mrs. Merton are examples of characters that Olivia describes in detail for the reader, making it harder to form one's own opinion for the character or hear other thoughts on the character as clearly. Mrs. Merton is given a negative outlook based on her appearance, but more so her personality traits, "there is such a splenetic tendency in every word she utters, such a look of design, with so much self importance..." (73). Automatically, we are supposed to think of this woman as self-centered and lacking great qualities. We are given dialogue in the novel, but as the first opinions and full details that are given make the biggest impression. The negative outlook on the female is also something to consider as readers. If Mrs. Merton is the one with lack of sense and rationality, there is less of a feminist stance in this situation. Comparing the way a woman is described here to Desmond's description of women is an interesting angle. Although Desmond was written by a woman, the main characters giving descriptions were male, and women were seen in a more positive light. Within The Woman of Colour, the writer is anonymous but the speaker of descriptions is female, which makes a connection that perhaps in this time period genders see people of their same gender more clearly, and reading these novels are important to understanding the opposite gender.

Mr. Merton is given a sarcastic halo by Olivia, describing him as a character with the best of qualities, "Yet his principles appear honest and upright, and I dare say he is a man who has passed through the world, maintaining a strict character for probity and integrity as a merchant" (74). Yet again, we are given a large set of information to the character's traits and what we as readers should think about them. We are supposed to appreciate Mr. Merton's facade and know that he may not be the most genuine character, but he is still not as critically judged as his wife. Still, the description of this woman creates an idea we are set to follow for the duration of the novel and take other thoughts after this as less important. Dialogue and following pursuits of the characters that Olivia describes in detail only assist her original thoughts but never negate them. 

My main concern with Olivia's characterization and description of people in the novel is that her thoughts are the judge and jury on first impressions of the novel. The first impression you get of anyone in books, movies, TV, and reality have some bearing on how your future thoughts of them will be shaped and what they are known for. Whatever reputation people are given effects them hugely and Olivia's developments of her characters are no exception. This reminded me of Pride & Prejudice and Elizabeth and Darcy's original thoughts of each other and how long it took for them to surpass these impressions and end up together. Reviewing the movie trailer is available here.

Questions: 

1) Olivia gives qualities of herself by her descriptions of other people, what qualities do we think those are? (i.e. judgmental, perceptive, genuine, etc.) 

2) From the characterization or men and women, what do we think is the author's difference of perception of genders?

Reputation and Fallen Women

Wollstonecraft in her chapter entitled "Morality Undermined by Sexual Notions of the Importance of a Good Reputation" relates a story about two women,

"A woman of quality, notorious for her gallantries, though as she still lived with her husband, nobody chose to place her in the class where she ought to have been place, made a point of treating with the most insulting contempt a poor timid creature, abashed by a sense of her former weakness, whom a neighboring gentleman had seduced and afterwards married.  This woman had actually confounded virtue with reputation; and, I do believe, valued herself on the propriety of her behaviour before marriage, though when once settled to the satisfaction of her family, she and her lord were equally faithless,--so that the half alive heir to an immense estate came from heaven knows where" (Wollstonecraft 266).

The first woman in this story admonishes the second for her past transgressions when the first woman is equally of ill repute.  The second woman was seduced by her neighbor, but he decided to marry her even though by society's standards she was considered a fallen woman.  He took responsibility for her situation.  If he had not married her, she probably would have had to resort to prostitution to support herself.  The first woman, on the other hand, was not faithful to her husband nor he to her.  Knowing this, the first woman is a hypocrite.  She is making the second woman feel awful about what happened even though she has no moral leg to stand on.  Wollstonecraft makes the point that the first woman is confusing virtue with reputation.  The first woman's reputations precedes her.  She is known for cheating on her husband, whereas, the second woman seems to have repaired her reputation to some degree.  By society's standards, it was not virtuous to have premarital sex, but the second woman has moved past that.  The first woman's virtue and reputation are both ruined beyond repair, but she doesn't seem to acknowledge that.  She merely holds herself above the other woman when, society believes that you should only have sex with your husband if you're going to have sex.

A person's reputation is determined by society.  Even if a person is outwardly virtuous, they could in private lead a not so virtuous life.  Reputation is determined by what the world sees not by what's actually happening.  One misstep could ruin the reputation of a woman in the 18th century.  If she was seen out in public with a strange man, that was a black mark on her reputation.  People would speculate about what they were actually doing.  Were they friends?  Or friendlier than friends?  This concept of perceived outward appearance plays an important role in Desmond.  Wollstonecraft's focus in her treatise on reputation highlights this and can guide our understanding of reputation in Desmond.  The reputation in question is Geraldine's.   Although Desmond is trying to help her after she has been kicked out of her home he is only hurting the situation.  As an unmarried man, he has no right to step in an aid a married woman.  He is viewed as an interloper.  Somebody who is taking advantage of a situation.  People speculate.  Especially Geraldine's mother.  She is under the impression that she never went to France at all but is still in England.  The reason that she stayed in England is she gave birth to Desmond's bastard child.  This shows just how much reputation can effect opinion.  Geraldine's mother believes the gossip she hears about her daughter so much so that she does not even try to ask her daughter about it.  She automatically assumes that Geraldine and Desmond are playing house in the country with their new born.  Reputation is the currency of that time period.  The better your reputation is the more social cash you have.  Geraldine is literally and figuratively running on empty.  She literally has no money and her reputation is about as awful as it could be.

Here's an article about fallen women in art.

Why does Wollstonecraft call for the dissociation of virtue and reputation?  How will that help women?  Why is it something that needed to be reformed?

How is Geraldine's reputation affected by Verney being an awful husband?  Why does her reputation matter?  How does her public reputation differ from her private reputation?

Feminism and Desmond

Desmond is obviously a novel that takes women's rights into consideration.  In 1790, when the novel takes place, women's rights were extremely restricted and Smith is clearly opposed to these restrictions.  While I was reading Desmond I thought about the first wave of feminism rather often.  I think it's interesting to consider when the feminist movement began and how the lives of our characters would have been extremely different if they had been living in a slightly later time.

The first wave of feminism didn't really begin until the mid 1800s in the United Kingdom, though it was influenced and inspired by many people long before.  The earliest writers about feminism include  Simone de Beauvoir, Christine de Pizan, Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa, Anne Bradstreet, and Mary Wollstonecraft, of course.  The first organization that fought for women's rights was called Langham Place Circle and it was formed in 1850.  Their main ideas involved female rights within employment and education.  Later in 1882 the Married Women's Property Act was approved in Parliament and married women maintained control over their property instead of it becoming their husband's. Women were able to vote in 1918.  Both of the World Wars helped women gain opportunities to work outside the home and they even gained the same divorce rights as men by 1923.  

Sister Suffragette from Mary Poppins

While these achievements were obviously wonderful for all women, they would have especially directly affected the characters of Desmond, especially Geraldine.  Throughout the entire novel she is the character that I most wanted to see change her situation and help herself.  Geraldine was a victim of her time and her circumstances though, and she is forced to be saved by a man and unable to help herself.  While in some regards this is positive, I mean she does get saved, if she had gained the rights that the first wave of feminism granted to women, Geraldine wouldn't have had to rely on anyone.  She would have been able to divorce Verney, keep her home and find employment outside the home and be a self sustaining mother.  To think that only 100 years later her situation could have been so much better is a bit sad.

Geraldine isn't the only character whose life could have been made significantly better by the first wave of feminism.  Mrs. Waverly I believe would have had the opportunity to be a better mother in a different time period.  While the social customs of marriage were still important in the 1800s, there wasn't nearly as much pressure around the time of the major reforms.  If she knew that her daughters had other good options and protections in the world she may have been a more understanding and sympathetic character.

The idea that these characters, along with many others, could have seen such life improvements had the first wave of feminism come sooner is a testament to the entire point of Smith's novel.  These situations she created are meant to show the downfalls and short comings of the society she is writing within and maybe even suggesting some serious changes to implement.  I believe Smith would have been happy with the first wave of feminism and have seen it as a positive reform that help not only women, but society as a whole.

Links:
This talks about the first wave of feminism in more detail
http://people.howstuffworks.com/feminism2.htm

This one is more about the second wave that began in the 1960s
http://people.howstuffworks.com/feminism4.htm

And finally, this link talks about the new or third wave that's currently happening
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/01/feminism-now/

Discussion Questions
1. Based on the situations she has created for her characters, do you think Smith would have been satisfied with the changes made by the first wave of feminism or would she have wanted even greater reform?
2. Do you think that the character of Mrs. Waverly is suppose to inspire change?  If so, what kind of change is she supposed to show is necessary?

Free Will in the Face of Duty

It is often thought that proper education will lead to intelligence while intelligence leads to free thought and thus free will. Geraldine, while not properly educated, has made herself familiar with books and become quite smart.  Various characters, such as Bethel and Desmond, praise her mind while simultaneously praising her beauty.  So it is thought that Geraldine, as intelligent as she is said to be, would possess free will and fight to retain her free will and free thought.  However, Geraldine is a product of her environment and has been raised by her parents to fulfill a certain duty: be a proper wife.  A proper wife in Desmond is shown to have spaniel-like affection for her husband, an unquestioning obedience when her husband commands something, and children to tend to.  In other words, a proper wife is one who is domestic. Geraldine, as previously discussed in class, is bound by her sense of duty and loses her free will as a result.

The first people who take Geraldine's free will from her are her parents.  Being the same people who taught Geraldine her sense of duty, it appears appropriate when they marry her off to Verney "merely because it was the will of the family" while at the same time providing Geraldine with a chance to honor her sense of duty as a proper wife (295).  Even as Verney becomes abusive, we discussed that Geraldine still remains due to a sense of duty - a thought which becomes all the more evident in the newest section read.

Previously, Verney tries to prostitute his wife to a nobleman and Geraldine quickly makes excuses in order to avoid that fate.  Now, Geraldine escapes to Bath where Bethel in a desperate attempt to figure out what she is going to do.  At this point, Geraldine is regaining some of her free will and thought as she rebels against her sense of duty by refuting her husband's demands.  While the reader and characters such as Fanny and Desmond might be cheering for Geraldine and her new found freedom, characters like her mother and husband send scolding letters that remind Geraldine of her place as a wife.  Her mother's letter in particular is something to pay attention to as she addresses Geraldine as "Daughter Verney" and mocks Geraldine's love for books by quoting a famous author who supports the idea of a wife being "seemliest and safest" with her husband (290-291).  These scolding letters serve to reawaken Geraldine's sense of duty, even if she dreads returning to her husband.

Already acting like she is returning to her own execution, Geraldine becomes defensive to Bethel questioning her return to Verney by saying "Because, it is my duty" (304).  She explains her reasoning that a judge will be more likely to hear from a woman who is honoring her duty as a wife than one who has run, but it appears as though Geraldine is choosing an option that will win her the favor of society than allow her to be happy.  As Geraldine leaves to return to Verney, Fanny is the next one to speak of duty and how the falls one must take in order to honor it "ought . . . to dissolve all ties of duty" (308).  Fanny is the voice of reason at the point, one that few will actually listen to as she is overcome with emotion - a thing thought to show women are less likely to have logical thoughts.  Yet Fanny brings up a true concern when it comes to marriage of this time.  Geraldine, a women stuck in a loveless marriage, must give up all of her free will in order to honor her duty and if she wishes to remain in society's graces.

Although this article talks about attitudes toward and expectations of women in the 19th century, these ideals were around during the late 18th century as well.  It's worth taking a look at as it outlines the stereotypes of both men and women during this time, most of which are prevalent within Desmond and contribute to why Geraldine behaves the way she does and how women are portrayed in general.

Discussion Questions:

• As stated above, Geraldine follows the duty of being a proper wife.  What other types of duty are found in the novel?

• What other characters in the novel show a potential for/have free will? How, if at all, is this free will squandered by a sense of duty?

Feminist Philosophy and Fiction

“Desmond” and “The Vindication of the Rights of Women” map the foundation of modern feminism.  Though each work had a different rhetorical function and added to their current rhetoric in different ways, they get at the same points.  Charlotte Smith’s novel engages in philosophical debate in very subtle ways that add layers onto the story and her feminist logic at the same time.  She is able to place characters in different places in society and channel a perspective that resonates with the actual beliefs of the time period.  She plays a very complex game with progressive and conservative characters and builds a plotline that observes the main character, Geraldine, from different realistic perspectives.

Among all the personal feelings that the characters express, there are meaningful little discussions and one liners that are sprinkled throughout the text. Smith writes gems like “Those who are well situated desire not to move.”(179) These type of statements can be copied and pasted into any philosophical writing about gender or aristocratic privilege of the time period and hit home.

As Charlotte Smith is known for thinly veiling the characters of her books as people in real life, she speaks from different perspectives in a realistic manner but each character is speaking to the same topic and layering the conversation for the reader to observe.  One attribute of the novel that I must talk about is the epistolary form and how it adds to the reader’s experience of feminist rhetoric.  The epistolary letter gives Smith the opportunity to let each characters voice their opinions and concerns all intertwined with the activity going on in France and in their own lives.  The epistolary form is very useful in expressing the molecular influence that a historical event like the French Revolution had.  Because people watched events like the French Revolution unfold, and talked about those events and what they meant to society from a political and moral standpoint, she is able to effectively write from different angles to portray a full spectrum of ideas. 

The first person we get praising Geraldine is Desmond.  He talked her up as much as possible and he was letting her situation tear him up even though he had know real stake in what she was going through.  Desmond is a very progressive thinker and the way he talks about Geraldine could come off as biased because he is in love with her or because society does not influence his thinking. The recipient of all Desmonds letters, Bethel stands as his rational friend and tethers him to reality.  So when Bethel visits and sees Geraldine and her situation he automatically jumps on the Geraldine bandwagon it signifies Geraldine's transcendence beyond the limits of women.

Bethel is the perfect springboard for Geraldine’s story.  Because he believes in tradition and honors the way of living during the time, his evolution comes full circle for the reader to understand.  Him being skeptical of his own friends feelings for Geraldine by writing things like “If your attachment to Geraldine is as pure and disinterested as you have often called it, if you were her sisters husband and such an alliance would put you at much more power than it could ever be otherwise.” (177) Writing Desmond, who has been falling head over heels for Geraldine for a hundred pages, a with statements like that brings a contrasting element of rational reality to Desmond’s emotional.  Then in the next volume, after listening to Desmond rave about Geraldine and her morals and chastity.

“She never considered any kind of happiness other than want of money.  Nor did it occur to her that in giving Geraldine away to somebody with fortune and family, she overlooked circumstances in the character of Verney.” (229) The fact that he understands that Mrs. Waverly, Geraldine’s mother, gave her away to a rich man with status who did not deserve his position in society n the first place says something about the sick society in which they live. It gets at Wollstonecraft’s idea about women’s limitations and how there are societal issues where good women can be abused.

Where are the effects of a broader societal gender problem in the way that the characters see Geraldine’s situation?

How does Smith get at double standards in the way women are perceived?

If Geraldine is perfect, beauty, brains, and morals what does it say that she’s locked in the most unsatisfying circumstance?

I picked up things from Wikipedia and Britannica 

The Dangers of Entitelment

     Charlotte Smith's epistolary novel address many significant social and gender problems.Smith not only offers reasoning against the mistreatment of women and the oppression of the poor, but with the backdrop of the French Revolution she is able to address the full extent of aristocratic corruption as well. After piecing together the arguments that Smith proposes I found, what I believe to be, the main argument of her text. The root of the issues confronted seems to be the sense of entitlement.

                                         
     I suppose it could be argued that the latter assertion was not in fact the central idea that Smith was attempting to undermine. One could argue that despite all of the issues she address, that women are actually her main focus. But I believe an argument such as that would be a injustice to Smith's work and would neglect or even undermine the more serious and broader problems that she addresses.

                       
   
     There are several examples of how entitled people use their power irresponsibly littered throughout the novel. I found the first example, a some what subtle example in comparison to the ones to come, was the way Waverly is portrayed. All of his life everything has been handed to him, he is naive and gullible. Next we find a stronger example from the retelling of Desmond's impression of Bethel's kin. Miss Fairfax's overall snooty characterization and later on her very open and intense dislike of the poor are quite distasteful. Geraldine's husband is an extremely disturbing character, he not only abuses his position as a husband and  father, but as a Lord as well. In his own words he doesn't "care a curse for their damned politics"(174). Of course there are many other examples of power abusing people made by Smith, but there are also examples of people in power who are not so corrupt.

    Smith uses the story of Geraldine to attack a much bigger problem that of just gender roles or class. Her attack on entitlement is an attack on human character as a whole. To be handed positions of power instead of earning it leads to corruption and a lack of empathy. Only through hard work can the full positive potential of a ruler be attained, whether that ruler be of an estate, a country, or a household.

Youtube video I found that doesn't deal with the French Revolution, but a funny short clip about the symptoms of entitlement.
"The Danger of Entitlement" Part 1

How does Smith's characterization of people in positions in power effect her argument? In what ways?How did you perceive these arguments? Strong/Weak?
What could she could have done differently to have a stronger influence on her readers?

   

Woman as the Slave to Man in Desmond

As we briefly touched upon last class, the way that women are treated in Desmond is very strange and very unique to the text.  Charlotte Smith, writing from the perspective of the male, addresses the underlying concerns regarding women's rights at the time in a very indirect manner. In comparison to Wollstonecraft's work, Smith's text is much less radical when it comes to advocating for the change in the social structure surrounding marriage rights for women during the latter 18th century. However, Smith's narrative is also very affective in demonstrating the inequalities and double standards of the time.

Kari Lokke's article that we will read for Thursday perfectly summarizes the general idea behind Smith's portrayal of women in marriage, stating, "The sexual/ economic matrimonial contract only works to the woman's detriment" (66). Though most of us haven't yet read Lokke's article yet, I couldn't help but relate it to our conversation that we had last class. With Wollstonecraft, she was clear and concise as to what injustices she felt that women faced in the home, in marriage, and in society as a whole. Smith, however, is much more covert with the assertions she is making about the way women are treated, if she is trying to make a point at all.

Women in Desmond are treated much like slaves in matrimony. They lose their rights, are subject to abuse, and, eventually, even sold. As we read on in the chapters, we once again see through the letters that Desmond is still obsessed with Geraldine and freeing her of her abusive and economically problematic marriage. Bethel, however, discourages him once again from pursuing this, saying, "I am very sorry for Mrs. Verney; but I have long foreseen this - She will, undoubtedly have too much firmness of the mind, and attention to the interest of her children to give up her settlement" (124). The word settlement here is what really irked me. Marriage was an arrangement that women aspired to have, yet once they were married, the arrangement was no longer beneficial to her.

Desmond, then, becomes a victim of passion, and interprets the feeling as love. But as Wollstonecraft points out, passion is not lasting and not sustainable. However, Desmond describes his passions as "pure and holy" when discussing Geraldine (134). How can his intentions be pure and holy if the woman is married? Is it because he feels as though he is relieving her? Throughout the epistle, Desmond uses this type of language to describe both his relationships with Geraldine and Josephine, both married men. He also is constantly speaking of the equality that France is pushing towards that England should adopt. I find this interesting and in relation to one another.

I believe Smith chooses to write not only the story of a young man's exploration of the liberation of the French from an oppression culture, but also a story of the folly of love and marriage, because in her eyes, both the social structure of Britain and the marriage laws were in desperate need of reform. The epistle jumps form story to story - Desmond experiencing the benefits that the French Revolution had and wishing for England to adopt these tenets, and his wishing to free these women in pre-determined marriages from their oppressive and abusive relationship. As I previously stated, Smith characterizes the women as slaves who are blind to their own situation. Their refusal to give up the social status that comes with marriage is not unlike how Desmond feels towards the British. Similar to how he feels about Geraldine and Josephine's marriages, he believes that the British should give up their classes and the non-sensical structure for a more mutually beneficial societal structure, much like the French.

Here is an article from JSTOR (you may have to log in through the library to view it) that discusses the affect that the French Revolution had on marriage rights for women, divorce laws, and custody. Jump to page 749.

Discussion Questions:

1. How do the two different presentations of marriage inequality for women by Smith and Wollstonecraft have different effects? Which approach do you think is more affective in shedding light on the problem? Why do the approaches differ so much?

2. How does Smith tie her two stories together? What points are both the story of unrequited love and a the changing socioeconomic climate in France making collectively? Are they even tied together at all? Why does she go about writing the stories this way?