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?