16 July 2004 at 5:03 PM, post #209

The chronology editing meeting was really helpful. Elisa, Elizabeth and I got together yesterday to work on it. It served as a good chance to discuss style issues and how strict we need to be on issues of consistency. We came up with a list of questions that might be helpful in discussing the chronology (that list is currently with Elisa or I would list some examples).

The editing session also made me think a little more about the specifics of the timeline layout. Do we want it to be in a sort of list form like the Eighteenth-Century Chronology and Jack Lynch's? We were curious about the layout because we weren't sure how much information constitutes "too much" for the brief description. I think we discussed the option of clicking the short description in order to read the lengthier description and see the sources. Is that right?

It might be good if we set up a time to discuss certain style points. Alternatively, we could just post some ideas/decisions on the journal page.

12 July 2004 at 4:40 PM, post #204

I found Charlotte Temple to be a novel difficult for a modern reader. Novels about fallen women can be that way I suppose. Charlotte, partly because she is fifteen years old, is depicted as completely naive and helpless. She is punished for her actions while Montraville goes on to marry a woman of wealth and live out his days. Certainly, he is sometimes “subject to sever fits of melancholy” and regrets his actions which led to the ruin of Charlotte but he is free to move on. He feels remorse which may be why he doesn’t die a miserable death like everyone else but he is perhaps the most responsible for Charlotte’s fate and suffers the least.

We may not like any of the characters but we are meant to pity some. Charlotte lacked any significant chance to make a decision for herself. This makes readers see her as retaining a shred of virtue even though she has fallen into ruin. Despite the remnants of virtue and her relative innocence in the matter, Charlotte repents up until her death and blames herself more than anyone else. She even tells her parents that if she has a son, they should not tell him who his father is “lest in wishing to revenge his mother’s injuries, he should wound the peace of his father” (81).

Why is it important to include the background of Charlotte’s parents. These histories are usually left out of novels but Rowson made a point to include the tale of Mr. Temple and Lucy. Is this just to show what kind of people they are and to show that they value love and virtue more than money.

I also wonder why Rowson found it necessary to address the readers directly. Mostly she addresses her readers as if they are young ladies, gaining a moral lesson from her novel. However, near the end she speaks to men to explain a more technical issue. “I hope, Sir, your prejudices are now removed in regard to the probability of my story” (106).

05 July 2004 at 8:09 PM, post #202

I’m also interested in the narrator’s role throughout the novel. Shouldn’t we be suspicious of a story told by a young man to the woman he wants to marry? But if that’s the case, it seems like he would have omitted parts of the story which show him in a poor light? He doesn’t do this however which may make the whole thing more believable but not necessarily more reliable. Huh. It’s interesting to consider what he’s including and what he seems to be leaving out.

As several of you have said, this novel reminded me a lot of Caleb Williams. Edgar doesn’t seem to have a hope but, unlike Caleb Williams, he’s unsure of the source of his troubles for a large portion of the novel. At least Caleb knew it was Falkland who was out to get him. Still, both Caleb and Edgar and essentially innocent and virtuous but have found themselves in trouble due to overactive imaginations. Both are hunted and haunted to an absurd extent and find their way out of the most unbelievable situations. It’s hard to avoid feeling like they should just give up.

Deaths, killings and suicides abound. Edgar comes across as hypocritical as he three “savages,” claims that, “I was satiated and gorged with slaughter, and thought upon a new act of destruction with abhorrence and loathing” (814), and then goes on to kill the fourth (or maybe even the fifth). True, he did so in self-defense but his justification for killing the surviving Native American is disturbing. Edgar convinces himself that this last foe “will live only to pursue the same sanguinary trade; to drink the blood and exult in the laments of his unhappy foes, and of my own brethren” (815).

02 July 2004 at 3:52 PM, post #198

Good ol' Edgar Huntly.

I understand Elizabeth's point about the narration but I don't think this is the first time we've seen it. Caleb Williams is another example of narrators proclaiming their seemingly impossible feats. Caleb is constantly getting out of tight spots (only to find himself in an even worse situation). It makes it more of a nail-biter. As far as Edgar being an unlikable character I don't know if I agree. I do agree that it was "wrong" (excuse my pedantry) for him to open the wooden box but if the narrator wasn't driven by curiosity, the plot would cease to progress.

Throughout the novel, Edgar is writing to the woman he wants to marry. Readers also learn that Weymouth is also married and trying to retrieve his money in order to support her. The only female character who seems to take an active role in the text thus far is Mrs. Lorimer who dies early on. The women are unified by their dependence on men for fortune and defense.

that's it for now. I'll finish it up and post again.

Happy 4th!

22 June 2004 at 6:54 PM, post #194

Thoughts on The Italian:

We're already seeing the significance of disquises and veils. The idea of throwing off one mask (or robe) to wear another runs throughout the novel. The abbess of San Stefano appears to be a virtuous women as she serves as the head of the convent but has devious intentions. Olivia, who befriends Ellena, appears first in the novel under a veil. Here we see echoes of Antonia in The Monk as she is introduced as having a sweet voice and a concealed but lovely countenance. And of course this harkens back to the opening of the novel when Vivaldi first encounters Ellena. The tricky part is that Vivaldi relies so heavily on people's appearances to ascertain their credibility. He believes the Marchese when he says he knows nothing of Ellena's capture. He is baffled by Schedoni's reactions upon questioning. It doesn't seem to serve as a reliable source for him.

Even at this early stage of the novel Radcliffe is eliminating supernatural aspects as the real causes of the mysterious events surrounding Vivaldi. Once he is freed from the vault which he and Paulo spent the night in he is able to rationally reflect on the situation and conclude that his parents must have been the cause of it.

My battery is running low but I would also like to simply point out the emphasis of the sublime in dealing with Ellena. She is comforted only when she is able to view some piece of nature and can reflect on its sublimity.

22 June 2004 at 3:05 PM, post #192

This is not my entry for the day but I just wanted to share a nerdy library resource. There's a database called ref works which you can access through Grinnell libraries home page. It's really nice because you can set up an account for free and then create a bibliography in the program. What's really nice is that you can export a bibliography entry from other sites like the Humanities Abstracts database. Just a thought. I've found it really useful.

21 June 2004 at 5:59 PM, post #191

I'm sure none of us have gotten too far in The Italian but I thought I would post some preliminary thoughts. Also, I wanted to let everyone know that I put a mini fridge with freezer in the MAP room so if you have anything you want to store in it help yourself.

One thing I wanted to discuss briefly was the use of the word sacrifice. In The Monk, Lewis uses it frequently to discuss women surrendering their honour to men. Antonia is often described in sacrificial terms. In that novel the sacrifices are being made to evil forces. In The Italian, Ellena is described as following "unresistingly, like a lamb to the sacrifice" (64). In this instance though she's being delivered into the hands of friars?

Another point which may be interesting later on is the connection between Ellena's affection for her aunt and affection for Vivaldi. "The more tenderly she lamented her deceased relative, the mroe tenderly she thought of Vivaldi; and her love for the one was so intimately connected with her affection for the other, that each seemed strengthened and exalted by the union" (57). If there's one thing I learned from Victorian novels, it's that female characters who lack a mother are often doomed from the outset for various reasons. It's really too soon to tell what's going to be important later on but I thought I'd jot down some thoughts.

18 June 2004 at 5:12 PM, post #187

I agree that Lewis criticizes certain traits of Catholicism. Both Ambrosio and the head nun (that’s obviously not her official title) lack virtue and embody corruption. What confuses this, is Matilda’s justification of Ambrosio’s actions. “Unnatural were your vows of celibacy; man was not created for such a state: and were love a crime, God never would have made it so sweet, so irresistible!” (204). If Lewis wants to criticize monasteries, it seems that he wouldn’t allow Matilda to present such a seemingly logical argument for his case. Religion also plays a pivotal role in the issue of guilt and punishment. At one point, after killing Elvira, Ambrosio reflects upon his crimes and he decides that he was wrong to assume that those who commit crimes will be punished swiftly. He persuades himself "that, however great might be his iniquity, so long as he preserved his claim to salvation, he need not despair of pardon" (266).

It’s certainly true that Lewis’s depiction of his female characters relies heavily on the context in which he’s writing. However, I don’t think that makes it any less interesting. It seems, in fact, that Lewis goes out of his way to bring up the role of women and comment on characteristics being innately feminine or masculine.

What I find interesting about the narration, is the narrator’s insertion of opinion into the novel. Generally, the narrator simply passes on the story's event but occasionally inserts comments such as "Thus did he unconsciously add hypocrisy to perjury and incontinence . . . " (206) and his comment about the necessity of including Antonia's discretion when dealing with her aunt.

17 June 2004 at 5:30 PM, post #179

Lewis's depictions of female characters continues to be interesting. We've now been introduced to Marguerite who, despite her shady past, becomes a hero. Without her help our hero certainly would have been robbed and murdered. On the other hand, we have devious characters such as the baroness and Cunegonda. Not only is the baroness evil, she's also vain (much like Antonia's aunt) but seems to rule her household and her husband.

While conveying the story of his adventures, Don Raymond makes the comment "Guilt and true courage are incompatible" (126). This theme runs throughout the novel, often coupled with the idea of temptation. It will be interesting to see where this idea surfaces later in the novel. This thought is not fully formed but I think this idea will come up again.

The theme of avoiding temptation versus conquering temptation also runs throughout the novel. Agnes and Ambrosio both lived a significant portion of their lives in such a way as to eliminate any possibility of temptation. When faced with it however, they did rather poorly as self-control.

16 June 2004 at 5:23 PM, post #174

The Monk is one crazy thing after another. And I love it.

After Antonia and her crazy aunt were introduced, I became interested in Lewis's female characters. And then it turned out Rosario was actually a woman too which makes it about a hundred times more interesting. Lewis depiction of women is both hilarious and horrible. After the gipsy incident Antonia refrains from making fun of her aunt and Lewis writes, " As this is the only instance known of a woman's ever having done so, it was judged worthy to be recorded here" (60). The woman are either overly-chaste or overly-emotional. Antonia's aunt believes herself to be the object of affection to every male in Madrid. Originally I saw Rosario as the male version of Antonia but that quickly changed. Both women have devoted themselves completely to chastity. So much so, that if Ambrosio were to betray his vows for Matilda she would no longer love him. Antonia seems to have the same ideas about self-restraint and both fall in love with Ambrosia for his virtue although he is less virtuous than he appears.

In contrast to Caleb Williams, this novel does not suffer from a lack of sexual tension and sexual relationships. Ambrosia's obsession with Madona as the most disturbing of these so far in the reading. He stares at it for long periods of time and studies the physical beauty the Virgin (65). It's also interesting to see the way Ambrosio reacts to Rosario pre and post confession.

The issue of women's education once more emerges in Lewis's allusion to Wollstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Woman (80). Immediately following this allusion, Matilda, formerly Rosario, describes her education, based equally on mental and moral strength. The whole novel seems to hint at a deviousness of piety and the rules connected to such devotion.

14 June 2004 at 5:53 PM, post #166

Oh, the fallen woman. The format William Hill Brown uses for The Power of Sympathy leads to a lot of questions and conversation. The letter format creates a situation in which the author can switch narrator and point of view with ease. However, with each switch in narration, the reader must question the legitimacy of the narrator. Mrs. Holmes originally seems to favor Harrington’s affection for Harriot until she realizes how far it has gone. Readers are only given the information that the letter writers want to share. This means the information given to us as readers, is just as limited as the information the readers within the text receive. There is no opportunity for the readers within the text to question their peers immediately which creates an interesting correspondence

The text again addresses the issue of women’s education and how certain literature can negatively or positively influence the virtue of women reading them. The framed stories within the letters all seem to emphasize the theme of women being seduced by the passions of men and then being ruined forever. The one story I found especially interesting is the story of the slave who takes the blame for her son’s actions. Harrington sees it as a strange opportunity to incite his sensibility. Is this more tied to the other stories than it seems?

The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano provides interesting fodder for discussion. In the first few pages he seems to oscillate between first and third person. He discusses “their food” on page 49 and then on the next page returns to the use of “our.” He begins the narrative by saying “I regard myself as a particular favorite of Heaven, and acknowledge the mercies of Providence in every occurrence of my life” (45). This seems similar to Wheatley’s poems from last week which makes a point to use Christian language. I’m also curious about the passage on 47 which discusses his nation’s use of slaves. Would Europeans take this as a sign of barbarism? Later he claims that those his people sell into slavery are criminals in some way. Does this work as a justification for Europeans? It’s okay to utilize slaves if they are morally inferior?

10 June 2004 at 5:36 PM, post #150

It’s interesting to see the ways in which Judith Sargent Murray’s piece lines up with Wollstonecraft’s views. Obviously, both women advocate better education for women. Murray uses pure rational reasoning to show that men and women do not necessarily have different levels of intellect and disputes the argument that physical strength is related to mental strength by using Pope as an example of this. Both Wollstonecraft and Murray cleverly construct their argument in a way which makes it appealing to both men and women. Therefore, this essay is not a call for women to demand their rights to education. Rather, she uses a similar approach to Wollstonecraft and argues that the education of women would be beneficial to both men and women. Women would become better companions to men if they were educated. She argues also that women would be more virtuous if educated, that women would spend less time using “our talent for slander” (550). “Assuredly great activity of mind is thereby discovered, and was this activity properly directed, what beneficial effects would follow” (550). She also makes it clear that women would not trample on grounds reserved only for men at this point. She hints that, if educated, women might “find time to arrange them upon paper” but if they are too busy with house work they can simply be better conversationalists (552). It’s sneaky and sincere at the same time.

This essay led into Phillis Wheatley’s poetry quite nicely too. The language she uses is fascinating if not somewhat problematic. She is forced to be a little sneaky too. The fact that she publishes her work under the name “Negro Servant to Mr. John Wheatley” is an amazingly strong statement. She simplifies her title only to show that she has surpassed her situation in life due to her education. What’s interesting is the subject matter and allusions she invokes. Her first poem emphasizes her Christian background as if to show her readers that she is no longer a “savage.” She also refers a goddess and “her golden hair” which implies whiteness. And in the poem to Washington she speaks of “The land of freedom’s heaven defended-race!” (569). Is she including herself in this “race,” making it the race of Americans or has she excluded herself because of her identity as an African-American?

It makes sense that women would start emerging onto the political scene at this time though I hadn’t thought about it much before now. When we discussed Godwin and others as they reacted to the French Revolution, we mentioned they saw this as an opportunity to implement their ideals, to put theories into practice. Certainly the same principle applies here. The new nation is still working out the kinks of their government and deciding on the “mission statement” of the US, if you will. This becomes an opportunity for women to put in their two cents. In this new world, there is suddenly a chance to right the wrongs of the nation they have just left behind. We see this not only in the feminist rhetoric but also in Barlow’s essay, addressed to the upper classes, which argues that equality is a good thing for all parties involved.

Sorry to have such a heavily GWS-based entry. I’ve got feminism on the brain. It’s much better than water on the brain.

09 June 2004 at 5:41 PM, post #143

I don't know if we're supposed to be posting today but Sarah set the precedent so I'll add a bit.

What sticks out the most to me is the patriotism already in place in the States. Washington's speech emphasizes the need for the United States to be careful in the relationships with other nations. "The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave" (426). He also claims, earlier in his address that "adoption of every nation which is yet a stranger to it" should be a goal of the nation (419).

I also think the religious language is interesting. Many oft he essays focus on religious freedom but tend to be couched in Christian terms. The writers make references to "the Almighty" and to "Providence" which seems to contradict the tolerance they preach.

that's it for now. see you tomorrow.

08 June 2004 at 5:13 PM, post #140

My thoughts are still disjointed on the novel but here are some things I think would be worthy of discussion. Throughout the novel, the role of Mr. Falkland’s other servants play an essential role. Collins is the one to inform Williams of Falkland’s past, Thomas provides the necessary tools for him to escape from prison (the second time) only to tell him later on that he is a vile creature (388). When he is first comes before Falkland and Forester after being accused of theft, the servants side with Falkland. The class system in place is structured so that everyone is working for the upper classes with the exception of characters like Williams and the thieves although Gines switches to the other side.

The novel was a page turner but it was also a true test of a reader’s ability to suspend their disbelief. Also, reading this caused me to feel like I was watching Meet the Parents. As in, it's painful to see one thing after another go horribly wrong while Williams continues to see his position optimistically. I know I’m supposed to want Caleb to escape unharmed but at a certain point I couldn’t help just wanting him to give up. I think Godwin is trying to emphasize the idea that humans can only endure so much before they rise up against those that are making their lives miserable. In Caleb Williams however, there are so many forces working against Williams that we are meant to doubt, not just the upper classes lawlessness, but the entire system of laws in place.

Williams represents the struggling lower classes, attempting to better his situation through self-education but continually being oppressed by the powers that be. However, the novel continues to emphasize the virtue of education. Williams’s real education seems to come through his adventures however. Upon encountering Falkland again he confesses, “you took me up a raw and inexperienced boy, capable of being moulded to any form you pleased. But you have communicated to me volumes of experience in a very short period. I am no longer irresolute and pliable” (384). Perhaps this warning does not correspond to all his actions but it’s an important distinction.

I’d also like to discuss Godwin’s consistent reference to chivalry. It was especially prevalent in the first two volumes of the novel and certainly harkens back to Burke’s writings of the time.

07 June 2004 at 5:32 PM, post #135

Thus far, three of the characters have been forced to make the choice between poverty and liberty or security and dependence. First, Miss Melville, then the Hawkinses and finally Caleb himself. All three of them prefer to take matters into their own hands and face a life of insecurity rather than be subjected to the whims of others in positions of power, in this case, the wealthy. All three, however, are hunted down in one way or another and ruined.

Caleb’s situation the power seems to totter between he and Falkland initially. As Falkland discloses to Williams the secrets of his past, it seems as though he is putting Williams in a position of power. Indeed, that seems to be what Williams thinks as he decides for himself that Falkland is indeed the murderer. After the murder hearing over which Falkland presides, Williams comes to this conclusion and admits, “I was never so perfectly alive as at that moment” (207). It seems as though Williams sees it as a positive thing for him to know this secret.

Williams idea that, “with unspeakable loathing of those errors, in consequence of which every man is fated to be, more or less, the tyrant or the slave” (238), is central to the text. It’s not always clear who the tyrants are and who the slaves are. I sense that it will become even more complicated as we finish the novel.

Unformed thoughts:

Williams continues to emphasize the fact that he holds no ill feelings towards Falkland himself. In fact, he claims, “I did not hate the author of my misfortunes – truth and justice acquit me of that; I rather pitied the hard destiny to which he seemed condemned” (238). Is this the residual effect of class?

Revolution talk: “My mind had undergone an entire revolution” (243). “O poverty! thou art indeed omnipotent! Thou grindest us into desperation; thou confoundest all our boasted and most deep-rooted principles; thou fillest us to the very brim with malice and revenge, and renderest us capable of acts of unknown horror!” (191).

As Justin (I think) pointed out, there's animal imagery all over the place but especially when describing Williams’s position in relation to Falkland.

04 June 2004 at 5:01 PM, post #125

Miss Melville is being mistreated similarly to Maria, the main character of Wollstonecraft’s novel of the same name. Or at least similarly. Maria made a poor choice of husbands as a way to escape the repression she felt under her father’s roof. But because she would not yeild to all the demands of her father and dared to venture out on her own, her husband torments her and literally tracks her down in order to bring her back under his authority. Once he overtakes Maria, he sends her to a mental institution under his command. Tyrell believes himself to be in possession of Emily because he lives in her home and therefore, he concludes, she is a part of his property, despite her right to claim the 100 pounds rightly left to her by her aunt. She becomes a captive in the very house she has called her home and forbidden to leave. Both are kept captive by the men who are meant to be serve as protectors. Both are willing to face lives of hardship and poverty in exchange for liberty.

Godwin also repeats the use of the lion metaphor when discussing Tyrrel the tyrant (pages 101 and 137 for example). I think this reflects his attitudes towards the laws of England, the lion being a traditional symbol of the country. Tyrrel is a prime example of the inequality of the classes, especially in the case of Hawkins and the farm.

I am slightly confused at this point about the narrator. It begins as Caleb Williams, who, although the title is in his name, seems to have a peripheral role thus far. At the end of chapter 1, Godwin writes "To avoid confusion in my narrative, I shall drop the person of Collins, and assume to be myself the historian of our patron" (66). I took that to mean that Collins had told him the story and he was now going to proceed to tell the story from Collins's point of view but later in the novel he mentions Collins again. So far it is unclear what part Caleb Williams will play in the larger picture and who exactly tells the story.

03 June 2004 at 4:13 PM, post #121

“The Marriage of Heaven and Hell”

I think the illustration on the second plate is an interesting one. It is a classic depiction of the fall from grace. Blake’s version shows a strong resemblance to Michelangelo’s Temptation, which is based on many other works of the same time period which show similar settings as well. Blake’s version, however, seems to leave Adam out of the depiction completely. The female temptress remains with Eve reaching up to her but in this version Adam is nowhere to be seen. The ambiguous images at the bottom of the same plate could fill in some of this.

Blake’s subtitle “Memorable Fancy,” which appears several times throughout the piece, is used to show that the narrator is discussing the Bible. The narrator, or the Devil, refutes the legitimacy of the Bible and Christianity in general He goes so far as to assert that Jesus himself broke the Ten Commandments, thereby calling Christ himself and the Ten Commands into question.

Blake’s persistent connection of devils to poets might be an interesting topic for discussion. According to Blake, “The reason Milton wrote in fetters when/ he wrote of Angels & God, and at liberty when of / Devils & Hell, is because he was a true Poet and / of the Devils party without knowing it” (plate 6 lines 10-13). Later in the poem he relates poets to devils again. What is the function of this claim? What does it mean for poets and devils to be related? Blake does not seem to indicate this as a negative factor.

Other things we could discuss: the last line “For everything that lives is holy,” and Blake’s (or more accurately, the Devil’s) concept of body and soul as united rather than separate entities.

Now that I’ve rambled about that I’ll keep comments on “America a Prophecy” more brief. Is the nameless, mute female at the beginning of the poem meant to represent America? This doesn’t seem right as “The king of England trembles” (plate 8) and “empire is no more” (plate 9). It’s unclear whether England or America is in more danger. There’s a sense of foreboding coming from the east (England) but England seems to be in an uncomfortable position as well.

Are the repeated images of the wolf and lion meant to represent America and England respectively? The Lion is a traditional symbol of England. Throughout the poem “Loud howls the eternal Wolf! the eternal Lion lashes his tail!” (plate 11 line 02).

There’s clearly more to discuss (such as the title of the piece) but this is what jumped out at me initially.

02 June 2004 at 4:18 PM, post #111

I am beginning to understand how great a feat it was for Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin to sustain a happy marriage, or any marriage for that matter. Godwin makes it obvious in "Of the Objection to this system . . . " that he considers marriage "absurd."

What's interesting is the way both Wollstonecraft and Godwin discuss the way marriage hinders the development of the mind. Wollstonecraft focuses specifically on the way women are socialized to put manners above the development of their mind. She seems to suggest though that by educating women, they would be able to form a friendship with their husbands which would make both husband and wife happier. I have a few questions about this point. Godwin seems sceptical even of friendship though (851).

Throughout the selection of Vindications of the Rights of Woman, MW implies that wives are slaves. Even more generally, she implies that all women are slaves and she predicts that "woman will be either the friend or slave of man" (146). She suggests that by educating women they would be more equipped to befriend men and thus sustain happiness. I'm not quite clear about how she thinks friendship will pardon women from their roles as slaves. Or perhaps her argument is simply one for education but she has framed it in this way to make it universally appealing. I'm also interested in MW's constant way of separating herself from the female sex. Would her argument have been considered weaker by contemporary audiences if she had related herself to those she defended?

Finally, I am interested in her way of proving a certain equality of the sexes, though this equality is qualified in several places. She compares the education of soldiers to women, showing that both are denied a proper education and must rely on manners rather than intellect. I get the sense that MW believes that equality can be attained by teaching women to behave more like men rather than finding some middle ground. Does revolutationary feminism advocate for the masculinization of all people?

02 June 2004 at 2:19 PM, post #97

Friday they cut of my electricity	Saturday I still had no electricity
Sunday. Still no electricity	Monday. Bank Holiday	Tuesday. There was light

02 June 2004 at 1:51 PM, post #69

We should all be glad to be English majors so we don't have to go to the worm conference.

The Lawrence Worm Festival

Back to main menu