Brian Nicholas Bates

Brian Nicholas Bates

Class Summary for Thursday, March 10

-

As BRL students have become accustomed, class began with its customary reward quiz which was as always delivered enthusiastically by Dr. Foss. Great pains were taken in making absolutely certain the questions, each focusing on one of today’s authors, were made abundantly clear. This was especially true of one regarding a certain “moping idiot,” perhaps an all too common estimation of that quintessential man in today’s world (but presumably less so during the romantic period!). What followed were brief biographical overviews of the authors whose works we would be discussing. This was done with the pedagogical aim of providing a helpful context for our small group and class discussions that would follow.

Professor Foss posed to the class a number of questions, making clear his aim that the class consider the possible readings of the works of the female voices of the romantic period as they pertained to the chief question to which the class would be giving its attention: How did the five female authors under discussion view the positioning of women in terms of public and private spheres and the realm of the domestic? Although there existed a diversity of opinions, Letitia Elizabeth Landon’s characterization of women generally placed her on the conservative end of the spectrum along with Anna Letitia Barbauld, who proved to be critical of Mary Wollstonecraft’s position, while the voices of Lucy Aikin and Felicia Hemans were seen as more progressive, with Jane Taylor generally thought to occupy the middle ground between the two extremes.

In beginning with Jane Taylor, Professor Foss noted that not only did she author the immortal poem, “The Star” which has become the familiar nursery rhyme “Twinkle, twinkle, little star,” she was also responsible for “A Pair” as well, a featured poem in our Society and Political Economy unit. “A Pair” was a class-conscious work that shows why Taylor has been traditionally evaluated as a progressive voice, at least in a sociopolitical sense. She was, however, also a believer in middle-class domestic ideology, which outlines the role of a woman to serve her husband and her god. Bearing all this in mind, Dr. Foss asked the class to place her as best we could along the spectrum of progressiveness/conservatism in small group discussion. Taken together, the poems discussed, along with the biographical information provided, seemed to put Taylor somewhere on the conservative side of the matter. The title of “To Mad. De Staël” addresses itself to the Swiss author, one of the more progressive (or, alternatively, radical) voices among the women writers of the continent. De Staël was considered an embodiment of a certain conception of the female artist and the tragic fate of the loving female. In that context, it was judged by our group that Taylor takes the idea of romantic love in her hand and judges it wanting because it ultimately leads to suffering. She sees a clear and insightful depiction of what love is in the works of De Staël, but also that she is trapped in her habit of seeking out the “earthy deity” [line 47] that is romantic love, when the only love that can save one from suffering is “the humble Christian’s holy love” of the savior [line 48].

“Accomplishment” criticized the common practice of the education of a “lady” of the era. The description of a lady’s mind as a patchwork stitched together was described by one student as evoking images of an almost Frankenstein-like creation that is in fact monstrous despite polite society’s preference for it. On the question as to whether Taylor was advocating for a better education or that the whole endeavor be given up entirely, the consensus was that a more meaningful education, instead of the (then) current emphasis of polish over substance, was her goal.

Turning to the biography of Letitia Elizabeth Landon, the class learned that the theme of the lovelorn woman was a recurrent one in her works. The poem under discussion today, “Revenge,” was no exception. To some students there was a conspicuous passivity of the speaker in the poem which portrayed her as submissive, only waiting for revenge to occur on her behalf. Any argument that her position is in any way superior to that of her would-be lover is undercut by the fact that she finds herself in a position similar to the man that has earned her enmity as implied by the lines “All that you taught my heart to bear / All that yourself will know” [19 - 20]. The speaker is very dependent on a man as her world seems to revolve around what happens to him. The poem also puts a high premium on feminine beauty, further reinforcing the traditional conception of the woman as a passive object of male affection. On this poem’s basis, our small group opted to place Landon on the conservative end of the spectrum.

Anna Letitia Barbauld, much like Taylor, was known for being progressive on social issues, but with respect to today’s focus on the Rights of Woman, scholars have often categorized her as being more conservative. Small group discussion tended to agree with this estimation. In “The Rights of Woman” she argues that progressives are pursuing a course of action that must ultimately prove fruitless and that too much is sacrificed by pursuing Wollstonecraft’s course because women have power more suited to them already in the more subtle forms of “grace,” “soft melting tones,” and “blushes and fears” [lines 9 - 12]. In so doing, Wollstonecraft and her cohorts “urge a meaner claim” than that which women have already [line 13] and “hazard all” [line 24] for the rights of Woman are, “if debated, lost” [line 14].

Perhaps sensing that the small group discussion of the first four poems had begun to devolve into somewhat less literary topics, Professor Ross called the classes attention to Lucy Aiken. In her rewritten version of Creation and the Fall, she breaks with traditional narratives in her depiction of Eve who, instead of being castigated for owning responsibility for the downfall of man, is described as in some ways superior to Adam, and it is instead the violence of men in the person of Cain that brings about the Fall. Lines 39 and 40 of Epistle I exemplified sarcasm on the part of Aikin in their extreme deference to Man, implying a more revolutionary stance than her introduction sometimes seemed to suggest. After all, she calls Adam a “moping idiot!” She seems to be poking fun at Man, even elevating Woman above him in some ways.

Aikin also argues that Woman is not shaped as an object of Man’s pleasure, refuting the idea of Woman’s inferiority and subservience to Man in lines 154 through 168 that conclude:: “No;....hand in hand the happy creatures trod, / Alike the children of no partial God / Equal they trod till want and guilt arose.” This was seen by the class as a rather feminist perspective, as it is extended beyond the Rights of Man to Woman as well. God’s plan was for a partnership of woman and man; he has no preference for either whatsoever.

After closing the discussion on Aikin, the class transitioned back to small group work and the works of Felicia Hemans. Although Hemans seemed to focus largely on the domestic sphere, this was not done to relegate women to a subservient role. In “Joan of Arc, in Rheims,” she portrays a strong woman who, although she longs for her family and the life she has lost with them, her accomplishments remain and are all the more heroic as a result. She seems to describe a difference in men and women without implying a lack of suitability of women to the public sphere, rather acknowledging the idea that Woman must inevitably sacrifice in order to be a part of it. The close connection of women to the domestic in Hemans’ case seemed to be intended to enhance the status of women without barring them from positions of power or detracting from their status.

Although the class did its best to answer Dr. Foss’ questions, no answers were definitive as several readings of many of the female authors under discussion were possible. One thing was clear, however: there were a variety of positions to which the women writers of the romantic period ascribed and rather than being easily categorized, there seemed to be as many different positions along the spectrum as there were authors.