Purcell 1 The Emerging Feminist Author: Writing About What We Know1 One of the most prevalent misconceptions in literary history was the belief that women were incapable of inhabiting the literary sphere with the same vigor, tenacity and proficiency demonstrated by their male counterparts. Literature, as is common to all patriarchal societies, has been, and continues to be dominated by men. Stemming from the story of Adam and Eve, the initial fall from grace and the ensuing consequences, women as a whole have been portrayed as weak, manipulative, subservient and lacking in intellect. As a result, women were excluded from the academic and intellectual spheres to the extent that this stereotype became reality; that is not to say that women are incapable of creating literary masterpieces, but rather they became the product of social constructs by resigning themselves to this paradigm and as a result were incapable of seeing beyond the patriarchal constraints imposed upon them. There are a number of reasons contributing to this resignation, the most persuasive set forth by Mary Wollstonecraft in her work, The Vindication of the Rights of Woman. She asserts that an incomplete education is at the core of women not only being portrayed as manipulative and dull, but also that the education they do receive renders “women more artificial, weak characters, than they would otherwise have been, and, consequently, more useless members of society” (Wollstonecraft 379); therefore it is my contention that the protracted emergence of women into the literary sphere was as much the result of the stance and voice employed by women in their writing as it is the result of the patriarchal beliefs of the time period. There are several notable exceptions to this conformity, among them being British authors Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Anne Ingram who, in my opinion, were capable of breaking the social and gender barriers that muffled the voices of their contemporaries, allowing them to speak their minds without tempering their words as did a number of their successors such as English writer Eliza Haywood and American author Louisa may Alcott. I agree with Mary Wollstonecraft when I say it is my firm belief that education is one of the greatest equalizers and, historically, women were simply not allowed to cultivate themselves intellectually. Instead they were oppressed by patriarchal stereotypes that portrayed them as weak, manipulative, subservient and lacking in intellect. Instead of being taught how to think critically and analytically, women, especially those of the upper and middle classes, we schooled in sewing, painting, music and, most importantly, fashion. Beauty, virtue and gentility were aspirations to hold in high esteem, and occupations like writing literature and thinking politically, philosophically or critically were seen as frivolous and beyond female comprehension. It is this “false system of education, gathered from the books on this subject by men who, considering females rather as women than human creatures, have been more anxious to make them alluring mistresses than affectionate wives and rational mothers” (Wollstonecraft 373) that Mary Wollstonecraft highlights in her Vindication of the Rights of Women which, according to women‟s rights activist Arvonne Fraser, “seems to ask female readers have you no integrity, no sense of self?” (Fraser 863. In doing so, Wollstonecraft is challenging women to look beyond the accepted gender roles of societyand become “educated, [to] a great degree, by the opinions and manners of the society they live in” (Wollstonecraft 378). This meant stepping out of the domestic sphere and engaging the intellectual and political spheres with the purpose of attaining

Purcell 2 “those talents and virtues, the exercise of which ennobles the human character, and which raise female in the scale of animal being, when they are comprehensively termed mankind” (Wollstonecraft 374). Ultimately, women must sever themselves from men in that they must “attain such habits of virtue as will render [them] independent” (Wollstonecraft 378). If women do not attain this independence, Wollstonecraft asserts that women will naturally attempt to compensate for what she terms “artificial weakness” and that this “artificial weakness produces a propensity to tyrannize and gives birth to cunning, the natural opponent to strength…[though] some women govern their husbands without degrading themselves, because intellect will always govern” (Wollstonecraft 376). This statement further reinforces the idea that education leads to independence, and it is this independence that is essential to breaking the social constraints that hinder women from entering the literary sphere; by becoming financially independent they are free to publish as they wish, and by becoming intellectually independent, they afford themselves the freedom to express ideas with confidence and authority, but these ideals can only be attained by engaging in a “complete” education as described by Wollstonecraft. It is intriguing to examine the experiences of female characters and the life lessons that they learn in literature as the concept of the female author progressed. In fact, it could be argued that these experiences reflect the progression of women in society, particularly in the spheres that were dominated by men, and that this shift in the portrayal of the female character parallels the educational standards expressed in The Vindication of the Rights of Woman. In both Fantomina, or Love in a Maze by Eliza Haywood and How I Went Out to Service by Louisa May Alcott, we are told the story of a young woman who seeks an education in the world; the primary difference between to two stories is how each character goes about obtaining that education, as well as the knowledge they seek. Both Lu and Fantomina can be described as “young, [strangers] to the world, and consequently the dangers in it” (Haywood 277), and the experiences of both women are borne out of curiosity and a desire to step out of the traditional gender box. The difference between the themes of the two stories could be attributed to their chronology. Haywood‟s Fantomina was written before A Vindication of the Rights of Women and How I Went Out to Service was written after, and, as a result, it could be argued that the presence of Wollstonecrafts theories, as they were reiterated during the first wave of the Women‟s Suffrage Movement in the United States by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other feminists, is apparent in How I Went Out to Service when compared to their absence in Fantomina. Fantomina‟s undertaking is an attempt to understand the men that surround her after she “perceive[s] several men [who] extremely pleased themselves with entertaining a woman who sat in a corner of the pit and, by her air and manner of receiving them, might easily be known to be one of those who come there for no other purpose, than to create acquaintances with as many as seem desirous of it” (Haywood 277). Because she is uneducated in sexuality and the society in which she lives, Fantomina cannot comprehend the situation, “and the longer she reflected on it, the greater was her wonder that men, some of whom she knew were accounted to have wit, should have tastes so very depraved. This excited a curiosity in her to know in what manner these creatures were addressed” (Haywood 277). By prescribing these circumstances, Haywood highlights women‟s lack of education as it pertains to society – the very society that

Purcell 3 Wollstonecraft encourages young women to be educated in. Though it may be argued that Haywood is utilizing satire to highlight these social constructions of ignorance in women, the way in which Haywood develops the character of Fantomina makes it clear that despite her feminist undertones, Haywood is still conforming her characters to the social constructs that she is arguably satirizing. By describing Fantomina as “naturally vain [and having] received no small pleasure in hearing herself praised [for her beauty]” Haywood effectively portrays women as they have been by the patriarchal society and as a result reinforces the social limitations and attitude towards women. This conformation is further reinforced when Fantomina discovers that she cannot control Beauplaisir and consequently she reverts to guile, epitomizing the French term coquette which theatre critic Dominica Radulescu defines as “a woman who gains power over others by manipulative verbal and body language, a skill referred to as her „art‟” (Radulescu 105). Using disguises, Fantomina stalks Beauplaisir to his various destinations in order to maintain his feelings of passion towards her which ultimately results in her downfall, both in virtue as well as her future. Through these circumstances, Haywood once again highlights one of Wollstonecraft‟s tenets that defines cunning, or guile, as the primary counter-balance to masculine strength; in doing so, Haywood once again reinforces the stereotyped portrayal of women in society. Even more disturbing, at least from the feminist perspective are the resulting consequences of Fantomina‟s actions; she becomes pregnant and cannot continue her charades, she loses Beauplaisir, has a child out of wedlock, is blamed for the entire scandal and “as soon as [Fantomina] was in a condition [her mother] sent her to a monastery in France” (Haywood 295). By concluding her novel in this way, Haywood once again reinforces patriarchal attitudes towards women, particularly the ideals of virtue and chastity, which, paradoxically, women of the time period had little control over as is demonstrated by Beauplaisir‟s rape of Fantomina during their first “romantic” encounter. In contrast to Fantomina, Alcott‟s character Lu, in How I Went Out to Service contradicts social constructs instead of ultimately conforming to them as Fantomina does, particularly the idea that as Ruth Robbins notes “women have no choice of career bar marriage” (Robbins 30). Lu chooses to take up service with preacher, Josephus, and his family, and in doing so, she asserts herself, showing an independence and sense of self that was lacking in the character of Fantomina. She does not seek to define herself by her relationships with men, and in doing so, Alcott demonstrates the progress made by women through her character by circumventing Wollstonecraft‟s assertions “that the civilized women of the [previous] century…[were] only anxious to inspire love, when they ought to [have] cherish[ed] a nobler ambition, and by their abilities and virtues exact respect” (Wollstonecraft 373). Fantomina seeks to inspire love in Beauplaisir whereas Lu “is too proud to be idle and dependent” (Alcott 1143) and instead seeks to gain her own independence and ultimately respect. When confronted with Josephus‟ true nature as an oppressive and demanding patriarchal figure, Lu distances herself from the patriarchal society and breaks the stereotype of the submissive woman when she “indignantly informed [Josephus] that [she] came to be a companion to his sister, not to him, and [she] should keep that post or none” (Alcott 1148), claiming that his “lighter tasks [which consist of listening to him read authors like Hegel and pontificate on their philosophies]…are worse than hard work” (Alcott 1148). Another instance in which Lu asserts herself is in her refusal to polish Josephus‟ boots, saying “she was so busy doing

Purcell 4 [Josephus‟] other work that [Josephus would] have to do that [himself]” (Alcott 1149). By speaking her mind and not submitting, Lu circumvents the idea of the “angel in the house” and effectively declares her own independence; she will not be defined by men, but rather by her own opinions that she has formed by engaging and educating herself in the society that she lives in. Because she gains true independence as opposed to the false sense of independence gained by Fantomina, Lu is able to realize that though her “experiment seemed a dire failure…more than once in [her] life [she has] been grateful for that serio-comico experience since it has taught [her] many lessons” (Alcott 1151), and it is this ability to reflect back on the experience, learn from it, and move forward that differentiates between the lessons learned and education gained by Fantomina and Lu. As much as I am convinced that the differences in the behaviors of Lu and Fantomina lies in the existence of Wollstonecraft‟s theories presented in A Vindication of Woman and its reiteration in the United States, I cannot help but consider the idea that a portion of these differences as well as the tentative stance taken by many early women writers to what feminist authors and theorists Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar refer to as an “anxiety of authorship.” As much as the idea of education is central to the themes of both previously mentioned works, and the social education undertaken by Alcott‟s heroine, Lu, follows Wollstonecraft‟s ideal education almost to the letter, the question that remains is why did the two characters differ so substantially. The answer may lie in the fact that as Gilbert and Gubar note, “ writers assimilate and then consciously or unconsciously affirm or deny the achievements of their predecessors” (Gilbert and Gubar 46). In short, we draw on what we know and use that as a platform from which we form our own creations. The contradiction here, for the woman writer at least, is that according to Gilbert and Gubar, she must confront precursors who are almost exclusively male, and therefore significantly different from her. Not only do these precursors incarnate patriarchal authority…they attempt to enclose her in definitions of her person and her potential which, by reducing her to stereotypes (angel, monster) drastically conflict with her own sense of self – that is, of her subjectivity, her autonomy, her creativity. (Gilbert and Gubar 48) While this may seem logical, this does not account for the differences between Fantomina and Lu in that Alcott was able to draw on Haywood‟s writing as a female precursor, and in a reversal of Bloom‟s “anxiety of influence” as it pertains to male authors, Alcott has found a “female precursor who, far from representing a threatening force to be denied or killed, proves by example that a revolt against patriarchal literary authority is possible” (Gilbert and Gubar 49). This revolt against patriarchal literary authority by Haywood was, ironically, not the first instance of such a rebellion; feminist writers such Lady Mary Wortley Montagu and Anne Ingram challenged literary giants of their time such as Alexander Pope and Jonathan Swift in their verse. What is more, they did so without apology for their use of the pen, which was characteristic of many women writers at the time who engaged in self-deprecation to justify their work. Instead, Ingram and Montagu were able to speak their minds with authority as well as wit which can be attributed to the fact that both women had been educated socially and intellectually; Ingram even foreshadows Wollstonecraft‟s idea of a “complete” education while at the same time insinuating that,

Purcell 5 intellectually, there is no difference between men and women in her work, “An Epistle to Mr. Pope”: But would the satirist confess the truth nothing so like as male and female youth nothing so like as man and woman old their joys, their loves, their hates if truly told though different acts seem different sex‟s growth ‟tis the same principle impels them both… …what makes the difference then you may inquire… …in education all the difference lies women, if taught, would be as bold and wise. (3-34) In writing this, Ingram challenges patriarchal authority without apology and, in doing so, asserts herself, expressing her own opinions that have been founded by studying the society in which she lives. In this respect, Montagu is no different, though her verses are, for a woman of that era, shockingly lewd. Like Ingram she makes no apology in her work “The Reasons That Induced Dr. Swift to Write a Poem Called the Lady‟s Dressing Room;” in fact it is almost as if she goes out of her way not to apologize for taking up the pen. Written as a response to Jonathan Swift‟s “The Lady‟s Dressing Room,” Montagu delivers a scathing attack on Swift and his portrayal of women, ending her verse with the lines: “„I‟m glad you‟ll write, you‟ll furnish paper when I shite‟” (88-89). It is specifically because of the voice these two women adopt in their writing that they were capable of moving beyond the patriarchal constructs that had prohibited women from entering the literary sphere; it is also because these two women lack the “anxiety of authorship” that plagued their contemporaries and even their successors, which can be attributed to their sense of self and confidence that stems from their “complete” social and intellectual educations. Thus, it could be argued that there never should have existed an “anxiety of authorship” among female authors; they had precursors who had demonstrated that women could write with authority and share the literary sphere with their male counterparts. What was necessary in order to do so was for women to educate themselves as Mary Wollstoncraft prescribed as was done by Anne Ingram and Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. The female writers who tried to justify themselves with self deprecating verses merely reinforced the patriarchal designs that were imposed upon women, and stories like Fantomina had a similar effect. It is only through sheer determination, and understanding of the world, both socially and intellectually, as well as an absolute disregard for public opinion that women, or any minority for that matter, can break social constraints and attain the independence that Wollstonecraft, and even the modern feminist, holds in such high regard.

Purcell 6 Works Cited Alcott, Luisa May. How I Went Out to Service. The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: Norton, 2007. 1141- 1151. Print. Fraser, Arvonne S. “Becoming Human: The Origins and Development of Women‟s Human Rights.” Human Rights Quarterly 21.4 (1999): 853-906. Web. December 13, 2009 Gilbert, Sandra M., and Susan Gubar. The Madwoman in the Attic. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Print. Haywood, Eliza. Fantomina; Or, Love in a Maze. The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: Norton, 2007. 276-295. Print. Ingram, Anne. “An Epistle to Mr. Pope”. The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: Norton, 2007. 296-299. Print. Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley. “The Reasons that Induced Dr. Swift to Write a Poem Called the Lady‟s Dressin Room”. The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: Norton, 2007. 273-275. Print. Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. The Norton Anthology of Literature by Women. Ed. Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. New York: Norton, 2007. 373-390. Print. Radulescu, Domnica. “Caterina‟s Colombina: The Birth of a Female Trickster in Seventeenth-Century France.” Theatre Journal Volume 60 Number 1, March, (2008): 87113. Web. December 13, 2009 Robbins, Ruth. Literary Feminisms. New York: St. Martins Press, 2000. Print.

1

I would like to thank Dr. Marcia McGowan for all of the revisions and feedback that she provided.