The Gender Politics in Management the AuthorialControl ...

The Society of English Studies

NII-Electronic Library Service

The Society ofEnglish Studies

65

rpt*ISt{tl 43, 65-85 (2013)ISSN: 0917-3536

The Gender Politics in

and the Authorial

Charles Brockden Brown's

the Management ofProperty

Control over Writing in

Ormona' ony The Secret Mitness

SUTO YUji

Abstract

This paper investigates the relationship of female gender with property rights and

agency of writing in late eighteenth-century America and how this issue is reflected in the"sympathetic"

personalities of two female characters{onstantia Dudley and Sophia

Wk)styn-in Charles Brockden Brown's Ormonct' ony 711)e Slacnet ve7tness. This novel fbre-

grounds the significance of sisterly sympathy through descriptions of compassionate behav-

iors of the female protagonist, Constantia, and her final protection by the female narrator,

Sophia. The dynamism ofconstructing their images, however, contains within itselfcompo-

nents threatening to their images. The components stem both from the eponymous character,

Ormond, whose excessive reliance on rationality is descrjbed as moral barrenness and from

the work itselC Ormond through which Sophia's personality is also constructed in an epis-

tolary manner. Ormond represents the socioeconomic framework of post-revolutionaryAmerica, and Constantia's sympathetic image is undermined when she is positioned within

a house he gave hetrthe sphere that embodies the sway of his trespassing rational dis-

courses. Ormond's reins of opinion over Constantia try to convert her into his metaphorical

property. Sophia's agency of writing, which constructs her "good"

feminine personality,inadvertently shows its similar discourse network to Orrnond. Her writing, ironically titled

Ormona reveals her "masculine"

treatment of Constantia and the dubious strategy of the

construction of her own literary personality. This study aims to reveal the gender politics

inherent to the management of property and the authorial power over writing in late eigh-

teenth-century America through the two female characters.




66 rsu*Jik{kl 43(20I3)

Introduction

Charles Brockden Brown designs three of his novels using a triadic structure that con-

nects the title of each work, its narrator, and its eponymous character: Melana' ony the

7hansybnmation. An Atnerican 7laie (1798), Arthur ?Ldbrvlyn; ony ?Ltfemoirs ofthe fear 1793

(1799), and Eaigar Hitntly; ony Mlamoirs ofa Sleep-va27Lker (1799), These three novels draw

the titles from the names of the protagonists therein, and the protagonists are diversely

related to the narration in each book. As Michael Warner argues that "fbr

Brown, literacy

correlates with personality structures" (155), Brown's epistolary novels reveal the process of

how their eponymous characters construct their personalities through letter writing.

Stating that "[w]hen

I lay down the pen the taper of life will expire: my existence will ter-

minate with my tale" (221), Clara Wieland links her death to the end ofher narration in the

first long letter of wrelana In fact, her final and discrete letter, which is '`written

three years

after the fbregoing" letter (239), shows that this fatalism does not become a reality. This let-

ter recounts how she, almost suffbcated to death, was rescued from her burning house.

Howevez the genuine possibility that her writing at Mettingen could be entangled with her

literary and physical death is clearly evinced. Both in Arthur Atfen{yn and in Ec(gar Hdently,

the agency ofwriting is also directly associated with the literary and social personality con-

structions of the eponymous characters, but these novels lead these characters to quite difi

ferent conclusions. Noting that "[t]he

pen is a pacifien It checks the mind's career; it circum-

scribes her wanderings. It traces out, and compels us to adhere to one path" (Arthur ?L4lan{yn

414), Mervyn takes over the role of the narrator from his protector. His narration inteF

weaves fragmentary episodes and rumors-some of which could jeopardize his personal

image were it not fbr his narrative control-into a story about advancement in life. On the

contrary, in EZigar dently the eponymous character and narrator loses control of the narra-

tion at the very end of the epistolary novel. Through his narration, Edgar justifies his san-

guinary slaughter of "Indians"

during his nightmarish wanderings in the wilderness. As long

as he remains an epistolary writer, Edgar's virtuous and prudent personality is in control.

However, his diabolical impulse erupts when he stops writing his first long letter. The three

letters fo11owing it report that Edgar's L`rashness"

(283) did irretrievable harm to Sarsefield,

his menton Infuriated by this, Sarsefield's final letter clearly states that he will stop support-

ing EdgarL In terms of the construction of a literary personality3 it is very significant that

Sarsefield's Ietter occupies the final compositional part of the novel. Edgar is physically




SUTO Ytiji The Gender Po}itics in Ormond; on 77ie Secret vatness 67

deprived of the authority ofmanaging his story at the end ofthe novel. Ending with the very

cold declaration of "Farewell!"

(293), Sarsefield's letter expresses not only that Edgar will

be cut off from Sarsefield's financial and moral supports but also that Edgar is deprived of

his authorial control, thereby ruining his epistolary-constructed personality.

In Meland Clara's life could be knotted with what she writes at Mettingen. Arthur

Atfenp,n presents the dynamics of constructing a literary personality without corroborating

whether or not the narrator is being truthful. The intervals between letters in Ecigar Htintly

create an opening for the eruption of Edgar's irrational impulses which run arnok beyond his

presumptions. This novel illuminates the deprivation of his narrative control and its fatal

influences on his personality constmction. While describing Gothic landscapes, these novels

present the various ways of constructing literary personality structures, which are related to

the authorial control over writing.

Compared to these works, Ormona' ony 7;he Slecret Mtness (1799) is compositionally

exceptional since Brown does not fbllow his conventional triadic narrative structure.

Orrnond, the eponymous character who represents excessive rationalism which `'leads

to the

nightmare of unchecked egotism" (Kafer 158), is not the narrator ofthe novel. In this novel,

the roles of the protagonist and the narrator are played by two female characters, Despite

these differences in narrative structure, Ormond also sheds light on the efifects and limita-

tions of assuming discursive power by elucidating how Ormond's excessive rationality

intrudes on the virtuous personalities ofthe female characters. By recounting the similarities

of the eponymous character with the female protagonist and the female narrator, the dis-

course network of this novel reveals that Ormond's discursive influences cover the whole

work. Constantia Dudley in Ormond is confined in a rural house. Her confinement, a typiealmotifin Gothic novels, figuratively means that she is subsumed under the sway ofOrmond's

discursive power, and this subsumption renders her virtuous image dubious. Ormond's rela-

tionship to Sophia Westyn, the narrator, is much more subtle. While describing the plights

of Constantia, Sophia simultaneously constructs her own virtuous image through her narra-

tion. Sophia's agency of writing creates her virtuous persenality as a literary entitM but the

discourse network of Ormond betrays that she inadvertently shares with 0rmond some

remarks detrimental to her own sympathetic image. Ormond-s existence appears as a diabol-

ical peri1 to the personality stmctures of the two i`virtuous"

female figures. By investigating

the different relationships between the eponymous character and the two female figures, this

study sheds light on the extent to which their gender politics are immersed in the discourse




68 recHCMttS 43 (2013)

network ofthe eponymous character.

1. RetainingPropertyandlorInteElectualLiberty

Brown is a writer in post-revolutionary America who questions social and mora1 restric-

tions imposed on female gendet His fbcus on gender politics in Ormond is related to the

concepts of maintaining freedom and independence and retaining property. Mr DudleM

Constantia's fatheg fa11s due to Thomas Craig's embezzlements of his business and becomes

blind due to his development of cataracts. Constantia takes upon herself the management of

her family, which helps her to erijoy "the

daily enlargement ofher knowledge" (83). Edu-

cated `'by

the peculiar views of her father, who sought to make her, not alluring and volup-

tuous, but eloquent and wise" (33), Constantia deems it imperative to keep her civic free-

dom and intellect unshackled. This resolution causes her to refuse Balfour's marriage

proposal shortly after a yellow fever outbreak is suppressed in Philadelphia. She senses in

his proposal the danger that she might be turned into `'the

property of another" (84). This

recognition is clearly associated with a passage in Alcuin: A Dialogue (1798): "By

maniage

she [the woman in genera1] loses all right to separate property. The will of her husband is

the criterion of all her duties. All merit is comprised in unlimited obedience. She must not

expostulate or rebel" (24). SimilarlM Constantia views marriage as a custom that will not

only deprive women oftheir property rights but also threaten their intellectual freedom.i

While Constantia persists in maintaining her independence, Helena Cleves, Ormond's

mistress, personifies the typical post-revolutionary American femininity which is entirely

dependent upon the other sex. Although she is depicted as beautifu1, and gifted and trained

in music, she is described as a person of "intellectual

deficiencies" (128). Ormond, a radical

and egoistic idealist, believes marriage to be an absurd custom. Because of his refusal to

marTy her, Helena is plunged into despair and finally commits suicide. "[D]eeply

solicitous

fbr the happiness of her friend" (142), Constantia attempts to persuade Ormond to change

his mind about marriage. He replies, "Ybu

know not what you have done. Ybu came hither

as Helena's friend. Perhaps time may show that in this visit you perfbrrned the behest ofher

bitterest enemy. . . . This girl is our mutual property" (153). This metaphorical reference to

property illustrates the treatment of femininity in this period. According to Cathy N. David-

son, femininity was "fetishized

into a necessary moral as well as a social and biological

commodity" (1 85). Against a backdrop of the strict gender hierarchy where "women

could




SUTO Yoji The Gender Poritics in Ormondl' on 71ite Slecret PP7tness 69

be the propertM or interests, fbr which panisans contended" (Waidstreieher 81>, Helena is

turned into propertM and by figurativeiy consuming it, Ormond is allowed to build a new

relationship with Constantia. It sheuld be acknowledged, then, that Constantia also internal-

izes the gender assumption which fetishizes femininity as `'property;"

noting the potentia!

danger that she rnight alse become the property ofanether

This anxiety makes Constantia persist in maintaining her independence, and this determi-

nation consequently leads her to gain sudden economic stability Helena lives in a rural

house which Ormond bought after Mr Dudley was fbrced to sell for paying back his debt.

After Helena's death, Ormond consigns this house to Constantia. At approximately the same

time as her father recovers his sight, Constantia gains authority over the property, securing

her civic freedom. This rnassive upheavai destroys a simple dichotomy: a woman being

independent by refusing to become the property of another person or a woman losing her

civic freedom by being turned lnto the property of a rrian. ArouRd the half of the novel,

Ormond connects itself to the secial and economic arguments regarding the function of

preperty whell people fashion their social personalities.

According to Lori Merish, "a

modem consumer psychology in which individuals 'express

themselves' through consumption and `identity'

with personal possessions" (3) begins to befbrmed in the late eighteenth century. Retaining property in this period serves as extemal

proof of displaying to the public the prominent internal disposition of the proprietor. This

association was influenced by John Locke's political statements about civil rights, which

connect `41ife,

liberty and estates" (WOod 269) as inseparable requisites fbr citizens. This

argument is taken over by Adam Srnith. In Tll)e PPleatth ofNations, he even notes the correia-

tion between social class and inteilect, and proceeds to warn of "the

gross ignorance and

stupidity which, in a civiiized society, seern so frequently to benumh the understandings of

all the inferior ranks ofpeople" (g46).2

Property is "established

in Ormond as determinant of and reward for middle-class virtue"

(Hinds 65). The change in ConstaRtia's life implies that she can now obtain a social basis to

prove her internal attributes as a free intellectual individual lo the public. In terTns ofnarra-

tive plot, Constantia's gaining of the property is very significant since this takes place

around the same time as she begins to indulge in idealistic conversations with Omiond.

Given education transgressing her contemporary gender boundaries, she exemplifies a

female character that is prominent in intellect and maintains her liberty by possessing prop-

erty.

NII-Electronic




70 rlSEI*Jsc:iLI 43 (2013)

Constantia finds her philosophical exchanges with Ormond to be very stimulating though

she cautiously refuses to resign herself te him. Conversely, he also experiences much intel-

lectual excitement in their verbal exchanges: "Her

discourse tended to rouse him from his

lethargy} to furnish him with powerfiJl excitement; and the time spent in her company

seemed like a deubling of existence" (l58). Ormond can preject his own image on heg and

Constantia attests the appropriateness ofher intellect through the imaginary doubling. They

are attracted to each other by the gravity stemming from rational exchanges between them.

Yet, this situation could lead her into another danger:

Ormond aspired to nothing more ardently than to hold the reins of opinion. Ifb exercise

absolute power over the conduct of others, not by constraining their limbs or by exact-

ing obedience to his authority but in a way of which his subjects should be scarcely

eonscious. He desired that his guidance should control their steps, but that his agencM

when most effectual, should be least suspected. (l77)

Orrnond's rational discourses are presented as invisible power that can intrude upon and

control the minds of people. The composition of the novel itself refiects the power of his

epinions. On the night ofher suicide. Helena confronts him te confirm "her

suspicions that

his affbction was transferred to another object" (162). Yet, her claim is immediately refuted.

Ormond's stormy response which is presented in seven straight paragraphs prevents her

from speaking. This literally demonstrates his ov(mvhelming control of discourse over the

female character. Like Helena, Constantia is also vulnerabie when exposed to his dis-

courses, and Ormond seduces her "by

appealing to her rational disposition and her intellec-

tual habits" (Waterrnan 126).3 The danger that she might be entrapped by his rational dis-

courses comes to the fbre after she gains possession of the house. Considering that it was

ermond who gave her ownership of the house, retaining it becomes a metaphor for her pos-sible confinement in a sphere over which he still has surreptitious control.

The potential danger that Ormond stealthily manipulates characters around him can be

seen by her inadvertent coilusion with him against Helena. In a manner that she "should

be

scarcely conscieus" o £ Orrnond puts Constantia onto the emotional place that Helena oRce

occupied with him. Orrnond's statement to Constantia that Helena is their `'mutual

preperty"

clarifies how much significance lies in the "suMcient

resemblance between their theories of

virtue and dury" (158) confirmed in their phiiosophical conversations. This sirnilarity taints




SUTO Ytiji The Gender Politics in Ormond- on 711ie Secret PP7tness 71

Constantia's virtuous image because their theories validate pursuits of their own felicity,

considering that virtue and duty `'require

us to promote our own happiness and not the hap-

piness of others" (112). It would be possible to argue that Constantia actually does show her

benevolent sympathy toward her friend. However, her virtuous image becomes questionable

owing to the fact which Constantia becomes the proprietor of the house and due to her

views on virtue and duty which she shares with Ormond. Further, her virtuous image

becomes much more problematic when she says that Helena's tragic fate "never

produced

any reproaches on her part" (176). Albeit unwittingly, Constantia, along with the villain,

consumes her firiend as "mutual

property" while she cautiously refuses to "become

the prop-

erty of another" herself In this sense, Ormond embraces the common stmcture of Gothic

novels that "the

essential horror of the gothic is not its goblins and vampires but its latent

power to address the disenchanted world of production and the commodification of the

social" (Sonser 12).

Brown's novels are heavily influenced by William Godwin's thoughts and Gothic novels.

This influence can also be seen in Ormond through anxieties about secret societies and

entrapments by forgeries and disguises. However, Brown simultaneously questions God-

win's optimistic views about virtue and prosperity: "virtue

will probably be fbund the secur-

est road to outward prosperity and success in the world" (Godwin 201). Indeed Constantia

seems to fbllow this model, but her relationship with Ormond poses a question on the corre-

lation between morality and its rewards. Constantia's sympathetic image becomes dubious

once she begins to fbrrn a speculative intimacy with Ormond, in other words, when she puts

herself under the sway of his discourses. As a result, Ormond's artifices aimed at her shed

light on the harsh socioeconomic mechanism of the late eighteenth-century America. In

OrmoncL Brown presents the frictions between the socioeconornic mechanism and the

female gender constmction in that period as an uncanny component of its Gothic land-

scapes.

2. FusionsandEnclosures

SympathM which allows characters to construct morally ideal relationships with each

other, seems to be a significant emotion in Ormond. Julia A. Stern takes Constantia and

Sophia as the embodirnents of this sentiment and interprets this novel as a subversive narra-

tive against male-dominant gender hierarchy in post-revolutionary America. She compares




72 recikl}Z{LI 43(2013)

Baxter's yoyeurism and Ormond's aberrant egetism with the sympathetic cofiducts of the

female figures, stating that `'sisterly

tove provides the last resort for sympathy in Brown's

novel" (206). Indeed, Ormond reveals to the reader that Constantia acts '`as

angelic com-

forter" (61) to her father and neighbors in plights. Besides her father, she provides `'sympa-

thy aBd succour" (45) to Mary Whiston and Sarah Baxter even whiie yeliow fever is still

running rampai}t. Sophia also rescues Constantia from her desolate abode. ermond's sexual

outrage results in his death by the blade of a penknife that she takes fbr her selfidefense.

Confined in the house with his corpse, Constantia exclaims to Sophia, "All

l claim is your

compassion and yeur sympathy" (291). Howeveg every fema}e chafacters does not display sympathM as is clear frem Maninette

de Beauvais' '`lack

ofsympathy" (Weinstock 138). Ofmore significance is the fact that Bax-

ter and Ormond also show sympathy towards other characters in the novel. One night, Bax-

ter is concemed that his neighbors, the Monroses, might be in disease, and feels that "[s]

omething like compassion was coajured up in his heart" (65). It is noteworthy that even

Ormond "manifested

genuine sympathy" (275) in his tones, professing to Constantia about

the advent of her tragic calamity. In Ormond sympathy is a very impertant sentiment that

sets the tone of the novel; however, the distribution of the sentiment is not entirely deter-

mined by gendeL

It is important to note that Constantia's syrnpathetic auitude. which is the proof of her

female vinue, gradually recedes into the background. As the narrative fbcus shifts from how

Constantia deals with the plights ofher farnily and neighbors to who appears to form com-

munions with heg the affectionate gravity between characters, as angther facet ef sympathy,

cornes to the foreground. Corresponding to this shift, Constantia "becomes

both the prize

and the field of their combat" (Grabo 48). The place at which Constantia confronts

Ormond's aberrant outrage represents this transfbrmation in a metaphorical manner. The

stage is her concrete property-･-the rtiral house, which Mr Dudley built, and which Ormond

once possessed and renovated so that he could spy on her.

Ormond is gravitated to Constantia since she reflects his ideal image through their intel-

lectual doubiing and, thus, becomes a potential instrument by which to perfbrm his will.

With a secret preject of constructing a utopia, he is willing to exp}eit other people in order

te put his preject into motion:

He wants instmments and not partakers of his authority-one whose mind was equal




SUTO \!iji The Gender Politics in Ormond]' en 7;ije Sbcret rwtness 73

and not superior to the cogent apprehension and punctual perfbrmance ofhis wiil; one

whose character was squared, with mathematical exactness, to his situatlon ( l28).

Ormond, who wishes to secure the embodiment of his ideal instrument, relies upon the

dominant sway his rationality holds over her. In this sense, it is important for Omiond to

`'confiRe"

her in the house which figuratively represents the sway ef his dominant discursive

power.

In Ormon4 boundaries between characters become blurred by trespassing discourses.

Subsumlng other characters under the sway efone's discursive power is to place them under

control; therefore, Ormond's reins of opinion are invisible perils that can be compared to the

spread of yellow fever. However, he is not the only one who accomplishes speculative

fusions through intellectual doubling with the pretagonlst, Mr Dudley also begins tg fbel an

incestuous ardor for speculative communion with his daughten When `'his

[Mr Dudley's]

existence seemed blended with her own" (21S), Ormond senses a danger that Constantia

might be grabbed frem the sphere of his discursive rationality. Conscious of "the

dubious

character of this man [Orrnond], the wildness of his schemes, and the rnagnitude of his

errors" (211), Mr Dudley plans to take his daughter to Italy. He tries to "snatch

her frorn the

odious pursuit ofOrrnond, and, by a variety ofobjects and adventures, effaee her mind any

irnpression which his dangerous artifices might have made upen it" (2 lO-2 1 l). This attemptcauses Ormond to use Craig as his

'`instrument"

(280) and Craig kills Mr Dudley in Con-

stantia's house. Ormend tater confesses his reason: Mr I)udley lal)ored "to

snatch you [Con-stantia] from the infiuence ofmy arguments" (28C). The location ofthis murder is important

since it shows that Mr Dudley is also confined in the sphere that metaphorically embodies

Ormond's controi.

Endeavors to possess Constantia eontinue among the characters around her, tuming her

into '`the

prize" (285). Sophia also makes a speculative fusion with Constantia; `'the

stream

of our existence was to mix; we were to act and think in common" (25l). Sophia recounts

the significance that her f?iend's existence has on her own:

There is little of which I can boast; but that little I derived, instrumentally, from Con-

stantia. Poor as my attainments are, it is to her that l am indebted for {hem all. Life

itselfwas the gift ofher fathe" but my virtue and fe!icity are her gifts. (2!9)

NII-Electronic




74 Tec)lescItl 43 (2013)

Constantia and Sophia fbrm a "hornosocial

bonding" (Weinstock137), but their relationship

is net equal. Sophia declares, `'I

could not but harbor aversion to a scheme which should

tend to sever me frem Constantia, or to give me a competitor in her affections" (251). By

these words, Sophia also involves herself into the confiicts fbr the figurative prize, and, 1ike

Ormond and Mr Dudley, she is fearfu1 that her friend will be snatched from the sway ofher

discourses.

Subsumed by Sophia's discourses, Constantia consequently agrees te leave America and

live with her in Britain. In contrast to Mr DudleM Sophia is entirely exempt from the perils

that Ormend would plot against her. This exemptien is felated te the fact that she is fiot sub-

sumed within the sway of his discourse power by separating herself from Constantia's

house. The concept of "confinement"

is of the greatest importance among Constantia, Mr

Dudley, and Scphia. Ormond, with "the

possession ofsemething like Omniscience" (1 l6), isthe most dominant oyer other characters especially when they are entrapped in the house.

Therefbre, it is notewonhy that Sophia, who finally gains Constantia, comes outside from

the sphere.

Ormond's inability to ensnare Sophia in his discursive sway is clearly parallel to the difi

ference in their diegetic locations. He is certainly a great reader ofthe minds of other char-

acters. His excessive rational mind transforms everything iRte readable texts. He reads Hel-

ena's character: `'Her

accomplishments formed a much more attractive theme. He

overlooked no article in the catalogue" (129). In another scene, Ormond confronts Constm-

tia whe is secretly plarming to fee to Eurepe with Sephia, sayiRg, "What

do l know?･ Eyery-

thing. Not a title has escaped me. Thy letter is superfluous; I know its contents before they

are written" (256). This eponymous character with his tactfu1 ski11s ofdisguising and spying

manipulates the miRds of the ether characters in erder te implement his waRton desiyes.

Ormond's monstrous rationality reaches its pinnacle when he makes a prophecy regarding

an evil about to befall Constantia. wnen he realizes that he cannot control her any longer, he

states a prophecy in a desperate tene, saying that `'[e]ne

more disaster remains" to the pro-

tagonist (259). He continues as fbllows:

Strange perverseness of humai} reasofi! It is an eyil; it will be theught upoR with

agony; it will close up al1 the sources of pleasurable recollection; it will exterminate

hope; it will endear oblivion, and push thee into an untimely grave. Yet to grasp it is

impossible. The moment we inspect it nearlM it vanishes. (259)




SUTO Yeji The Gender Poiitics in Ormondi an wae Sbcret Pvatness 75

Issuing this prophecy, OrmoRd questiens Constantia on whether she can have "a

view of the

monsters that are starting into birth here? (and he put his left hand to his fbrehead)" (254).This prophecy is closely entang],ed with his rational mind. Beginning to assume uncanny

atmosphere due to lts extravaganee, his rationality attempts to continue captivating her

within itselE Ormond's excessive rationality and his trespassing discourses metge together

to form his prophecy ftom whlch she would not be able to escape.

However, Ormond appears just as a character. In contrast, Sophia is a trans-diegetic fig-

ure who changes her narratelogical positions as the fiarrator and as one ofthe narrated char-

acters in her symbolically constructed world. As the narrator, Sophia has authorial power to

determine what to confine in her epistolary record. The fact that Ormond has no control

over Sophia is curiously coincident with the differences in their narratological positiorsaii-

ties. As a character inscribed on her material text, he is narratologically confined within the

sway of her disceurses, and is therefore under her centrol.

Further, Sophia's gender politics is related to the limitations of Onmond's discursive sway

that stem from his narratological dimensien. Ormond directs his outrage net at Sophia but at

Constantia who is still reachable to him. Sophia's absence at the confrontat{on scene

between the protagonist and the villain might be awkward in narrative construction as Don-

ald A, Ringe states that the reader would be "disappeinted

to find...that the confiict

between Sophia and Orrnond never occurs, that the battle for Constantia is won without a

struggle" (42). \et, this abseRce is very significant from the perspective ef Sophia's gender

politics, since, thanks to her delaM she can include in the narrative the subversion process of

rnale-dominant hegemony without trespassing gender boundaries hersel£ Compared te CoR-

stantia who has been educated in a manner breaching the contemporary gender restrictions,

Sophia presents herself as religious female figure who is conscious of '`diyine

superinten-

dence" (224). Howeve" at the same time, Sophia's zeaE fbr maintaining her independence is

clearly described in 0rmond. She provides fbr her deranged mother in Italy, who haunts her

untll her death. Her hushand seldom appears in her narration, and she returns to America to

find out her friend in need. After Ormond's death, Sophia provides her sincere sympathy to

Constantia. This scene emphasizes Sophia's female sympathy as part of her gendered per-

sonality, but it means much more than that: Sophia is spared the sanguinary confrontation

which she should evade as a "courteous"

woman, and she simultaneously appears as angelic

eomforter to successfuIIy perform her sisterhood for her friend without explicitly undertak-

ing any subversive tasks against gender hierarchy by herself If Sophia's singular disposition




76 rl)k,lscies 43(2013)

as an '`expert

in the rnanagement of all affairs relative to property" (253) is taken into

account, her delayed anival is consequently very significant in terms of the construction of

her gendered personality

The significance of Sophia's delay can be far rnore clearly foregrounded if we refer to her

statement: "[T]hat

little I derived, instrumentally, from Constantia. . . . [M]y virtue and

fe}icity are her gifts" (emphasis added). These statements can also be applied to Sophia's

absence at the final confrontation against Ormond, because, by her delayed arrival, she inad-

vertently gives Constantia a role as her surrogate fighter against the rational villain. It is

ironical that CeRstantia is instmmental in protecting Sophia's moral disposition and meeting

her subversive desire in the manner they are least conscious of Like sympathy which

meves across gender divisions, Sophia's rcmarks, which might be deuimenta1 to her virtu-

ous image, can also traverse the gender beur!daries. Such remarks reveal the imp}icit fric-

tions in her narration which exist between constmcting her female sympathetic image and

subverting the gender hierarchy in the post-revolutionary Arnerica.

As already seen, Constantia's virtuous image becomes dubious by her entanglement with

Ormond's references to property and their similitude in theories on virtue and duty It is also

an important ceincidence that although they are assigmed quite dlfferent reies in the novel,

Sophia and Ormond share their styles of forming human relationships. Brown's works are

composed of fragmentary episodes, drastic changes, and plot confusions. However, their

integrity is conf}rmed through many coincidences that "are

so coherently conRected that

only the most perverse critic should be able to resist Brown's sense of design" (Grabo X).This argument can be applied to the remarks that Sophia inadvertently shares with Ormond.

These ceincident remarks show that, like Censtariti& she is also immersed in the social and

moral framework of the late eighteenth-century America which makes her virtuous image

uncanny in some aspects. Although it is necessary to draw attention to the sympathetic

homosoeiai bonding between the female eharaeters, the discouTse network implicitly spilled

out of coincidences in Ormond should also be attentively acknowledged. IThe words for

which Sophia is responsible fbr the descriptions of the viilain come back to taint her image.

By sharing with the villain the terms referring to managements of figurative preperty and

instruments, Sophia's perforrnativity ofbeing a "good"

wornan betrays the masculine aspect

of her gender constructiofi.

Sophia and Ormond afe definitely similair in their styles ef disceurse contro!. Yeg the

spheres that their discursive styles can cover are quite different, and these differences are




SUTO Yaji The Gender Politics in Ormond)' ony T7ie Secret PPGtness 77

supported by their diffk:rent diegetic dimensions in the novel. Sophia, as the narrator, places

herself on the material text while Ormond's power remains contained within the physical

house described in the text. If Constantia is Sophia's surrogate fighter against the gender

hierarchy of the period, the fact that Constantja uses a penknife to protect herself should not

be ignored. On one hand, this penknife can symbolize masculinity. Howeve4 considering

the cultura1 context surrounding the relationship between writing a letter and gender restric-

tions, this instrument can also function as a metaphor to illustrate how the female gain

authorial power to present themselves through writing. This issue of authorial power and its

limitations will be discussed in the next section.

3. Sephia'sVVritingwhichDefiesItself

Brown's works are composed of fragmentary episodes and reminiscences, but peripheral

remarks and landscapes frequently play significant roles for the organized structures of his

novels. This can be seen through Orrnond's words after he finishes delivering his prophecy

about Constantia:

Yet perhaps my prediction is groundless as my knowledge. Perhaps thy discernment

will avail to make thee wise and happy. Perhaps thou wilt perceive thy privilege of

sympathetic and intellectual activity to be untouched. Heaven grant the non-fu1fillment

of my prophecy, thy disenthralment from error, and the perpetuation of thy happiness.

(259)

While stating an evil prophecy, Ormond prays for the perpetuation of Constantia's happi-

ness. Ormond is well aware that he will be controlled by the rational monster in his head

that issues the diabolical prophecy. Consequently, he reappears in fi;ont of her, saying, "The

evil that I then predicted is at hand" (275). However, the prophecy entangled with his exces-

sive rationality does not become a reality, In a sense, he is killed by the statements he unwit-

tingly makes against the rational monster in his mind, and Constantia's penknife serves as

the instrument ofhis death.

Ormond is similar to Ecigar Htintly in that it foregrounds anxieties about the emergence

of uncontrollable situations; however, the significant difference between these two works is

that Ormond cenfronts the uncontrolled course of events which stems not from h'is uncon-




78 rec*ljkItJ 43(2013)

scious impulses but rather from his rational discourses. Ormond's agency to fu1fi11 his

prophecy fails in so ironical a manner that the relationship between his death and the pen-

knife raises questions on the authorial agency over writing as well as the subversion of gen-

der hierarchy which has already been discussed in the last chapter.

Ormond is the result of Sophia's agency ofwriting. It is addressed to I. E. Rosenberg, fbl-

lowing the style of the epistolary novel. As James Loxley states that "[i]n

responding, we

cannot put ourselves beyond role-playing" (165), Brown incorporates into this epistolary

novel what it is for Sophia to write with a consciousness of its recipient's gaze. By cen-

structing her literary personality by presenting her sisterly sympathy as her internal disposi-

tion, Sophia not only appears as benevolent comforter but also presents herself as moral

person by drawing the narrative to a close with "much

instmction" (294). In other words,

Sophia's trespassing discourses instrumentally uses Constantia to vindicate her own "good"

attributes by inscribing her ethical statement on her letter. Behind the arguments about the

cultural function of property which demonstrates the internal attributes of its proprietor,

Ormond also Muminates the gender politics closely related to letter writing. In this novel,

this aspect is dealt with through the narrator's rnanagement ofletter writing.

Prior to the advent of telecommunication, letters were the dominant means of communi-

cation, which "constitute[d]

the actual bodily extension of the sender or recipient" (Decker40), The yalues of letter writing were recognized among people, and whether they can man-

age mode]ed literacy appropriately or not was directly connected to constmctions of their

virtual persenalities. Material texts are prostheses through which people are symbolically

embodied and can constmct their imaginary presence. In this sense, Sophia's personality

constructed through her letter writing extemalizes her virtuous disposition which, paradoxi-

cally, does not exist publicly until she uses her agency ofwriting.

However, as long as imaginary "presence

[out of epistolary exchanges] is a perfbrrnance

that is constmcted by a series of culturally specific and conventionally understood signifi-

ers" (Milne 73), her personality cannot be framed without any gender restrictions. Dena

Goodman states that "[t]raditionallM

writing was a masculine culture, its tools designed for

masculine purposes and male bodies, often taboo fbr women to handle" (10). This gender

restriction enhanced the value of literacM and, for that very reason, the ability to manage lit-

eracy appropriately was an important source of agency fbr middle-class women in the eigh-

teenth-century America. As Konstantin Dietks argues, "the

epistolary divide between the

white middle class and its [the late eighteenth-century America] inferiors" (238) was signifi-




SUTO Yoji The Gender Politics in Ormond' on 7;he Secnet Mtness 79

cant fbr them. Although middle-class women were excluded from the political ideology of

citizenship, they were eager to differentiate themselves by gaining the skills of proper writ-

ing.

Therefore, Sophia's writing is very significant as a cultural attempt to question the con-

temporary gender restrictions and investigate to what extent the female narrator is given the

authority to present herself through writing. Referring to women's writings, Barbara Maria

Zaczek says that "[g]ranting

women access to the epistolary domain allows their voices to

speak only within a relationship, confining them to their societal and familial roles. And this

is the only place fbr women to be" (55-56). Following this model, Sophia's letter, the

embodiment of her rational thought, constmcts her sympathetic personality by describing

that she plays the role of angelic comfbrter to her friend. Presenting herself as a religious

woman and denouncing Constantia's education as being too radical for women would also

be included within this "role."

However, as already discussed, Sophia's gendered personality constmction cannot be

extricated from the sway of Ormond's discourses. Just as Constantiis virtue is called into

question once she is subsumed within his discursive swaM so also is Sophia's literary per-

sonality once she shares with him the remarks refening to his style of managing property

and instruments. Additionally, Sophia's agency of writing contains within itself some

remarks to make her image dubious in the same way as Ormond's statements fo11owing the

prophecy of the rational monster in his mind kill him. In her narration, she issues some

modest statements, which reveals against her intention that her epistolary-constructed per-

sonality functions as her disguise:

It was not prudent to unfold all the means by which I gained a knowledge of his

[Orrnond's] actions; but these means, though singularly fbrtunate and accurate, could

not be unerring and complete. (3)

In another part ofthe novel, she repeats this thought:

I shall omit to mention the means by which I became acquainted with his character, nor

shallIenter, at this time, into every part of it. ...I do not conceive myselfauthorized

to communicate a knowledge of his schemes, which I gained, in some sort, surrepti-

tiously, or at least, by means ofwhieh he was not apprized. (111-112)




80 rpt*ISttkl 43 (2013)

Sophia does not reveal how she discovered Ormond's true nature and his secret sehemes.

Therefbre, Sophia's "reliability

of inforrnation whose sources remain concealed" (Levines

40) can be undermined. Howeveg these statements about secrecy are much more problem-

atic since they fbreground that she is, like Ormond and other characters, committed to

secrecy and its manipulations.

Feigned appearances are the leitmotif in Ormond Yellow fever betrays the moral barren-

ness of people living in the city of philanthropy, but feigned appearances are revealed not

enly through social disturbances caused by the plague. The significance of feigned appear-

ances in this novel is more clearly thematized by the disguises ofmany characters. Craig is

highly ski11ed in forgeries. Martinette disguises herself as the daughter of Mourose. Ormond

is the master of disguise and peeping. It is also important to acknowledge that `'[e]ven

the

virtuous Mr Dudley himself is revealed to have changed his name upon his removal from

New Ybrk to Philadelphia `to

obliterate the memory ofhis forrner condition and conceal his

poverty from the world"' (Weinstock 73). All the main characters in Onuond are masked

with disguises. Sophia's writing, by which her imaginary presence is fbrmed, cannot sever

itself from the arguments about feigried appearances in the novel, either.

Sophia's modest explanatory notes referring to secrecy inadvertently betray dubious

aspects in her personality construction. This failure should be examined from the perspec-tive ofletter manuals in the eighteenth century, which argue that secrecy is one ofthe most

important conventions in letter writing. Referring to writing techniques in Hugh Blair's Lec-

tures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres, Eve favor Bannet aJrgues that this letter manual

emphasizes a contradictory combination between sincerity and secrecy in "good"

letters:

Blair states that the best letters are those `'written

with most facility" which "flow

read-

ily" from the mind, heart or imagination; but he also warns that "the

liberty ofwriting

letters with too careless a hand, is apt to betray persons into imprudence in what they

write." Thus, conversation and correspondence were supposed both to reveal and to

mask: they were to seem "natural

and simple," even sincere, in order to more success-

fully guard their secrets. (46)

Sophia's letter evidently fails to fo11ew this model since highlighting her secrecy is a taboo

fbr good writing. At the time when the mechanisms of letter writing were committed to

strict gender codes fbr forming "good"

feminine personalities, her sincere explanatory




SUTO Yoji The Gender Politics in Ormondl' ony T7ie Sbcret nvtness 81

excuses cynically turn her imaginary presence into a questionable object.

Sophia refers to the rational epistemology about selfhood, stating that "our

limited per-

ceptions debar us from a thorough knowledge of any actions and motives but our own"

(262). However, along with her remarks that come back to taint her virtuous image, her

explanatory excuses also destabilize her sympathetic female image and create fbr her a

dubious appearance that she should be scarcely conscious of The anxiety of '`selfdelusion"

(181) can be applied not only to Constantia but also to Sophia. The destabilization of

Sophia's viituous image is related to the fact that Brown does not choose his conventional

triadic stmcture for this novel. Sophia's writing is titled Ormond. The title encompasses the

entire range of feigned appearances in the novel, and, seen from this perspective, Sophia's

agency ofwriting becomes the most implicit but fundamental disguise among these feigned

appearances. By Brown's determination on the title, the discourse network of her gendered

authorship ironically reveals the constmctedness of her literary personality, regardless of

how angelic she appears in the novel.

Brown argues whether or not appearances can guarantee the true internal disposition

behind it in his novels. For exarnple, Arthur heruyn fbcuses on this problern "by

refusing to

separate the sincere selflmade man from the confidence man, truth from lies, hard cash from

counterfeit bills" (Goddu 32). In Ormond, Brown extends uncanny atrposphere stemming

from possible feigned appearances to the construction ofgendered personalities. By doing

this, Sophia's gender politics inherent to the authorial power over writing reveals her horrid

impulse which is latent under her calm description. Here is a crucial diffbrence, in terms of

the authorial power over writing, between Ormond and Eaigar Hiintly. Ealgar Huntly pres-

ents the existence ofirrational impulses out ofthe intervals of its episteiary chapters. While

Edgar's irrationality stays beyond his letter writing, Sophia's impulse in Ormond; like a

haunting shadow) stems from her symbolic act ofwriting. Her imaginary presence which is

constructed through the epistolary novel appears with a contradiction: With its claim ofsin-

ceritM it paradoxically lays emphasis on the dubious facet ofher virtueus personality and on

her agency ofwriting as a feigned appearance. As Clara's authorial power in Pilieland might

lead her to the deadly fatalism, Sophia's writing could betray her. Through this paradox,

Brown questions not only the dynamics of Sophiis gender politics but also her very act of

writing-the medium by which Brown produces his property as one of the earliest profes-

sionar novelists in America.

Ormond depicts the gender politics of two female figures with regard to how they exhibit




82 rptX]S(Iltdi 43 (2013)

their intemal dispositions through the management of property and the authorial control

over writing. Their gender politics are always haunted by Ormond's existence. The relation-

ship between Constantia and Ormond questions the construction ofher gendered personality

through the socioeconomic argument on the rnanagement ofproperty. In Sophia's case, her

virtuous literary personality is entangled not only with Ormond but also with Ormondl the

management of which she undertakes completely through her narration. Omnond reveals

that she is committed to some styles of treating other characters that are potentially detri-

mental to the ideal images of herself Additionally, Sophia is in a sirnilar position to

Ormond who is killed with a penknife and whose prophecy is engulfed by his other state-

ments. rlherefbre,

her letter which embodies her rational thought ironically raise the ques-

tion about whether or not she can be completely exempt from the masquerade perfbrmed by

other characters and to what extent she can exert authorial control over her writing.

Conclusion

Brown describes Gothic landscapes and incidents in his novels, and they are always knot-

ted with the uncanny minds of their characters. He writes not only anxieties about fraud,

fear ofwild animals and desolation ofthe wilderness and urban landscapes. Brown's Gothic

novels are psychological, and less lurid as it is, this is also applied to the uncanny aspects of

the two female characters in Ormond By examining the social and cultural arguments ahout

giving women the right to manage property and the authorial power over writing, Onuond

shows the gender politics under which Sophia and Constantia constmct their "good"

female

personalities. It is ironical, however, that the descriptions of their personalities illuminate

the existence of their aberTant impulses in the manners they are scarcely conscious of

Sophia's narration functions as a moral barrier which keeps their impulses from running

amok, but Ormondethe byname of her narration-betrays the existence of their uncanny

drives to make the female characters deflect fi;om their "right"

path in the post-revolutionary

America.

Notes

1 In "Walstein's

School ofHistory. From the German ofKrants ofGotha" in Mbnthly Mkigtzzine pub-

lished in the same year as Onnon4 Brown refers to property, sex, and marriage as the most exten-




SUTO YUji The Gender Politics in Ormond' ony 711ie Secnet PVitness 83

sive sources of human relations, Above all, marriage is considered the most influential component

by which to measure social positions. Brown comments that "its

[marriage's] infiuence on our hap-

piness and dignity, is more entire and lasting than any other incident can possess" (36).

2 Regenia Gagriier states, "In

sum, in Smith economic rationality is not equal but always limited by

the individual's social and class position and markets are not free but subject to the manipulations of

power" (26).3 Severa1 studies have discussed the vulnerability ofthe heroine. Elizabeth Jane Watl Hinds interprets

Constantiads yulnerable yirtue as evidence that women's domesticity is infiuenced by male-dominant

spheres such as the market (56-67). Bill Christphersen extends the gender implications ofthe hero-

ine's virtue to the transatlantic dimension. This virtue "virtually

allegorizes the political history of

the late-eighteenth-century America" which is morally threatened by thc excessive rationalism of

"Frenchman

Ormond" (78).

Works Cited

Bannet, Eve 'Rivor.

Empine ofLettens: Letter ?L4innuaLs and 7}`ansatiantic thrrespondence, 1680-1820.

Cambridge: Cambridge UR 2005. Print.

Brown, Charles Brockden. Alcuin: A Diatogue. 1798, Ed. Lee R. Edwards. New Ybrk: Grossman

Publishers, 1970. Print.

. Arthur Mentyn; ony Memoirs of the fear 1793, 1799-1800, Ed. Sydney J. Krause et aL Kent:

Kent State UE 1980. Vbl. 3 of 711re Nbveis andRelated PPbrko ofCharles Brockden Brown. Print.

. Ecigar Htintly; ony Memoins ctfa Sleep-Plalker. 1799. Ed. Sydney J. Krause et al. Kent: Kent State

UP; 1984, ifo1. 4 of 7Vre IVbvels andRelated PPlorks ofCharles Brockden Brown. Print.

. Ormond' on 711ie Sleeret uatness, 1799. Ed. Sydney J. Krause et aL Kent: Kent State UR 1982,

Vbl. 2 of 71ie Nbvels and Related PVbrks ofenarles Brockden Brown. Print,

. "Walstein's

Schoot of History, From the German of Krants of Gotha." Literary Essays and

Review. Ed. Alfred Weber, Woligang Schtifer, and John R. Holmes. Frankfurt: Lang, 1992, 31-38. ' Print.

, Meland' ony the 7)ansybrmation. An American 7lale. and Momoins of Clarwin: 71Pre Bilbquist.

1798. Ed. Sydney J. Krause et al. Kent: Kent State UE 1977. Vbl. 1 of 711re Novels and Retated

PV?)nks ofCharles Broclden Brorvn. Print.

Christophersen, Bill, 71he mpparitian in the Glass: Charles Brockden Brown's American Gothic. Athens:

The U ofGeorgia R 1 993. Print




84 rpt)ksctcJ 43(2013)

Davidsen, Cathy N. Revolortion and the hards: 71ie Rise ofthe Nbvel in America. Expanded ed. Oxford:

Oxfbrd UR 2004. Print.

Decker, William Merrill, EPistotaty Pnactices: Letter PP7'iting in America beijbre felecommunications.

Chapel Hill: The U ofNorth Carolina P, 1998. Print.

Dierks, Konstantin. In nty Power: Letter Pva'iting and Cbmmunications in Ebrly America. Philadelphia:

U of Pennsytvania R 2009. Print.

Gagnier, Regenia. 77ie insatiability ofHbeman Pitints: Economics and Aestheties in imrket Society.

Chicago: Chicago UE 2000. Print.

Goddu, lbresa A, Gothic America: IVbrrative, Ifistory and IVintion. New Ybrk: Columbia UR 1997.

Print.

Godwin, William. An Enqui,:y Concerning Political Jitstice. 1793. Ed, Mark Philip. London: William

Pickering, 1993. Nbl. 3 ofPolitical and Philosophical Mitings of PP71iiam God"Jin. Print.

Goodrnan, Dena, Becomitzg a PPbman in the Age ofLetters, Ithaca: Cornell UR 2009. Print.

Grabo, Norman S. 77ie Coincidentat Art ofenarles Brockden Brown. Chapel Hill: The U ofNorth Car-

olina R 1981. Print.

Hinds, Elizabeth Jane Wall. Private Pnqperty: (]7iarles Brockden Brown's Genclered Economics of

varttte, Newark: U ofDelaware g 1997. Print,

Kafer, Peter. (]harles Brockden Brown's Revolution and the Birth ofAmerican Gothic. Philadelphia: U

of Pennsylvania R 2004, Print.

Levine, Robert S, Cbnspiraqy and Romance: Studies in Brockden Brown, Coopen Hawthorne, and

Melville. Cambridge: Cambridge UR 1989. Print,

LoxleM James. Pembrmativity. Nesv YOrk: Routledge, 2007. Print.

Milne, Esther. Lettens, Postcartts, Emait; fechnotQgies of"P7esence. New Ybrk: Routledge, 201O. Print.

Merish, Lori, SZintimental Mtiterialism: Genden thmmodity Cbulture, andNineteenth-CenturyAmerica.

Durham: Duke UR 2000. Print.

Ringe, Donald A. C7lrarles Brockden Brown. Rev.ed. Besten: T:wayne, 1991 , Print.

Smith, Adam. The PPlealth ofIVbtions. 1776. New Ybrk: The Modern Libraryi 2000. Print.

Sonser, Anna. A Passion for Consumption: 71ee Gothic IVbvel in America. Bowling Green: Bowling

Green State Uniyersity Popular E 2001, Print.

Stern, Julia A. "The

State of "Wbmen"

in Ormond; og Patricide in the New Nation." Revising Charles

Brockden Brown.' Culture, Potitics and Sercuality in the Ebrly Republic. Ed. Philip Barnard, Mark

L. Kamrath, and Stephen Shapiro. Knoxville: The U ofllennessee R 2004. 182-215. Print.

Waldstreieheg David. '`Why

Thomas Jefferson and Afucan Americans Wbre Their Politics on Their




SUTO YLiji The Gender Politics in Ormond' on 7)he Secret PP'}tness 85

Sleeves: Dress and Mobilization between American Revolutions." Bayond the Fbundens: New

Approaches to the Politic:al Histo,:y of the EtTrly American Republic, Ed. Jeffrey L. Pasley,

Andrew W. Robertson and David Waldstreichen Chapel Hill: The V of North Carolina R 2004.

79-106. PrinL

Warne; Michael. 7vae Letteng ofthe Repmblic: Publication and the Public sphene in Eighteenth-Centtity

America, Cambridge: Harvard UR 1990. Print.

waterman, Bryan. Republic ofInteUect: T7ie F>'iendy Chib ofNe", }brk aty and the imking ofAmerican

Literature. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UR 2007. Print.

Wk instock, Jefl\ey Andrew. C71arZes Brockden Brown. Cardiff: U of Whles E 201 l .

Wbod, Ellen Meilsklns. Liberty and Pmperty: A Sbcial Histo,:}, of Mestem Politicai 711)otrght.17vme

Renaissance to llnlightenment. Lendon: Verso, 2012. Print.

2Laczek Barbara Marja, { kensoied Sentiments: Lettet:s and Clensorship in opistolary 7Vbvels and Cbnduct

Mlaterial, Newark: U ofDelaware U 1997. Print.

The Gender Politics in Management the AuthorialControl ...

Documents

Transcript of The Gender Politics in Management the AuthorialControl ...