Ann Radcliffe and Jane Austen: Romance to Realism
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ANN RADCLIFFE AND JANE AUSTEN: ROMANCE TO REALISM by Thomasina Hickmann APPROVED BY SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ___________________________________________ Pamela Gossin, Chair ___________________________________________ Gerald L. Soliday ___________________________________________ Jessica C. Murphy ___________________________________________ Kenneth Brewer Copyright 2020 Thomasina Hickmann All Rights Reserved To my family ANN RADCLIFFE AND JANE AUSTEN: ROMANCE TO REALISM by THOMASINA HICKMANN, BA, MA DISSERTATION Presented to the Faculty of The University of Texas at Dallas in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN HUMANITIES THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT DALLAS May 2020 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . I would like to thank my committee members, Pamela Gossin, Gerald Soliday, Jessica Murphy, and Kenneth Brewer. I am especially indebted to my committee chair, Dr. Gossin, for her contribution. Her advice was instrumental in enhancing my argument, and her patience and generosity provided invaluable sources of support. I also benefitted enormously from Dr. Soliday’s guidance. What I learned from him as a graduate student made me a better, more thoughtful writer, and, while I was writing my dissertation, his encouragement and suggestions were a significant factor in helping me both complete and improve it. I am grateful to Dr. Jessica Murphy for her support over the years and to Dr. Kenneth Brewer for his willingness to join the committee at a late date when accommodating my request must have involved the inconvenience of readjusting his own schedule. I would also like to thank Dr. Patricia Michaelson, who, as a former member of my committee, provided helpful comments in the early stages of the dissertation process. I very much appreciate the help that Josefine Green and Lila Foroutan have offered as I completed what is at times the complex task of preparing the dissertation for submission. March 2020 v ANN RADCLIFFE AND JANE AUSTEN: ROMANCE TO REALISM Thomasina Hickmann, PhD The University of Texas at Dallas, 2020 ABSTRACT Supervising Professor: Pamela Gossin, Chair This dissertation explores the literary relationship between Ann Radcliffe’s late eighteenth- century heroine-centered novels and Jane Austen’s early nineteenth-century Gothic parodies, Northanger Abbey and Emma. Within this framework, it argues that, contrary to scholarly consensus, significant and extensive continuities exist between Radcliffe’s romance and Jane Austen’s realism. This study demonstrates these affinities through close reading, analyzing each author’s treatment of narrative elements and formal techniques, and discussing ways in which each author responded to important aesthetic and philosophic concepts that emerged during the eighteenth century. More broadly, it examines how cultural discourses influenced the development of the novel as they generated debate over the purpose and value of literature linked to its efficacy in relaying knowledge. In more specific terms, it looks at how novelists participated in this debate as they contributed to shaping or contested literary and epistemological norms. Many contemporary fiction writers characterized literary realism as superior to romance based on the widely held assumption that the objective knowledge of reality was a feasible human goal. This dissertation argues that Austen in Northanger Abbey and Emma challenges these beliefs through her adaptation of Radcliffe’s work. Rather than opposition, vi Austen establishes a correspondence between realism and romance as she enlists and reworks her predecessor’s fiction to foreground the provisional nature of knowledge. Austen has been long admired for the accuracy that she brings to depicting her period’s cultural practices and customs, and, as a hallmark of her style, this quality has been credited with giving her realism a decidedly modern flavor. This project considers how the interplay between Austen’s and Radcliffe’s work enhances the modern dimension of Austen’s realism in finding that, because her Gothic parodies serve as a means to question rigid distinctions between subgenres of fiction and assertions of unitary truth, they express perspectives more in keeping with postenlightenment thought than with ideas that prevailed in Austen’s day. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...............................................................................................................v ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................................... vi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LITERARY AESTHETICS .1 CHAPTER 2 TOWARDS GOTHIC AESTHETICS ...................................................................44 CHAPTER 3 RADCLIFFE’S GOTHIC ......................................................................................87 CHAPTER 4 NORTHANGER ABBEY: AUSTEN’S GOTHIC PARODY ................................120 CHAPTER 5 EMMA: AUSTEN’S GOTHIC REALISM ..........................................................181 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................224 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................246 CURRICULUM VITAE viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION TO EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY LITERARY AESTHETICS The first Gothic novel appeared on December 24, 1764, with the publication of Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto. Walpole’s contemporaries, however, did not often employ the term “novel” to refer to prose fiction. As John Richetti observes, in regard to the “classification for the many prose narratives produced in Britain over the course of the eighteenth century, ‘novel’ is a convenient label rather than a historically accurate term,” one which was not widely used until the beginning of the nineteenth century.1 Among the various names used at the time to refer to prose fiction, “romance” and “history” were two of the most common. These terms, however, were not synonymous. Writers often labeled their works “histories” in order to distinguish them from romances. Karen O’Brien points out that titles such as The History of Tom Jones, A Foundling (1749) and Clarissa, or the History of a Young Lady (1747-48) signaled their authors’ intentions of departing from the improbabilities of romance by presenting their readers with stories that fulfilled “many of the same mimetic and instructive functions” associated with accounts based on historical events.2 Contemporary critical consensus distinguished between 1 John Richetti, introduction in The Cambridge Companion to the Eighteenth-Century Novel, ed. John Richetti (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 1. 2 Karen O’Brien, “History and Literature, 1660-1780,” in The Cambridge History of English Literature, ed. John Richetti (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 377. 1 true-to-life representations and those of romance in that it privileged the former over the latter, maintaining that verisimilitude granted a superior moral stature to fiction.3 From classical times to well into the eighteenth century, Western aesthetic theory conceived of art as an imitation of nature. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the neoclassical concept of mimesis encompassed a variety of meanings, including art as the depiction of ideal types, as the representation of general rather than individualistic traits, and as the expression of long-recognized standards of taste, all of which fostered the imitation of illustrious classical models.4 By contrast, it could also define art as a faithful imitation of empirical reality, one which was tied to the effects it achieved.5 The latter principle would come to serve as the basis for literary theory as it developed in England during the greater part of the eighteenth century. As For most of the century, the majority of English critics found that verisimilitude was a prerequisite for achieving art’s desired effects, and they looked to classical texts, especially Horace’s Ars Poetica, to define art’s purpose as twofold—to please and to instruct. Mimetic theories played an important part in the development of contemporary aesthetics, but their proponents generally linked the value of artistic mimesis to its capacity to entertain and to educate its audience.6 3 Deborah Ross, The Excellence of Falsehood: Romance, Realism, and Women’s Contribution to the Novel (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1991), 94, 97. 4 Arthur O. Lovejoy, Essays in the History of Ideas (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1948), 73-74, 76. 5 Lovejoy, Essays in the History of Ideas, 76. 6 M. H. Abrams, The Mirror and the Lamp: Romantic Theory and the Critical Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971), 15-17. 2 Believing verisimilar depictions were necessary to fulfill a useful didactic purpose led many eighteenth-century critics to disparage the romance. As E.J. Clery notes, while they attacked the medieval romance’s use of the marvelous, the focus of their disapproval was primarily directed against the seventeenth-century French heroic romance with which most of them were more familiar.7 These stories did not usually depict supernatural events but were critiqued instead for such features as extravagant idealism, implausible characters, and highly contrived plots.8 This attitude was shaped by seventeenth-century French neoclassical criticism, which, in decreeing that the romance lacked authenticity, designated