TOWARDS A THEORY OF LIBERTINE TEMPORALITY: TIME, LEGACY, AND FAILURE IN CLARISSA, LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES, AND JULIETTE A thesis submitted to the University of Manchester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Humanities 2017 Thomas G. Froh School of Arts, Languages and Cultures List of Contents Abstract 4 Declaration 5 Copyright Statement 6 Acknowledgements 7 The Author 8 1 Introduction 9 1.1 Methodology 10 1.1.1 Significance 13 1.1.2 Terms 14 1.1.3 The Four Themes 15 2 Libertine Time in the Eighteenth Century 18 2.1 Pressures of the Moment 18 2.2 Legacy 23 2.3 Pressures of Narration 24 2.3.1 The Libertine Novel 27 2.4 Temporal Articulation 32 2.4.1 Rousseau and Monasticism 35 2.5 Failure 39 3 Moment as Breath: Contextualizing the Eighteenth-Century Libertine 44 3.1 A New Focus on the Present 46 3.2 Changes from the Seventeenth Century 50 3.3 Libertine Literature in the Mid-Eighteenth Century 54 3.4 Shifts in Class 58 3.5 The Evolution of Libertine Temporality 61 3.5.1 Poetry 62 3.5.2 Pornography 68 3.5.3 Theatre 72 4 “This charming clock that runs low”: Lovelace and the Arrival of Death 77 4.1 Note on Editions 77 4.2 Context 79 4.3 Dominance and Submission as Temporal Articulation 85 4.4 Plotting, Legacy, and Futurity 94 4.5 Failure 103 5 “Remember that in your position time is precious”: Temporality in Les Liaisons Dangereuses 115 5.1 Valmont & Lovelace: Parallels 121 5.2 Distinctions between Valmont & Lovelace 134 5.3 Marquise de Merteuil 138 6 All Pleasures Fade: Juliette and the Denial of Narrative 149 6.1 Narrative by Numbers 151 6.2 Juliette’s Failure 159 6.3 Non-Reading 169 2 6.4 Juliette and Futurity 172 Conclusion 177 Bibliography 180 Word Count: 83200 3 Abstract This thesis is a series of textual studies which posits that key libertine characters in the latter half of the eighteenth century possess a cohesive and unique attitude towards time. The works I review are Clarissa (1748) by Samuel Richardson, Les Liaisons Dangereuses (1782) by Choderlos de Laclos, and Juliette (1797) by the Marquis de Sade. The shared sense of temporality across the libertine characters of these works manifest in four key thematic parallels. The first theme is a conflict between the libertine character’s role as the creator of a transgressive narrative and libertinism’s emphasis on the hedonistic moment of pleasure. Each demands a different attitude towards time and this creates an underlying tension which the libertine must attempt to resolve. Second is a desire to create a legacy, which manifests as a desire to narrate. This is often seen in their comparison to other libertine figures both immediate and historical, and informs the libertine character’s consideration of past and future. Third, the libertine character attempts to reconcile the tension between narration and moment, and still establish a legacy, through a concept I term ‘articulated time’: the careful moderation of one’s actions in order to establish a degree of control over temporality. Yet the fourth and final theme I identify is failure, as the libertine character is unable to maintain this articulated time, and by extension sees a general failure of his or her respective libertine projects. While the individual aspects of the libertine understanding of time in these works might be seen in other literature, taken as a whole they produce a cohesive sense of libertine temporality unique to fiction from latter half of the eighteenth century. This study sheds new light and meanings on the most significant libertine characters from this period, and reveals the way in which their sense of time, and the history of libertine writing and thinking before them, frames and informs each of their actions. This analysis does not purport to be applicable to all libertine writing, but rather presents a critical insight that reinforces the literary and cultural significance of major works of libertine fiction from the eighteenth century. 4 Declaration No portion of the work referred to in this thesis has been submitted in support of an application for another degree or qualification of this or any other university or other institute of learning. 5 Copyright Statement The author of this thesis owns certain copyright or related rights in it (the “Copyright”) and he has given The University of Manchester certain right to use such Copyright, including for administrative purposes. Copies of this thesis, either in full or in extracts and whether in hard or electronic copy, may be made only in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (as amended) and regulations issued under it or, where appropriate, in accordance with licensing agreements which the University has from time to time. This page must form part of any such copies made. The ownership of certain Copyright, patents, designs, trademarks and other intellectual property (the “Intellectual Property”) and any reproductions of copyright works in the thesis, for example graphs and tables (“Reproductions”), which may be described in this thesis, may not be owned by the author and may be owned by third parties. Such Intellectual Property and Reproductions cannot and must not be made available for use without the prior written permission of the owner(s) of the relevant intellectual property and/or Reproductions. Further information on the conditions under which disclosure, publication and commercialisation of this thesis, the Copyright, and any Intellectual Property and/or described in it may take place is available in the University IP Policy (see http://documents.manchester.ac.uk/DocuInfo.aspx?DocID=24420), in any relevant Thesis restriction declarations deposited in the University Library, The University Library’s regulations (see http://www.library.manchester.ac.uk/about/regulations/) and in The University’s policy on Presentation of Theses. 6 Acknowledgements I am extremely grateful to my supervisors Hal Gladfelder and Jérôme Brillaud, who have been a tremendous help throughout my time in Manchester. I feel privileged to have worked alongside you both. Additional thanks are owed to Naomi Baker, who was a supportive and incisive reader throughout the thesis-writing process. I am also grateful to the University of Manchester for providing the funding that allowed this dissertation to be written. The staff of Carleton University, particularly Julie Murray and Lana Keon, are responsible for my being willing and able to pursue this doctorate. Thank you all. My parents, Michael and Diana, have given me unceasing support and love throughout this process. I will never be able to express how much I owe to you both. My relatives Jackie, Martin, and Vaughan have provided me with a sanctuary in Wales that I will never forget, and becoming closer to them has been the greatest gift I’ve been given during my time in the UK. Thank you to Andrew, Ji, Gwynne, and Nick, for always being willing to hear me out and telling me to shut up and get back to work when I needed it. Finally to Chelsea, thank you for more than everything. 7 The Author Tom Froh is currently a doctoral candidate at the University of Manchester. During his time at Manchester, Tom has published a peer-review journal article in Porn Studies, a book review in the Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies, and contributed reference entries to the forthcoming The Cambridge Guide to the Eighteenth-Century Novel, 1660-1820. Tom has presented papers at numerous conferences, most notably the 2016 annual meeting of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies in Pittsburgh, the 2017 postgraduate and early-career researcher conference of the British Society for Eighteenth- Century Studies(BSECS) in Swansea, and the 2018 annual BSECS conference at St.Hugh’s College, Oxford. In 2016 he delivered an invited talk to members of the Centre for Eighteenth-Century Studies at the University of York. Tom completed his Master of Arts in English at Carleton University, graduating in 2013. He also completed his undergraduate degree at Carleton in English and History, graduating in 2012. 8 1 Introduction In 1675 John Wilmot, the second Earl of Rochester, destroyed a glass chronometer which stood in the middle of the Westminster Privy Garden. According to the dial’s designer, Father Francis Hall, it was an extremely elaborate construction that showed not only the hours of the day but “many things also belonging to geography, astrology, and astronomy, by the sun’s shadow made visible to the eye” (Hall 19). Before he destroyed it Rochester is reported to have declared: “What… doest thou stand here to fuck time?” (Ellis, ODNB). Rochester’s intentions here are open to interpretation. The dial of the clock might be a phallic pointer, one which penetrates time in the act of quantifying it, with the clock’s decorations mimicking the beautified appearance of a suitor and Rochester playing the role of the jealous lover. Alternatively the act of destroying the clock can be seen as a symbolic attempt to reject the measurement of time, and perhaps even the concept of its passage as a whole. The libertine champions the hedonistic moment, and wishes to exist in time without the rigid structure of days, minutes, and seconds that demarcate its passage. Rochester’s actions highlights the way in which libertinism transgresses temporal boundaries in the same manner as it does sexual ones. Under this reading his destruction of the chronometer is a purposeful disordering or derangement of time which expresses the libertine desire to live more fully within the unstructured moment. Yet only three quarters of a century after Rochester’s actions, the libertine novels of the eighteenth century demonstrate a profoundly different attitude towards time than a straightforward attempt to live within the present.