Helen Maria Williams and the Revolutionary Countenance. (Under the Direction of Sharon Setzer.)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ABSTRACT ROBINSON, LAURA MARIE. The Face of Hope: Helen Maria Williams and the Revolutionary Countenance. (Under the direction of Sharon Setzer.) Helen Maria Williams, in Letters from France, advances her argument for the French Revolution by sketching Revolutionary ideals in the very faces of her “historical characters.” Although Williams’s Letters have gained significant critical recognition during the past fifteen years, little consideration has been paid to her depictions of these Revolutionary visages. Williams’s Revolutionary rhetoric, in conjunction with her awareness of Johann Kaspar Lavater’s theories, positions the countenance as significant in her sympathetic portrayal of the French Revolution. In an attempt to situate Williams as a writer in sync with the aesthetic techniques of her day, “Revolutionary Physiognomy” provides a historical explanation of countenance reading. “Hope Envisaged” explores early examples of countenances that reflect Williams’s hopeful idealism for the Revolution. “Faces and Facades” examines the assumed transparency of countenances during the Terror of the Revolution, as Williams attempts to reconcile her Revolutionary ideals with bloody realities. “The Individual Vis- à-Vis Humanity” discusses Williams’s extension of physiognomy from the individual to the face of humankind as she positions her broken ideals with her unfaltering belief in humanity’s potential. Finally, the “Epilogue” attests to Williams’s continued interest in physiognomy and the relationship of her voice with emerging nineteenth-century adaptations of the trope. The Face of Hope: Helen Maria Williams and the Revolutionary Countenance by Laura Marie Robinson A thesis submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts English Raleigh, North Carolina 2007 APPROVED BY: _________________________ ________________________ Leila May Sharon Joffe __________________________ Sharon Setzer Chair of Advisory Committee DEDICATION In honor of Charlie, Who believed in my future ii BIOGRAPHY Laura M. Robinson, a native of the St. Louis area, graduated from Cedarville University (Cedarville, OH) in June of 1999. Prior to pursuing a Master of Arts in English Literature at North Carolina State University, she taught junior high English in Fayetteville, North Carolina. Desiring to continue her educational journey, Laura plans to return to the classroom as both an educator and a student. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dr. Sharon Setzer for her enthusiasm for the French Revolution which sparked my interest in Helen Maria Williams. As chair of my thesis committee, Dr. Setzer has provided incredible insight and encouragement in my research and writing. In addition, I thank Dr. Leila May and Dr. Sharon Joffe for their time and contributions to my project. Finally, I am appreciative for the love and support that my family and friends have poured into my life as I pursued a goal that reignited my love for learning and fostered remarkable personal growth. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: Revolutionary Physiognomy……………………..………………………………………… 1 CHAPTER ONE: Hope Envisaged………..…………………………………..………………………………….… 10 CHAPTER TWO: Faces and Facades…………………………..……….…………………………………….…….. 22 CHAPTER THREE: The Individual Vis-à-Vis Humanity………...……………….…………………………… 41 EPILOGUE……….………………………..…………………………………………………………………………………… 52 BIBLIOGRAPHY.……………………….……………………………….………………………………………………..… 59 v INTRODUCTION Revolutionary Physiognomy Between 1790 and 1796, the English author Helen Maria Williams published eight volumes of Letters from France, giving English readers an unusually sympathetic account of the French Revolution. Williams’s first volume, published in November 1790, the same month as Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, established her identity as a sympathetic “citizen of the world” and an enthusiastic participant in the festivities celebrating the first anniversary of the fall of the Bastille (1.1.13). While Burke “stirred England’s memories of riot and regicide,” Neil Fraistat and Susan Lanser observe, “Williams rhapsodized about the Revolution’s spirit of cooperative generosity” (32). At some moments, Williams’s “rhapsodies” seem similar to Wordsworth’s well-known lines: “Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive,/But to be young was very Heaven.”1 Whereas Wordsworth looks back nostalgically upon the early days of the French Revolution through the lens of disillusionment, Williams captures the intensity and the immediacy of the Revolution as it unfolds around her. Unlike Wordsworth, Williams “remained immersed in history,” and her immersion ultimately forced a reconciliation of her Revolutionary hopes with the brutal realities of the Terror (Fraistat and Lanser 50). Soon after the publication of her first volume of Letters, Williams won critical acclaim as an “amiable letter writer,”2 whose works were not only “sprightly and entertaining,”3 but also endowed with an “air of sincerity.”4 As the Revolution became increasingly bloody, however, critical assessments of Williams’s steadfast commitment to Revolutionary ideals 1 The Prelude, Book 11: 108-109. (1850) 2 The Monthly Review, Dec. 1790: 429-30. 3 The Universal Magazine of Knowledge and Pleasure, Dec. 1790: 289. 4 The Analytical Review, Dec. 1790: 431. 1 became increasingly harsh. Still, as late as 1796, the Critical Review maintained that Williams’s Letters were “a valuable, authentic, and entertaining history of the most astonishing event of modern times.”5 Unlike Burke, who denounced the event from the outset, or Wordsworth, who lost faith in the Revolution after the oppressed “became oppressors in their turn,”6 Williams maintained an unfaltering faith in the goodness of humanity, even in the midst of the Terror. Although Williams’s Letters were widely read in her own day, they fell into obscurity by the mid-nineteenth century and attracted limited interest for over a hundred years. Now, however, owing to the historical research promoted by the bicentennial of the Revolution, a new critical interest in letters and travel writing, and the ongoing efforts to recover the work of women writers, Williams is again widely recognized as one of the most influential writers of the 1790’s. Following modern editions of the Letters and a variety of critical articles, Deborah Kennedy’s book-length study, Helen Maria Williams and the Age of Revolution (2002), took Williams from the periphery to the center of critical discourse on the French Revolution. Current scholarship frequently positions Williams’s works alongside those of Wordsworth, Burke, and Mary Wollstonecraft. Touting the Revolutionary sensibility of Williams’s Letters, recent criticism frequently acknowledges her capacity to transcend gender barriers and limitations of the epistolary genre while she navigates the French Revolution as both an observer and a participant. Richard Sha, for example, suggests that Williams blurs gender barriers as she “insulate[s] her feminine persona from masculine politics” by exploiting the rhetoric of “the sketch and letter” (197). Certainly, the immediacy of Williams’s text, which displays a “spontaneity or the illusion 5 Critical Review 16 (January 1796):1. 6 The Prelude, Book 10: 791-792. (1805) 2 thereof” operates as “a vehicle for the display of sensibility” (Sha 203). Arguing that Williams’s Letters are never simply a “transparent medium,” Mary Favret suggests that “correspondence” always “promises blockage, limits and distance” as an “envelope of contingency” (Romantic Correspondence 56). For Williams, part of this “envelope of contingency” is what Chris Jones calls her “canny and sophisticated exploitation of the ambiguities of sensibility to grasp the progressive possibilities of the age” (“Travelling Hopefully” 94). While much recent scholarship has focused on Williams’s sensibility, very little attention has been paid to the relationship between physiognomy and sensibility and the way in which it informs her representation of Revolutionary countenances. Williams’s tendency to read countenances as a measure of character is a recurring point of emphasis as she moves from studying youthful faces, which represent the hopes of a nation, to the faces of Revolutionary villains, who betray these hopes. Steven Blakemore notes that Williams’s reference to her own “quickness of perception” (1.1.195) ends up “emphasizing her sensibility” (163). According to Lavater’s principles, “quickness of perception” is a requisite skill for every physiognomist. Asserting that her own proximity to the Revolutionary scene qualifies her to “discern every look,” Williams writes, While you observe from a distance the great drama which is acting in France, I am a spectator of representation. – I am placed near enough the scene to discern every look and every gesture of the actors, and every passion excited in the minds of the audience. (1.3.1) As a “spectator of representation,” Williams scrutinizes the Revolution by looking beyond the events to the “actors.” Employing the theatrical trope of the Revolution, where “both 3 revolutionaries and counterrevolutionaries depicted the Revolution as a stupendous dramatic event played out on the world’s stage,” Williams evokes the language of the Revolutionaries who “represented themselves as actors” (Blakemore 234). Their role stands in opposition to the “counterrevolutionary betrayers” who wore “’masks’ and ‘disguises” which needed to be “ripped off” in order to reveal their “insincerity”