Florida State University Libraries
Electronic Theses, Treatises and Dissertations The Graduate School
2004 Sexuality, Aesthetics, and Punishment in the Libertine Novel Elena-Juliette Gomez
Follow this and additional works at the FSU Digital Library. For more information, please contact [email protected]
THE FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
SEXUALITY, AESTHETICS, AND PUNISHMENT IN THE LIBERTINE NOVEL
By
ELENA-JULIETTE GOMEZ
A Thesis submitted to the Department of English in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts
Degree Awarded: Fall Semester, 2004
The members of the Committee approve the thesis of Elena-Juliette Gomez defended on
November 4, 2004.
______Barry Faulk Professor Directing Thesis
______Karen Laughlin Committee Member
______William Cloonan Committee Member
Approved:
______Bruce Boehrer Director of Graduate Studies
The Office of Graduate Studies has verified and approved the above named committee members.
ii
This thesis is lovingly dedicated to my parents, German and Magda Gomez, and to my husband, Jack Brennan, for their continued and complete support of this endeavor throughout. I would not have been able to accomplish my goal without their encouragement, faith, and prayers.
This thesis is also dedicated to my own faithful Valmont, with love.
iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to acknowledge Dr. Barry Faulk’s contributions to the completion of this thesis. As the Chair of my committee it was with him that I worked continually for the last two years. I thank him for agreeing to oversee this project, for his countless insights and guidance, and for his understanding of my conflicting schedule as a part-time student and full-time attorney.
iv TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract vi
INTRODUCTION 1
1. 18TH CENTURY – LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES 10
Innovation: The Female Rake 15 Prey 18 The Letters, Confessions, and Discourse 21 Climax and Denouement 25
2. 19TH CENTURY – THE SEDUCER’S DIARY 28
Seduction, Deviance, and Gender 36 Form and Genre 40
3. 20TH CENTURY – DE PROFUNDIS 45
Society and the Trial 49 Prison and Punishment 50 The Letter-Form 55
CLOSING 59
NOTES 62
BIBLIOGRAPHY 66
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 69
v
ABSTRACT
My thesis charts the progression of the discourse of sexuality through the genre of the epistolary novel beginning in the 18th century and ending in the 20th century. The first libertine work to be analyzed in this context is Choderlos de Laclos’ Les Liaisons Dangereuses which presents two rakes, one male and one female: The Vicomte de Valmont and the Marquise de Merteuil. Liaisons presents a perfect example of Michel Foucault’s model described in the History of Sexuality which shows a repressed society that will not discourse on sexuality but instead writes about it. Even the rake figures fall into the trap of while adopting a different code, still being bound and oppressed by that code, and when it is not followed the punishment that follows, because of their internalization of that code, is severe. While still adhering to discipline through surveillance and self-policing, Diary of the Seducer, written by Soren Kierkegaard, modifies the discourse of sexuality by introducing first an aesthetic rake, who is not solely pleasure-seeking, as the rakes in Liaisons appear to be, but is instead interested in the reflective and introspective analysis of his seductions. This innovation of the libertine figure is coupled with the further innovation of a seducer who not only discourses with his victim through the written word, but likewise discourses with himself. Johannes does not need or want an audience before which to rehearse his sexuality and perform theatrically the way Valmont and Merteuil must do. He does not want a confidante or audience and thus turns to his journal to catalogue his conquests and returns time and time again to those seductions to learn how he was able to change his victim and how his victim changes him. Johannes chooses to live outside of society’s rules and codes by living in the world of the imaginary searching for the “interesting,” but he stagnates in this search and does not reach a higher plane of development and that is his ultimate punishment. Oscar Wilde’s De Profundis, takes the discourse of sexuality in a completely different direction by introducing the aspect of “illegitimate sexualities” through his alleged homosexuality and then dismissing that as not being important to his discussion at all. What is more important to him is his redefining of values and determining what is truly “criminal” and “sinful.” He finds that the crime he is guilty of and deserves punishment for is his crime against art. Wilde finds that his relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas (Bosie) was an un-intellectual
vi friendship that resulted in his being unable to work or create. His relations with Bosie also affected his ethics negatively and thus in that sense is deserving of punishment. The punishment cycle here transitions away from a society of surveillance and self-discipline with internalized guilt and codes, to one of prison reform. However, Wilde, while a true example of prison reform in one sense, creates a counter-discourse through his work, by arriving at a conclusion much different than the one society would deem appropriate. Wilde does use his solitary confinement as he should in that he confronts his conscience and examines his sins. However, he does not repent for the crimes that society found him guilty of, instead by his re-definition of values, he discourses publicly on private truths of real importance: Art, religion, and ethics. He thus supports both the epistolary genre and the discourse of sexuality by making the private, public and forcing these matters to be acknowledged.
vii INTRODUCTION
This work will trace progressions in literary techniques, history and discipline through the 18th, 19th and early 20th century literary works of Choderlos de Laclos, Soren Kierkegaard, and Oscar Wilde. It will explore the advancement of the epistolary genre as a vehicle for the discourse of sexuality, it will chart the progression of the rakes as presented in Les Liaisons Dangereuses, Diary of the Seducer, and the libertine presented in De Profundis, and it will address the societal changes of discipline and punishment as they evolved from the punishment-spectacle to prison reform. Discourses on sexuality are limited to certain formats. Letters and journals, as well as verbal confessions to appropriate Church representatives, were societally accepted modes for the discourse of sexuality thus the epistolary genre with its construct of letters or journal entries was a natural outlet for such discourse. The discourse of sexuality advanced through the epistolary convention from a private writing as a mode of confession for perceived transgressions to a private writing of reflection and philosophical analysis to a public writing exposing private and taboo subjects. While the Victorians repressed discourse, the act of writing still does not liberate society from this repression because writing about sexuality is still an oppression of it, while actual discourse is breaking free from that oppression. 18th century French society relegated the discourse of sexuality to certain accepted but private outlets such as verbal confessions or private writings. The letter-form was thus popular as an appropriate vehicle for the discussion of sexuality. Laclos’ Liaisons was therefore formulated on this accepted tradition of private writings and uses the epistolary genre to discourse on sexuality. As part of those traditions it is important to note that the social ambiance when Liaisons was written was at the brink of the French Revolution and at the height of the aristocracy’s reign of power, wealth, and idleness, which was responsible for much of the decadence of the time. Liaisons presents the reader with two highly intelligent and cunning protagonists who are the rake heroes of the work: The Vicomte de Valmont and The Marquise de Merteuil. Valmont and Merteuil are “artistic seducers” belonging to the French aristocratic class whose main interest lies in the creativity, difficulty, and execution of their seductive quests. For these two rakes
1 seduction is a game which brings, at least to Valmont, respect and admiration in society, so long as he maneuvers within the strict societal codes of the time which required complete discretion of sexual escapades. Aristocratic society demanded its members wear masks of complete propriety regardless of what was occurring behind closed doors. The penalty for failing to maintain these modicums of propriety was severe punishment which was inflicted upon each society member, not by the monarch as in olden times, but by themselves. This became the case as society gradually changed from the punishment-spectacle as described by Michel Foucault in Discipline and Punish, to a society of self-discipline. Members internalized societal codes and guilt when those codes were deviated from thus policing themselves and punishing themselves as will be demonstrated through both the rake figures in Liaisons and the rake’s victims’ outcomes as well. The 19th century brings further innovation to the epistolary genre and also to the libertine hero as evidenced by Kierkegaard’s “aesthetic seducer,” Johannes. The rake changes from a seducer seeking pleasure, power, and triumph over his victims to a seducer that is reflective and introspective. Johannes is not necessarily interested in the physical consummation of his seductions, but seeks different things from each victim, seeking that which is most beautiful in each girl and nothing more. As an aesthete he searches for “irony” and that which is “interesting.” While Johannes still seeks to control his victims, he is more interested in analyzing how he is able to effectuate change in the victim and how the seduction affects and changes him. Hence he uses a journal to document his seductions so he can later go back to each stage of the seduction and re- analyze the events and actions. Just as the seducer evolves so too does the discourse of sexuality change in that not only is the seducer discoursing on sexuality with his victim(s), but, through his journal entries, Johannes is discoursing with himself as well. Johannes does not have a confidante nor does he seek or want an audience (which is vastly different from Valmont and Merteuil who need an audience and revel in the theatricality of their conquests) and so uses the private written form of a journal to discourse on sexuality and aesthetics. This diary is not intended for anyone’s eyes other than his own. This evolving society as a whole maintains its disciplinary standards by further internalizing surveillance and self-
2 policing during this century. Punishment is so internalized that at one end of the spectrum Johannes flees the “actual” world escaping to the “imaginary” realm to avoid society’s codes and punishment for deviance. Meantime, Cordelia, who is part of the “actual” world finds herself unable to discourse on sexuality with anyone (not even a confessor) after her seduction and thus her punishment is to suffer alone because Cordelia has no one to turn to and is unable to openly grieve. Surface respectability is still required of society’s members and less leeway is given for deviance even among the upper classes. In the 20th century, Wilde’s De Profundis utilizes a letter-form for his public confession after being sentenced to two years hard labour. His work is a response to society’s hypocrisy which incarcerated him for openly displaying the “love that dare not speak its name” alongside his accompanying extravagant aesthetic lifestyle. While Wilde’s non-fictional work only contains one letter instead of the customary numerous letters or journal entries of the epistolary genre, it can still be considered an epistolary novel because of his utilization of the letter-form to convey his libertine discourse of sexuality as the prior authors had done. The form creates an audience for Wilde within the same society that condemned him. Wilde’s letter combines aspects of Liaisons and Diary by presenting a libertine who lives for the pleasures of the flesh, much like the artistic seducers of Liaisons, but one who in contrast to the solely pleasure-seeking rakes, also reflects upon his actions, ethics, and aesthetic views. Wilde’s innovation to the discourse of sexuality is his publication of private topics such as ethics, religion, art, aesthetics, and homosexuality which were supposed to be discussed in the privacy of a confessional. While Wilde conforms to the “confessional” mode within which sexuality and deviance were to be discussed, he utilizes society’s mold to flout their conventions because he goes beyond the strict bounds of discourse to other areas which had not been made public. De Profundis exposes private truths publicly and discusses the taboo subjects of alternate sexualities and class difference openly therefore bolstering the discourse of sexuality through the epistolary genre. His purpose for writing his “confession” is to explain the true nature of his “crimes” which are not in accord with the “crimes” he was tried and found guilty of. Wilde’s greatest “crime” in his opinion is his crime against Art
3 by allowing an un-intellectual relationship to stunt his creativity. Wilde does not condemn homosexuality or sexual desire, however he does condemn an individual (even himself) who allows those things to interfere with creating art. In that limited regard, Wilde agrees with the necessity for repressing desire. For that crime he is sorry, but for the crimes he was judged guilty of by society he is not repentant and thus again flouts their conventions which require repentance within a “confession.” Through Wilde’s incarceration, the punishment cycle progresses from a society of self-policing to one of prison reform which isolates the “criminal” so that s/he will be forced to confront his conscience, admit his wrongs, and become a productive individual. The three aforementioned works, studied together, will show the progression of the discourse of sexuality through the epistolary novel, the changes of the libertine characters, and the punishment and discipline associated with sexual transgression and deviance. It is necessary to explore Michel Foucault’s History of Sexuality which suggests that 19th Century Britain (and likewise much of Europe at or around the same time) was dedicated to putting sexuality into discourse.1 However, such discourse, when it occurred, was required to be through a socially and religiously accepted format. At the time the only accepted format for the discourse of sexuality was through confession, whether written or verbal. This was clearly in opposition to the social clan and family oriented sexuality of earlier centuries where “sexual practices had little need of secrecy; words were said without undue reticence, and things were done without too much concealment; one had a tolerant familiarity with the illicit,” modern sexuality was no longer to be displayed and enjoyed openly.2 Sexuality in Victorian Britain (Wilde’s timeframe) became confined to the bedrooms behind the closed doors of the married couple and even then, only to serve the purpose of reproduction and not the pleasure of either participant.3 On the topic of sexuality, “silence became the rule” and open displays were viewed as abnormalities for which the transgressor must pay a penalty because “. . .modern puritanism posed its triple edict of taboo, nonexistence, and silence.”4 The flesh and its desires and pleasures became a thing of sin and shame and “repression operated as a sentence to disappear, but also as an injunction to silence, an affirmation of nonexistence, and, by implication, an admission that there was nothing to say about such things, nothing to see, and nothing to know.”5 The only accepted place to discourse on
4 sexuality was through the disciplinary mode of confession or the written word. However, despite these being the accepted views, Foucault argues that this is not what was really occurring with sexuality in the Victorian Age. “Illegitimate sexualities” (i.e. prostitution, homosexuality) were only marginally tolerated, in places far apart from delicate society, such as brothels. However, when those sexualities did not remain in the spaces they were relegated too, the price of those transgressions was high as will be seen in the libertine works discussed here. Foucault traces the historical efforts to control sexuality by repressing its mention as well as its practice, but his conclusion is that the repression of sexual expression only multiplied the occasions for discourse on sexuality and thus while keeping it hidden, did nothing to eradicate the practices or discourse. While present-day society believes that a liberation has occurred of the male/female dichotomy and society which has led to a freer discourse of sexuality, Foucault argues that the same repression continues to exist because the discourse of sexuality through writing is still adhering to oppressive codes much like the Victorians.6 Although individuals are able to confess, the unbreakable link between sexuality and personal identity, as in Liaisons where the rakes’ sexuality and triumphs are their identity, continues the oppression. The discourse of sexuality lends itself to the letter-writing aspect of the epistolary novel which is a perfect vehicle for this discourse in that by using the written word the author conforms to the accepted avenues for discussion of this topic. Within the first two works though, the written word is corrupted from its intended usage in that the letters become avenues not only for “confession” of sexual transgressions, but also direct vehicles for successful seductions. The letters become as much tools for plotting and scheming as they are for expression and repentance. Letter-writing functions as a form of power for Laclos’ and Kierkegaard’s rake(s). It is a means to a successful seduction by gaining private access to the victims. Language and letter-writing is the most powerful weapon in the libertine arsenal thus making the epistolary novel a natural choice for a discourse of sexuality while still adhering to confessional constructs. Through letters, the rakes can discourse openly on sexuality, in a way they could not do verbally, they can reveal only what is necessary at the time, they can use words to convey double meanings, and they can do this all while
5 hiding their true intentions. The letters become an entry-point to discourse on the taboo subject of sexuality and to engage their victims in this prohibited discourse to cause their downfall and seduction. The significance and importance of letter-writing in these works is that the letters allow the rake heroes to manipulate information, love, their victims, their portrayal, and how the rake expresses his/her feelings. Wilde additionally uses his letter as a conduit for private subjects discussed openly to a public audience. While exhibiting the freedom of discourse through letters, the epistolary novels also exhibit the danger of writing. There is just as much danger to the libertines as there is to the rakes’ victims. The danger in accepting letters and responding to them, is that the victims through a written discourse on sexuality become ensnared in the libertines’ web of seduction. In Liaisons Madame de Tourvel, Cecile, Danceny, and Pere Anselme are all manipulated through their acceptance of the rakes’ correspondence. By accepting and reading the letters the “reader foreshadows the possibility of becoming a sexual partner. . .”7 While Tourvel believes that she is less exposed by accepting Valmont’s letters than being in his direct company, in actuality, she is more vulnerable by corresponding with him because she opens the door to his pleas and declarations of love which are easier to make convincingly in letters than in person. She opens the door to sexual discourse by his manipulated use of the appropriate arena for such discourse. Letter-writing creates a danger for the rakes as well. It creates a written record through which they can be caught and unmasked before society. When the Marquise and Valmont quarrel and break their alliance, it is the disclosure and publication of their written correspondence that ruins them both – the letters lead Valmont to a duel that results in his death and lead the Marquise to her destruction when she is discovered to be a libertine without remorse or conscience, instead of the aforethought pillar of virtue. Wilde is likewise discovered through his correspondence with Bosie. His letters (and artistic works) are used to condemn him during his trial as an aberrant decadent who imperils society. Because of his letter-writing, Wilde goes from being a respected member and artist in society, to being a pariah. It is this notion of circulation which makes the written word both dangerous and powerful when used for purposes other than “confession.”
6 Confession, whether used in a religious sense or not, produced a discourse of sexuality, because in confession (whether written or verbal) a person could express the fears and desires which were otherwise not acceptable in society. However, a required aspect of confession was repentance for the deviant acts committed. This was especially true for women or homosexual males, who were viewed as “lesser” members of society. Women, unless monarchs or saints, were reduced to silence, and even in the more liberated 18th century, once married, were the property of their husbands in a society which “. . .imposed a strict morality on wives” while imposing a much less stringent morality on husbands.8 This treatment of gender and women is exhibited quite clearly in both Liaisons and Diary where the main female characters are subordinated to a patriarchal society. A man was seen as socially independent and a complete individual whether he was married or not, while a woman was but a thing to be given in marriage and the aristocracy was worse in this regard than the working classes.9 Precisely because aristocratic women were idle, they were treated more as possessions and less as equals than in the working classes where the wives contributed equally to the household and thus “the rich woman paid with her subjection for her idleness.”10 In Liaisons it is only in widowhood that the Marquise is able to find freedom from both her family and husband. In Diary Cordelia is not treated as an individual but is instead treated as property by her aunt who decides whether Johannes is a suitable match for her. Beyond the treatment of women as possessions, gender is also an issue in these two works in that the standards for propriety are higher for a woman than a man and likewise, transgression of those standards results in harsher punishment for a female. Laclos’ novel, much like Wilde’s plays, puts society’s double standards, hypocrisy, and world (including their codes, rules, excesses, and lives) on display. The libertine thus had to know and understand society’s rules regarding the discourse of sexuality in order to defy them without suffering repercussions. Libertinism in and of itself has been defined as “. . .believing, in contradistinction to orthodox Christianity, that sexual experience was central to human life and that sexual desire and pleasure were good and natural things. The sexual organs and acts of sexual intercourse were, therefore, symbols of a great life-giving force and were as worthy of human worship as
7 the symbols of the Christian sacraments and the grace that was the life of the soul.”11 The libertines lived by their beliefs and codes which mimicked society’s codes while perverting them as well. Therefore, the more successfully a rake utilizes his/her knowledge of social rules to carry out his/her schemes behind masks of propriety, the more successful the seducer. These rules were inviolable if their pursuit of the libertine lifestyle was to be covert and successful. They defied society such that “[i]f sex is repressed, that is condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression. A person who holds forth in such language places himself to a certain extent outside the reach of power; he upsets established law. . .”12 The codes of the rakes in Liaisons were raised to the level of a religion by the Marquise and Valmont, and it is when those codes are not followed that disaster occurs. Therefore, secrecy is key, and the rake must conform to society’s rules, at least in appearance, if s/he wishes to be an esteemed member of that society. While the libertines to be discussed are all quite different in nature, their motivations are at times very similar. Laclos’ rakes are highly motivated by physical pleasure and power -- power over their victims, society, themselves, and each other. It is a very dangerous game where the stakes are high and the price of losing tragic. Laclos’ rakes are performers who must rehearse their sexuality and thrive on theatricality. Kierkegaard’s seducer, while likewise seeking power, unlike Laclos’, is introspective and not necessarily interested in consummating his relationship with every victim. He seeks different tokens from different girls and will neither take nor accept anything more. Johannes progresses from a glory-seeking rake to one who does not need an audience or theatricality to feel successful in his pursuits. Wilde, while an aesthete like Johannes, does not seek power. After downward-spiraling into a world of excess he returns to his greatest concern which is Art. His discourse of sexuality is presented in his confessional epistle and changes course from the prior texts in that it addresses private realms not previously publicly explored. Wilde creates an audience for his work, much like he did before when writing his plays, so that he can proclaim his many truths. Just as the libertine hero changed in all of these works, so too did the doctrine of punishment and discipline. Sexuality and its discourse was class-oriented in that the
8 bourgeois idea of sexuality was restraint, while the aristocratic concept of sexuality led to recklessness and extravagance and in all cases punishment.13 The punishment progresses though from a public spectacle punishment to one that is innate within each member of society. The internalization of disciplinary codes and guilt upon transgression of those codes created a self-policing society of surveillance. Society’s members were charged with policing their own behaviour and abiding by the rules. Punishment for not doing so was so internalized that society’s members generally complied and knew what disciplinary steps to take when they failed. Eventually, though as seen in Wilde, this same society adopts a prison mentality where reform is key and the way to achieve that is by isolating the “criminal” who must wrestle with his/her own conscience until reaching recognition of their wrongs and becoming productive, non-deviant members of society. Society produced the discourse of sexuality through the accepted formats of letters, diaries, and confessions. Libertine works used the epistolary format as a natural vehicle to discourse on sexuality while maintaining the necessary confessional traits for such discourse. Ultimately, the discourse on sexuality and Foucault’s confessional aspects linked to that discourse lead to the revelation that “. . .society does not repress desire; rather society exploits it -- forces us to confess it, to put it into appropriate discourse so that it can be managed, manipulated, and contained.”14 Wilde’s work attempts to break away by utilizing the confessional format to explain his transgressive sexuality, but more importantly to discourse on more central, though no less private, truths of art, ethics, and religion by re-defining sin and what is truly “criminal.” Wilde thus shows that “what society enforces is not sexual morality, but its appearance” and by breaking that mold he exposes society as well.15
9 CHAPTER 1 18TH CENTURY – LES LIAISONS DANGEREUSES
The discourse on sexuality was permissible in 18th century French society’s eyes only through confession in a private format. Such confession could take the form of actual verbal confessions or confession through the written word. The epistolary novel and genre are an extension of society’s restrictions on the discourse of sexuality, particularly in the 18th century when sexual discourse was relegated either to actual religious confessions to a priest, or hidden, secret writings not meant to be revealed to the public or anyone. The epistolary genre by its nature of private and personal writings is an obvious vehicle for the discourse of sexuality. The epistolary genre presents the reader with a series of letters or journal entries which allow the reader to know what the characters in the novel do not know: the letter-writer’s thoughts, motivations, and feelings for their victims. Laclos’ Les Liaisons Dangereuses presents a libertine novel that intends to expose aristocratic society’s beliefs and actions which are quite contradictory and hypocritical. The novel in effect critiques the codes of propriety (not the genre) because the characters are forced to act and say one thing according to the societal conventions of the time, while acting and speaking completely differently behind the privacy of the closed doors of their homes and bedrooms. These letters thus provide insight into the topic of sexuality as perceived by society and the actors in the works and demonstrate the shift away from a violent public spectacle punishment for transgressions of societal codes of sexuality, to self-discipline for those transgressions. The work also illustrates how the change in punishment causes the characters to internalize their “guilt” when they deviate from the accepted sexual and gender codes. As will be seen, such self-inflicted punishment is often more severe than the public torture of spectacles from prior centuries. The “. . .French eighteenth century may have been an age of enlightened liberation, but simultaneously it invented new technologies of power and new modes of repression and made possible the creation of disciplinary societies” such as are seen in Liaisons.16 These “new modes” resulted from the fear of sexual expression, because “. . .sexual instinct, [was viewed as] egotistical and dangerous for society, [it] is therefore
10 vigorously repressed and sublimated.”17 The very idea of giving free reign to sexual expression led French aristocratic society to create exceedingly strict and unforgiving sexual codes which were not to be deviated from in the slightest without severe penalties. In this regard, the time of Laclos and his novel was an age of punishment as described by Foucault where the penalties for malfeasance or stepping outside of the rigorous codes was fatal to the individual even though the penalties had progressed from spectacle to discipline. These penalties become quite evident through the outcome of this novel. The epistolary libertine novel exemplifies the form of sexual discourse sanctioned by aristocratic society. Through their writing the libertines are constructing sexuality, not only their own but those of their victims which they manipulate. Sexuality is placed into the accepted format of writing which leads to the seductions and sexual acts themselves. In Liaisons, the letters not only tell the story, but they are part of the story in that each letter is an incident in the plot and gives rise to another letter which continues the story and action of the novel.18 Sometimes the letters even re-tell the events from a different point of view. This is helpful to the reader in that s/he is getting multiple perspectives on the events as they are occurring and different viewpoints on the discourse on sexuality (be it naïve, prudish, manipulative or deviant). This literary tool allows the reader to enter the mind of each character and see what the other characters cannot -- the machinations of the rakes’ minds. The reader is omniscient by knowing the “truth” versus the character’s perceptions of the truth or the rakes’ manipulated realities created for their victims. This illustrates the cleverness of the rakes, the lack of worldly experience of the victims, and the traps created by societal conventions of religion, gender, and ignorance about sexuality. The rakes transcend the conventions of society by learning its conventions and utilizing those beliefs to their benefit. The rakes know the rules of the “game” and use them to their advantage and society’s detriment through a corruption/perversion of those rules. The novel while presenting voluminous correspondence, primarily focuses on the lives and exploits of two rakes, one male and one female: The Vicomte de Valmont and the Marquise de Merteuil. In Liaisons Laclos introduces the reader to the 18th century “artful” seducer through its two libertines. The artful seducer is concerned with the appearance of the seduction and how it will impact his/her reputation in society. The
11 rake motto: “Conquer or perish.”19 Aristocratic society is the artful seducer’s audience and only victims that will bring the highest amount of triumph by their ruin are worthy of the seducer’s time. The artful seducer or rake hero has his/her own code and rules which must be strictly adhered to; the price of not adhering to that code, being tragedy for the libertines. First and foremost, it must be noted that while the rake code remains the same regardless of gender, because of societal pressures on the female sex, the female libertine is further restricted in her ability to act as a rake and must adopt additional safeguards to which the male libertine does not have to adhere. The rules or libertine code include not writing letters, disregarding religious beliefs (but knowing what they are in order to use them for their benefit), control of one’s emotions, detachment, and self-mastery in all things.20 “Throughout the seduction, the rake himself must remain unmoved. . .and must not fall in love with his victim. Such unseemly emotion would affect the control needed for the breaking-off. Since love is eliminated, seduction becomes a game. This game was socially accepted, and the man who succeeded in playing it well earned the approval of society.”21 Furthermore, “as the master of aristocratic privilege, the libertine invents and authors desire” through his/her very use of discourse.22 Therefore, through their ability to restrain and control their emotions, the libertines are able to enjoy sexual freedom and advance the discourse of sexuality in an otherwise sexually repressed society. However, even within society’s acceptance of the rake, certain modicums of propriety had to be maintained by keeping the affairs secret until such time as the feat was accomplished. The rake seeks a virgin for his ultimate seduction because of the difficulty of seducing such a woman, and therefore the triumph in the completed seduction. “The mythic virgin is inaccessible to man; she is not always physically virgin. . .but she must be untouched in some way that the seducer can attempt to bring her to some new knowledge about her own sexuality. At the same time, she must offer resistance to his efforts since it is precisely her inaccessibility, her virginity, that challenges and interests him.”23 This is why Valmont chooses Tourvel: She is married, she is known as a woman of religion and virtue, she is known for her fidelity to her husband. She appeals to him because she is a challenge. Contrary to Tourvel, Cecile does not appeal to him, because although she is physically a virgin, she is curious about her sexuality and willing to have
12 such an encounter, thus posing no challenge whatsoever to the accomplished rake. There is no glory in a seduction of that nature. More is required and ultimately Valmont’s motive for seducing Cecile is revenge against her mother, who is interfering with his progress with Tourvel. The rake code leads the libertines to have “. . .an obsession with strategic perfection. They work to become all-seeing and all-powerful, to perfect the ability to trap any victim in their snares”24 This is especially true of the male rake who can enhance his position in society by his successful seductions. Yet it is also an expression of the aristocratic society of that time and their lifestyles where “. . .the upper classes have seen love as alternately witty, cruel, sophisticated, or brutal, but always as one additional way in which to exercise aristocratic privilege.”25 Love is a game, and the one who plays it best wins -- another seduction, another trophy. This particular aristocratic privilege for sexual license ultimately disappears in the coming centuries of Kierkegaard and Wilde. Notably this was a time of arranged marriages whose function was to add wealth and/or power to a family. Society does not seek to repress romantic love or marital love, but that which is seen as a threat to their ordered ideas of marriage and love such as the gamesmanship of rakes. That is why 18th century French society viewed eroticism as “a degraded, criminal form of love, in opposition to real love, which is noble and ideal, posing no threat to society” and thus society continued to hold its antiquated, hypocritical beliefs about sexuality causing the members who adhered to those beliefs to be mastered by guilt for any transgressions.26 The rakes in Liaisons are . . .what might be called professional profligates -- professional in the sense that, with nothing else to occupy their time, they make of sexual intrigue a business from which they derive both profit and honour. Pleasure for them, however, is incidental. Success is all. They are not troubled by scruples because they consider themselves superior to morality. They devote themselves with utter ruthlessness to exploiting the susceptibilities of others for their own ends. Their own susceptibilities are out of harm’s way -- if they ever had feelings, they have got rid of them. Only their vanity remains to be touched.27
They prey on the weak who are too innocent to recognize danger or on those who think their intelligence or devotion to morality will protect them from sentimentality and
13 passion. For additional intrigue, the rakes’ boldness and vanity leads them to prey even on their own kind by beating other rakes at their own game. Merteuil is particularly adept at this as she seduces Prevan (a renowned rake) while the whole time letting him think that he is seducing a “highly virtuous” woman and that he will be able to add her to his list of conquests. Quite the opposite is what happens – as Merteuil has stated, “As for Prevan, I want him, and I shall have him; he will want to be able to say so, and he shall not say so.”28 For a long while (until she is unmasked by her own letters), Merteuil is able to enjoy her sexual conquest while ruining Prevan who she paints as a rapist. She ultimately beats Valmont at his own game as well by causing him to give up Tourvel, and thus proves her superiority, and female-kind’s as well for she “was born to revenge [her] sex and master yours.”29 This innovation is short-lived as she is punished harshly in the end. Triumph and adherence to the code are different depending upon the gender of the seducer. Rakes require an audience before which they rehearse their sexuality. Society provides that audience for the male rakes’ seductive feats. Yet a female rake is bound by different societal rules which do not admire womanly sexual prowess, but punish it instead. The rakes’ feats require cunning, intelligence, and wits. Their actions are a scripted performance which allow for no mercy or compassion and such theatricality therefore requires an audience and adulation for successfully accomplishing such complicated feats. Because of his/her performative aspect and vanity, the rake requires an audience but the audience varies by gender. Valmont as a male rake enjoys the whole of aristocratic society as his audience, and Merteuil as a private audience who acts as his confessor and advisor as well. Unlike Valmont, Merteuil, because of the double standard imposed by 18th century French society, cannot go public with her brilliant feats of seduction. Valmont therefore provides a colleague’s appreciation and admiration of Merteuil’s manipulations. The same aristocrats who applaud Valmont for ruining women, abhor women who either act like men by displaying overt sexuality, or those who fail at maintaining their virtue unblemished. Thus Merteuil must satisfy herself with impressing and being superior to Valmont while knowing that she is deceiving society and using its respectable grandes dames by appearing to lead the life of honour she is expected to lead, while living exactly
14 the life she wants to lead -- one of independence and sexual freedom. Merteuil uses society as an audience in the sense that she plays to them and they provide the reactions she orchestrates, but they do not realize what her actions really mean. The only person who knows the true Merteuil is Valmont. The two co- conspirators communicate with each other (and their victims) by letter. In those letters they plot, plan, and execute plans using the written word as much as a communication tool with each other as a weapon to carry out their plans to brilliant success. Throughout this game of seduction, the rakes’ discourse on sexuality and use their letters to one another as a confessional tool as well. Not only do they use their own letters to execute plans, but they begin to use other people’s letters to assist their strategies and plots as well, eventually writing the letters for the victims’ signatures so that in effect those letters become just another set of letters between Valmont and Merteuil. This is significant because it shows the extent of the rakes’ power over their victims and their ability to deceive. Valmont is just as much Merteuil’s confessor as she is his. Through their explicit written discourses of sexuality they use society’s conventions to confess deviant sexualities and thus do not progress beyond those conventions. This written discourse feeds their competitive natures and vanity but also destroys them as well because their letters create a dangerous record on the rakes’ truths about sexuality and their practice of it. Innovation: The Female Rake By creating a female rake Laclos broke with the societal norms of 18th century France which determined women were mere possessions of men that were restrained and controlled by society’s stringent rules. The Marquise is cognizant of these societal restraints and therefore establishes her own “code” and “rules” to live by outwardly. She appears to be a woman of high virtue , abiding by society’s rules, but is actually merely acting. She knows what is expected of her as a woman and what would be viewed as highly unseemly. So she arms herself with and uses that knowledge to portray the persona of a virtuous woman while secretly living a life of decadence behind a mask of perfect propriety. Ironically, she “plays” by the rules while using those same rules to deceive society and the men who become her victims. The Marquise has a very strong
15 character -- not typical of a woman in those times -- she draws her strength just as men do: “from her intellect and wit, physical attractiveness, and fortune.”30 The Marquise learned at a young age that the only man that she could speak to safely upon the subject of sexuality “without the fear of compromise” as dictated by society, was her confessor. Upon finding herself a widow from a loveless arranged marriage at a young age, “. . .the young Merteuil assumed that the only thing which belonged to her was not her body but her mind, and it is her mind which had to be defended and concealed.”31 She is aware of society’s expectations of a young widow and she openly rebels by continuing to live independently after the death of her husband. The Marquise “invents” herself by creating her own “principles”, not those “found by chance, accepted unthinkingly, and followed out of habit,” but ones which are the result of reflection, created by her, as she has created herself.32 In youth, the Marquise observed society and focused not on what she was told, but what she perceived people as trying to hide. “Merteuil’s claim to libertine greatness. . .lies in her ability to both violate society’s ethical regulations and win admiration from that same society as a paragon of the virtues against which she is rebelling.”33 She tells how she used the older prudes in society to establish herself as a pillar of virtue by laying the honour of my reformation at the feet of certain of those women, who, since they are incapable of any pretensions to charm, fall back upon their merits and their virtue. . .the grateful duennas set up as my apologists; and their blind enthusiasm for what they called their ‘charge’ was carried to such a pitch that at the least suggestion of a word against me a whole battalion of prudes would cry ‘scandal’ and ‘slander.’ The same proceeding won me, too, the suffrage of our ladies with pretensions, who, convinced that I had renounced the career they pursued themselves, chose me for the object of their commendations every time they wished to prove that it was not everybody that they maligned.34
While Valmont’s position as a libertine asserts his masculinity, Merteuil’s libertinism undermines the ideas not only of a feminine nature, but of the necessity of sexual difference.35 She is not submissive or meek. Merteuil is bold, powerful, and in charge of her sexual and financial pursuits just like a man would be. This is very threatening to a closed society whose only acceptable means of expressing sexuality is
16 through its confessional discourse. It is this very repression of sexuality that facilitates Valmont’s seduction of women who are not knowledgeable of the subject matter and have not experienced sexuality as a form of pleasure. This is contrasted against the other main female characters in the novel because “the source of power for Madame de Merteuil is not, of course, physical purity, but ultimate impenetrability.”36 The gender of the rake affects the rake’s behavior and society’s perception of his/her conduct. Society created standards by which men and women had to love, marry, and live. Deviation from these standards was not acceptable and society “. . .expected women to keep up an appearance of ‘reputation,’ men of ‘honour,’ but this need be no more than a test of calculated hypocrisy, though the penalty for failure was severe.”37 “If, on the other hand, woman evades the rules of society, she returns to Nature and to the demon, she looses uncontrollable and evil forces in the collective midst. Fear is always mixed with the blame attached to woman’s licentious conduct” and thus she must be punished severely for her failings.38 Hence, the Marquise’s harsh punishment for her transgressions. While Merteuil’s counterpart, Valmont, is admired within society for his prowess as a seducer, and his reputation is enhanced with each ruined victim, that same society would condemn her because of her gender. Her manipulations thus must be even more skillful to enable her to maintain the reputation of a respectable woman in society, while living the secret life of a libertine. While a woman who betrayed her husband met harsh penalties, including torture, a similarly unfaithful man, was accepted and even admired.39 The Marquise, as a woman, thus conducts her affairs within the bounds of the rules society imposes because she knows that true to the double standard between male and female “. . .immoral behavior [prostitution, adultery, rape] could nonetheless be honorable in men when it displayed them as powerful,” while lack of virtue in a woman was always deplorable.40 Virtue is the sexual preoccupation of all the main characters in Liaisons. Merteuil must hide her true self or be shunned by the same society which exalts her. Maintaining one’s virtue is the main topic of discourse among all of the women. Madame de Volanges is obsessed with protecting her daughter Cecile from the Chevalier Danceny, whom she perceives as a threat to her daughter’s virtue, while missing the seduction and
17 education Valmont is providing right under her nose. The Presidente de Tourvel is obsessed with religion and converting Valmont from his wicked ways, while at the same time allowing herself to engage in sexual discourse with him and thus contributing to her own downfall. While Madame de Volanges discourses through correspondence to Tourvel of Valmont’s ruinous reputation and degraded ways, she is unable to discourse on the same topic with her own daughter and thus leaves her prey for Merteuil who is more than willing to openly discuss this alluring topic with Cecile. The Marquise, by knowing society’s conventions and expectations with regard to confession, is able to use that knowledge to better manipulate Cecile -- Merteuil puts Cecile in dread that her confessor (accepted by society) will not keep her confessions secret, but will instead, as the institutional representative, lack discretion and tell her mother all her secrets. Once convinced that society’s accepted way to discourse on sexuality is tainted and will result in betrayal,41 Cecile is left vulnerable to the rakes’ expert and smooth manipulations. Cecile corresponds with Danceny, Merteuil, and Valmont, opening herself up to all of them by expressing her deepest sentimentalities freely. Despite its being repressed and improper, the discourse of sexuality consumes all of these women, as it is practiced through the written word. Prey The libertine novel is also a prominent example of the internalization of guilt regarding sexuality, primarily exemplified through the libertines’ victims but also themselves. This indoctrination began early in life where 18th century young women “. . .were given very little grounding in the facts of life. They were kept immured in their convents until they were ready for marriage and then were plunged into the great world, dangerously unprotected in their ignorance against the wiles of the Valmonts and Merteuils.”42 Society, instead of educating these young women, was “. . .willfully encouraging the depredations of the immoral, not only by refusing women the safeguard of a proper education, but by denying them the protection of a marriage for love -- and then turning a blind eye to the consequences.”43 Cecile and Tourvel are raised in this manner. They are dependent on the permitted discourse of sexuality to acquire knowledge. Cecile depends upon discourse with her convent friends and Merteuil because social standards do not allow her to discuss the topic with her mother. Tourvel’s
18 discourse occurs both through letter-writing and actual confessions with her priest (the verbally accepted forum for sexual discourse). Even Merteuil’s only recourse to discourse on sexuality without “fear of compromise” was her confessor because she could not gain knowledge from her mother and not having gone to a convent, she had no female friends to talk to either. So she says, “. . .overcoming a slight sense of shame, I laid claim to a sin I had not committed, accusing myself of having done ‘everything that women do.’ That was the expression I used, but in using it I had, in fact, no idea what it might convey. . .the good priest made so much of the crime that I concluded the pleasure of committing it must be extreme, and my desire for knowledge gave way to a desire for gratification.”44 It is the Marquise’s “inside” knowledge of society’s contradictory aspects which allows her to manipulate and take advantage of Cecile’s ignorance to satisfy her motives of revenge. She and Valmont do not only instruct Cecile on the physical acts of sex, but teach her the actual graphic vocabulary of “love.” She literally discourses on sexuality in such a manner that no proper woman of society would have the knowledge to do. “There is nothing in it that is not called by its technical name, and I am already laughing at the interesting conversation this will afford her and Gercourt on the first night of their marriage. Nothing is more amusing than her ingenuousness in using what little she already knows of the jargon! She has no idea that there is any other way of referring to the same things.”45 Although at the time Cecile is unaware of her transgressions with regard to sexuality, once she discovers her true status as a ruined woman her internalization of that guilt causes her to flee and hide in a convent. Much like Cecile, Tourvel falls victim to Valmont despite her virtue, religion, and fidelity to both her husband and the Church. She is convinced that temptation could never influence her. “Valmont understands Tourvel’s hesitancies and the moral and social underpinning of her virtue much better than she. He uses this knowledge to seduce her.”46 He is able to anticipate her actions and uses his skill at writing to weaken her resolve. The Vicomte is aware of how Tourvel will internalize the guilt she feels at having passionate love and desires for a man other than her husband. Valmont thus utilizes her virtue and religion to his advantage by deceiving her into believing that he is a pious, good-hearted man who has merely gone astray, and that she will be able to
19 convert him from his wicked ways by her impeccable example. It is through that deception that she initially grants him access to her company. In writing to Mme. de Volanges, Tourvel tells her that Valmont “. . .admits his faults with rare candour. He confides freely in me, and I lecture him with the utmost severity. You who know him, will agree that this would be a fine conversion to make. . .”47 Yet this, and the evidence of his “charitable works” are all a ruse designed to gain access to Tourvel, to win her confidence, manipulate her virtuous pride, and then seduce her and bring him great triumph. Mme. de Volanges warns her that Valmont is “[e]ven more treacherous and dangerous than he is charming and fascinating, he has never, since his early youth, taken a single step or spoken a single word without some dishonourable or criminal intention. . .his conduct is the outcome of his principles.”48 Valmont uses religion and unrequited love to control Tourvel. When asked to leave the chateau, he asks that she grant him the small favor of letting him write to her. She accedes, and he uses his most powerful weapon to seduce her. Valmont crafts a letter to Tourvel which sounds like he is terribly tormented and in the depths of despair. In actuality, he is describing a sexual scenario he is currently engaged in with a prostitute he is using as a “desk” upon which to write his letter to Tourvel.49 Tourvel appears the most attuned to the disciplinary society of 18th century France, as she is over-wrought with guilt and seeks refuge from Valmont within society’s accepted institution. She turns in vain to her confessor and her faith. Valmont though understands precisely what society’s self-discipline requires and uses her confessor, Pere Anselme, to gain an in- person interview with her, after she has fled from his side. Valmont, under false pretenses, asks Pere Anselme to set up an interview with Tourvel. He tells the priest that “[o]nly after this initial expiation could I dare to lay at your feet the humiliating confession of my past aberrations and implore your intercession in the interests of a much more important and unhappily more difficult reconciliation. . .I shall await your reply with the impatience of a penitent who is eager to make amends. . .”50 In turn, Pere Anselme, as Valmont’s tool, and as the religious authority, entreats Tourvel to grant the visit, and even states that “. . .by refusing she would perhaps risk standing in the way of [the Vicomte’s] happy restoration to the fold and opposing thereby in some sort the
20 merciful designs of Providence. . .”51 It is in fact at this very meeting that Valmont finally consummates his seduction. Danceny is not as central a character and is not initially a direct target for seduction by the rakes. He does however become the rakes’ tool with Cecile and in their war. It is Danceny, who in the end, after being seduced by Merteuil and “betrayed” by both Valmont and Merteuil brings the downfall of the two rakes within society. Danceny is responsible for initiating a duel with Valmont and through that, it is into his hands where that correspondence from Merteuil falls and results in her unmasking before society. As dictated by custom, Danceny and Cecile’s initial discourse is compiled of love letters. These same letters eventually become authored by the experts in sexual discourse – Merteuil dictating the letters to Danceny for Cecile, and Valmont writing the letters to Cecile for Danceny. In essence, the correspondence between Cecile and Danceny becomes a second set of letters between the Marquise and Valmont as the discourse of sexuality through writing is further contrived by their over-reaching involvement. The Letters, Confessions, and Discourse Seduction and manipulation are viewed as an art and “the true principles of an art that is, as we have often observed, very similar to that of warfare.”52 Liaisons utilizes the conventions of the time to discourse on sexuality -- writing and confession. Through its use of conventions Liaisons fits exactly within the Foucaldian model because confession, whether written or verbal, is a disciplinary tool. French society was wrought with rules about propriety and in particular about the discourse of sexuality so that if the rules were not kept, then the transgressors were punished by that same society by being shunned or forced to hide in a convent or monastery. This had progressed from the punishment- spectacle of prior centuries which included the scaffold, quartering, and other brutal punishments resulting in death. Yet the transition in reality is from one type of repression to another (one mandated by the monarch, the other mandated by society). 18th century French aristocratic society had developed to a point where disciplinary societal codes were learned and adhered to strictly (even if they were a farce) and the punishment for breaking the rules was internalized within those same members of society, making the process more “refined” and “civilized” yet repressive nonetheless. The discourse on
21 sexuality within the confessional was likewise rule-bound in that it was the only proper place to discuss sexuality and it must be done in such a way as to repent for the malfeasance and come to terms with God and the religious institution which was there to help guide the way – thus removing the internalized guilt. The rakes, though, create their own rules that mimic the Church’s while perverting them and turning them on their head. The very creation of new rules and their complete submission to those codes renders a parallel mechanism just as exacting as society’s. Writing is the libertine’s tool to discourse on sexuality (masquerading in some instances as love) both with intended victims and each other. “The art of writing does not so much resemble the art of love as it resembles the art of seduction. The danger in writing for the seducer is that in trying to imitate nature, i.e., love, he reveals his art, i.e., seduction.”53 This is in fact what ultimately happens in the novel. The Marquise and Valmont are discovered to be rakes and libertines through their very correspondence with each other which exposes their discourses on sexuality and seduction. This exposure is necessary in an Age of Punishment in order for the tale to be moralistic and to show society the repercussions for living a life of sexual corruption, but Laclos’ ending is ambiguous. While all the characters end up badly, Valmont could be perceived to have died an honourable death through a gentleman’s duel. This outcome is problematic to society because a disciplinary era demands punishment of deviance to deter others from committing the same transgressions. Valmont, while dead, is afforded a heroic death contra to his scandalous life. The rakes use writing to their advantage to manipulate their prey and each other, while also using it as a means of sexual discourse and confession between one another. “It was not love but power gained through the manipulation of another’s emotions which has been the Vicomte’s goal from the very beginning.”54 Initially, when he is strictly adhering to the rake code this is true. Valmont utilizes the downfall of women to demonstrate his sexual and mental prowess. As an expert on the discourse of sexuality, Valmont utilizes the pen as his most dangerous weapon to accomplish his ultimate goal of seduction. But Valmont violates the rake’s code by letting his emotions become involved and it is this mistake which leads him and the Marquise to declare war on one another. The other characters likewise use writing to communicate with one another and
22 to confide in each other on the dangerous topics of love and sexuality. However, the rakes pull the strings in those communications by becoming the authors of those letters, intercepting letters, or when making their own letters appear to come from other people through deception. Valmont, after being banned from writing to Tourvel, tricks her into believing that she is receiving a letter from her husband when in fact, it is from him. By discoursing on sexuality with the rakes the novel’s characters become entangled in a web of deceit and manipulation that brings their dismal ends. One lesson learned, contrary to society’s teachings, is that a poor choice of confessor is even more dangerous than no confessor at all. Therefore, society’s notion that discourse on sexuality must be limited to the confessional results in leaving people vulnerable prey to the real masters of sexual discourse and practice. Cecile because she is afraid of her mother and her confessor, turns to the Marquise and Valmont, who are very dangerous confidantes and advisors. In time, Cecile permits the Marquise to not only see the letters she receives from Danceny, but allows her to dictate her responses to him as well, while at the other end, Valmont is likewise “assisting” Danceny in authoring letters for him. The two rakes are manipulating the affair so it does not ruin their plans for revenge. Tourvel also changes confessors and confidantes throughout the course of the novel. Initially, she relies heavily on Pere Anselme, her confessor and religious authority, for spiritual guidance, and on Madame de Volanges for more worldly advice. Once ensnared by the unrelenting Valmont, as predicted by Mme. de Volanges, Tourvel switches to a confidante whom she believes will be more sympathetic and less critical of her plight, Madame de Rosemonde, Valmont’s aunt. But in the end, when she feels all is lost and she is a “ruined” woman, Tourvel again seeks the comfort of religion to grant her absolution from her sins. Through both Cecile’s and Tourvel’s plights it becomes obvious that societal rules have failed them as they both end up disgraced because of their affairs. Laclos provides a dim view of relying on the church and confessors to maintain its followers on the paths of righteousness and shows, how despite strong religious background, it is easy for the rakes to defeat those beliefs and achieve a derailment from “good” into a life of wickedness and excess by their knowledge of religious tenets to accomplish those ends. Valmont’s use of religion is a mockery of its rules and society’s
23 beliefs. He uses charitable works to gain Tourvel’s trust and belief that he is a good person at heart trying to recover from his failings. He uses Pere Anselme to gain access to Tourvel and debauches her during the meeting the priest arranges for him. Thus social rules and institutions, despite the internalization of discipline, fail its members and its purpose. Climax and Denouement The peak action of the novel comes late and then quickly spirals to the end. In one way or another, all who have been touched by the rakes’ schemes are ruined, although some much more so than others and some at their own hands. Because of the internalization of guilt created by society and its institutions, the characters’ demise is in part contributed to by society. Foucault’s theory of punishment as it relates to a disciplined society where the punishment must be more humane and more fitting to the “crime” becomes clear in the conclusion of the novel. His belief is that “it is the certainty of being punished and not the horrifying spectacle of public punishment that must discourage crime.”55 This text is a perfect example of the progression from the punishment-spectacle to the discipline required and adopted by 18th century French society which still results in a repressed society. While Laclos’ novel first shows the libertine lifestyle in all its glamour and attractiveness, through the resolution of the novel the social and religious conventions of the time win out through the moralistic ending that punishes all of the transgressors. However, there is much ambiguity in Valmont’s final fate. While he does die as a result of one of his many schemes, he dies a gentleman’s death and is not dishonoured publicly the way Merteuil is. He is spared from public disgrace and humiliation. Valmont’s death is an acknowledgment of convention -- he duels with Danceny who is morally right, yet the Vicomte dies an honourable death.56 Danceny as the deceived and betrayed friend and lover, challenges Valmont to a duel where he is mortally wounded and dies. A duel is dignified, thus the Vicomte is given a hero’s, and not a scoundrel’s death. Valmont is the “aristocratic roue [who] is the brilliant representative of a particular social class whose main problem is the search for sophisticated pleasure.”57 Laclos breaks with convention not only by his creation of a female rake, but more conspicuously by his refusal to assess too harsh a judgment of Valmont.
24 Valmont goes out gallantly and Merteuil goes out with an infamous character to be remembered forevermore. Gender is quite significant in the determination of the outcomes of the characters in Laclos’ novel. 18th century French aristocratic society was a “. . .profoundly unjust society which condemns sexual promiscuity on principle but which in practice indiscriminately punishes only the females, whether they be victims or practitioners of license.”58 The female characters, including the vibrant and intelligent female rake, are punished, both by themselves and by society, in much harsher ways for their indiscretions and failure to abide by the institutional rules of the day. Laclos’ ending shows Foucault’s theory that “it is ugly to be punishable, but there is no glory in punishing” in action.59 The Marquise, by virtue of being female, does not end her days with honour, she is instead cruelly rebuffed by the very society which held her up as a pillar of virtue. She is ostracized and hooted at the opera by her peers. And she is further punished by losing her physical beauty and fortune as well. Her internalized ugliness is brought to the surface where all can see. She is left with no choice but to flee Paris with as much money, jewels, and silver as she can carry leaving behind only debts and disrepute. Madame de Tourvel seals her fate by permitting Valmont access to her through letters and by disregarding the warnings of Madame de Volanges. Tourvel, who thought herself stronger and morally superior to Valmont’s other conquests, finds that despite her religious convictions, she is vulnerable to the written word. Even her confessor is unable to save or heal the wounds of an illicit love affair with a rake. She has been programmed so deeply by society that she not only feels remorse, but feels guilt to such extremes as to drive her to exile and death. Even if Valmont did love her, his pride, reputation, and standing in society as a rake are more important to him than she is and when his vanity is threatened and he is in danger of becoming a laughing-stock he leaves her and irreparably strikes at her heart by sending her a letter written by Merteuil. Tourvel’s last writing, an example of her internalized punishment, is not addressed to anyone. It rebukes Valmont for his cruelty and asks her husband to come take his revenge on an unfaithful wife again showing her deep guilt and self-punishment, which is much worse and causes more torment than any public-spectacle society could create. Her only form of expiation in her
25 mind is death so she dies at the convent in seclusion because society’s rules cannot save her, and therefore, neither can Laclos. Cecile, likewise, as she was no doubt taught at the convent, internalizes her guilt once she realizes the gravity of her sins and inflicts upon herself the penance of finishing her days in a convent as a nun. Once Valmont’s and Merteuil’s true natures become public, she knows Danceny will not have her, Gercourt will not have her, and neither will anyone else. She is otherwise ruined for the society of which her mother desperately wanted her to be a prominent part. Her actions are so shameful and deplorable in one so young, as dictated by the Church, the only place she feels she can live out the rest of her life is in the convent she flees to without even telling her mother. The institution that should have instructed and saved her from becoming a victim to the rakes is the only recourse left to her in her shame. Madame de Volanges never learns to discourse openly with her daughter and thus is left only with the knowledge that she would not disapprove of Cecile’s decision if she knew her motives.60 Madame de Rosemonde, who is privy to all the sordid details of Cecile’s affairs after-the-fact through the letters that find their way into her hands, can only urge Madame de Volanges to not oppose the vocation Cecile has displayed. She therefore does not shed light on the situation but abides by society’s dictates of not discoursing on the topic of sexuality and allowing the vicious circle of ignorance to continue undisturbed. Even Madame de Rosemonde, despite her old age, and benevolence, suffers through her association with Valmont. She is not spared, but bears the cross of knowing the truth about all the characters, including her beloved nephew and heir whom she outlives. She also becomes the keeper of the letters and truths of what is found in them when they are delivered to her by Danceny. Ultimately, through this action, she becomes everyone’s confessor in that she knows their secrets and guards them without having been able to effectuate any change in any of the outcomes despite her late knowledge. Unlike Danceny who breaks the tradition of silence by publishing two of the infamous letters, Madame de Rosemonde locks away the discourse of sexuality as she has been taught to do. Danceny’s fate leads to religious orders and sequestration as well. He is forced to flee in fear of his safety after having dueled with and killed Valmont who was of a higher
26 social rank. He stays in Paris only long enough to revenge himself (and Valmont) on the Marquise and to complete the tasks put upon him by Madame de Rosemonde. He leaves Paris for Malta where he will take vows that “will shut [him] off from a world which. . .[he has] so much reason to abhor”61 and where he will try to forget all that he was a party to, including being a pawn to both Valmont and the Marquise, and being deceived by the woman he thought innocent and pure. He too punishes himself by denying himself a happy life within Parisian society where he might have been very successful. Laclos exemplifies through his two sophisticated rakes that “[t]o be the artful seducer is to see seduction as an art. . . Seduction is not the art of love but the love of art. Valmont is the artful seducer because he loves his art more than he loves his love.”62 They live life as if the world really were a stage and perform great feats that bring them both great triumph and tremendous tragedy. Laclos’ Liaisons uses the epistolary form of the novel to comment on French society’s views of sex, gender, and above all, how society’s accepted forms of sexual discourse (private writings and confession) do not serve their intended purpose and actually are quite counterproductive. Laclos shows that despite the progression from the torturous punishment-spectacle Foucault is correct in concluding that society remains repressed through its internalization of guilt which causes its members to masochistically punish themselves as a result of society’s strict codes.
27 CHAPTER 2 19TH CENTURY – THE SEDUCER’S DIARY
The Seducer’s Diary begins with the seducer’s cautionary words “Take care, my beautiful stranger! Take care!” and “Watch out; the monster is approaching. . .”63 Ironically, while the seducer is correct, knowing his prey and knowing his intentions, his warning to the victim will never be heard or fully comprehended. Diary is created in the 19th century and just like Liaisons, it is part of society’s progression from the punishment-spectacle to a disciplined society where members police themselves and self- discipline is exalted as a sought-after norm. Unlike the artful seducers of Liaisons, however, Johannes, the aesthetic (or reflective) seducer of Diary, is more interested in the art of seduction and the method of conquering, than in the physical act itself -- sometimes finding triumph in seduction without full consummation. He does not need, seek, or want a confidante or audience to share in his great feats, thus, “Kierkegaard’s use of the diary- form has the obvious advantage of allowing attention to be focused almost exclusively on the psychology of seduction.”64 Like Laclos, Kierkegaard uses the epistolary form as a means of sexual dialogue – here between the seducer and the victim – but more importantly between the seducer and himself. The epistolary form brings a new way for the individual to self-police his conduct as set against society’s rules and the rake’s own rules. With a continuation away from punishment spectacles, the need for self-discipline is greater and the letter-form (in this case Johannes’ diary) is key, for its form allows communication and privacy at the same time. Kierkegaard’s diary also introduces the true “aesthete” who needs only to wander off into meditations and philosophical asides as he tells his story. Therefore, his confession is a private one consisting of private writings and an analysis of his being and emotions throughout the seduction. It also serves as a confession and verdict on his actions. The seducer’s diary-writings function to reveal the seducer as “self,” as man. This is true of Johannes, the rake of Kierkegaard’s The Seducer’s Diary, whose main object of seduction is Cordelia, and in part, of Oscar Wilde, who will be further discussed in Chapter 3. The treatment of gender as shown through the character of Cordelia as object in a patriarchal society, shows little, if any progression from Laclos’ work. The
28 new aesthetic seducer with his private and public discourse on sexuality is still very dangerous, despite the different motivations behind his seduction of women. The ideology of aestheticism begins with the premise that all individuals will achieve higher development and progress to higher stages of existence. The aesthetic seducer is concerned with how a seduction affects him internally as well as how he affects and changes his victim. The victim is seen as “other,” specifically as “being-for- other” -- “being-for-man” -- while the seducer, as previously mentioned, is viewed as “self.” This is significant because it further explains Johannes’ philosophy and his treatment not only of Cordelia, but of all the women he seduces and the rules which he applies to his own life. The aesthete revels in irony. Unlike Laclos’ libertines, the aesthete does not require that society applaud his conquests, but in order to be successful in his seductions, much like Merteuil, though for wholly different reasons, the aesthete wears a mask of complete propriety and normalcy before society to keep his machinations secret. The same is true of his journal writings -- the diary is completely personal and secret, for his benefit and analysis, not society’s. The aesthetic seducer is thus a man of the mind who analyzes and explores the “self” and realms outside the actual world while the form he utilizes to monitor his progress is tied to the 18th and 19th century emphasis on self-discipline and internalization of guilt for any infractions. Much of the aesthetic seducer’s analysis is done through private writings. It is important to note that contrary to Liaisons, in The Seducer’s Diary the epistolary nature of the work is revealed through two different types of writings. Kierkegaard includes typical letters (or public writings) which Johannes sends to Cordelia and uses to manipulate and seduce her, and he also uses an additional epistolary element by including the personal writings of the seducer to which Johannes can return to time and time again for additional analysis. It is the journal aspect of the novel that allows the seducer to lay out all of his observations and schemes so freely. Because “Johannes is ostensibly writing with a complete disregard for other people’s reactions, his subtle and leisurely analysis of his own state of mind frees him from any dependence on those objective moral and social factors which still influence Valmont’s behaviour. As the product of solitude, Johannes’ diary virtually eliminates all consideration of Cordelia as a living personality important for her own sake. . .”65 It is a private discourse between Johannes
29 and himself where he not only analyzes, but also judges himself and thus becomes part of the internally surveyed and policed 19th century society. Further emphasizing that her role as an individual both in the novel and society is very small, and that she is object, not subject, is the fact that only three brief letters from Cordelia are included within the collection -- “the only information given about her is what Johannes chooses to reveal in his diary,” thus there is no independent information available to the reader about his victim.66 Cordelia’s role and “function is not to exist in her own right, but merely to be an integral element in the fulfillment of [Johannes’] personal projects and to serve as a constituent of his own self-awareness.”67 This is a very patriarchal approach which expresses the ideology of “otherness” or “being-for- man” that is found throughout the work. Once “. . .‘otherness’ is internalized by women, so that the love of man is the only imaginable meaning of their lives, women tend toward the patterns that recur in Cordelia. . .a syndrome that is derived from their [women’s] victimization. . .”68 The “syndrome” is evident in that Cordelia allows herself to be re- molded by Johannes. Her beliefs change, her taste in books changes, what she finds interesting and common is altered; and yet she does not seem to realize that it is happening and that it is happening at the hands of Johannes who initially does not even demonstrate to her that he has an interest in her. Johannes even provides her with a suitor who is completely inadequate, and through that suitor begins to instruct and mold her tastes. She is thus his victim in many different respects because of the fact that he is an aesthetic seducer, unlike Valmont. By the 19th century, the libertine novel in an epistolary format was still quite popular, though the tone had changed and progressed somewhat from Laclos’ Liaisons. This popularity is significant to the time period because of the function it plays in the more “civilized” and “humane” society of the 19th century whereby the written form is a mode of placing subversive, deviant behaviour under surveillance without the need of the power of the monarch or police. The Seducer’s Diary was published in 1843, and the discourse on sexuality evolved in that instead of focusing on the carnal pleasures of the rake, (as were evidenced in Liaisons), the focus was on the intellectual and philosophical aspects of the seduction and the changes that such seduction caused in the victim and in the seducer himself. Even though the seducer acts according to his own libertine rules
30 and not society’s, the fact that he uses the epistolary form shows some conformity to the policing techniques of the century. The relationship between victim and seducer is no longer a static relationship of physical pleasure alone. Instead of moving from one victim to the next, unchanged, seeking merely greater adventure and more sophisticated feats to impress the purist aristocratic society which was also the rakes’ audience, the seducer here changes his very “self” from conquest to conquest and does not have or need an audience before which to display his brilliant feats of seduction and triumph. In fact, Johannes even admits in his journal writings that “[i]t has never occurred to me to wish for confidants or to boast of my adventures” so that in this regard he is completely opposite from the rakes in Liaisons who need someone to boast to, even if it is only each other.69 Johannes’ vanity, while great, does not require him to seek outside affirmation of his abilities; he seeks to know himself better through each seduction and to quantify how it has affected and changed him as well as how it changes his victim. Unlike Valmont, “the number [Johannes] has seduced becomes a matter of indifference, what concerns us [and him] is the art, the thoroughness, the profound cunning with which he seduces.”70 This version of the epistolary novel therefore “resulted in a much more detailed psychological analysis, the epistolary form allowing the novel to strike a semi-confidential note and yet be contained within a definite social framework.”71 Kierkegaard’s work thus provides the traditional means of conversing on sexuality through letter-writing to the victim while allowing Johannes to “speak” freely through his journal writings because those writings are only meant to be shared with himself as a personal discourse of analysis and learning. The discourse is one engaged in by the seducer alone through his writings and reflection, while maintaining separate, actual discourses with the victim to arrive at a successful seduction. Johannes is an aesthete and “for him as for the originators of the discourse, aesthetics refers not in the first place to art but to the whole lived dimension of sensory experience, denoting a phenomenology of daily life before it comes to signify cultural production.”72 Johannes is a rake who has quite successfully seduced many women, but for him the seduction is sometimes complete with much less than full sexual consummation. This is a more sophisticated seducer than Laclos’ rakes who seek only physical gratification and admiration. Johannes desires different things from different
31 women and it is in achieving that which he wants that he denotes his success. “One sees from the diary that what he at times desired was something totally arbitrary, a greeting, for example, and would accept no more at any price, because that was the most beautiful thing about the other person. With the help of his intellectual gifts, he knew how to tempt a girl, how to attract her without caring to possess her in the stricter sense.”73 Johannes wishes to possess the women he targets but “. . .wants only the most beautiful thing a girl has. . .However, when he settles upon Cordelia as the object for total seduction, he wants the most beautiful thing about her which is her total nature” and he will not stop until he has achieved that total possession.74 It is that desire that leads him and Cordelia down a path of ultimate pain, guilt, and solitude, which is their punishment for breaking society’s rules. Johannes’ private writings capture his schemes and the progression of Cordelia’s seduction. They are committed to his journal, kept in a locked drawer, away from prying eyes so that he may read and re-live the affair and evaluate the seduction. In addition to the diary writing, he maintains a letter-correspondence with his primary victim, Cordelia. Unlike the Liaisons rakes who are preoccupied with publicly ruining their victims in society or achieving specific goals with regards to their victims, “the seducer of Either/Or is preoccupied with his own erotic strategies, not with the hapless object of them; his reflectiveness, so to speak, has become his immediacy.”75 To Johannes, Cordelia is not really an individual, but instead is merely an object through which he can achieve his own personal goals. But just as in Liaisons, Johannes’ writings are of paramount importance, both personally, and in helping him attain the seduction of Cordelia. Letters are a preferable mode of communication because “[w]hen she has received a letter, when its sweet poison has entered her blood, then a word is sufficient to make her love burst forth. . .in a letter one can more readily have free reign; in a letter I can throw myself at her feet in superb fashion etc. -- something that would easily seem like nonsense if I did it in person, and the illusion would be lost.”76 This ideology is very similar to that used by Valmont, which is that the written word can convey much stronger emotion and sway a victim without the seducer having to be present. As Johannes further states “. . .letters are and will continue to be a priceless means of making an impression on a young girl; the dead letter of writing often has much more
32 influence than the living word. A letter is a secretive communication; one is master of the situation, feels no pressure from anyone’s actual presence, and I do believe a young girl would prefer to be all alone with her ideal, that is, at certain moments, and precisely at those moments when it has the strongest effect on her mind.”77 A letter provides a forum for emotions that might otherwise seem ridiculous or contrived in person. This is a unique tool for the well-educated Johannes who uses a combination of reconnaissance, letter-writing, and the introduction of a suitor to serve as a distraction, to successfully seduce Cordelia. Through his writings, Johannes exerts his power over Cordelia and communicates his feelings without seeming overly-sentimental. Again, once access is gained by writing, access to sexual conquest will shortly and certainly follow. The combination of both types of writings is paramount to his success: In his private writings he is able to reflect on his strategies and progress, and make his confession, while in his letters to Cordelia he is able to effectuate the seduction and bring it to completion. The aesthetic seducer, “in order to demonstrate the perfection of his art and the subtlety of his approach. . .will henceforth concentrate on one woman whose conquest is considered to offer a particularly stern challenge to his skill.”78 It is therefore “through the seduction of Cordelia that he seeks to demonstrate the subtle implications of his art” yet there is no one there to know or witness the seduction except himself. Johannes in his seduction of a girl knew “how to bring [her] to the high point where he was sure that she would offer everything. When the affair had gone so far, he broke off, without the least overture having been made on his part, without a word about love having been said, to say nothing of a declaration, a promise.”79 Therefore, his seductions occur in the world of the aesthetic instead of in the actual world that Valmont and Merteuil inhabited. Johannes’ victims are left intact, without any physical change occurring to them, while in fact many internal changes do take place. They are left tormented with self- doubt and alone; unable to discuss the seduction with anyone and left to punish themselves for allowing themselves to fall victim to a rake. Johannes’ manner of seduction leaves his victims without much recourse for grieving or healing because in the world of actuality they are left with the doubt as to whether a seduction had actually taken place. “Such victims were, therefore, of a very special kind. They were not unfortunate girls who, as outcasts or in the belief that they were cast out by society,
33 grieved wholesomely and intensely and, once in a while at times when the heart was too full, ventilated it in hate or forgiveness. No visible change took place in them; they lived in the accustomed context, were respected as always, and yet they were changed, almost unaccountably to themselves and incomprehensibly to others.”80 This is an aspect and example of the internalized guilt and punishment of this self-disciplined society. Unlike Valmont who seeks glory among a certain aristocratic societal group, Johannes is not “concerned with the public humiliation of his victim. From the very first it is made clear that they underwent ‘no visible change’; they were not publicly ‘dishonoured’ or forced to modify their relationship with their social environment; the only fundamental change they experienced was within their own being; it was to themselves, not to others, that they became inexplicable.”81 That, though, is the cruelest punishment to endure, for the victims are left in a confused state, forced to uphold the rules of society which further internalize their guilt, punishment, and suffering. In Liaisons, Tourvel is ruined and seeks refuge from society and her own shame in a convent and eventually giving herself up to death; Cordelia however, goes on just as before in society’s eyes, yet she is not as before, but cannot express what has happened to her to anyone. Particularly difficult for her is the fact that it is she and not Johannes who breaks off their engagement. So it is even more difficult for her to determine what happened, realizing at some point that she was expertly manipulated by him, yet he never suggested anything directly nor forced her to part with him. She turns therefore to the epistolary form in desperation only to find her letters, just like her questions, unanswered and her confession unable to be made or heard by anyone. Cordelia becomes completely emotionally involved in her relationship with Johannes. Johannes, as a seducer, must and does “maintain his emotional distance to accomplish his end; each [seducer] has a strategy and leaves nothing to chance. . .he chooses an object he supposes to be vulnerable. . .For the seducer seeks not only to create himself in the image he has chosen but to create some change in his object, to make this creature his own creation.”82 As an aesthetic seducer, Johannes is not interested in his victims beyond what intellectual stimulation they can provide and what changes they effectuate in him. Johannes selects his victims very carefully. Unlike Valmont who chooses women of experience and sometimes guile to further humiliate them when he
34 successfully seduces them, Johannes selects innocent young girls exclusively. He acknowledges that he will “. . .continually seek my prey among young girls, not among young women. A woman is less natural, more coquettish; a relationship with her is not beautiful, not interesting; it is piquant, and the piquant is always the last.”83 He prefers girls that are not yet molded and are malleable to his art. Besides living in the world of imagination, seeking the interesting, the aesthete dwells in the realm of irony and by choosing irony, the reflective seducer is raised “out of [his] mindless communion with the world, critically unhinging [him] from the real; but since it [irony] yields no positive alternative truth it leaves the subject giddily suspended between actual and ideal, in and out of the world simultaneously.”84 Johannes lives in the world of imagination partly because of his aesthetic nature but also because while he is in that world and not in the “real” he is able to escape the rules of society that would find him guilty of transgression for his seductions of young girls. As an aesthete, this reality of guilt is not lovely and therefore not interesting. Johannes, as ironist, through his reflection and lifestyle, is “constantly trying to rise above the stultifying mediocrity of ordinary life.”85 He does this by always seeking only the interesting both in life and in the women he seduces, or in trying to create the interesting in those women if it is not readily found. In irony there is no feeling, no right or wrong and therefore, no guilt or deviance. Irony is ever-present in the seducer because the seducer’s character and behaviour are “based on a radical deception, [it] must always contain a strongly ironical element since there is a direct contradiction between what he pretends to be and what he truly is, between the mask seen by his victim and his real nature as known to himself.”86 But more important to the reflective seducer than the “objective” irony described above, is the “subjective” irony contained within the reflective seducer’s concern regarding “. . .mainly the nature of his own self-consciousness. . .this type of seducer does not deceive merely to gratify his desires, but to become aware of the effects of his deception upon his own self-image.”87 Through his diary he is able to relay events and his actions through his interpretation of them and not society’s. He is thus able to create a palatable reality free from remorse for his actions while using it as a confessional for the discourse of sexuality.
35 As described in the journal, to Johannes Cordelia is a project -- “the question always remains whether her womanliness is sufficiently strong to reflect itself, or whether it will be enjoyed only as beauty and loveliness; the question is whether one dares to bend the bow to greater tension. It is in itself something great to find a purely immediate womanliness, but if one dares to risk altering it, one has the interesting.”88 And the “interesting” is what Johannes values above else, both as ironist and aesthete, because he prefers to live in the imaginary world of his creation rather than in the actual world because “under the esthetic sky, everything is buoyant, beautiful, transient; when ethics arrives on the scene, everything becomes harsh, angular, infinitely langweiligt [boring].”89 and boring is what he fears the most. “Boring” brings with it the harsh reality of his guilt and the need for punishment under the rules of a disciplinary society which has inculcated self-policing of each of its members even in the most private and secret arenas. Seduction, Deviance, and Gender Just as the seducer changes in the 19th century, so too does the discourse on sexuality in that part of that discourse becomes a private and inner discourse for the seducer which is not shared with anyone, while the open discourse with his victim through letters in addition to face-to-face interaction remains the same. The discourse on sexuality thus becomes even more internalized than it was in the 18th century as society continues to move away from the punishment-spectacle. The use of letters is key in influencing and aiding in a successful seduction and this is demonstrated through Johannes’ effective use of writing a vast array of letters to Cordelia and ultimately seducing her without her realizing she is falling for him and while being courted by another. Just as in Liaisons, where Valmont reaches the depths of Tourvel’s soul through his persistent correspondence with her, so too Johannes is able to sculpt Cordelia into the subjective “other” he wishes her to become. The volume of letters is immense in both works and it is through this constant barrage of letters that the seducers are able to penetrate their victims. Even the “editor” of the letters in Diary is shocked at the discovery “. . . that at times the letters succeeded one another at such short intervals that she seems to have received several in one day” and thus by doing so Johannes achieved the effect he wanted “. . .through the passionate energy with which he used this and every
36 means to hold Cordelia at the pinnacle of passion.”90 He maintained her in a constant state of courtship anxiety and excitement through his unfaltering attentions and thus was in her every thought at every moment enabling his success in her seduction. Once again the admonition of the editor of Liaisons rings true that to become a reader is a dangerous activity because it allows the seducer to come in and access the victim at her most vulnerable, when she is not on guard and the seducer is not even physically present. The discourse in Diary is primarily between Johannes and himself in his reflections, while only some letters are directed to his victim. Johannes does not have a confidante or society as an audience to whom he can communicate or display his feats and the ironic content of those successes nor does he want them because they will judge him harshly in this century that is moving away from class levels and pleasures for the idle aristocracy no matter at whose expense. So, “[i]mmured within the circle of his own feelings, he possesses no external criterion by which the deeper meaning of his conduct can be effectively judged.”91 Johannes’ attitude towards society is “much more complex and subjective. . .In all his activities he preserves a kind of incognito, offering to the world a portrait of a ‘normal’ man. In no way does the real meaning of his personality depend on the judgment of other people, for they are never allowed to penetrate the secret of his inner life.”92 Not even his trusted friend/servant, who becomes the editor of this work, is privy to Johannes’ secret life until he finds the journal which is usually kept behind a lock in a desk drawer. At least to this extent Johannes recognizes that there are societal rules which must be obeyed and he does so while maintaining a guise of propriety to protect his true nature from being discovered. Even Cordelia is not permitted to know Johannes completely and throughout the affair and subsequent break-up, she is never able to truly penetrate the enigmatic shroud he has cast over himself, making it impossible for her to decide whether he is a ruthless seducer or something else. For her, his character traits and motives remain very fluid and difficult to pin down. This is due to Johannes’ desire to “live poetically” by “. . .develop[ing] the imaginative possibilities of the self” and thus his “constant reflection on the ‘unusual’ and ‘interesting’.”93 Through this reflection and need for the unusual and interesting in life, it becomes obvious to the reader that Johannes is “a man who finds the normal social values of his environment incompatible with his deepest personal needs, he
37 is particularly prone to consider as ‘interesting’ those situations. . .in which ‘natural appearance’ is in contradiction to the inner life” and recognizes, like Valmont, that his cravings for the interesting become more difficult to satisfy as time goes by, and this leaves him not only alone, but empty.94 In the 19th century there is no longer a place for Johannes or libertines to publicly display their true natures and still be accepted among society. Thus the need for secrecy and discretion (regardless of gender) is even greater during an era of surveillance for deviance. This is a dramatic progression from the prior century which allowed aristocrats the freedom to enjoy their “illegalities” and deviancies so long as those acts were carried on behind closed doors and behind masks of infallible and unfaltering propriety. Cordelia’s seduction is based on the premise that “only in freedom can love be total, its sacrifice really worthwhile.”95 It is in bringing her to this freedom and developing in her the desire for true love and the “interesting” where Johannes sets his goals. Cordelia is chosen because she is a worthwhile challenge to the seducer’s abilities yet “in spite of her youth and innocence, she is a romantic girl with a yearning for the ‘extraordinary’ and ‘interesting’ and a ‘craving for the unusual’ that constantly impels her towards the ‘infinite possibilities’ of life. She is a ‘proud’ girl with a soul that has been ‘nourished on the divine ambrosia of the ideal’. By constantly appealing to her romantic pride Johannes hopes to bring about a gradual but progressive unfolding of all her potentialities.”96 By taking Cordelia into the imaginary, Johannes is trying to free her from the “actual” and disciplinary society to which they both belong. Ultimately, Coredelia is unable to keep Johannes in the realm of the “interesting” and therefore, the affair must end and she is left in her world of the real where guilt will consume her and drive her (a formerly strong and proud woman) to desperation as evidenced in her letters. For Johannes, the external world, and Cordelia because she is a part of that external world, “becomes a mere starting-point for the exploration of the imaginative possibilities of the inner life” and it is those possibilities that he is trying to achieve both in himself and to bring out in Cordelia. Because only in freedom can there be love, it is only when he brings “. . .her to the point where she has learned what it is to love and what it is to love me, then the engagement will break like a defective mold and she will belong to me” which is his ultimate prize -- possessing her nature.97 If he is successful in his seduction,
38 it naturally follows that he is a superior person to Cordelia in that he was able to change her and not only poetize himself into her, but also to poetize himself out, which he describes as a “masterstroke.”98 Yet through this poetization he destroys her and finds himself even more alone. Cordelia must be “brought to a proper understanding of true love through disillusionment with its false forms.”99 It is for this purpose that Johannes presents her with a suitor (Edward) as an obstacle, who is suitable in some regards but loses his masculinity through his bashfulness, and lack of vision and passion that a girl of Cordelia’s temperament and intelligence requires. Likewise, once Johannes and Cordelia become engaged, he presents her with the picture of other engaged couples to raise in her a distaste for the ordinary and to refine her taste in love. She is an experiment for him and it is through his ability in making her call off the engagement that he finds triumph. This is important to him because “. . .the ‘reflective’ nature of the seducer’s attitude means that his concern with the victim’s character has a direct bearing upon his own image of himself.”100 Through his triumph he tracks the changes he was able to inspire in his victim and also evaluates the changes that occur within his own character. “The strategy of the Diarist is to lead her to break the engagement and then to withdraw from her so that she begins to fight for him by finally seeming to seduce him. She is left unable to even complain that he has seduced her because he first developed in her the capacity to observe herself in her situation. She knows that she is the one who has broken the engagement, she knows that she is the one who at last most wanted their final meeting.”101 It is thus a god-like superiority that he wields and it is because of his need to feel that superiority that he chooses inexperienced girls and not mature women who have already experienced love and its disappointments. He wants, just as Valmont does, his own sort of “virgin” which he can mold to his liking. The epistolary form serves a perfect function throughout in that it allows all of his communications both with Cordelia and himself to be carried on in secret before the eyes of no one and thus avoids the surveillance of the 19th century disciplinary society. “Cordelia’s ‘development’ is his ‘handiwork’ since he prepares her for the experience of love; but as soon as he has enjoyed the momentary satisfaction of seeing in her the embodiment of his own erotic
39 desires. . .his interest ceases and he discards her for another victim through whom he hopes to fulfill a new possibility of his existence.”102 Because he does not develop with each seduction and cannot due to his inability to live in the “real” within society’s rules, he is never satisfied and must continue seeking other victims who might be able to live beyond societal bounds. Johannes aims to “live poetically” finding “. . . greatest satisfaction in manipulating the imaginative possibilities of existence. . .relating them to the transitory but exquisite experiences of the senses. . .[treating] other people as mere instruments in the realization of his own possibilities.”103 Cordelia, and all the women he seduces, are a means to an end for Johannes -- someone to provide a challenge and provide him with an “interesting” adventure, yet never with a permanent partner because to do so he would have to divulge his true deviant nature and be subject to judgment and punishment. Gender is still a restraint as women are still regarded by 19th century society as possessions. When Johannes asks for Cordelia’s hand it is not she who makes the decision based on her heart, but instead she defers, out of custom, to her aunt who decides whether an engagement to Johannes is an advantageous match. Once the aunt agrees, likewise, Cordelia acquiesces. In this regard, society has not progressed at all from the 18th century treatment of women. Further proof of a woman’s lower position in society is Johannes’ use of them. For him individuals and women in particular “were merely for stimulation; he discarded them as trees shake off their leaves -- he was rejuvenated, the foliage withered.”104 He is a man and superior to them and says so in regards to speaking where he says that if it must be done “. . .it is sufficient that one person does it. The man should do the speaking and therefore ought to possess some of the powers in the girdle of Venus with which she beguiled: conversation and sweet flattery, that is, the power to ingratiate.”105 Form and Genre In these two epistolary texts (one from the 18th century and one from the 19th century) the progression and necessity of the epistolary form and the treatment of the seducer/rake figure becomes quite evident. The reflective seducer functions in the world of imagination and his “dealings with external reality are mainly concerned with controlling it to suit his own egotistical purpose. Through this, Johannes tries to escape
40 the constraints of a disciplinary society. His use of a journal serves as his own confession and private allocution of his transgressions but in a world where such deviance does not require punishment. Kierkegaard’s use of the diary form for Johannes to communicate further internalizes society’s expectations within his psyche, which is evident during his meditative and analytic periods. Unlike Johannes, Valmont is grounded in the world of reality for it is there that he seeks and is granted triumph and recognition from the very society that he also wishes to shock with his brilliant feats of seduction while mocking their moral and religious codes. According to Foucault, the 19th century is less accepting both of aristocratic privileges and the deviance attached to such former exemptions which allowed illegality among the privileged classes. The reader is faced not with a Don Juan figure who seduces woman after woman for the sheer physical pleasure of owning each woman, instead, Johannes, as the aesthetic seducer “is more interested in playing with the ‘idea’ of seduction than with giving it physical expression. . .”106 This is a major contrast from Valmont who would find seduction worthless without fulfilling the physical consummation of his passions. The subject of the seduction is likewise different between the two types of seducers. Johannes focuses on young girls who are yet to be molded, and repudiates women who are coquettish and know the world of love. While Valmont too demands innocence of his victims, he does not want them so young that they do not know what they are doing. In this vein, he initially rejects seducing Cecile for that very reason. Valmont instead seeks a woman, who although she still possesses an innocent quality, understands right from wrong, and will be sacrificing something (be it her morals, religion, or fidelity) in order to be with him. Johannes “lives enclosed in the world of personal phantasy. . .he leads a secret inner life which cuts him off from the outside world (if not physically, at least psychologically, for he presents to society a mask that is superimposed on his real self). . .” and such mask is even more important in the 19th century which is even less tolerant of deviance as it is seen as a threat to the new disciplinary society.107 Once the seduction is complete, he discards the individual. When Cordelia has succumbed both intellectually and physically and given the whole of her nature to him, for Johannes “it is finished, and I never want to see her again. When a girl has given away everything, she is weak, she has lost everything, for in a man innocence
41 is a negative element, but in woman it is the substance of her being. Now all resistance is impossible, and to love is beautiful only as long as resistance is present; as soon as it ceases, to love is weakness and habit. I do not want to be reminded of my relationship with her; she has lost her fragrance. . .”108 Nor does he wish to be reminded of the “real” where his guilt would be too much to bear and would require punishment. Although irony and aestheticism are necessary stages of intellectual and philosophical internal development for the aesthetic seducer, the ultimate evolution of the individual is to raise him through aestheticism and irony towards the ideal and have that person reach the ideal through self-reflection and growth. Within this self-awareness there is the goal of knowing himself and achieving higher levels of inner-development, however, despite his goal Johannes does not progress beyond the aesthetic stage and instead remains in the imaginary between the actual world he cannot bear to live in, and the ideal world he prefers but cannot and does not reach. While Johannes is not publicly unmasked before society his committing his reflections to writing does cause his true nature to be discovered by at least one individual working in his household who stumbles across the diary, and in that regard, even if only by one person, he is unmasked and he is also punished. Kierkegaard advances the disciplinary society by creating a character that through his written discourse on sexuality polices his own activities. Kierkegaard shows the reader a society so civilized and refined that the punishments incurred by transgressors of society’s rules suffer those punishments in silence and unbeknownst to other members of society – a complete reversal of the public punishment spectacle. It is even a progression from the outcomes of Liaisons in which, while not punishment-spectacle, the libertines and those involved with them are either publicly exposed for what they are or must find refuge from society in convents and monasteries. The fact that no one in Diary knows the transgressions or punishments, makes them that much more difficult to bear by the victim and seducer. According to societal standards of the 19th century, each individual member has a pact with the society s/he lives in and part of that pact is to self-police one’s behaviour. Deviant behaviour is coupled with an internalization of guilt for transgression. As a member of society, Johannes is aware of these rules and thus creates his own rules which keep him safely outside of these requirements. Even though
42 Johannes escapes the surveillance required of him and thereby the punishment and guilt associated with that, he nonetheless is punished by being left alone, distanced from society without ever reaching his own aesthetic goals or development. Cordelia on the other hand, while being taken into the realm of the aesthetic for a short period, is unable to sustain that level of aestheticism and is therefore, through Johannes’ manipulation, returned to the “real.” She too is a member of that same 19th century disciplinary society and once outside of the imaginary she is faced with the cruel reality and truth of her situation. She, like most members, has internalized the self-policing and guilt inducing mechanisms and is left to find herself in violation of those rules by having allowed herself to be seduced. Yet she is unable to speak on the topic of sexuality even within the accepted written form because the only other person aware of the seduction is Johannes. Despite her attempts to discourse on the topic through the epistolary form, Johannes makes himself unavailable by ignoring her correspondence and leaves her to wonder alone what actually took place. That self-doubt and confusion coupled with solitary yet imperfect knowledge of events is her ultimate punishment. In the end, the moral of Kierkegaard’s work lies in the fact that although he seeks to find a higher spiritual plane and cognizance of self, Johannes does not advance. “[T]he fact that he feels impelled to hasten from one conquest to another reveals the basic dissatisfaction lying at the heart of his existence. His erotic adventures, in spite of their intricacy and refinement, allow for no genuine progressive development of self. . .at no point do they open up the spiritual potentialities of his higher nature. . .His ‘punishment,’ therefore, is to remain what he is instead of becoming what existence would require of him -- a complete self developed and revealed in the light of the ‘universal-human’.”109 He fails in the aesthetic world of the imaginary and also in the 19th century world of self- discipline and is therefore left with nowhere to go. Unlike what Kierkegaard’s aesthetics indicate, Johannes stagnates in the aesthetic stage of development and does not realize any progress as an individual. That is his ultimate punishment. Just as Cordelia is left with no outward scars that must heal after the seduction, Johannes remains the same, without progression, and likewise remains suspended between worlds so to speak, unable to reach his full spiritual and ethical potential or development nor meet his societal obligations. “The Diarist’s creative capacity enables him, from a chance encounter to
43 create an erotic event” but it does not enable him to create a more enlightened and progressed self.110
44 CHAPTER 3 20TH CENTURY – DE PROFUNDIS
As we move into the late 19th and early 20th centuries of Oscar Wilde, also known as the Victorian Age of England, the discourse on sexuality advances in part through Wilde’s discussion of alternative “deviant behaviour,” not directly or openly addressed in the novels of the prior centuries, but moreso by becoming a counter-discourse to Victorian discourse. Wilde addresses other private behaviour and beliefs dealing with art, religion, and ethics and determines that sins against Art and ethics are what is truly criminal and worthy of punishment. Wilde thus breaks with the requirements that such discussions and activities be carried on in secret behind societal masks of convention. The Victorian Age can be described as a time when “. . .rigid Puritanism allied with moral hypocrisy, verbal and visual delicacy marched arm in arm with a flourishing pornography. The authoritarian pater-familias presided over the institutionalization of the double standard, while the pedestalised mother and wife depended for her purity on the degradation of the fallen woman. It was the age when sex was publicly, indeed ostentatiously denied, only to return, repressed, to flourish in the fertile undergrowth.”111 By redefining “sins” and “crime,” Wilde uses confession against itself while also dismissing his transgressive sexuality. The debate about sexuality, which was already at the heart of discourse in the Victorian Age, “. . .exploded. Far from an age experiencing a regime of silence and total suppression, sexuality became a major social issue in Victorian social and political practice. . .even the refusal to talk about it, as Michel Foucault has noted, marks it as the secret. . .”112 Wilde’s text is subversive because it tears away the curtain hiding these discussions and brings them out of the “undergrowth,” into the light. At the same time he is exposing many private truths, society is moving away from self-discipline to prison reform as the chosen mode of punishment. This shift results in the “criminal” being confronted with his bad acts in isolation where he must make amends with his conscience before returning to society.113 While Wilde is a perfect example of the prisoner who reflects on his “bad acts” while incarcerated he is not the new disciplined subject because he never repents for the crime for which he was imprisoned. Instead, he redefines crime
45 and sinfulness and exonerates himself of the crimes he was accused, while judging himself guilty of the greater crimes against art and aesthetics. De Profundis, while not typical of the epistolary genre in that it is a work containing only one letter, its confessional nature and the use of the genre to discourse on sexuality likens it enough to the epistolary form to make it relevant to this discussion. Additionally, while it is a non-fictional work, it is still a libertine work because of the values it both espouses and denounces. De Profundis takes the libertine novel in a different direction by focusing not only on the pleasures of a decadent lifestyle as does Liaisons, and the aesthetic musings of Diary of the Seducer, but also focusing on art, religion and self-realization. Wilde’s work is occasioned by his transgressive sexuality, however, by redefining values and criminal acts, the end-product is a counter-discourse to Victorian ideals and discipline. By adding his discussion of aesthetics and his notion of true sinfulness and criminality, Wilde’s work advances the epistolary genre and disrupts the mode of confession by utilizing confession as his tool. Wilde’s letter is true to form in that as a “decadent” or “libertine” work, it “. . .resembles a volume of art criticism or a book of sketches, since it usually eschews anything like a plot, wandering off into aesthetic meditations or clever conversations.”114 This is an important aspect because it is in those meditations and conversations that Wilde goes beyond the permissible constructs of confessional discourse and turns private discourse into public discourse. Wilde himself describes De Profundis as a “terrible letter” the writing of which is a turning point in his life which he hopes will likewise change Bosie’s and other’s lives by forcing them to perform the same introspective analysis he engages in while in prison by telling Bosie that “. . .if you are wise, and wish to find life much lovelier still. . .you will let the reading of this terrible letter. . .prove to you as important a crisis and turning point of your life as the writing of it was to me.”115 De Profundis is Wilde’s “confession” of the crimes he deems himself guilty of and it is through this confessional and meditative process that he finds absolution for his sins against art, and finally peace.116 Therefore, it is Wilde’s discourse on art, ethics, sexuality and religion resulting from his prescribed punishment that gives birth to his seminal work and advances the epistolary genre beyond the realms of Liaisons and Diary.
46 While Wilde was punished for his transgressions of society’s laws, he was also punished by society for his refusal to maintain the appropriate mask of propriety and to hide his flamboyant lifestyle behind that mask. So long as he kept the mask of an artist and family man, there was nothing but laud and praise for him as the brilliant writer that he was. When his alleged homosexual affairs with younger men of a lower class came out, society’s admiration turned to repudiation. Yet it is because of his character that “Wilde was and remains so central to late-nineteenth century sexual iconography precisely because he became the figure around which new representations of male sexual behavior in England coalesced.”117 He displayed without shame the internalized male privacy dealing with homosexuality and male friendships which had not previously been discussed. He ultimately determines his physical relationship with Lord Alfred Douglas (Bosie) was not sinful because of its “illegitimate sexuality,” but was criminal because it interfered with his artistic creativity and ethical development. Wilde also exposed society’s continued attempts to maintain a separate and elite social class which should under no circumstances mix or consort with the working classes. 20th century British society insisted upon the adherence to societal codes to maintain appearances of surface respectability. By associating intimately with “working class” boys Wilde threatened society’s class structure and by openly having those relationships he was not maintaining appearances of surface respectability as required by society. He brought light to the ugly truths of upper class society’s practices and the most abhorrent deviations from the societal code possible at the time: that of homosexuality and class distinction. Wilde understands these differences when he says “[w]ith people of our own rank it is different. With us, prison makes a man a pariah. I, and such as I am, have hardly any right to air and sun. Our presence taints the pleasures of others. We are unwelcome when we reappear [in society].”118 While a poor man when released from prison finds sympathy from fellow citizens within his social tier and finds comfort at home, upon his return, the same is not true of the upper classes who see imprisonment as hideous because it does not keep with appearances of nobility, respectability, and propriety. While his relationships with lower class individuals were seen by society as repugnant crimes, Wilde also associated with Bosie, the son of the Marquis of
47 Queensberry, who was of his own social class. Wilde’s relation with Bosie is central to De Profundis because it is that relationship which causes an ethical degradation of Wilde’s beliefs and upon review is more alarming to him than his physical excesses. For Wilde “[s]ins of the flesh are nothing. . .sins of the soul alone are shameful” and to be dishonest to himself and to his work and ethical beliefs because of a relationship with an uncreative and un-intellectual person, regardless of his social rank, are truly punishable offenses.119 Through his association with Bosie, Wilde focused more on material pleasures and less on intellectual ones, he allowed himself to be taken away by his passions and his work suffered as a result. To an aesthete of Wilde’s caliber this is the complete opposite of where he should be such that “[o]ut of the reckless dinners with you nothing remains but the memory that too much was eaten and too much was drunk.”120 To Wilde, the transgressions against his Art weighed heaviest on his soul and his confessions through the epistolary form allow him to make amends for those grave sins and progress in a way appropriate to an artist and aesthete. So it is his initial discussion of his transgressive sexuality and relation with Bosie that leads to the central tenet of his counter-discourse which make private discourses, public. “Oscar Wilde’s literary works are among the most complex, dramatic, and potentially revealing personal and political contributions to the history of discourse on human sexuality” because he uses his books and plays to discourse publicly on sexuality which was innovative and threatening to a repressed society.121 Through his writing and flamboyant personality Wilde became “. . .regarded now as a libertine and a socialist, two of the most awful epithets in the upper-middle class Victorian dictionary.”122 Yet the fact that Wilde was already using the written word to publicly discourse on sexuality is significant because through his art he had begun to publicly expose society’s hypocrisies to them by taking the discourse of sexuality out of the private realm, into the public sphere and onto the stage. Unfortunately his successes “. . .confirmed his own opinion of his great talents [and] he really now believed himself above both criticism and the laws of Victorian society.”123 This was not true because while society could dismiss Wilde’s social truths as theatrical and artistic dramatizations, once one of their own was exposed as a “deviant” it threatened the safety of their entire social structure and he had to be punished as a deterrent and warning to others.
48 Society and the Trial In his life, Wilde prided himself on being similar to the literary characters he created by being a “flaneur, a dandy, a man of fashion.”124 All of these things fit within his vision of aesthetics and he conducted his life according to these standards. While at first his dandyism made him interesting as an artist, it was these same qualities that later hurt him during his trial because “Wilde ultimately made himself an outcast, not just because he flouted conventional morality, but because even many of his friends could not keep up with him. The intensity of his own particular brand of dandyism, decadence and dissent, and the speed of their mutations, meant that he was increasingly seen as a threat, even by former allies.”125 This, coupled with his disregard of social class borders, made him very dangerous to the upper middle class mentality and conventions. Wilde flouted society’s conventions in the way he dressed, the ideas he held, the art he portrayed, and the morality he espoused. Society, even in the early 20th century, was still not interested in embracing openly a citizen who did not hide “aberrant” sexual practices but instead practiced them too openly. In De Profundis Wilde acknowledges how his behaviour harmed him during the trial: I took pleasure where it pleased me, and passed on. I forgot that every little action of the common day makes or unmakes character, and that therefore what one has done in the secret chamber one has some day to cry aloud on the house-tops. . .I allowed pleasure to dominate me. I ended in horrible disgrace. There is only one thing for me now, absolute humility.126 The original accusation leading to Wilde’s trial was the Marquis of Queensberry’s allegation that Wilde was the “. . .kind of person who represented himself as the kind of person who would be inclined to commit sodomy.”127 Queensberry had to prove that his allegation was true and that it was “for the public benefit” that he had exposed Wilde, and not his own malicious ends.128 During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, “all male homosexual acts, whether committed in public, or private, were illegal. A series of dramatic court cases, countless minor convictions, the ever-present threat of blackmail and public disgrace, underlined the formal legal position and helped to perpetuate an oppressively hostile public opinion.”129 Given this open hostility for “the love that dare
49 not speak its name,” when the senior Douglas rousted a cry against Wilde it is not surprising that the admiration that was once reserved for him, suddenly shifted to repudiation. At the time of the trial, Wilde was at the peak of both his commercial and literary successes.130 Wilde had audiences packing the theatres to see his plays and to catch a glimpse of the eccentric and fashionable author with the clever repertoire. Wilde sought out these audiences and played to them just as the Vicomte and the Marquise sought an audience for their feats. Audiences were a necessity because they provided laud and praise for the libertine’s accomplishments, whether sexual, intellectual or literary. The same audiences though that marked Wilde’s success as an artist, were also the same people sitting in the audience during Wilde’s trial. And while Wilde attempted to play to this audience through his usual and previously successful wit and charm, in this venue he found his audience completely unreceptive and he was condemned for his “deviant” lifestyle.
Prison and Punishment According to sexual historian Jeffrey Weeks, “the Wilde trials were not only the most dramatic, but also the most significant events, for they created a public image for the homosexual, and a terrifying moral tale of the dangers that trailed closely behind the deviant behaviour.”131 Wilde was punished for his alleged “crimes against nature” in his relations with Bosie, but was also punished by society for his transgression of their rules of propriety. Wilde overstepped by flaunting not only his relations with Bosie, but worse, flaunting his relationships with boys much beneath his social stature. It is in fact the “sins of the soul” that were at the heart of prison reform as it came into vogue at the end of the 19th century. Punishment for such offenses at his time in history went beyond the social isolation suffered by Merteuil. One of the whole points behind confinement was so the “criminal” would have to make amends with his soul. Punishment included reform by isolating the criminal in prison and forcing them to confront their own conscience in that solitary and silent confinement. While Bosie was the one who introduced Wilde to lower class boys, he was not punished for his way of life because of two factors: He was better at keeping his
50 working-class relations hidden and his father was able to protect him through his higher social standing and ability to make Wilde the scapegoat. In his working-class relations “. . . Wilde had transgressed those boundaries of difference (class, age, education, etc.) that delimited the realm of ‘natural association’ for the Victorian middle class and hence his relationships could ‘logically’ be perceived to signify ‘something unnatural,’ or at least ‘what might not be ordinarily expected’.”132 He had gone too far. Society then punishes Wilde not for any actual acts that may have occurred between him and these “working-class” men, but for the appearance his association with these men created – such that those relationships due to his age and social position came “. . .to represent an ‘indecent’ relationship even in the absence of any specific representation of ‘indecent acts’.”133 Social laws were therefore as stringent, if not moreso, than the judicial laws that were used to incarcerate Wilde, and his transgression of those proprieties left him without any social sympathy despite the fact that prior to the “scandal” he had been a beloved artist, speaker, and playwright. Wilde is further punished because not only does he lose his freedom, money, respectability, and social status, but he also ultimately loses his wife and “. . .my two children are taken from me by legal procedure. That is, and always will remain to me a source of infinite distress, of infinite pain, of grief without end or limit. That the law should decide and take upon itself to decide that I am one unfit to be with my own children is something quite horrible to me. The disgrace of prison is as nothing compared with it.”134 The level of punishment in the late 19th century, though more “civilized” than the punishment- spectacle, was no less torturous and life-altering. While it left the criminal alive and eventually free, at Wilde’s social level it was almost impossible to ever re-enter society with full respectability or acceptance. While the tribunal was most concerned with the allegations of “sodomy” which “. . .had been defined in strictly ecclesiastical terms as one of the gravest sins against divine law whose name alone proved such an affront to God that it was often named only as the unnamable,” Wilde did not find his affections for Bosie to be anything but honest and pure.135 It is through his analysis of his relation with Bosie that he re-defines conventional values and finds that what he did deserve punishment for was his crime against his own art by letting his personal relationship with Bosie interfere with the
51 “higher” pursuits of art, literature and aesthetics. While he was overtaken by material and physical pleasures, his ethical values and aesthetic ideals, as well as his art suffered. He exposes these truths in his “confession.” Wilde understood that he was imprisoned for the allegations that he was posing as a sodomite, yet once in prison what remains exceedingly disturbing to him and disgraceful is that he allowed his actions to rank higher than his work, and as an artist that is the ultimate crime for which he does believe himself to have been deserving of punishment. His private soul-searching leads him to that conclusion because “it was of course my soul in its ultimate essence that I had reached. In many ways I had been its enemy, but I found it waiting for me as a friend.”136 To Wilde, his sexual transgressions were minor. In comparison, the sins he committed against his art were major sins because he allowed physical relationships with both working-class boys and Bosie to come between him as author and his ability to write. While he is away from Bosie he makes tremendous progress on his plays. Therefore, even if honest expressions of his emotions, if those friendships diminished his creative capacity then those relationships had to be subordinated for Wilde to stay true to his aesthetic belief. By permitting Bosie or anyone to stand in the way of his ability to work was inexcusable because Art is the highest and purest aesthetic pursuit, unlike the base pleasures of the flesh, be it food, wine, or pleasure. Wilde thus acknowledges that “while you [Bosie] were with me you were the absolute ruin of my art, and in allowing you to stand persistently between Art and myself I give to myself shame and blame in the fullest degree.”137 Wilde takes responsibility for his actions with regard to his art: “I blame myself for allowing an un-intellectual friendship, a friendship whose primary aim was not the creation and contemplation of beautiful things, entirely to dominate my life…my life, as long as you were by my side, was entirely sterile and uncreative.”138 Wilde sees that one is accountable for all of one’s actions, and finds that he “. . .must accept the fact that one is punished for the good as well as for the evil that one does. I have no doubt that it is quite right one should be. It helps one, or should help one, to realize both, and not be too conceited about either.”139 Through such written speeches in De Profundis, Wilde is able to publicly rehearse his most private views on aesthetics and ethics, as a new utilization of the epistolary form and advancement of the genre while reaching significantly different conclusions about sin than those held by society.
52 While Wilde reaches a different conclusion about his sins through introspection, by using that process he is in fact a testament to the Foucaldian model of the penitentiary. Wilde’s prison experience and writing of De Profundis becomes an introspective journey through which he analyzes his character and actions as both a member of Victorian society and as an artist thus validating the prison mentality of soul searching and reform. He learns through his punishment what crimes are really important to him and which ones are not and in the end teaches all of those who read his “terrible letter” that the crimes society should punish are not those that deal with emotions and relationships, but those that cause one to be dishonest to one’s own nature, whatever that might be, and those that draw one away from the aesthetic and higher realm of creating and stimulating the intellect and make one “sterile and uncreative.”140 He freely and openly publishes these sacred truths, thus unmasking yet another private realm. “Nothing really at any period of my life was ever of the smallest importance to me compared with Art. But in the case of an artist, weakness is nothing less than a crime, when it is a weakness that paralyses the imagination.”141 Thus, his relationship with Bosie was not a thing of beauty as he previously believed. It was therefore not aesthetically valid, but something that made him unethical and uncreative instead thus stunting his aesthetic progress as an individual and author. This weakness in his mind makes him deserving of punishment. Foucault posits that individuals who do not conform to society’s beliefs and rules will be punished. Wilde is punished for “posing as a sodomite” and his imprisonment for that offense leads Wilde “. . .to write an epistle, to tell the gospel according to Oscar Wilde, an apologia pro vita sua in which he would draw up a statement of account, both for himself and for the public, concerning his relationship with Douglas, the reasons for his downfall, and his past, present, and future position in art and in life.”142 Thus Wilde frees himself and further exposes society to private truths necessary for the advancement of society through the progression of the epistolary form. The transgressions for which Wilde was imprisoned could not be permitted by Victorian society and had to be extinguished quickly and publicly so that other members of society would not flaunt such aberrant behaviour. Wilde knew that society required its prominent members to “lie” and even exposes that truth in The Importance of Being Earnest where he shows that society, just like the libertines, “requires lying to function” and to maintain their prominent
53 position within society.143 Without lying, society is left with the stark realization that their conventions are not followed and that the members making up their society are flawed and worse, sexually deviant. Society members that raise such truths to the surface, such as the libertine does, are not rewarded for their honesty, but instead are punished severely for their transgressions. While it was Wilde’s letters and writings that condemned him during his trial, his last letter to Bosie set forth in De Profundis ultimately sets him free because to Wilde Art was “. . .the great primal note by which I had revealed, first myself to myself, and then myself to the world; the great passion of my life; the love to which all other loves were as marsh water to red wine. . .”144 Wilde’s realization that his greatest sin was not his affection and relationship with Bosie, but what he sees as a betrayal of his artistic work liberates him and validates his suffering. Wilde is not concerned with the masks of propriety that society tried to impose, nor does he find his infractions of those codes to have been the cause of his imprisonment. But he does accept culpability for his sins against art and errors in judgment by admitting that “I must say to myself that I ruined myself, and that nobody great or small can be ruined except by his own hand.”145 Through his relationship with Bosie, Wilde became consumed by his passions and lost his objectivity and direction which was fundamental to his art. He became a slave to his senses by leading a lifestyle of over-indulgence in pleasures of the flesh. Those passions were negative influences on his art and ethics and therefore it was aesthetically necessary for him to renounce those friendships. These realizations come during his solitary confinement at Reading Gaol. Yet even in that isolation and silence Wilde finds a voice by writing his letter and making a public confession that lays out fundamental and private truths, regardless of the propriety of doing so. And even though Bosie does not go to prison, he is punished nonetheless in that he is forever imprisoned alone within a selfish soul without ethics or truth. Wilde tells him that he is bankrupt of soul, feeling, and conscience; a punishment much worse than prison.146 While Wilde might eventually overcome his disgrace, Bosie will forevermore be trapped unless he admit his flaws and makes an effort to correct his behaviour instead of blaming others for his plight and caring for no one but himself. Wilde, through introspection, learns from his experience, and his hope is that through his confessional
54 letter and discourse on sexuality society (particularly Bosie and his family) will learn, for as he eloquently states in closing his epistle to Bosie “[y]ou came to me to learn the pleasure of life and the pleasure of art. Perhaps I am chosen to teach you something much more wonderful – the meaning of sorrow and its beauty.”147 Wilde’s letter comes full circle in that it seeks to expiate wrongs and also teach by opening up private areas previously unspoken in public and thus advancing the epistolary genre through those revelations.
The Letter-Form Unlike Liaisons and Diary, De Profundis’ epistolary form was determined by Wilde’s necessity in that the “physical conditions of the prison determined the form and style of the work.”148 The letter-form he uses is key because it was the only means available to Wilde to communicate from prison with the outside world. This letter, though addressed to an individual, is intended by Wilde to be read by at least two others.149 The letter while in part a rant against the wrongs done to him by Bosie and Bosie’s father, is also a confession, both a private and a public one, which divulges all of Wilde’s deeds/crimes, not just the ones the public believes resulted in his imprisonment. Wilde determines while in prison that the only person who can fully judge him is himself and if others must judge him then they should have complete facts upon which to do so, and not just the twisted allegations of the malicious, and disturbed Queensberry. He thus uses society’s accepted format to elucidate private truths not supposed to be discoursed upon publicly and thus breaks with tradition while using the implements of convention. Wilde’s text focuses on the internalized male privacy thus replacing the gender issues of Liaisons and Diary with the issue of male friendships and homosexuality. Wilde does not make excuses or apologies for those things, but instead mentions them in passing, dismisses them as wrongs, and then spends a majority of his time discussing the higher virtues of Art and Christ openly despite the fact that his views were unique. Wilde believes that everything about romantic art and sorrow come from God and through those things one can be a better individual because “. . .wherever there is a romantic movement in art there somehow, and under some form is Christ, or the soul of Christ.”150 To know sorrow, in effect is to know God and it takes his going to prison to discover that sorrow is
55 a beautiful thing to be embraced instead of shunned when it appears in one’s life.151 “What the artist is always looking for is the mode of existence in which the body and soul are one and indivisible. . .” and it is at times of sorrow that this is true.152 Because of this pain and sorrow Christ is artistic and inspires such great art.153 Whereas pain and sorrow are honest emotions, the masks worn and required by Victorian society are not and thus “[t]hat is [their] punishment. Those who want a mask have to wear it.”154 The letter-form and confession remain in the late 19th century the appropriate vehicle for the discourse on sexuality. Wilde follows that tenet only so far “[a]s a confessional, writing the book also brought Wilde a degree of absolution.”155 But Wilde does not “confess” to the crimes society found him guilty of; Wilde identifies his crimes as being against art, aesthetics, and ethics stemming from his great pride. It is in identifying his sins and repenting for those sins that he sees as most abhorrent that Wilde is able to find peace within himself and the ability to move past the scandal and humiliation of imprisonment. His letter judges him but it also judges Bosie and the masked society of Victorian England utilizing its own confessional vehicle against it. Wilde’s use of the epistolary form is also significant because De Profundis reiterates that there is an inherent danger in writing letters. But in contrast to Liaisons the danger here is not to the recipient and author, instead the danger is only to the author. Wilde is the one who suffers the consequences for the letters written to Bosie which are misinterpreted and taken out of context during his trial. As he eloquently sums it up “I go to prison for it at last. That is the result of writing you a charming letter.”156 Bosie’s letters (though numerous and repugnant) are never presented, and he is therefore never held accountable for his crimes. Yet Wilde is unmasked as a deviant before society through his letters. Further, not only are Wilde’s letters put on trial, but his Art is likewise put on trial and then used to condemn him. The danger of writing is thus raised to a never before seen level where even Art is put on trial alongside the author and it is this circulation of private letters and writings that prove dangerous to the author, but not the agressors. De Profundis, like other epistolary texts, also includes letters written by others within the work by reference. These letters are important not only to the telling of the tale, but important in their own right because while they directly lead to Wilde’s downfall
56 and imprisonment, neither the letters nor the authors (Bosie, his mother, and his father) are ever exposed during the trial – they remain private and protected writings. While letter(s) and blackmail appear to have brought Bosie and Wilde together for the first time at Oxford, and the written note that Queensberry leaves for Wilde at the club initiates the lawsuit, neither of them are held accountable for their own writings. Because of his position, Queensberry is able to keep all of those writings hidden and maintain his family’s surface respectability before the society that will condemn Wilde. Wilde’s letters which had been used by lower class boys attempting to blackmail him were brought out at trial, but so too were his other written works. To prove that the allegation he made against Wilde of “posing as a sodomite” was actually true, Queensberry attacked Wilde on all fronts, including by the unprecedented use of his previously published work The Picture of Dorian Gray to malign his character. Queensberry’s legal counsel introduced “. . .a theory or representation that defines Wilde’s text as a vehicle ‘calculated to subvert morality and to encourage unnatural vice’” and thus for what appeared to be the first time ever “Queensberry’s defense sought to hold [an] author morally and legally responsible for the implications of his writing.”157 Therefore, Wilde was tried not only for his alleged relations with Bosie and other boys who were beneath his social rank, but also for his literary works which had been up until then accepted and successful. In each case Carson [defense barrister] sought to introduce to the court a text whose ‘meaning’ he asserted was ‘improper,’ ‘immoral,’ ‘blasphemous,’ or ‘unnatural’ and then to deduce from these ‘meanings’ a moral equivalence between the writing and Wilde – even when he was not the text’s author.158
By doing so, Queensberry’s counsel took his defense to such a new level that not only were Wilde’s letters and literary works exploited during trial, but even writings not authored by him were used against him by the defense. Throughout the trial, Wilde’s artistic works were quoted and used against him to prove that in fact he was the perverse and dangerous individual that Queensberry had accused him of being, yet those value judgments were made not by other authors, academics, or artists, but by Queensberry and his defense barrister. The Picture of Dorian Gray was used to demonstrate how Wilde created that work “. . .to describe the relations, intimacies, and passions of certain persons
57 of sodomitical and unnatural habits, tastes, and practices.”159 The strategy was to make Wilde appear to be a danger and moral threat to society in that he would corrupt not only the Marquis’ son, but also other youths and unsuspecting individuals, and as such he needed to be punished by sequestering him far away from that “decent” society. The written word thus even when literary and not private in nature, had become dangerous as well. As described in the History of Sexuality, “where and when it was not possible to talk about [sexuality] became much more strictly defined”160 so one proper outlet for the discourse on sexuality is through confession, whether that takes place in a confessional or through the written word. Hence Wilde uses the authorized form to discourse publicly on sexuality when he writes De Profundis and expresses his beliefs regarding sexuality and aesthetics.161 When imprisoned for his “crimes”, Wilde creates an audience so that he can work and write De Profundis. Despite naming Bosie as the letter’s recipient, Wilde knows and wants Bosie’s mother and brother to see it as well, and writes the letter to them as the representatives of society as a whole.162 By attacking society through a counter-discourse of its accepted conventions and the means used to imprison him, Wilde is able to reclaim his Art and forces private matters to be discoursed upon society publicly.
58 CLOSING
The 18th, 19th and 20th centuries brought many changes to the epistolary genre, each author and century adding something to the discourse of sexuality and the libertine novel. The advancement of society also brought about changing models of punishment. Society transitioned over a period of time from the punishment-spectacle to discipline by self-policing and ultimately to the prison model. The original punishment-spectacle of the 17th century and earlier was a brutal and often torturous display of maiming and killing a societal deviant under the power of the monarch. This model was eventually replaced with the disciplinary model which consisted of rules that were internalized in the individual. If any member of society deviated from those codes, they had to deal with their own internalized guilt over breaking codes which they believed they must obey. Their internalized guilt would then lead to the confessional which was another disciplinary tool of oppression accepted to correct such behavior. The disciplinary society relied on techniques of a surveillance society where there was no longer much need for external policing as each person policed themselves and their neighbors. This type of society is visible in both Liaisons and Diary where society members police themselves and their neighbors. As society moved from the late 19th century into the early 20th century, the punishment cycle made one more change gradually moving from self-policing to prisons. There the “criminal” was sent to be isolated from society so that s/he might, through a search of conscience, find reform and ultimately return to society as a productive member. This is what is seen in De Profundis as Wilde is sent to prison for two years hard labour and is confined to a small cell with no one to talk to but himself and nothing to keep him company but his “sins.” Just as there is a change in the forms of punishment as evidenced through the three epistolary works discussed here, so too are there progressions in the libertine figure and the discourse of sexuality through the epistolary genre. Liaisons had the innovation of a female rake figure that was just as intelligent, manipulative and successful at sexual seduction and discourse as her male counterparts, in fact she was moreso, besting both male rakes in the novel. The rakes created their own code and rules which while different from the ones aristocratic society dictated, were nonetheless strictly self-
59 enforced with the penalty for not following the libertine code resulting in discovery of their true lifestyles and punishment. The correct vehicle for sexual discourse was either through private writings or private confessions made to a religious authority, both disciplinary modes. But there is a distinct danger in the written word, both for the reader and the author. In Liaisons, it is the correspondence between the rakes and their victims which ultimately unmasks them before society and causes their downfalls and punishments. Likewise, in De Profundis it is through Wilde’s “charming letters” to Bosie that he is indicted of “posing as a sodomite.” The rakes have internalized society’s rules and their own guilt thus creating their own parallel oppressive disciplinary code. Diary shows the adaptation of both the seducer and the genre in that Johannes moves beyond the physical pleasures of seduction of the artistic seducer to those of the aesthetic seducer. Through the greater emphasis on surveillance and self-policing, the aristocratic class is given less leeway for deviance and post the French revolution the aristocracy is seen diminishing in numbers and importance. Class is no longer a factor to Johannes as he chooses a bourgeois, middle-class girl, Cordelia, for his victim. He no longer requires the audience and performative aspect to his escapades that was crucial to Valmont’s and Mertueil’s existence and focuses more on the aesthetic pleasures and musings afforded to him by molding his victims and seeing how their changes affect and change him. Johannes uses the convention of writing to his victim but he also writes to himself privately in his journal which is for his review only. It is through that reflection that he is able to analyze his actions and whether he is successful with a particular victim or not and how his actions affect both the victim and himself. Yet despite his aesthetic aspirations, Johannes in unable to live in the world of the “real” where he knows that he would be subject to the codes and rules society has set out with regards to sexuality. He would be “deviant” under those guidelines and would have to accept that through his own surveillance of himself which he is not willing to do. Johannes therefore remains in the world of the “imaginary” and does not progress either aesthetically or socially but languishes in a solitary world all his own. The epistolary genre progresses in so much as it moves from a societal need for a more public punishment as in Liaisons where the characters either die or must go away from society, to a self-policing and further
60 internalization of guilt which haunts its members in silence, like Cordelia who is unable to find any closure for her grief or understanding of the affair. De Profundis highlights aspects of class-structure by exposing the real prejudice that existed between the social classes of the time with regard to commingling between social tiers. The class-oriented sexuality demonstrated within the work shows that even worse than being caught as a sexual deviant is being caught associating with individuals beneath one’s social strata. The birth of the prison, and the reform of the “criminal,” gain popularity in the late 19th and early 20th century. Wilde expands upon the discourse of sexuality by utilizing society’s accepted format for discourse to publicly confess private truths. He does this after dismissing his own transgressive sexuality and redefining values contrary to society’s values. Wilde combines a libertine and aristocratic lifestyle with aesthetics and art. He introduces the aspect of homosexuality and class differences to the discourse on sexuality which had not previously been explored or discussed in this genre due to its being viewed as “illegitimate sexualities.” De Profundis brings these topics, along with those of art, religion, and ethics to the forefront for a public discussion. Wilde apologizes for the one thing that he does deem to be a criminal act and grave sin: His sin against his art by allowing unproductive relationships to take him away from his work and stunt his creativity. Through his “terrible letter” Wilde forces private issues to the surface of a Victorian society unwilling to face or discourse openly on those truths and thus consolidates the genre and discourse of sexuality.
61 NOTES
1 Ed Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side: Towards a Geneology of a Discourse on Male Sexualities (New York: Routledge, 1993), p. 35. 2 Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality Vol. 1. (New York: Vintage Books, 1990), p. 3. 3 Ibid., p. 3. 4 Ibid., pp. 4-5. 5 Ibid., p. 4. 6 Betty Becker-Theye, The Seducer as Mythic Figure in Richardson, Laclos, and Kierkegaard (London: Garland Publishing Inc., 1988), pp. 59-60. 7 Peter V. Conroy, Intimate, Intrusive and Triumphant: Readers in Les Liaisons Dangereuses (Amsterdam: J. Benajmins Publishing Company, 1987), p. 34. 8 Simone De Beauvoir, The Second Sex (New York: Vintage Books, 1989), p. 108. 9 Ibid., p. 426. 10 Ibid., p. 102. 11 Ibid., p. 254. 12 Foucault, History of Sexuality, p. 6. 13 Suellen Diaconoff, Eros and Power in Les Liaisons Dangereuses: A Study in Evil (Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1979), pp. 27-28. 14 Ellis Hanson, Decadence and Catholicism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997), p. 22. 15 Thelander, Laclos and the Epistolary Novel, p. 157. 16 Joan De Jean, Literary Fortifications: Rousseau, Laclos, Sade (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), p. 3. 17 Diaconoff, Eros and Power, p. 29. 18 Stone, Introduction, Liaisons, p. 11. 19 Choderlos de Laclos, Les Liaisons Dangereuses (London: Penguin Books, 1961), Letter 81, p. 188. 20 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 81. 21 Thelander, Laclos and the Epistolary Novel, p. 84. 22 Christine Roulston, Virtue, Gender, and the Authentic Self in Eighteenth Century Fiction: Richardson, Rousseau, and Laclos (Tallahassee: University Press of Florida, 1998), p. 143. 23 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 7. 24 De Jean, Literary Fortifications, p. 6. 25 Diaconoff, Eros and Power, p. 28. 26 Ibid., p. 27. 27 Stone, Introduction, Liaisons, p. 8. 28 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 81, p. 188. 29 Ibid., Letter 81, p. 180. 30 Diaconoff, Eros and Power, p. 8. 31 Thelander, Laclos and the Epistolary Novel, p. 91. 32 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 81, p. 181. 33 Stephanie Balbe Hammer, ‘Romanticism and Reaction: Hampton’s Transformation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses,’ cited from Robert Gross (ed.), Christopher Hampton: A Casebook (New York: Garland Publishing, 1990), p. 122. 34 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 81, p. 185. 35 Roulston, Virtue, Gender, p. 160. 36 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 88. 37 P.W.K. Stone, Introduction. By Choderlos de Laclos, Les Liaisons Dangereuses (London: Penguin Books, 1961), p. 10. 38 De Beauvoir, Second Sex, p. 190. 39 Ibid., p. 190. 40 Randolph Trumbach, ‘Erotic Fantasy and Male Libertinism in Enlightenment England,’ cited from Lynn Hunt (ed.), The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993), p. 254. 41 Laclos, Liaisons, p. 117. 42 Stone, Introduction, Liaisons, p. 11.
62
43 Ibid., p. 11. 44 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 81, pp. 182-183. 45 Ibid., Letter 110, p. 266. 46 Ronald C. Rosbottom, Choderlos de Laclos (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978), p. 55. 47 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 8, p. 37. 48 Ibid., Letter 9, pp. 38-39. 49 Ibid., Letter 48, p. 110. He writes: “I come, Madame, after a stormy night during which I never closed an eye, after suffering without cease now the turmoil of a consuming passion, now the utter exhaustion of every faculty of my being, I come to you to seek the peace I need, but which as yet I cannot hope to enjoy. Indeed, my situation, as I write makes me more than ever aware of the irresistible power of love.” 50 Ibid., Letter 120, p. 286. 51 Ibid., Letter 123, p. 291. 52 Ibid., Letter 125, p. 302. 53 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 95. 54 Hammer, ‘Romanticism and Reaction,’ p.115. 55 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 9. 56 Thelander, Laclos and the Epistolary Novel, p. 65. 57 Ronald Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard and French Literature (Cardiff: Wales University Press, 1966), p. 42. 58 Hammer, ‘Romanticism and Reaction,’ p. 124. 59 Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 10. 60 Laclos, Liaisons, Letter 170, p.383. 61 Ibid., Letter 174, p. 391. 62 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, pp. 101, 102. 63 Soren Kierkegaard, ‘The Seducer’s Diary,’ Either/Or (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987), pp. 313, 319. 64 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 26. 65 Ibid., p. 27. 66 Ibid., p. 27. 67 Ibid., p. 27. 68 Wanda Warren Berry, ‘The Heterosexual Imagination and Aesthetic Existence in Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, Part I,’cited from Celine Leon and Sylvia Walsh (eds.), Feminist Interpretations of Soren Kierkegaard (University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997), pp. 35-36. 69 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 336. 70 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 26. 71 Ibid., p. 26. 72 Terry Eagleton, The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990), p. 173. 73 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ pp. 306-307. 74 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 121. 75 Eagleton, Ideology of the Aesthetic, p. 181. 76 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 386. 77 Ibid., p. 415. 78 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 28. 79 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 307. 80 Ibid., p. 307. 81 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 36. 82 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 5. 83 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 324. 84 Eagleton, Ideology of the Aesthetic, p. 174. 85 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 37. 86 Ibid., p. 35. 87 Ibid., p. 35. 88 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 345. 89 Ibid., p. 367. 90 Ibid., 311.
63
91 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 35. 92 Ibid., p. 34. 93 Ibid., p. 36. 94 Ibid., pp. 36-37. 95 Ibid., p. 31. 96 Ibid., p. 31. 97 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 376. 98 Ibid., p. 368. 99 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 32. 100 Ibid., p. 32. 101 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 126. 102 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 38. 103 Ibid., p. 38. 104 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 308. 105 Ibid., pp. 418-419. 106 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 41. 107 Ibid., p. 43. 108 Kierkegaard, ‘Seducer’s Diary,’ p. 445. 109 Grimsley, Soren Kierkegaard, p. 44. 110 Becker-Theye, Seducer as Mythic, p. 127. 111 Jeffrey Weeks, Sex, Politics, and Society: The Regulation of Sexuality Since 1800 (London: Longman Group Ltd., 1981), p. 19. 112 Weeks, Sex, Politics and Society, p. 19. 113 “In absolute isolation – as at Philadelphia – the rehabilitation of the criminal is expected not of the application of a common law, but of the relation of the individual to his own conscience and what may enlighten him from within.” Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 238. 114 Hanson, Decadence and Catholicism, p. 3. 115 Oscar Wilde, De Profundis (New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996), p. 28. 116 Ibid., p. 28. 117 Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side, p. 99. 118 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 43. 119 Ibid., p. 30. 120 Ibid., p. 6. 121 Patricia Flanagan Behrendt, Oscar Wilde: Eros and Aesthetics (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), p. 182. 122 Sheridan Morley, Oscar Wilde (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976), p. 76. 123 Ibid., p. 91. 124 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 45 125 Tomoko Sato, The Wilde Years: Oscar Wilde and the Art of His Time (London: Barbican Art Galleries, 2000), p. 58. 126 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 45. 127 Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side, p. 127. 128 Ibid., p. 127. 129 Jeffrey Weeks, Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Great Britain from the 19th Century to the Present (London: Quartet Books, 1977), p. 11. 130 Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side, p. 135. 131 Weeks, Coming Out, p. 21. 132 Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side, p. 166. 133 Ibid., p. 188. 134 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 43 135 Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side, p. 103. 136 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 59. 137 Ibid., p. 4. 138 Ibid., p. 3. 139 Ibid., p. 49.
64
140 Ibid., p. 3. 141 Ibid., p. 5. 142 Belford, A Certain Genius, p. 273. 143 Barbara Belford, Oscar Wilde: A Certain Genius (New York: Random House, 2000), p. 43. 144 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 27. 145 Ibid., p. 44. 146 Ibid., p. 88. 147 Ibid., p. 92. 148 Reginia Gagnier, Idylls in the Marketplace: Oscar Wilde and the Victorian Public (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986), p. 180. 149 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 75. 150 Ibid., p. 62. 151 Ibid., p. 51. 152 Ibid., p. 52. 153 Ibid., p. 62. 154 Ibid., p. 68. 155 Sato, The Wilde Years, p. 58. 156 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 20. 157 Cohen, Talk on the Wilde Side, p. 128. 158 Ibid., p. 161. 159 Ibid., p. 128. 160 Ladelle McWhorter, Bodies & Pleasures: Foucault and thePolitics of Sexual Normalization (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), p. 13. 161 Behrendt, Eros and Aesthetics, p. 5. 162 Wilde, De Profundis, p. 88.
65 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Becker-Theye, Betty. The Seducer as Mythic Figure in Richardson, Laclos, and Kierkegaard. London: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1988.
Behrendt, Patricia Flanagan. Oscar Wilde: Eros and Aesthetics. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991.
Belford, Barbara. Oscar Wilde: A Certain Genius. New York: Random House, 2000.
Berry, Wanda Warren. “The Heterosexual Imagination and Aesthetic Existence in Kierkegaard’s Either/Or, Part I.” Feminist Interpretations of Soren Kierkegaard. Eds. Celine Leon and Sylvia Walsh. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 1997.
Cohen, Ed. Talk on the Wilde Side: Towards a Geneology of a Discourse on Male Sexualities. New York: Routledge, 1993.
Conroy, Peter V. Intimate, Intrusive and Triumphant: Readers in Les Liaisons Dangereuses. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins Publishing Company, 1987.
De Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. New York: Vintage Books, 1989.
De Jean, Joan. Literary Forticifications: Rousseau, Laclos, Sade. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984.
De Laclos, Choderlos. Les Liaisons Dangereuses. London: Penguin Books, 1961.
Deneys, Anne. “The Political Economy of the Body in the Liaisons Dangereuses of Choderlos de Laclos.” Eroticism and the Body Politic. Ed. Lynn Hunt. London: The John Hopkins University Press, 1991.
Diaconoff, Suellen. Eros and Power in Les Liaisons Dangereuses: A Study in Evil. Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1979.
Eagleton, Terry. The Ideology of the Aesthetic. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Books, 1990.
Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
Gagnier, Reginia. “Wilde and the Victorians.” The Cambridge Companion to Oscar Wilde. Ed. Peter Raby. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
66 Gagnier, Reginia. Idylls in the Marketplace: Oscar Wilde and the Victorian Public. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1986.
Grimsley, Ronald. Soren Kierkegaard and French Literature. Cardiff: Wales University Press, 1966.
Hammer, Stephanie Balbe. “Romanticism and Reaction: Hampton’s Transformation of Les Liaisons Dangereuses.” Christopher Hampton: A Casebook. Ed. Robert Gross. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990.
Hanson, Ellis. Decadence and Catholicism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1997.
Kail, Harvey. “The Other Half of the Garden: Oscar Wilde’s De Profundis and the Confessional Tradition.” Prose Studies, 1800-1900 2 (1979): 141-150.
Kierkegaard, Soren. “The Seducer’s Diary.” Either/Or. Ed. Howard V. Hong and Edna H. Hong. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987.
Lambourne, Lionel. “Oscar Wilde and Popular Culture.” Oscar Wilde and the Art of his Time. Ed. Tomoko Sato. London: Barbican Art Galleries, 2000.
McWhorter, Ladelle. Bodies & Pleasures: Foucault and the Politics of Sexual Normalization. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999.
Morley, Sheridan. Oscar Wilde. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976.
Rosbottom, Ronald C. Choderlos de Laclos. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1978.
Roulston, Christine. Virtue, Gender, and the Authentic Self in Eighteenth Century Fiction: Richardson, Rousseau, and Laclos. Tallahassee: University Press of Florida, 1998.
Saint-Armand, Pierre. The Libertine’s Progress: Seduction in the 18th Century French Novel. Hanover: Brown University Press, 1994.
Sato, Tomoko. Ed. The Wilde Years: Oscar Wilde and the Art of his Time. London: Barbican Art Galleries, 2000.
Stone, P.W.K. Introduction. Les Liaisons Dangereuses. London: Penguin Books, 1961.
Thelander, Dorothy. Laclos and the Epistolary Novel. Geneve: Librarie Droz, 1963.
Trumbach, Randolph. “Erotic Fantasy and Male Libertinism in Enlightenment England.” The Invention of Pornography: Obscenity and the Origins of Modernity. Ed. Lynn Hunt. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1993.
67
Weeks, Jeffrey. Sex, Politics and Society: The Regulation of Sexuality since 1800. London: Longman Group Ltd., 1981.
Weeks, Jeffrey. Coming Out: Homosexual Politics in Britain from the 19th Century to the Present. London: Quartet Books, 1977.
Wilde, Oscar. De Profundis. New York: Dover Publications, Inc., 1996.
68
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Elena-Juliette Gomez was born in Bayshore, Long Island, New York. In the mid- 1970’s her family moved to Central Florida where she grew up. Her undergraduate studies included attending Daytona Beach Community College for one year and then transferring to Stetson University where she graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1994. Her B.A. included a dual major in English and Secondary Education and a minor in Philosophy. After graduating from Stetson University, she moved to Tallahassee, Florida to attend The Florida State University where she pursued a Juris Doctor degree. She graduated With Honors in the Spring of 1997 and sat for the Florida Bar Exam that same Fall. Ms. Gomez began her career as an attorney at the Special Disability Trust Fund and later moved to the Department of Insurance where she worked first as a staff attorney, and later as a senior attorney. While working full-time as an attorney, she returned to The Florida State University to work part-time on her graduate English degree. She will graduate with a Master of Arts in English Literature in December 2004 and continue her practice of law in insurance and administrative law as an Assistant General Counsel with the Office of Insurance Regulation.
69