{"title":"Comparative Gender in Maria Edgeworth’s Belinda","authors":"Dannie Leigh Chalk","doi":"10.1353/SLI.2014.0012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"I have covered my old carpet with a handsome green baize, and every stranger, who comes to see me, I observe, takes it for granted, that I have a rich carpet under it. --Aunt Stanhope to Belinda (Maria Edgeworth, Belinda 9) Maria Edgeworth is a problematic figure for literary scholars. She is an emblem of bourgeois values for many, a progressivist to others. Feminist scholars interpret her variously as a radical anti-patriarchist and anti-essentialist and conversely as a conservative polemicist enmeshed in the project of validating patriarchy and paternalism. One possible reason for these conflicting interpretations is Edgeworth's own determination, as evidenced in her published writings, to avoid being shoehorned into any one extreme position. Her writings often straddle the spaces between extremes, forcing her readers into positions as uncomfortable as her own. Such is the case with her first domestic novel, Belinda, first published in 1801. Belinda has been subjected to a series of attempts to reinterpret its various and often self-contradictory depictions of gender, race, class, and nationalism in terms of its adherence to particular paradigms. For Toni Wein, \"Edgeworth merely reifies the visions between the two types of prudence, materialistic and moralistic, making the former the province of men and the latter the preserve of women, and thus fostering the separation of spheres upon which the middle class will depend in the nineteenth century\" (301). For Jennie Batchelor, the novel's original title, Abroad and at Home, signifies it as Edgeworth's attempt to \"describe woman's unachievable desire to dominate both the social and domestic spheres\" (159). And Anne Mellor, attempting to situate Belinda within the emergence of Romanticism, calls it a textbook example of the new feminine Romantic ideology [in which] Belinda succeeds in establishing a marriage of equality and compatibility because she has remained true to her moral and rational principles, cemented by the solid example of the benevolent and egalitarian Percival marriage. (44) And in contrast to all such interpretations of the novel as centered on various iterations of bourgeois femininity, Susan C. Greenfield would have it that \"although Belinda, Edgeworth's first 'domestic' novel, takes place in England, it centrally concerns the problem of the West Indies\" (215). Unfortunately for literary scholars, any and all attempts to place Belinda within a clearly defined paradigm are undermined by the text itself. Any reading of the novel as a tool for promoting the bourgeois separation of spheres is ultimately undone both by Lady Delacour's reformation and by Clarence Hervey's own preference for the eponymous heroine as a woman fit for public and private responsibilities. Attempting to read Belinda in terms of Romantic principles of egalitarianism is quickly subverted by the novel's clear demonstration of class and gender differences rather than parity and of its general advocacy of social norms. And readings of the colonial and racial issues in Belinda are mired in a seemingly self-contradictory text that condemns a white Creole as unfit to mate with English femininity at the same time that it unites a black former slave with a virtuous white female servant with an abundance of loyalty and common sense. That Edgeworth's text is, like most domestic novels, didactic is generally accepted, but what in fact is it teaching? Perhaps the difficulty lies not only in Edgeworth's obvious ambivalence about the rational foundation of existing moral codes and social structures but also in the intense particularity of her examination of individuals' and society's failings. Deborah Weiss locates the reason for this particularity in what she terms Edgeworth's \"philosophical pragmatism\": As a philosophical pragmatist, Edgeworth was able to launch her attack on her culture's debilitating gender codes in a carefully targeted fashion, using theory to identify the precise causes of social problems while at the same time employing the generic resources of the novel to put those theories into practice in the form of psychologically complex characters manoeuvering through a difficult and largely realistic moral world. …","PeriodicalId":390916,"journal":{"name":"Studies in the Literary Imagination","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"44","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in the Literary Imagination","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/SLI.2014.0012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 44
Abstract
I have covered my old carpet with a handsome green baize, and every stranger, who comes to see me, I observe, takes it for granted, that I have a rich carpet under it. --Aunt Stanhope to Belinda (Maria Edgeworth, Belinda 9) Maria Edgeworth is a problematic figure for literary scholars. She is an emblem of bourgeois values for many, a progressivist to others. Feminist scholars interpret her variously as a radical anti-patriarchist and anti-essentialist and conversely as a conservative polemicist enmeshed in the project of validating patriarchy and paternalism. One possible reason for these conflicting interpretations is Edgeworth's own determination, as evidenced in her published writings, to avoid being shoehorned into any one extreme position. Her writings often straddle the spaces between extremes, forcing her readers into positions as uncomfortable as her own. Such is the case with her first domestic novel, Belinda, first published in 1801. Belinda has been subjected to a series of attempts to reinterpret its various and often self-contradictory depictions of gender, race, class, and nationalism in terms of its adherence to particular paradigms. For Toni Wein, "Edgeworth merely reifies the visions between the two types of prudence, materialistic and moralistic, making the former the province of men and the latter the preserve of women, and thus fostering the separation of spheres upon which the middle class will depend in the nineteenth century" (301). For Jennie Batchelor, the novel's original title, Abroad and at Home, signifies it as Edgeworth's attempt to "describe woman's unachievable desire to dominate both the social and domestic spheres" (159). And Anne Mellor, attempting to situate Belinda within the emergence of Romanticism, calls it a textbook example of the new feminine Romantic ideology [in which] Belinda succeeds in establishing a marriage of equality and compatibility because she has remained true to her moral and rational principles, cemented by the solid example of the benevolent and egalitarian Percival marriage. (44) And in contrast to all such interpretations of the novel as centered on various iterations of bourgeois femininity, Susan C. Greenfield would have it that "although Belinda, Edgeworth's first 'domestic' novel, takes place in England, it centrally concerns the problem of the West Indies" (215). Unfortunately for literary scholars, any and all attempts to place Belinda within a clearly defined paradigm are undermined by the text itself. Any reading of the novel as a tool for promoting the bourgeois separation of spheres is ultimately undone both by Lady Delacour's reformation and by Clarence Hervey's own preference for the eponymous heroine as a woman fit for public and private responsibilities. Attempting to read Belinda in terms of Romantic principles of egalitarianism is quickly subverted by the novel's clear demonstration of class and gender differences rather than parity and of its general advocacy of social norms. And readings of the colonial and racial issues in Belinda are mired in a seemingly self-contradictory text that condemns a white Creole as unfit to mate with English femininity at the same time that it unites a black former slave with a virtuous white female servant with an abundance of loyalty and common sense. That Edgeworth's text is, like most domestic novels, didactic is generally accepted, but what in fact is it teaching? Perhaps the difficulty lies not only in Edgeworth's obvious ambivalence about the rational foundation of existing moral codes and social structures but also in the intense particularity of her examination of individuals' and society's failings. Deborah Weiss locates the reason for this particularity in what she terms Edgeworth's "philosophical pragmatism": As a philosophical pragmatist, Edgeworth was able to launch her attack on her culture's debilitating gender codes in a carefully targeted fashion, using theory to identify the precise causes of social problems while at the same time employing the generic resources of the novel to put those theories into practice in the form of psychologically complex characters manoeuvering through a difficult and largely realistic moral world. …
我在我的旧地毯上铺了一条漂亮的绿呢,我注意到,每一个来看我的陌生人都想当然地认为我下面铺了一条华丽的地毯。——斯坦霍普姨妈致贝琳达(玛丽亚·埃奇沃斯,贝琳达)对于文学学者来说,玛丽亚·埃奇沃斯是个有问题的人物。对许多人来说,她是资产阶级价值观的象征,对另一些人来说,她是进步主义者。女权主义学者将她解读为激进的反父权主义者和反本质主义者,相反,她则是一个保守的辩论家,深陷在证实父权制和家长制的项目中。这些相互矛盾的解释的一个可能原因是埃奇沃斯自己的决心,正如她发表的作品所证明的那样,避免被硬塞进任何一个极端立场。她的作品经常跨越两个极端,迫使她的读者陷入和她一样不舒服的境地。她的第一部国内小说《贝琳达》(Belinda)就是这样,于1801年首次出版。《贝琳达》受到了一系列的尝试,以重新诠释其对性别、种族、阶级和民族主义的各种经常自相矛盾的描述,以坚持特定的范式。对Toni Wein来说,“埃奇沃斯只是将两种审慎——唯物主义和道德主义——之间的愿景具体化,使前者成为男性的领域,后者成为女性的领地,从而促进了中产阶级在19世纪所依赖的领域的分离”(301)。对珍妮·巴切勒来说,小说的原标题《在国外和在家里》意味着埃奇沃斯试图“描述女性想要统治社会和家庭领域的无法实现的欲望”(159)。安妮·梅勒试图将贝琳达置于浪漫主义的出现中,称之为新女性浪漫主义意识形态的教科书范例,其中贝琳达成功地建立了一段平等和和谐的婚姻,因为她一直忠于自己的道德和理性原则,这被仁慈和平等的珀西瓦尔婚姻的坚实范例所巩固。(44)与所有这些以各种反复的资产阶级女性气质为中心的对小说的解释相反,苏珊·c·格林菲尔德(Susan C. Greenfield)认为,“虽然埃奇沃斯的第一部‘国内’小说《贝琳达》发生在英国,但它主要关注的是西印度群岛的问题”(215)。不幸的是,对于文学学者来说,任何和所有试图将《贝琳达》置于一个明确定义的范式中的尝试都被文本本身破坏了。任何将小说视为推动资产阶级领域分离的工具的解读,最终都被德拉库尔夫人的改革和克拉伦斯·赫维自己对同名女主人公的偏爱所破坏,因为她适合承担公共和私人责任。试图从浪漫主义的平等主义原则来解读《贝琳达》,很快就被小说对阶级和性别差异的清晰展示所颠覆,而不是平等,以及它对社会规范的普遍倡导。对《贝琳达》中殖民和种族问题的解读陷入了一个看似自相矛盾的文本中,它谴责白人克里奥尔人不适合与英国女性气质相结合,同时又将一个前黑人奴隶与一个忠诚而富有常识的善良白人女仆结合在一起。像大多数国内小说一样,埃奇沃斯的文本是说教的,这是普遍接受的,但它实际上是在教什么呢?也许,困难不仅在于埃奇沃斯对现有道德规范和社会结构的理性基础的明显矛盾心理,还在于她对个人和社会失败的审视具有强烈的特殊性。黛博拉·韦斯将这种特殊性的原因归结为埃奇沃斯的“哲学实用主义”:作为一个哲学实用主义者,埃奇沃斯能够以一种精心定位的方式对她的文化中削弱性的性别规范发起攻击,利用理论来确定社会问题的确切原因,同时利用小说的一般资源将这些理论付诸实践,以心理复杂的人物在一个困难的、很大程度上是现实主义的道德世界中运作的形式。…