Baillie and the Need of Human Nature

Baillie’s dramas, in particular Plays on the Passions stand at the crossroads of the Scottish Enlightenment and early Romanticism. One can see the effect these had on her writing, and may explain her focus on the human mind and its relationship to human nature. However, her beginnings were with poetry, for which she was regarded as one of the finest woman poets in her lifetime. Elizabeth Barrett Browning even hailed her as “the first female poet in all senses in England.” Her career in poetry sits in contrast with that of her dramas, for it’s poetry itself which she goes on to criticize in Plays on the Passions, for they don’t often include human nature in them, creating a disconnect between the reader and the poem.

Baillie came from an intellectual family with important links to the major philosophical and scientific communities of the time, in particular the “common sense” school of philosophy that became known as the Scottish Enlightenment. Her uncle was William Hunter, anatomist and physician, who founded the University of Glasgow’s Hunterian Museum, and Matthew, her brother, born in 1761, later became a medic and anatomist. Baillie, intelligent and with a stimulating intellectual background, however, was excluded from the scientific world, which was why she launched her own examination of the psyche.

                                                            Edinburgh during the Scottish Enlightenment  

Her Plays on the Passions, was produced in three volumes between 1798 and 1812. The first volume created quite a stir amongst the literary circles of London and Edinburgh when introduced anonymously. The speculation into the authorship concluded two years later when Baillie came forward as the writer of the collection, thereby causing a subsequent sensation since no one had considered her as a candidate in the mystery. The three plays which were included were "Count Basil: A Tragedy,"  "The Tryal: A Comedy," which show love from opposing perspectives; and "De Monfort: A Tragedy," which explores the drama of hate.  It’s within Dramas that Baillie believes lies the most captivating characteristic writing may contain: human nature. Drama is the purest genre which isn’t caught up in eloquent or flowery rhetoric, stripping itself from these methodical attributes and bringing it as close to reality as possible.

So far, we haven’t read any works which would fit completely under Baillie’s description, for none of them have been Dramatic plays. Nonetheless, Baillie does recognize that novels may obtain a certain level of real human emotion which readers can identify themselves with. Baillie states the urge human beings have of “looking into another man’s closet,” meaning they want to discover their deepest secrets and motivations for acting the way they do. In Zofloya, for example, we observe a much more deep evolution within the characters, especially in Victoria as well as Zofloya, than in A Sicilian Romance, in which although there are major plot events occurring, the characters show little depth. Julia’s perfect nature is exactly what Baillie addresses as a lack of human nature, for it doesn’t depict a realistic human being. However, she also suggests that just as a perfect depiction of a character is bad, a purely evil on is too. In Zofloya we can observe this other side of the spectrum, for Zofloya is depicted as the devil in person. None of these sides contain what Baillie would see as essential, which is tha of human nature.

Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with Baillie that novels create a disconnect between the reader and the work itself with the use of rhetoric devices or even the sublime?

2. Is human nature, as Baillie describes it, in your opinion essential?

3. What flaws do you think Baillie would see in the novels we’ve read so far?

How Baillie's Passion Informs the Gothic Novel

Joanna Baillie was a Scottish dramatist who began publishing her work in 1790, at the age of 28. Her Plays on the Passions, which explored the passions she felt drove the actions of mankind, were meant to be her masterwork. In the "Introductory Discourse," Baillie essentially argues that, in humans, there is an inherent sympathetic disposition that drives people to try to understand their peers. In response to meeting a person and observing their behavior, the individual doing the observation is likely to “involuntarily place every person they become acquainted with” (68) into a personality class  that they have defined over a lifetime of judging others dispositions. Despite what people see and understand on the surface of human behavior, Baillie argues that there is always a longing to see beneath the surface of their life and understand them in new ways. In other words, it is one thing for a person to see a man after a burst of anger and categorize them as an aggressive person, but the desire to see what happened to make the man behave in that way is something that is inherent to human nature.  In the Gothic novels we have read in class—Charlotte Dacre’s Zofloya, published in 1806; Ann Radcliffe’s A Sicilian Romance, published in 1790; and Horace Walpole’s The Castle of Otranto published in 1764—we are given a look into the passions of various characters, but not in a way that Baillie deems appropriate.     

Joanna Baillie (1762-1851)

The unbridled passions that have been described in the Gothic novels are things to be feared. In A Sicilian Romance the marchioness’ passion leads to her eventual death, the passion of men in both A Sicilian Romance and The Castle of Otranto leads to outbursts of extreme violence, and in Zofloya passion leads Victoria to Hell itself. It is nothing like the passions that Baillie argues are one of the most fundamental aspects of human nature. Part of this Baillie attributes to the medium of the Gothic novel itself. In fact, Baillie finds flaw in all mediums outside of the play when it comes to describing human behavior. Because of a person’s natural desire to understand other people, Baillie argues that the play is the only honest medium that can be used to show what is happening behind the scenes.

Historians try to provide information on the past, however, Baillie argues what people have done is only interesting to the general population once we are given a glimpse into the lives of the people performing the actions. Philosophers who study human hearts and passions need to have clear, relatable examples of no one will have any interest in the theory that they are trying to put forth. Poets provide an idealized look at the world and fantastic situations, however, Baillie argues the in poetry “one simple trait of the human heart, one expression of passion” (80) is more interesting to the reader than whatever imaginary world the poet can concoct. Finally, Novels do not provide the reader with realistic people. Instead, the audience is exposed to characters like Julia or Manfred who represent one passion instead of recognizing the variety of passions within us all. 

Baillie argues that Tragedy was probably first type of drama and that, if done properly, sets the viewer up for personal growth. Tragedy allows the reader a moment where they can see a great hero, or villain, in their private moments. These private moments where the character is allowed to reveal their most personal thoughts and human flaws allows the viewer a moment of connection, an access point to understanding the figures inner passions. If the characters are portrayed as simply a lover, or a hero, or a villain than the human aspect of the character is gone and the audience is no longer able to see a real human heart in them. This is what the Gothic works we have read thus far suffer from. Characters tend to take on one aspect of human behavior and model that behavior throughout the course of the novel. Such modes of characterization are useful for the audience in the sense that it is clear that the evil Manfred will be punished, and the good and virtuous Julia will be rewarded, and it provides very clear moral instruction. However, it deprives the reader of the human value that Baillie values so much. Only if the audience is able to make the human connection to the character can they see the effect that extreme passion has on their mind and life. 

While Gothic novels have their fair share of Tragedy, we have not yet seen a Comedy. Where Tragedy shows the heroes and the great figures that have long since been stripped of their human aspects, Comedy shows daily life. Because Comedy already has characters that the audience can relate to, it puts writers like Baillie at an advantage. Instead of trying to humanize some long-dead historical hero, she can focus on the smaller, more subtle aspects of human nature instead. However, Comedy runs the risk of becoming Satirical or Witty or Sentimental and if that happens than the audience loses the warmer aspects of human nature because the focus is purely on amusing them. As a result Baillie feels that Characteristic Comedy is the only route for moralists to take because it finds humor in human flaws that we all posses. 

Baillie takes what she has observed from plays, what she likes and doesn't like, and challenges herself to write her Plays on the Passions in as honest a way as she can. She challenges herself to “trace passions through all its varieties” (105) so even the characters with the smallest parts can be seen as complex humans. By doing so she hopes to avoid the parodies of people that have been presented to us in the Gothic novels we have read so far.     

For more information on the ways in which Joanna Baillie adapts past genres, click here.

And because we are talking about plays and drama and I have a one-track mind, here is a link to Shakespeare's Globe's Tumblr (which is a super fun link thank-you-very-much). 

Discussion Questions:
1. In what ways does Baillie's view on passion and characterization change how we view the previous texts we have read in this course? Or does it change our interpretations at all? 
2. When Plays on the Passions first came out, it was said to be a popular topic of discussion among critics and scholars of the time. A Sicilian Romance and Castle of Otranto both pre-date Baillie's Plays on the Passions by at least a few years, however, Zofloya was published a substantial amount of time after. Do you think Dacre would have been familiar with Baillie's "Introductory Discourse"? What influences from Baillie do we see in the characters in Zofloya? How does this compare with A Sicilian Romance and Castle of Otranto?
3. Baillie discusses in her "Introductory Discourse" why plays are the most suitable method for exploring human emotions and passions. Do you agree with this? 

Zofloya, The Moor, The Slave, The Devil

Surprise, surprise, Zofloya is literally the devil himself! It hardly qualifies as a plot twist. Throughout the novel it is hinted that Zofloya is something other than human; he appears suddenly, makes dead bodies disappear, and is even able to read minds and predict the future. He is the one who tempts Victoria with the idea of murdering her husband. He continuously makes cryptic and sinister remarks about his relationship to Victoria like on page 239 when he says, "The Signora is not my wife,...she will be mine, however, for we are linked by indissoluble bands." So when we read the conclusion of the novel, it isn't much of a surprise. His role throughout the plot of the novel confirms his devilish nature.

However, Zofloya's infernal nature goes deeper than that, or rather there is more at play than just what he does and what he says that makes Zolfoya seem sinister. Zofloya is an English novel written in 1806, and the character Zolfoya is black. More than that look at the way Zofloya describes himself to Victoria as "the lowest of your slaves..."(153) and when explaining his back story he says "I became the property of the Spaniard..."(153) Not only is he a black man in a white man's world he is a slave, and he would have been read as a slave in 1806 when the slave trade was still legal in England. Just the fact that Zofloya is a black slave who dresses in exotic clothes already brings with it a myriad of associations and stereotypes that paint him as a racial other. From the introduction of his character Dacre's narrator doesn't miss an opportunity to point out Zofloya's "dark skin" or his status as a servant and a Moor. Even before the actual introduction of his character in the novel we are aware of Zofloya's race. The title of the book, after all, is Zofloya, or The Moor. 

So why does making Zofloya black make him more terrifying to Dacre's readership? There are, of course, the prevailing stereotypes about African men that made them out to be hyper-sexual and extremely violent, but we also have to consider the historical context of the novel. As I've mentioned before the novel was written in 1806, which is only a few years removed from the Haitian Revolution where African slaves revolted against their masters. This event must have been fresh in the general consciousness of slave owning Europeans, and, without a doubt, must of made many people anxious about the possibility of slaves taking vengeance over their oppressive masters.

Throughout the novel we get hints that Zofloya yearns to be treated as an equal and resents being treated as an inferior. When Zofloya speaks endearingly about his previous master in Spain he describes it as follows, "he treated me as a friend and an equal, rather than as a miserable captive and domestic." (153) As I've mentioned before, Zofloya does describe himself to Victoria as "the lowest of your slaves," but it's hard to imagine Zofloya saying that to Victoria without at least a hint of irony, especially when you consider his endgame with Victoria. Now let's flash forward to the scene in the Banditti cavern where Zofloya is taunting Victoria with cryptic language, he says, "A truce, fair Victoria, to folly!--am I not thy equal--Ay thy superior!--proud girl, to suppose that the Moor, Zofloya, is a slave in mind" (242) This is a huge jump from being "the lowest slave." Here we see a triumphant Zofloya who has successfully plotted and executed the murder of his masters and has completely dominated Victoria to the point to where she cannot deny any of his requests. Looking at this through a racial lens we see a black slave successfully seducing a white woman and convincing her to murder her husband. Yes, Zofloya is literally Satan who corrupts Victoria's immortal soul, but he is also an African slave who achieves the total destruction of his European masters. Which, considering the time the novel was written, might have been more terrifying to Dacre's readership than Satan.

Dacre is very aware of the deep seated anxieties and fears that she is exploiting by writing Zofloya the way she does. What she is doing is subverting the expectations that readers have for somebody like Zofloya: making the slave take on the role of master. What Dacre does with Zofloya is similar to what she does with Victoria. With Victoria Dacre subverts reader's expectations of a "docile," "innocent" female Gothic protagonist. With Zofloya Dacre gives a slave an immense amount of power and agency.

I wouldn't say that Zofloya is a multidimensional and well developed character. Yet there is much more to him than just a dark skinned representation of Satan. Dacre is tapping the racial anxieties of her readership and bringing those anxieties out in the open.

1. How do you think the meaning of the novel would change if it turned out that there was nothing supernatural about Zofloya, and he was just an extremely cunning and manipulative person? 

2. In the beginning of Chapter XXX on pgs 232-233 there is a lengthy description of the awesome scenery surrounding Victoria. Here Zofloya is described as being right at home in the midst of the sublime. To what extent is Zofloya an embodiment of the Sublime?

Xenophobia in Dacre's Zofloya

In the 17th century the British Empire started it's task of conquering and making foreign countries their own colonies. Colonization was apart of Great Britain's imperialist ambitions. Their goal was to control the other countries and obtain all their foreign goods. However, the country that became a British colony was was on the smaller end of the deal. The colony was often exploited and overrun by the British. At the turn of the century, colonies from other Imperialist powers started to gain momentum and resent.

In 1791, France (Great Britain's strongest rival) entered into the Haitian Revolution for five years. Haiti was a colon of France that was continuously being exploited for their goods such as indigo, sugar, coffee, and a few other small crops which was all managed by the enslaved nation's residents. Haiti was composed of 5 subgroups: the white plantation owners, the slaves on the plantation, the petit blancs that were shop keepers and artisans. The remaining population of Haiti was made up of African descent: those who were free, those who were slaves, and those who had escaped. This small population of white people on Saint Dominigue directly opposed France's political power and ability to control the markets. Haiti residents and merchants were only allowed to export and import from France. Even though the white people living in Haiti opposed France's control, their attitude towards enslavement remained untouched.

Toussaint L'Ouverture or "The Black Napolean"

In 1791, Toussaint L'Ouverture also known as the "The Black Napolean" rallied his people to revolt against the white plantation owners on the island. By the time the fighting ceased, L'Ouverture and his troops managed to kill over half of the 40,000 white residents that fought against them. L'Ouverture and the rest of the slaves were successful in their rebellion. Even when France sent troops to restore the power, L'Ouverture and the rebels were successful, and eventually pushed France forces out of Haiti. L'Ouverture was captured and imprisoned in France in 1803 where he eventually died.

Great Britain looked at this uprising as a forewarning that their would be revolutions in all of the colonies. The Imperialist nation was beginning to have a wave of xenophobic fears that the slaves and colonist would rise up and attack Great Britain.

In regards to literature at this time, the authors took this theme of Xenophobia and incorporated it into their writing. For example, Charlotte Dacre's Zofloya or The Moor is the a novel that portrays a moor (Zofloya) as dark, sinful, and violent. His character is seen as threatening, fearful, capable of committing unexplainable violence, murder, and a powerful character. Dacre more than likely had the idea of expressing the fear of the foreigner when she created Zofloya's character.

Jose the Prince of the Moors

The Moor was a term that originated in the English language. It is a term used directly to describe the "dark-skinned" or "black" volume of people in Europe. The term originated because of Queen Elizabeth I fear and hatred for the English moors. She proclaimed that the black moors of England were infidels and incapable of believing in Christ or Christianity. This marks the development of resentment and racism against the Moors in England.

Back to Dacre's novel, Zofloya's character is described as a majestic character but is worthy of Victoria's fascination and growing affections. We see this is the first description of Zofloya's character:

He was clad in a habit of white and gold; on his head he wore a white turban, which sparkled with emaralds, and was surmounted by a waving feather of green; his arms and legs, which were bare, were encircled with the finest oriental pearl; he wore a collar of gold round his throat, and his ears were decorated with gold rings of an enormous size (136).

Dacre begins to describe his character as one that is wealthy and has power. However, he still holds the status as a slave. His status in the novel is to serve Henriquez. This is where the reader starts to question and raise suspicion towards Zofloya's character and role in the novel. This can be the xenophobic fears of the time drifting into Dacre's novel. The reader is cautious and is not aware of what Zofloya is capable of until his character is revealed to have the ability to provide poison for Victoria to kill Leonardo. His growing attachment to Victoria also reflects the xenophobic fears of miscegeny. By the end of the novel, Zofloya's power over Victoria is seen out in the open. Her dependence on him transgressed throughout the novel, and lead her to fully submitting herself to Zofloya:

The attempt was vain, a numbing torpor began to creep over her as before; she essayed to conquer it, though contrary to the direction of Zofloya; and her incapacity to do so conveyed a bitter pang in her heart, while she felt that she was no longer mistress over herself or her faculties . . . she hopelessly resigned herself to the arbitrary spell that appeared to be cast over her (232).

There are many other moments throughout the Dacre's novel where we can see the overtones of Xenphobic fears and race at play.

Here's a documentary of "When the Moors Ruled Europe" is discusses the history behind the Moors.

Discussion Questions:

1) Considering the history behind Slave Rebellion, do you think the fear of a slave revolution played a part in Charlotte Dacre's creation of Zofloya as a novel and as a character? Why do you think this novel was highly criticized? 

2) Where do we see sexual tension between Victoria and Zofloya? Why did Dacre choose to have these moments?

3) What is the significance of racial difference in this novel? What is Zofloya's role throughout the novel? Why do you think Dacre chose Zofloya to have "dark-skin?" What is the significance behind Zofloya's past? 

Who is Really Talking? A closer look at our narrator

When calling into question the legitimacy of the narrator, Dacre's novel seems to take on a whole new meaning. As critical readers, we start to wonder if we can trust our storyteller, and whether or not the narrator's views even reflect those of the novelist to begin with. It's important to read into the narrator's biases and manipulations, otherwise we will fall victim to the art of cunning and persuasion, and by the end of the novel may be more susceptible to believe his/her opinions as they are introduced to us.

I wanted to look into the literary conversation on this topic, so I explored some other blogs and found one that was particularly interesting regarding this topic. Here, the blogger recognizes that the narrator's portrayal of characters is indeed a little shady, but instead of critiquing the narrator, she proceeds to criticize Dacre in light of the narrator's shortcomings. The blog itself is biased and not completely informative, another great example of how important narrative voice is when readers evaluate the reliability and virtue of a work's narration. Even though she (perhaps) mistakenly blames Dacre for her narrator's shortcomings, the blogger makes several points regarding the obvious flaw in the narrator's reasoning. She talks about character development and where it seems to be lacking, remarking that "It is hard to like [Victoria] or wish for her to succeed because, from the very first page on, Dacre condemns her as a spoilt brat and she never truly recovers from this." Clearly, this blog succeeds in analyzing and looking past the manipulative workings of the narrator, but fails to recognize that the narrative voice may not be Dacre's own opinions. Then again, maybe they are.

To read more, click here.



The art of deconstruction requires us to critically analyze everything we see, right down to the narrator's accountability and trustworthiness. When deconstructing a novel, we must never assume anything we see as correct, and we must especially refrain from believing anything the narrator says simply because he/she is revered as "unquestionable," "wise," or "certain." I think Dacre may have written this novel with such knowledge, because she constantly challenges her readers to question what the narrator's saying and why he/she is so biased.

Our narrator's partiality stems mainly from normative views of men and women, exemplifying the former's strengths and the latter's weaknesses. This suggests, to me, that the narrator is not only a man, but a very old-fashioned Romantic, traditional Gothic aristocrat with stereotypical views of gender roles. The passage from 139-41 regarding Latoni, Zofloya's disappearance, and Victoria's mixed feelings, exemplifies these one-sided opinions. Latoni, on his deathbed, says "I envied his beauty, his accomplishments, and hated him for the admiration which they obtained him," and the nature of his character development calls for respect and admiration from the reader, even for such a pathetic man. We tend to see him in a more positive light, as he has taken responsibility for his actions and shown true remorse. In contrast, our heroine is described as "overcome with mixed emotions," and she "found it impossible to account for the degree of feeling which affected her." Here, even though Victoria has committed no crime, she is portrayed as weak and inferior as she struggles to understand even her own emotions. These contrasting descriptions, even exemplified in an evil man and a supposed heroine, are clearly biased toward male virtue.

The narrator seems to suggest that no matter what the situation, a man will always keep his head about him and make decisions logically, as he should. This is the ideal male in Dacre's world, and he is pinned directly against the ideal female who, exemplified in the character Lilla, is described by the narrator as having "innocent... and courteous demeanor," while her "long flaxen hair floated over her shoulders: she might have personified (were the idea allowable) innocence in the days of her childhood," (133). Here the narrator is implying that the ideal woman is Lilla, of whom Victoria grows insanely jealous, and that this ideal persona includes a vision of naivete and innocence.

It seems alarming to me that a female writer, especially in her time, would take a stance that degrades and stereotypes women while idolizing and highlighting the strengths of men. Because of this, I am apprehensive to believe that the ideas and biases of the narrator reflect those of our novelist.


Discussion Questions

Is there any evidence for or against the assumption that our narrator and novelist share the same views? If so, how can we know for certain? Does the novel point to any contradicting values or ideas?

Why is the narrator so biased, and what might we learn from his/her perspective? Can we trust his/her opinion, and why or why not?

The Power of Zofloya's Poison

The servant of Henriquez is similar to the other characters in Charlotte Dacre's novel Zofloya, or The Moor. He has a dark side to him and bears the same social pressures that the other characters in the novel feel. There is something different about Zofloya however. He is a more sinister character which can be noted when he introduces his poison to Victoria. The poison that Zofloya introduces to Victoria represents his power that he holds over the lives of the other characters. It is a power that can be connected both in the spans of the story's societal context and his power of life and death that he holds.

Poisons can mean many different things in the context of a novel. A poison has to be crafted carefully and is often expensive to formulate. Zofloya is a servant to Henriquez. He does not possess the wealth of his master so the fact that Zofloya could even bring together a potion that can create death is impressive. The potion that he shows Victoria is not just a show of how much money and power he really has. It came from a "small gold box (154)" which in itself "contained several divisions (154)." This is an ornate box that recognizes Zofloya's wealth and power which betrays his position with Henriquez.

The power of the poison itself reflects Zofloya's hidden leverage over the other characters in the novel. The poison is "one of the most subtile and delicate poisons that ever, by the hand of art, could be composed (154)." It can be hidden in someone's food or even injected into someone's skin by stabbing one with a slight pin. This is the power of life and death in the hands of one man. He can take the life of any character in the novel. He can also give this power to any other character in the novel and he chooses and that character is Victoria.

Victoria is despised greatly by Henrique. She is a vain and vengeful figure in the novel and it seems that Zofloya is taking advantage of this. Zofloya was able to take advantage of Victoria with his eloquent speech and the power of his poison. He keeps talking about "the power of his poison," and how, in order for one to "remedy an evil, it is necessary to strike at the root (155)." This is tempting to Victoria as this is a powerful tool and Zofloya tries to persuade her that she will be able to get together with Berenza by eliminating all in her path. The poison is a leverage and Zofloya can use in order to show people that they do have an answer to their problems in the poison.

Zofloya holds a substantial amount of power with the poison in his possession. The poison is deadly
and valuable, as it is something that would be sought after by a large number of people if its knowledge was widespread. The power and leverage the poison creates is Dacre telling readers that the power over life and death is something that is as elegant and dangerous as Zofloya's poison.

Discussion Questions 
Would any of the other characters in the novel rationalize the use of the poison? What does the poison tell us about Zofloya? 

Why specifically does Zofloya present this to Victoria? Is there a specific reason why Dacre presented the nature imagery on pg. 155? 

The Sins of the Mother: Is only Laurina to Blame?

Zofloya is another example of a heavily Gothic-influenced novel. Charlotte Dacre wrote this novel at the beginning of the 19th Century. Similar to Radcliffe, Dacre explores the minds of her female characters, showing varying personalities and motivations quite unlike those written by men of the time. At the beginning, we are introduced to two female main characters, a mother and daughter duo named Laurina and Victoria. These women are nobles in Venice, a place where nobility is revered. But these women are not the most savory of characters.

Laurina and Victoria owe their nobility to the Marchese di Loredani, the husband of Laurina and father of Victoria. He was widely loved by the people of Venice as being "the most beneficent, the noblest, and the best of human beings" (Dacre 5). But, to borrow a phrase from popular culture, "With great power, comes great responsibility". Being the wife of a Marchese causes one to be constantly in the public's eye. Laurina, at the opening, had been married to the Marchese for seventeen years and been blessed with two children. When she married the Marchese, she was about fifteen years old and he was only twenty himself. A young wife, she soon became a young mother, having had two children within the span of two years. 

Laurina and the Marchese were young and inexperienced in parenting and did what many parents, especially well-to-do ones, do: spoil their children rotten. Dacre sums this practice up quite well, saying, "lavish and imprudent was the fondness bestowed by the parents upon their idolized offspring -- boundless and weak was the indulgence for ever shewn to them" (4). Eager to appease their children and to keep tears from being shed on their angelic faces, the Marchese and Laurina spoiled them. They did not think this would cause their children to turn out the way they did, and oh did it affect them.

Palace Cavalli in Venice

Such up bringing caused Victoria and her older brother Leonardo to grow up with unpleasant characteristics that the parents did not necessarily show. Victoria is describe as "beautiful and accomplished as an angel, was proud, haughty, and self-sufficient, -- of a wild, ardent, irresponsible spirit, indifferent to reproof, careless of censure -- of implacable, revengeful, and cruel nature, and bent upon gaining the ascendancy in whatever she engaged" (4). Laurina and her husband, by giving Victoria whatever she desired, inadvertently caused Victoria to be unable to be placated and unaffected by simple reproach. Victoria is only swayed temporarily by the death of her father. The events leading up to this are mainly of her mother's doing. 

Laurina is noted in the text as being very devoted to her husband, just as he adored Laurina. But even someone as madly in love as Laurina can stray. Laurina's initial downfall is caused by Count Ardolph, a man who stays with the di Loredani family. He is a person of despicable character, a serial seducer of married women. At first, his advances on Laurina go unnoticed as Laurina is utterly dedicated to her husband. It took Ardolph begging on his knees for Laurina to see his interest in her. Once Laurina saw how he felt, things went downhill quickly. Soon all that Laurina could think about was Ardolph, whether he was with her or not. After some time, Laurina decided to run away with Ardolph.

This event caused the di Loredani family to fall apart. Leonardo felt so disgraced by his mother's actions that he ran off on his own. Victoria was thrust into the role of mistress of the house. Her implacable nature was only made worse as now the servants too had to follow her every whim. The Marchese was profoundly affected by his wife's affair and he became melancholic. But Laurina's doings also affected the family in other ways too, namely in the social sphere. Other nobility of Venice stopped socializing with the di Loredanis. At one point the Marchese asks why Victoria is not socializing with people her age to which she responds "because my mother has disgraced us" (15).

The Marchese soon dies after spotting Ardolph on the streets of Venice and attacking him. On his deathbed, the Marchese begs Victoria to change her ways and not act like her mother. Laurina bursts in, finding out the events after Ardolph returned to the house they were renting. She begs the Marchese to forgive her. He says that she must change her ways and that she must make sure Victoria does not follow in her mother's footsteps. Shaken by the desperate tone of the Marchese, they both agree, and then the Marchese dies.

But this promise does not last. Not long after she moves with her mother and Ardolph, Victoria continues to disobey her mother and Ardolph.

Discussion questions:

Based on what we have read so far, is Laurina the only one to blame? If not, who else is to blame? Why do you think Victoria obeyed her father's wishes for such a short amount of time? Could the Marchese have done more to alter the behavior of his daughter? Was his approach too hands-off? Are there any circumstances that could have changed to alter the situation of Victoria?

Nature and Nurture: The Importance of Motherhood in Zofloya, or The Moor

Charlotte Dacre's 1806 novel begins not with the eponymous Zofloya or his tempestuous lover Victoria di Loredani, but with the corruption and seduction of Victoria’s mother, acknowledging the novel’s interest in parental responsibility on childhood development.  Similar to Emily Bronte’s Wuthering Heights, Dacre creates a generational gap in her narrative to show how paternal and maternal influences, or lack thereof, affect the outcome of the second generation.  Both Bronte and Dacre’s characters, despite their aristocratic class, become wild and impassionate through the negative presence of the mother.  Dacre’s somewhat psychological approach to the novel allows for both male and female characters to employ manipulation and power for pleasure, a radical depiction of female authority at the time.

The novel expresses the difficulty in successfully raising children, especially for the nobility, focusing on the limitless flow of pleasure that wealth affords them.  Though the Marchese and his wife are innocent in their endeavors to make their children happy, Leonardo and Victoria turn out spoilt and in constant need of pleasure.  Victoria develops “a wild, ardent, and irrepressible spirit, indifferent to reproof, careless of censure –of an implacable, revengeful, and cruel nature” (4) while Leonardo, “with all the bolder shades of her character…[develops] a warm impassioned soul, yielding easily to the seductions of the wild and beautiful, accessible of temptation, and unable to resist, in any shape, the first impulses of his heart” (4).  Even under the guidance of a stable matriarch the children develop a wanting disposition that takes shape after their mother leaves with Ardolph.  Laurina becomes taken by the affections of Ardolph, and her vanity and weak nature are unable to resist his bold profession.  She is torn “with conflicting sentiments; her reason, her gratitude, the secret and powerful ties of early habit, taught her to adore her husband; but the insidious Ardolph daily led her senses wandering, and corrupted the purity of her heart” (11).  The danger of passion resonates throughout the novel, and holding multiple passions simultaneously seems to allude to an unsafe division of the mind.  Laurina’s marriage to the Marchese was founded in a youthful “delirium of passion,” and her attraction to Ardolph is likewise fueled by passion and vanity.

After her mother’s abandonment of the pallazzo, Victoria becomes the matriarch of the home, a position she is clearly not prepared for or even aware of.  Without her mother’s reproofs, Victoria’s spirit, now “with an unlimited scope for the growth of [her] dangerous propensities…bade fair soon to overtop the power of restriction” (14).  Though her father believes that, despite her always having a corrupt nature, a proper education will tame Victoria’s more wild and passionate characteristics, her mother essentially “seals the fiat of [her] future destruction, by setting [Victoria] in her own conduct an example of moral depravity” (15).  The successful cultivation of a child thus seems, according to Dacre, a combination of nature, nurture, education, and maternal influence.  Victoria’s lack of all these qualities prepares the reader for the remainder of the plot, and even her father, upon realizing the extent of her character, “endeavored to disguise from himself the suspicion that her heart was evil” (15).

 That Victoria is exposed to the relationship between Ardolph and Laurina after the death of her father further distorts her understanding of the role of the matriarch.  Though Laurina promises to her husband to correct her mistakes toward Victoria, she falls again into the hands of her murderous lover Ardolph, this time bringing Victoria with her.  Her mother defies every oath she has taken, resisting the role of a wife, a mother, even a woman, and through this Victoria develops "an ardent consuming desire to be situated like that unhappy mother...such were the baleful effects of parental vice upon the mind of a daughter" (28).  Though she becomes attached to the Il Conte Berenza, her condemnation of her mother warns Berenza to her cruel nature and he becomes cautious of his love for her.

Laurina's reckless influence on her daughter confirms Victoria's wicked nature throughout the novel, expressing Dacre's opinions on the role of the mother in developing the behaviors of her child.  By denying the sanctity of motherhood, Dacre's female characters circumvent any stereotypical categorization of femininity.

For a general overview of the nature/nurture debate, click here.

To what extent does the role of the mother influence the actions of Victoria and Leonardo? 

How are the traditional standards of women challenged, especially through motherhood and matrimony, and does this reveal anything about the female nature? 

WebRep

currentVote

noRating

noWeight

The Merciless Woman

In Coleridge’s Christabel Geraldine embodies a supernatural temptress whose mission seems to be to enthrall Christabel, stripping her of her innocence and leading her into a path of sin. Nevertheless, despite Geraldine’s apparent evil nature, she possesses a level of empathy and decides to have some mercy on Christabel stating in page 88: “All they who live in the upper sky,/Do love you, holy Christabel!/And you love them, and for their sake/And for the good which me befel/ Even I in my degree will try/ Fair maiden to requite you well.” In Keats’ ballad La Belle Dame sans Merci a female supernatural figure also appears, this time not masked as a human, but openly declared a “faery” by the knight. The title itself, however, seems to acknowledge the fact that this supernatural creature is merciless.

                Yet, despite the fact that Keats introduces this as an irrefutable truth by placing it in the title, it still seems as if the ‘Belle Dame’ isn’t void of emotions. Some may argue that her actions with the knight are all simply an act, a form of getting her way and deceiving him, and although this very well may have been Keats’ goal, I view it otherwise. In stanza’s V and VI one can see that the knight is already fully entranced by this “faery’s child” for he saw nothing else all day. Why then did she have to cry if the spell was already in effect? Rather than believing that she is lying when she says “I love thee true” to the knight, I believe that the Belle Dame means what she says. Stanza VII, therefore, shows a change in this creature for, “She took me to her elfin grot/ And there she wept and sigh’d full sore.” She, for once, seems to realize the magnitude of what she is about to do and can’t help but break down. In a way she seems to want to escape from what she is forced to do to the knight, letting him comfort her. In the stanza before this one it’s also mentioned that she feeds him manna dew, which has biblical allusions, for it saved the Israelites, and in a way may suggest her desire to save him.

                It’s not until the end of the poem, however, that we discover how the first speaker came across the knight. He had just awoken and found himself in the middle of what seemed to be fall or winter, meaning he had been left by the Belle Dame for months there, since they had met in the spring or summer. The first speaker describes him in the first and second stanza as pale and in a sickly state, however, before reaching the conclusion that the Belle Dame in fact had no mercy and left him to die it’s important to analyze the dream that the knight has. In stanzas X and XI he describes the dream, telling the first speaker how he saw pale kings, princes, and warriors too. They were all “death-pale” which leads the reader to infer that these were all past victims of this creature, yet they warn him “La Belle Dame sans Merci /Hath thee in thrall!” And from this dream he awakens to find the first speaker. Therefore, it seems as if the dream triumphed to warn him, for he awakens from this deadly sleep. Whether the Belle Dame knows or allows this break from the trance is difficult to say, but he awakens nonetheless, seeming to escape death narrowly.

Discussion Questions

What is the meaning of the dream in your opinion? Does awakening from it mean the knight’s survival to you?

 Is the Belle Dame simply acting or do you see parallels with Geraldine, where she has moments of weakness and shows emotion?