feminism and romanticism

Both male and female poets of the Romantic era fought hard to find a place for their literary voices, but the obstacles they faced were quite different. Male poets of the time felt that their vocation, writing poetry, was in jeopardy of losing its acclaimed position due, in part, to the rise in the lending library, which fiercely spread throughout England after the 1780’s (Mellor, A Criticism). For women, however, these lending libraries increased their abilities to distribute their work, and thus raised the amount of reading material that other women could procure. These female-authored texts redefine a woman’s subordinate position in society and celebrate her existence and importance as a rational being, instead of the over-sensational character that male writers always describe. This base conflict between male and female poets of the Romantic era exists within the bodies of their poetry and presents an interesting point of reference in terms of gender and feminism within the Romantic era. Women wanted equality, and they did not want to be considered synonymous with unruly and erratic Nature. Female writers use eloquent, common, and didactic language to emphasize this point and illustrate examples of their desired role in society.

In order to parse out the important differences between male and female writers, one must first look to the canon, which centers on six male authors, and recognize the purpose of the authors and contrast these findings with works written by women. This comparison illuminates the differing attitudes towards societal sexual differences and their implications. Anne Mellor claims that deeply imbedded within political culture was “a concept of the [male] self as a power that gains control over and gives significance to nature, a nature troped in their writings as female” (Mellor, On Romanticism 8). In other words, male writers used their writing as a way to exploit women in their comparisons to Nature, which can be completely annihilated by man. This further emphasized man’s dominant role in society because even in his artistic expression the language and imagery he chose depicted a woman, Nature being destroyed or under the power of him. Conversely, a woman’s place was in the domestic sphere and her responsibilities, as deemed by patriarchal society, were purely sentimental and nurturing. Although this placed women at an initial disadvantage, once they envisioned a way out of this subordinate role, they actually had the upper hand over men. Only a woman could articulate her unique insight “without having any access to sanctioned political forms,” that were contaminated by male politics (Ross, Configurations of Feminism 93). Also, compared to her male counterparts, a female writer’s focus was on morality and equality rather than the search for “self-creation, self-comprehension, and self-positioning” that dominated and conflated the male writer’s work (Ross, Romantic Quest 26). The language that male writers chose to use was elevated above the general person’s knowledge, because they were concerned about losing their place in the hierarchy of literary forms. Women, however, brought the language to the reader, and in doing so, formed a connection that increased readership and afforded women more social power as well as a presence outside the confines of the previously male-designated domestic sphere.

The only place a woman held in a male text was as an irrational and over-emotional being. However, male writers did not completely discredit emotionality’s importance within literature, and therefore did not completely discredit the female writer. As Stuart Curran notes, male writers of the time gained much of their insight and detail writing techniques from the example of their contemporary women writers (Romantic Poetry). This insight and detail are two characteristics that male writers won acclaim and readership for in their work, which highlights women’s existence as more than weak, volatile, and something less than human. However, male writers did not acknowledge this side of the truth. Therefore, attempts to write about women by men only undermined the feminist’s cause, because the language still placed women in a subordinate role. Only now, women’s techniques were helping men place them there. Similarly, Alan Richardson quotes Mary Jacobson as arguing that “if femininity was privileged by male writers during the Romantic period it was by the same token debased: if women were valued for natural, intuitive feeling, so were children and idiots” (21). It is the way in which male writers portrayed women that is in stark contrast to the approaches of female writers. Feminist of the Romantic era wanted to secure equal rights for women, and one way that they sought this equality was through equal educational opportunities for women and girls. This is why women authors provide a didactic message through the vehicle of a complex, rational female character not dominated by the patriarchal “doctrine of the separate spheres” (Mellor, On Romanticism 4). Within the female text, there was direction, example, and warnings as to what behaviors, actions, and choices were appropriate for women of that time. An example of this is Felicia Hemans poem, “Arabella Stuart,” in which a woman depends so heavily on a man for happiness and escape from prison that she goes mad and dies (Feldman). Although women were not supportive of the frantic and unruly portrayal of femininity that men painted in their work, Hemans use of intense emotion represents a different ideology. Female writers used their work as an outlet to teach other women about the dangers of excessive emotion and dependency on men, as well as other societal teachings. In this poem, Hemans emphasizes the emotionality of the imprisoned woman to highlight its trappings. Imprisonment alone can hold several different meanings; imprisoned literally in the cell, imprisoned by society in a subordinate role, and imprisoned by her particular dependence on this man for happiness and fulfillment. All of these different readings of what it means for Arabella to be imprisoned underline Hemans’ critique of the typical woman—the woman found in male texts. One way to read Arabella’s mental deterioration could be that because she allowed herself to be in a serving position, subordinate and dependent on a man insanity and death overpower her. The purpose of this piece might be to teach women readers that if they fall into a dependent role, than they too could end up wishing death upon themselves as Arabella does from prison, because although they may not be locked in a cell, they could be locked in their homes just the same.

Moral teachings and warnings were key components to female-authored texts. It was their way to stand up and reclaim a voice for all women. It allowed them to share their knowledge with other women who did not receive of a fair education. Some female writers found a way to incorporate strength into domestic roles, which served to reshape the way women thought of their position in society, and demand more from themselves and others. The women in these narratives have autonomy and are not dependent on a man’s love. Rather, they reclaim the domestic sphere as powerful. It is important to find the true sentiment of a piece that exists beneath the emotionality, and focus on the desires of women for social progress during this time. Otherwise, the implications of a question like the one Greg Kucich raises, “did its [women’s writing] predominant emphasis on suffering, particularly in its sorrowful records of woman, help foster social reformation or actually reinforce the period’s gender stereotypes of women as helpless, inferior victims?” (5) might be valid. I would like to argue against this claim, turning to Anne Mellor’s description of the personal as political for support. She says, “Since the personal is the political, a discussion of the private female experiences articulated in literary texts often produces in the reading critic a sense of shared injustice that must be rectified, by changing both individual lifestyles and collective institutions” (Mellor, On Romanticism 5). Therefore, female texts of the Romantic era need to be read as an outlet to the history of the time. There is an importance unmatched by any other form of history that comes in hearing the voices of the oppressed. Through women’s writing readers can learn her story that was lost among the stories of men’s truths, and gain a full knowledge of gender’s true role within the Romantic era.

Bibliography

“Alan Richardson’s Romanticism and the Colonization of the Feminine,” in Romanticism and Feminism ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 13-25.

“Anne Mellor’s On Romanticism and Feminism,” in Romanticism and Feminism ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 3-9.

“Anne Mellor’s A Criticism of Their Own: Romantic Women Literary Critics,” in Questioning Romanticism ed. John Beer (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1995), pp. 29-48.

Feldman, Paula R. British Women Poets of the Romantic Era. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997.

Kucich, Greg. “The Last Man and the New History.” Romantic Circles Moo Conference: 13 September 1997, University of Notre Dame.

“Marlon B. Ross’s Configurations of Feminine Reform: The Woman Writer and the Tradition of Dissent,” in Re-Visioning Romanticism British Women Writers, 1776-1837 ed. Carol Shiner Wilson and Joel Haefner (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1994), pp. 91-110.

“Marlon B. Ross’s Romantic Quest and Conquest: Troping Masculine Power in the Crisis of Poetic Identity,” Romanticism and Feminism ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 26-51.

“Stuart Curran’s Romantic Poetry: The I Altered,” in Romanticism and Feminism ed. Anne K. Mellor (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 186-207.

“Susan Wolfson’s Romanticism and Gender,” in _ ( ), pp. 385-396.