Week 5: Is Arabella a Love extremist?

“By them she was thought to believe, that Love was the ruling Principle of the World; that every other Passion was subordinate to this; and that it caused all the Happiness and Miseries of Life.” – The Female Quixote, p.7

“What all these extremist share is a fear of freedom, of openness, and an overpowering need to surrender to something that will stand for authority. Left to their own devices, they might be ruled by a dangerous side of their personality, suddenly overwhelmed by the openness of life. This is why they would rather capitulate their free-will and follow blindly and unerring guiding hand.” – Introduction (this week’s reading), p.7

Just in case the title is a little misleading, what I really meant to ask is why does Arabella put so much effort into abiding by the romantic laws of courtship she reads about in her mother’s novels? This I think is an interesting question that I’m probably not going to be able to answer to the fullest here, but these two selected passages should give me a sense of direction as to where to look.
                Arabella is such an innocent girl that has been sheltered from practically all social activities, especially time spent with men, and any good looking person she encounters that is looking at her she will presume is in Love with her. Although, instead of expressing their emotions to her, they are supposed to keep it a secret and go through an impossible set of trials and tribulations to prove his love instead of simply declaring it. In a sense she’s right, actions speak louder than words, but she isn’t exactly getting the point. The purpose of those trials are to give the hero a chance to prove himself worthy of his heroine, not because a long series of romantic novels say they are the things one is supposed to do. Although, to Arabella it is exactly that: she finds is overtly offensive when a man professes his attraction to her, and “banishes” him from her sight! There is nothing wrong with profession a love for someone, but she thinks there is because apparently it is not what courtship is supposed to be like.
                The introduction we read this week is about obsession. Obviously, Love – not love as we know it but Love in a fairy tale – is her obsession. She grew up reading all her mother’s novels – whose purpose for reading it was to fill the gap within her heart in the first place, since her life had been full of loneliness (apparently the Marquis was too busy to even say hi in the morning) – and now considers them religious material. The quote above indicates that the reason for Arabella’s cold feet, from the arranged marriage with her cousin, is because she’s been under tutelage her novels for so long that she cannot fathom going about Love in any other way. This correlates to her solitary childhood under her father’s protection that she doesn’t see the world as it really is, and is actually afraid of finding out how it really is, that she uses her obsession of courtly Love to keep herself within her comfort zone. What would happen when this is actually taken away from her? I would love to find out…

Fantomina: Why agree on a second date when she knows what she’s getting into?

“As for her Proceedings with [Beauplaisir], or how a second Time to escape him, without discovering who she was, she cou’d neither assure herself, not wither or not in the last Extremity she wou’d do so. – Bent, however, on meeting him, whatever the Consequences,” – Fantomina (p.261)

“A Woman of Wit when thus ensnar’d, is infinitely more unhappy than one of a less distinguishing Capacity, because she sees and knows the Dangers into which she is about to plunge herself, yet withal finds them unavoidable, with open Eyes she gazes on the vast Abyss where her dear Peace of Mind is already lost, and which also threatens the Destruction of her Fame, her Honour, and all that is valuable, yet is still blind to every Path that might guide her from the impending Mischiefs.” – Reflections on the various Effects of Love (p.121)

“the desirability of a mood is also related to the level of arousal the mood denotes.” – Answers from Cognitive Psychology; Feldman Barrett (p.23)

            In the selected passage, Fantomina (that’s what I’m calling her) is not able to think straight, her “Peace of mind is already lost.” She’s already given herself to Beauplaisir and she doesn’t even realize it. The protagonist contemplates upon how she’s going to meet with her love without giving in to his desires. She figures that the “Strength of her Virtue” will save her (p.260). I argue that she knows what she’s getting into form the beginning – ever since she first devises a plan to flirt with Beauplaisir.

            Haywood describes falling in love with the state of being ensnar’d – to be captivated or caught in a trap. Fantomina is in love with Beauplaisir, and now she cannot stay away from him. Whether or not she ends up sleeping with him or not, she never from the beginning contemplates the option of standing him up – which would have been the easiest way for her to save her virtue. She is “blind” as Haywood puts it in the passage above.

            Fantomina is clearly sexually attracted to this man, to the point to where she stalks him in various disguises just to be able to have sex with him. Of course she’s going to have to sleep with Beauplaisir if she goes on that second date; either a smart woman like her couldn’t put two and two together, or she literally had to lie to herself to be able to get one step closer to what she really wanted. The intense physiological response triggered in Fantomina by Beauplaisir is conjugated from within herself in the form of Love – an emotional response. Reddy explains that the “desire” mentioned by Barrettt is a “goal-relevant type emotional valence” (p.23), and for Fantomina it means achieving her goal would result in a positive emotional valence. A positive emotional valence would produce a state of arousal (physiologically) in Fantomina. Reddy explains arousal as being either “aversive” or “appetitive”(p.22)  – in this case it’s the latter: a natural desire to satisfy bodily needs (Oxford American Dictionary).

So, the reason Fantomina went on that second date: to quench her natural bodily desires.

How is curiosity personified in early-modern literature, and why? (Response week 3)

“She could not conceal the sudden Rack which all at once invaded her; or had her Tongue been mute, her wildly rolling Eyes, the Distortion of her Features, and Convulsions which shook her whole Frame, in spite of her, would have reveal’d she labour’d under some terrible Shock of Nature.” – p.288 Fantomina (Haywood)

“In the early modern period, when curiosity rose to a peak of frenzied attention, it took on distinct historical shapes. From 1660 to 1820, [curious people] asked questions that challenged the status quo. They inquired into forbidden topics […] In reaction, conservative literary culture represented these queries as social or intellectual transgressions that were parallel to the physical transgression of oddly formed people. Curious people thus appeared as monsters, “queers,” and curiosities.” – p.2 Curiosity (Benedict)

            The protagonist of Fantomina, a victim of her own sexual curiosity for the man she loves, uses that same curiosity, naturally inherent within all people, to seduce Beauplaisir over and over again. The flawless execution of her “method” (p. 283 – it is worth mentioning that her use of this word implies, in a way, that her multiple disguises, and efforts, repeated are empirical/scientific trials) allowed her to satisfy her itching interest in what exactly it is that keeps a man’s sexual attention – as sublime beauty, which she possesses, only can attain it. She revives the intrigue in their romantic relationship using her many disguises, raising the anti every time, until it got the point where her lover could no longer take not knowing her true identity, consequently ending the relationship.

            These affairs proved detrimental to the protagonist as her persistent pursuit of her curiosities, in the hopes of trying to win her lover over, leads to her pregnancy. The quote above is describing the transformations her body undertakes both physically and physiologically: her excess curiosity has literally transformed her appearance into something far from the norm of how a beautiful innocent girl should look.

            The second quote is telling of the mind-state of those living in the mentioned timeframe in terms of what they thought about curiosity, especially curious people. The constant prying and obsession into “forbidden topics” constituted heresy, especially if practiced in excess: that the act of infringing upon societal norms is much like a deformity when compared to an average human body. This association allowed for early-modern writers to personify someone’s inherent curiosity as being able to transform into a sort of deformity.

            One of my favorite examples can be found in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein – published 1818. Ever since a young man, Victor Frankenstein’s curiosity of the natural wonders of the world leads him to a life-long obsession of the natural sciences. This lead’s Victor to create his “Creature,” which he claims was to help the future of mankind, even though Shelley’s writing suggests that it was more so due to his arrogance. Consequently, this leads to the creation of an abomination of nature, deformed physically head-to-toe, whose life ends up being nothing but a walking curiosity: endlessly wondering and studying human nature.

A Maze (O.E.D. assignment #1)

Amaze, v.

1. To put out of one’s wits; to stun or stupefy, as by a blow to the head; to infatuate, craze. Obs.

Unlike most of the nouns that describe a mental state, amaze is a verb. This did not initially occur to me as I was researching word, but thought it peculiar that I had at first considered it as a mental state rather than an action imposed upon someone. This is until I studied its etymology – which consists of two parts:

< A- prefix (intensive) + MAZE (noun).

Maze (OE: mase) is a noun of Old-English origin, and it is suggested that it existed with its verbal-form counterpart (OE: amusian) from their genesis. Although, unlike amaze, maze has a much more extensive etymology as well as a multitude of definitions that range from a state-of-mind, to a labyrinth, plus everything in between. Although by the 18^th century, Maze, in its definition as a “state of bewilderment,” was indistinguishable with amaze (literally being in a maze state of mind) shown by its history:

1595 Blanchardine & Eglantine II. Xiii. Sig. K2: “The faire Beautrix..stood in a maze.”

This word – or phrase depending on how you look at it with its prefix – is not referring to its literal definition of a labyrinth: the narrator is using the word maze as to define a spell the subject has been put under by, what I presume, a beautiful object or person. Also, in this case, the prefix is particularly important because it signifies that the emotion the narrator “feels” is not of his own but induced from without.

            So not only is the usage of maze above, as a mind-state, a definition derived from it’s literal meaning – a labyrinth – personified, but its etymology suggests that the common usage of the word with the prefix a- allowed for the modern emergence of amaze – the action of inducing said emotional response within oneself or another: a more common usage of the word today.

Crusoe's Idols (Response Week 2)

What changes in Crusoe that allows him to question God’s motives in keeping His “knowledge” from the savages?

“even though we have these Powers enlighten’d by the great Lamp of Instruction, the Spirit of God, and by the Knowledge of his Word, added to our understanding; and why it has pleas’d God to hide the like saving Knowledge from so many Millions of Souls, who if I might judge by this poor Savage [Friday], would make a much better use of it than we did.” – Robinson Crusoe p.151

“The Idols of the Cave are the idols of the individual man. For everyone (besides the error common to human nature in general) has a cave or den of his own, which refracts and discolor the light of nature;” Bacon (PE) p.42

            The reason I chose Bacon’s Idols of the Cave, and not the similar Idols of the Tribe, is that the Idols of the Cave account for a subjectivity stemming from an individual’s core beliefs in the mechanics of his world around him. Idols of the Tribe arise from a more natural tendency of human beings to exaggerate facts. Crusoe’s ability to get past his initial notions that the natives are sub-human – in other words, realize and refute his own Idols of the Cave – is what allows him to contemplate upon the natives in a more objective manner.

Crusoe, a devout protestant, did not see the native people as his equal in nature, but often referred to them as savages or creatures. This stems from the fact that, much like the wild-beasts in the beginnings of the novel, the cannibals ate human flesh. Exactly because he is an English protestant man, his Idols of the Cave cause Crusoe to consider the natives as animals. He was very persistent in his mission to convert Friday into Christianity.

Going back to the selected passage, it is not until Friday showed Crusoe that he was a good Christian, that he questions why God had selected his people, who corrupt the word of God and use it to their own advantage, to receive His Knowledge, instead of the millions of native-Americans, who may use God’s teachings in a more positive and exemplary fashion – as Crusoe investigates Friday’s metamorphosis into a devout protestant. I would argue that Crusoe never considered the natives as his equal, or equal to any other European, until his experience with Friday.

Friday’s conversion from cannibalism to Christianity successfully elevates his status from slave into more of a companion in Crusoe’s eyes. Crusoe’s Idols (of the Cave) has always clouded his judgment upon the native people of the land. He perceives all of the natives as savage cannibals that will eat him as soon as he steps foot onto the mainland. In reality, this is of course only half true, as, according to Friday, his people and those of surrounding nations only eat enemies. It is also revealed that the survivors of the more recent Spanish shipwreck have been rescued by Friday’s people – in other words, not merely uncivilized animals.

Whether Crusoe’s personal assumptions, and consequently his actions based on said anticipations, that all natives are savages and uncivilized was beneficial in terms of his long-term survival is not what is up for debate. What is is the exact fact that he has preconceived notions of non-Christian people, such as the natives, as inherently sub-human and animal. What changes in him is that sometime during his nurturing of Friday, Crusoe acknowledges the equality of men regardless of origin. Consequently, this is the reason he questions his Lord, asking why is it that God would purposefully keep his “saving Knowledge” from millions of  His own creatures.