Looking at Utopia in "Millenium Hall"

In trying to decide what to write about this week, I couldn’t help coming back to Minnie’s insightful presentation on Utopian and Dystopian novels on Friday.  I know that everyone is well aware (probably more so than me) of what “utopia” means in relation to literature, but just for my own clarification I looked up a definition of the word.

Utopia: an ideally perfect state; especially in its social and political and moral aspects.

While pondering this definition, I also perused Dr. Hague’s question from Wednesday about Millinium Hall, and landed on number two: “What can you tell about the frontispiece and advertisement about the way that Scott has positioned herself in relation to this novel?” Turning to these in the book, I was reminded of our discussion of women writers and the need to protect one’s reputation during a time when women not only didn’t have the luxury of making strong political statements, but also during a time when a woman’s character—not her ability as a writer—was what (among other things) determined her success or failure as a writer.  I was reminded of this discussion through the words on the advertisement, “The Gentleman who wrote this volume, is of too much consequence to be obstinately contradicted…” Here, not only is the character of the author emphasized as chiefly important, but the author is also a man, pointing toward a kind of authorizing that protects a woman writer, allowing her to distance herself from the opinion within the novel, while appropriating her novel by attributing it to a male writer.  I was reminded of this discussion as well when I looked at these words on the frontispiece: “A Description of Millenium Hall… by a Gentleman on his Travels.” Again, here we see this same kind of authorizing.

However, something else about the frontispiece caught my attention.  While still thinking about the word “utopia,” I read these words:

“A Description of Millenium Hall… Together with the Characters of the Inhabitants, and such Historical Anecdotes and Reflections, as May excite in the Reader proper sentiments of Humanity, and lead the Mind to the Love of Virtue.”

Notice the phrase: “as May excite in the Reader proper sentiments of humanity.”  Although, as we’ve noted in Defoe’s and other’s novels, it was a popular trend to preface a novel by telling the reader how to read a particular work, I couldn’t help but think it ironic that this novel presents an ideal world, in social, political, and moral aspects, yet before the novel even begins, we are charged to read it in such a way that it incites “proper” sentiments of humanity.  Now, granted, the word “proper” could be interpreted in different ways here, but if nothing else, the insertion of “proper” implies that there is also an “improper.” In other words, there is a good way and bad way to read the “sentiments” of the novel. 

In light of our discussion on Friday, I thought that the contrast between the utopian world that the novel appropriates and the restricting guidelines concerning how to read the same novel was worth noting.

Concerning the "Place" of Women...

For today’s blog, I’d like to explore one of the questions from Dr. Hague’s handout wrapping up the end of The Female Quixote.  Here is question 3: “On page 339, Sir Charles considers the possibility that Arabella may need to be committed against her will.  What is it about her that might need containing in such a severe manner? Why is she a threat? Or, to put it another way, if allowing her to return to her country solitude would remove her from the scene where she’s causing such embarrassment and discomfort, why consider the more extreme solution of locking her away?”

To help answer this question, it is necessary to take a look first at Sir Charles’ inward considerations concerning Arabella. After we learn that Sir Charles has resolved within himself that Arabella is “absolutely mad,” he debates within himself, “Whether he ought not to bring a commission of lunacy against her, rather than marry her to his son, whom he was persuaded could never be happy with a wife so unaccountably absurd” (339).  He goes on to mention that, “He expostulated with him on the... ridicule to which she exposed herself wherever she went; appealing to him, whether in a wife he could think those follies supportable, which in a mistress occasion’d him so much confusion” (339). 

After going over and over Sir Charles’ thoughts about Arabella’s madness, trying to come up with an answer, I came to the conclusion that there is no good reason why Arabella should be locked up instead of simply returning to her life of solitude.  I mean, back in the country she wouldn’t be causing any embarrassment to others with the “absurdity of her behavior” to anyone--anymore than she would in a madhouse, and at least back at her home, she would be able to potentially live out her days happy in her illusory reality.  However, after taking a closer look at Sir Charles’ words, I think that a reason can be found for why Sir Charles wishes her to be committed.  After concluding that Arabella wouldn’t be a right fit for his son, being so “unaccountably absurd,” Sir Charles proceeds to talk about types of women. Notice his phrasing: “whether in a wife he could think those follies supportable, which in a mistress occasion’d him so much confusion” [italics mine]. Basically, Sir Charles is saying that Arabella wouldn’t be a good fit for his son because she wouldn’t be properly fulfilling the role that a wife should fulfill.  Put another way, because Sir Charles is convinced that Arabella is mad, he believes that she won’t be capable of being a good wife, which is why he is so persuaded that his son could “never be happy with a wife so unaccountably absurd.” 

Although Sir Charles’ feelings about Arabella certainly explain his aversion to Arabella marrying his son, they don’t quite explain why he would want to have her locked away.  However, an answer came to me while I was reading over Rousseau’s “On Education.” Consider Madame de Wolmar’s words concerning her “role”: “I am a woman and a mother, and I know my proper sphere.  I repeat, the duty with which I am charged is not the education of my sons but to prepare them to be educated” (46). What M. de Wolmar’s words reveal (and how it connects with question 3), is 18th century notions of the roles of women as fixed and non-intrusive upon the roles of men.  Looking at Sir Charles’ feelings about Arabella through this lens, it makes more sense that he would want to have her committed. Arabella is unusually independent for a single woman, and her boldness (like we see in book 6, and throughout) when it comes to speaking her mind to men imposes a threat (in Sir Charles’ eye) upon men, because for a woman to step outside of her role is a threat to a male-dominated society.  Rather than simply send her to the country, then, Sir Charles would much rather send her somewhere where her “madness” (or perhaps, independence) could potentially spread to other women.  Her inability to fit into her proper “sphere” or role is what causes Sir Charles to become so paranoid about her sensibilities, and what prompts him to favor the “out of sight, out of mind” solution to her “madness” over one less extreme.