Claire Vicaire ENGL 436 Professor Joe Shapiro Thursday, December 15th

Claire 1

The American Novel to the Civil War

Assignment: Respond to one of the prompts below 8-10 double-spaced pages. Your paper should focus on three novels, one pre-1830 novel and two post-1830 novels.

Comments:

Deeply rooted in the historical context of the 18th and 19th century, the early American novel gives literary expression to a set of modern values strongly related to a concept known as individualism on which the new American nation was based. This concept was mainly elaborated by John Locke, often credited with the philosophical foundations of classical liberalism. This strong tendency to individualism can be considered as the predominant feature of American culture. By individualism, we refer to the tendency to place individual rights above group rights, that is the tendency to believe that the individual is paramount in society. Logically, this tendency includes a commitment to personal autonomy and social mobility. The early American novel reflects these new ideals in contrast with the conservative norms of Puritanism. Therefore, the question is: How flexible according to the American novel should society be with respect to the claims of individuals? What limits to individualism does the American novel establish? Then, what is the stance of the American novel before the Civil War on this notion of individualism? To give answers to these big questions, we will focus our attention on three fundamental novels of early American literature: The Coquette (1797) written by Hannah Webster Foster, Hope

Leslie (1827) written by Catharine Maria Sedgwick and The Scarlet Letter (1850) written by Nathaniel Hawthorne, all of which center around a strong female protagonist. We shall first analyze the characters' expectations from their society in these three novels and see how flexible it should be in order to satisfy their personal desires. We shall then determine the limits established by these early American novels to individualism and see how it goes against the characters' personal freedom. Our argument will be logically organized focusing on a few key examples from the novels.

First and foremost, these three novels deal with the protagonists' quest for a more flexible and tolerant society that could enable them to satisfy their personal desires. The female protagonists in these three novels actually refuse any type of restrictions or obstacles that could limit their right to behave as they want. Indeed, this idea relies on the principle of self-interest and implies the fact that individuals after the Declaration of Independence in 1776 in America, were looking for a society of freedom and independence. According to Eliza, Hope and Hester's claims, society should be more flexible and rely first on the concept of free love; then, on the concept of individual rights; and finally on the concept of self-sufficiency. In other words, the protagonists of these novels search for their rights to do what they want of their existence. Love and affection are key themes in these three novels. Indeed, the three of them contain a sentimental plot that is at the heart of the story. The three female protagonists in The Coquette, Hope Leslie and The Scarlet Letter look for a society of sentimental independence, e.g., a society which enables them to choose and marry the person they love. The characters of these respective novels embody the emergence of middle-class individuals in the late 18th and early 19th centuries who expressed a need to obey their hearts and to achieve their wishes in their life. In The Coquette, this characteristic is at the center of the story. We learn that Eliza had previously been forced to marry Reverend Harly. Finally, his death releases her and enables her to focus on her personal desires. After her husband's death, Eliza seems to have impulses toward independence and self-

expression. When she is wooed by her two suitors Reverend J. Boyer and Major Peter Sanford, Eliza suggests that she is actually more attracted by the latter one, who is the perfect embodiment of the seducer: As an agreeable companion, as a polite and finished gallant, Major Sanford is all that the most lively fancy could wish (Letter XXX, Eliza Wharton to Lucy Freeman). Eliza wants to make her own decisions and consequently, enables herself to be only driven by her desires. However, we know that this coquettish attitude leads to her decline in the novel. In Hope Leslie, this characteristic can be found in the background of the story. Indeed, we learn that William Fletcher and Alice had fallen in love with each other in England. However, Alice's father had forbidden her marriage to William Fletcher and had forced her to marry Charles Leslie. In sum, Hope's mother and William Fletcher had been the victims of these obstacles. Hope Leslie, on the contrary, refuses openly Sir Philip's proposal which liberates her and thus, decides to marry Everell whom she loves: To the elder Fletcher it was a moment of happiness that requited years of suffering (). Events have already meted 'fit retribution' to most of the parties who have figured in our long story (Chapter XV). Finally, Everell Fletcher and Hope Leslie are united at the end of the novel, as if to right the original wrong of separating Everell's father from Hope's mother. Therefore, Hope Leslie is here to reestablish the right order. In The Scarlet Letter, this characteristic can also be found in the background as the story actually focuses on the consequences of Hester's sin. We learn that Hester Prynne had been forced to marry Roger Chillingworth before leaving Europe. However, when the story starts, we know that Hester has already transgressed the laws by having conceived a child through an adulterous affair. This element appears like a fact that Hester nor the reader cannot deny. Hester has made the decision to obey her heart and accepts it: She was ladylike, too, after the manner of the feminine gentility of those days; characterized by a certain state and dignity, rather than by the delicate, evanescent, and indescribable grace, which is now recognized as its indication (Chapter II, The Market Place). Hester has already allowed herself to take her liberties: as a result, she imposes her personal choices on society. Therefore, these three novels, through their respective sentimental plots, express the individuals' claims for a more flexible

society that would lean forward love and affection. The notion of gender roles refers to a set of social norms that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex. The Coquette, Hope Leslie and The Scarlet Letter actually focus on strong female protagonists who try to break with the accepted attributes of women as traditionally defined. These novels depict how intelligent, strong willed women in the early American republic had difficulties to be assimilated into society. Whatever their respective stories, Eliza, Hope and Hester fight for their own rights and attempt to establish an egalitarian relationship between men and women. The theme of women's strength is central to these novels that claim for a more feminist society. In The Coquette, Eliza is increasingly determined and affirms her personality. She disregards her friends' warnings about Major Peter Sanford and continues to see him anyway. She does not respond to Reverend J. Boyer's proposal and keeps trying to fulfill her personal integrity though she knows that this connection with Major Peter Sanford is dangerous and puts her on the wrong side of society: I sprang from my bed, and running to the window, saw by the light of the moon, a man going from the house. Soon after I perceived a footstep upon the stairs, which carefully approached and entered Eliza's chamber (...) I doubted not but Major Sanford was the person I had seen (Letter LXVI, Julia Granby to Mrs. Lucy Sumner). In Hope Leslie, Hope plays a significant role in embodying ideas of equity towards those traditionally marginalized and oppressed by society, e.g., women and Native Americans. Throughout the novel, she asserts the equality of the sexes by defying the strong patriarchal society in which she lives. By fighting against social oppression, she affirms her status as a woman and therefore, claims for women's rights: She was inspired with a sudden resolution to set her free. This was a bold, dangerous, and unlawful interposition; but Hope Leslie took counsel only from her own heart, and that told her that the rights of innocence were paramount to all other rights (Chapter IX). Moreover, though Hope is the most significant character in this perspective, Magawisca and Faith also contribute to the feminist aspect of the novel by adopting determined behaviors. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester is undeniably an emblem of strength and determinism. Hester actually faces her alienation from the

society without renouncing to her convictions. Keeping the scarlet letter on her breast as a symbol of her personal story, she affirms her status as a woman and proves that she can live by herself in full independence: Hester Prynne, therefore, did not flee. () She possessed an art that sufficed, even in a land that afforded comparatively little scope for its exercise, to supply food for her thriving infant and herself. It was the art then, as now, almost the only one within a woman's grasp of needlework (Chapter V, Hester at her Needle). Therefore, these three novels, through the intermediary of strong female protagonists, express the individuals' claims for a more flexible society that would enhance the status of women and extend their rights. The concept of self-sufficiency refers to a type of personal autonomy, a state that rejects any outside support or interaction. This concept is in some way or another developed in these three novels. Hannah Webster Foster, Catharine Maria Sedgwick and Nathaniel Hawthorne do not deal explicitly with this topic but introduce it as another characteristic of individualism. Indeed, from The Coquette published in 1797 to The Scarlet Letter published in 1850, this concept emerges as a significant feature of American individualism. The characters actually adopt a particular way of life that encourages their personal autonomy. Throughout these three novels, the characters as individuals look for an autonomous lifestyle that would break with the accepted traditional model of home life. In The Coquette, Eliza allows herself to live at her friends' house so that she can definitively detach herself from her mother. She affirms that her new lifestyle at the Richmans' enables her to focus her attention only on friendship and independence. According to Eliza's statements, friendship means independence in contrast to marriage which implies to her, that you loose your freedom by devoting your life to someone else: Marriage is the tomb of friendship. It appears to me a very selfish state. Why do people, in general, as soon as they are married, centre all their cares, their concerns, and pleasures in their own families? () The tenderest ties between friends are weakened, or dissolved; and benevolence itself moves in a very limited sphere (Letter XII, Eliza Wharton to Lucy Freeman). Later on, Eliza laments upon the fact that her best friend, Lucy Freeman won't be free anymore by marrying Mr. Sumner. In Hope Leslie, this concept

emerges first through the character of Faith, Hope's sister who finally chooses to remain with the Pequots and to assimilate their way of life. Therefore, Faith makes the decision to live in autonomy with Indians and to detach herself from her own family. By the same way, Esther who realizes that Everell and Hope love each other, returns to England for a few years and decides to remain unmarried. When she returns to New-England, Esther draws a conclusion on the theme of marriage: She illustrated a truth, which, if more generally received by her sex, might save a vast deal of misery: that marriage is not essential to the contentment, the dignity, or the happiness of woman (Chapter XV). Therefore, Esther embodies the idea of self-sufficiency, implying that she is autonomous and does not need the support of a husband. Catharine Maria Sedgwick implies that women do not necessarily have to get married, which was revolutionary at the time. In The Scarlet Letter, the concept of self-sufficiency is at the heart of the story. Indeed, Hester establishes herself in a small cottage with her daughter, where she works as a seamstress. Hester is able to support herself and to raise her daughter by herself. She is completely autonomous and sufficient unto herself: In this little, lonesome dwelling, with some slender means that she possessed, and by the license of the magistrates, who still kept an inquisitorial watch over her, Hester established herself, with her infant child (Chapter V, Hester at her Needle). As a result, Hester's commitment to personal autonomy undeniably refers to this idea of self-reliance and defines her as a revolutionary character for her time. Therefore, these three novels, express the growing individuals' claims for a more flexible society that would encourage them to self-govern themselves in full autonomy. To conclude, we can say that The Coquette, Hope Leslie and The Scarlet Letter contribute to the definition of an emergent middle-class whose need for individualism demands the development of a much more flexible society.

In contrast to these claims for individualism, the characters in these three novels face several obstacles that go against their personal fulfillment. Their quest for independence and selfreliance is actually restricted by limits that disturb the sequence of events in the novels. Indeed,

these limitations develop feelings of oppression for the characters who finally do not know whether or not they should accept these limitations in their lives. According to Hannah Webster Foster, Catharine Maria Sedgwick and Nathaniel Hawthorne, these limits to individualism are first due to the importance of the family's weight in society and then, of the strength of Puritanism in America. Family in these three novels, plays a significant role in exerting pressure on the protagonists. Indeed, by family, we refer to the parental authority exerted against the protagonists' need for autonomy and independence. For some reasons, in these early American novels, parental authority is located in figures that are not actually the biological parents of the protagonists but friends or some relatives who have a strong influence on them. The role of the parents in these novels, is to embody traditional and conservative values and as a result, to disapprove the characters' decisions and fight against their claims. Therefore, these limitations constitute a conflict between the protagonists and their relatives. In The Coquette, as we said previously, Eliza had previously been forced by her parents to marry Reverend Harly. Then, when she meets Major Peter Sanford, Lucy Freeman, her best friend, and Mrs. Richman, her cousin, gang up on Eliza in order to prevent her from continuing her relationship with him and to encourage her to marry Reverend J. Boyer, a safe and modest man. Therefore, Lucy Freeman and Mrs. Richman constitute an obstacle to Eliza's free will and develop in Eliza, feelings of guilt and hesitation: The heart of your friend is again besieged. Whether it will surrender to the assailants or not, I am unable at present to determine. Sometimes I think of becoming a predestinarian, and submitting implicitly to fate, without any exercise of free will; but, as mine seems to be a wayward one, I would counteract the operations of it, if possible (Letter XII, Eliza Wharton to Lucy Freeman). Eliza cannot actually combine her personal desires with her parents' traditional values and this lack of flexibility, as we know, leads to her decline in the novel. However, as we can notice, parental authority seems to loose its impact from The Coquette (1797) to The Scarlet Letter (1850). Indeed, in Hope Leslie, parental authority is first embodied by Alice's father who prevents her from marrying William Fletcher: In less than a fortnight he there received despatches from his uncle, informing him that he had taken effectual

measures to save himself from a second conspiracy against the honour of his family that his daughter, Alice, had that day been led to the altar by Charles Leslie (Chapter I). The Winthrops then exert the same pressure on Hope, trying to pair her with Sir Philip Gardiner. However, as we said previously, Hope after having openly rejected Sir Philip's proposal reestablishes the right order by marrying Everell Fletcher. Therefore, we can say that parental authority does not have the same impact on Hope and Everell as on their parents: parental authority therefore undergoes an evolution in Hope Leslie and probably implies that family had less and less power on individuals at the time. Moreover, parental authority completely disappears in The Scarlet Letter. Though we can suspect that Hester was forced to marry her husband in England, any character actually represents parental authority in the novel. As we said previously, Hester has already sinned when the story starts and then, lives in full autonomy. Only her husband exerts a type of pressure on her but he does not represent authority at all. Family as a result, is not present in The Scarlet Letter. Therefore, these three novels, establish family, a symbol of parental authority as a limit to the individuals' claims for individualism. However, we can notice, from The Coquette (1797) to The Scarlet Letter (1850) that the power of parental authority is progressively overwhelmed by the characters' personal autonomy. Puritanism plays significant roles in this perspective. Actually, Puritanism represents a set of traditional values according to which society was defined at the time. Puritanism generally extended the thought of the English Reformation with distinctive emphasis on four main convictions: that personal salvation was entirely from God; that the Bible provided the indispensable guide for life; that the Church should reflect the express teaching of Scripture; and finally that society was unified as a whole. In other words, Puritanism establishes tradition, religious piety and middle-class values at the center of its social organization. The protagonists of these novels express opposite ideals. Puritanism represents therefore the main obstacle to their freedom and personal commitment to individualism. As a result, this kind of society which gives predominance to collectivism, oppresses the characters and limits them in fulfilling happiness. In addition to these conservative

values, we must underline the patriarchal nature of the Puritan society. This social system establishes the role of the male as the primary authority figure in society and therefore, is in contradiction with the female protagonists' claims. As a result, these three novels establish an antagonism of the society towards these strong characters and define themselves as social rebels. In The Coquette, Eliza fights against the accepted attributes of women established by patriarchy. However, society exerts such a pressure on her that Eliza is trapped between her need of independence and her social responsibilities. As a consequence, Eliza is not pleased with neither of these two options offered to her and so, is constantly indecisive: From a scene of constraint and confinement, ill suited to my years and inclination, I have just launched into society. My heart beats high in expectation of its fancied joys. My sanguine imagination paints, in alluring colors, the charms of youth and freedom, regulated by virtue and innocence (Letter XIV, Eliza Wharton to Lucy Freeman). This characteristic implies that Eliza cannot finally be assimilated into society and that society makes her a coquette by not giving her options anymore. In Hope Leslie, society prevents William Fletcher and Alice from being united as we know that Alice's father forbids their marriage on the account of religious difference. In other words, Alice's father is driven by conservative morals and so, deprives William and Alice from their individual rights: He was mortified at seeing power, which had been earned at so dear a rate, and which he had fondly hopes was to be applied to the advancement of man's happiness, sometimes perverted to purposes of oppression and personal aggrandizing. He was shocked when a religious republic, which he fancied to be founded on the basis of established truth, was disturbed by the out-break heresies (Chapter II). In contrast, Hope completely rejects tradition by fighting for the extension of individual rights: she actually asserts the equality of the sexes by defying the patriarchs and in addition, introduces the defense of Native Americans which was revolutionary at the time. She therefore, does not allow herself to undergo the repressive consequences of Puritanism. In The Scarlet Letter, Hester is the perfect embodiment of the lover seen as a social rebel. She transgresses the laws by committing adultery, which was considered as one of the most serious sins

in Puritanism. Actually, the weight of society in The Scarlet of Letter does not prevent Hester from achieving her desires as we know that she has already committed her crime but rejects her totally and credits her with a life of outlaw and humiliation. The scarlet letter A that she has to wear on her breast is the embodiment of her social rebellion. Hester is therefore, labeled by society as a sinner and is deprived of her virtuosity and dignity as a woman. The scene depicted in the second chapter of the novel is significant in depicting the traditional convictions of Puritanism in America and demonstrates how an individual can be from one day to another excluded from her society for the rest of his life: I have sought, I say, to persuade this godly youth, that he should deal with you, here in the face of Heaven, and before these wise and upright rules, and in hearing of all the people, as touching the vileness and blackness of your sin (Chapter III, The Recognition). By the same way, Pearl, Hester's daughter is labeled by society to be the fruit of Hester's sin and could never be associated with the quality of virtuosity, as traditionally defined. As regards Reverend Dimmesdale, we can say that he also undergoes consequences of the society's pressure. Though Hester does not reveal his identity, Dimmerdale cannot accept to be behind the laws he usually promotes. Indeed, this situation makes him suffer from heart troubles seemingly caused by his psychological distress. In other words, society causes Dimmerdale's decline in the novel. Therefore, these three novels, establish Puritanism as the most important limit to the individuals' claims for individualism. However, we can notice, from The Coquette (1797) to The Scarlet Letter (1850), the power of society does not affect the characters in the same way. To conclude, we can say that The Coquette, Hope Leslie and The Scarlet Letter contribute to represent the limits that the early 19th century American society established against individual freedom.

As a conclusion, we may say that the female protagonists of these respective novels claim for a more flexible society that could enable them to govern their existence as they want. The three of these novels actually claim for the same rights, e.g., free love, women's emancipation and selfgovernment. These claims are restrained by limits that society imposes upon the characters and that

are mainly seen as the cause of parental authority and Puritanism. Therefore, The Coquette, Hope Leslie and The Scarlet Letter tend to lead a study of the lover as a social rebel. We may say that the stance of the American novel before the Civil War on individualism is about this antagonism led towards individuals. The early American novel depicts the emergence of a middle-class whose needs for self-expression and independence are in conflict with their family and more generally, their society. As we have noticed throughout this essay, the female protagonists from The Coquette (1797), Hope Leslie (1827) and The Scarlet Letter (1850) live in a society that is progressively more flexible and whose limits are more easily transgressed. Though Eliza defies tradition in The Coquette, the only conclusion of the novel is that social pressure led to her death. On the contrary, Hope and Everell in Hope Leslie are here to repair their parents' separation, which leads to the conclusion that society is more compatible with their claims. Finally, though Hester undergoes a life of outlaw and humiliation in The Scarlet Letter, she actually proves that the concept of individualism is not that incompatible with society. The evolution of the stance on individualism from 1797 to 1850 implies that people at the time were adopting progressively the ideals of the new republic. It would be interesting to analyze this characteristic in post-Civil War novels.