Sexuality in Carmilla

I am not sure as to what extend and purpose that Le Fanu presents sexuality in Carmilla. Clearly on the surface, the novel is very provocative (in regards to the time it was written). La Fanu presents a very sexual vampire story with vivid descriptions of the female form. After doing some research, it seems that during the Victorian period, female sexuality and eroticism were only presented in literature in very subtle ways (if rarely). Le Fanu definitely pushed the envelope in being taboo with Carmilla. Probably the only way he got away with it (from critics) is structuring it as a vampire tale. One topic that comes to light is an undertone of lesbianism and female sexuality. This can been seen through the seductive actions of Carmilla (or as we find out really is Mircalla the Countess Karnstein) and the responses and reactions of Laura.

“She used to place her pretty arms about my neck, draw me to her, and laying her cheek to mine, murmur with her lips near my ear, “Dearest, your little heart is wounded; think me not cruel because I obey the irresistible law of my strength and weakness; if your dear heart is wounded, my wild heart bleeds with yours. In the rapture of my enormous humiliation I live in your warm life, and you shall die—die, sweetly die—into mine. I cannot help it; as I draw near to you, you, in your turn, will draw near to others, and learn the rapture of that cruelty, which yet is love; so, for a while, seek to know no more of me and mine, but trust me with all your loving spirit...in these mysterious moods I did not like her. I experienced a strange tumultuous excitement that was pleasurable, ever and anon, mingled with a vague sense of fear and disgust. I had no distinct thoughts about her while such scenes lasted, but I was conscious of a love growing into adoration, and also of abhorrence. This I know is paradox, but I can make no other attempt to explain the feeling” (Carmilla ch. 4).

Especially through Laura's reaction she shows that her sexual identity is “troubled”. Another example comes from the same chapter:

“Sometimes after an hour of apathy, my strange and beautiful companion would take my hand and hold it with a fond pressure, renewed again and again; blushing softly, gazing in my face with languid and burning eyes, and breathing so fast that her dress rose and fell with the tumultuous respiration. It was like the ardour of a lover; it embarrassed me; it was hateful and yet over-powering; and with gloating eyes she drew me to her, and her hot lips travelled along my cheek in kisses; and she would whisper, almost in sobs, “You are mine, you shall be mine, you and I are one for ever.” Then she has thrown herself back in her chair, with her small hands over her eyes, leaving me trembling” (Carmilla ch. 4).

Although Carmilla has these homoerotic undertones, I don't think that Le Fanu is being provocative in presenting them to merely draw attention to the topic but free the current society from sexual repression. I think more so he uses this as a way to comment and play with imposed gender roles. I will try to address modes of sexuality, and why identity is presented by Le Fanu to be “queered” or “troubled”.

Clearly, the most dominant and strongest character in the story is Carmilla. She seems to encompass many masculine and independent traits of strength that reflect the idea that women are not always subject and submissive to a patriarchy of male dominance. Also, there is a theme in the story that men are submissive and subject to the desirers of the female characters. Both Laura's father and the General find that they can not refuse the wishes of their daughter or niece and the request to house Carmilla. It is because of this that they make their family and girls vulnerable to the vampire. Another example of female dominance is what Laura says before first describing her dream, “My gouvernantes had just so much control over me as you might conjecture such sage persons would have in the case of a rather spoiled girl, whose only parent allowed her pretty nearly her own way in everything” (Carmilla ch.1 ) By having a female vampire, Le Fanu could be portraying his society's idea (or portrayal) of the negative consequences that would come if women were allowed to be more independent and more educated.

I haven't determined whether Le Fanu is portraying the idea of feminism in a positive or negative way. On one hand, by having the vampire as a female, he could be mocking his society's ideas of the harm that more independent and liberated women would bring. On the other, Carmilla is a villain and her (as well as Laura and the General's niece) power in imposing will over men can be seen as a negative portrayal of women's rights as well. Carmilla is also deceptive and manipulative in her independence. However, by making Carmilla a vampire, Le Fanu takes away her humanness. By doing this, he could also also be commenting that female empowerment and sexuality should not be seen as a threat or danger in real society. I could not come to a conclusion about Le Fanu's intentions.

I realize that explanations may unfold when further questioning what Carmilla might represent in a social, political, and economic sense in Ireland. The vampire being used as a metaphor in an Irish context also presents some interesting ideas. I would have liked to go on and expand this post but hopefully others will consider how Carmilla reflects The Irish Famine of 1845, Young Ireland and Irish Confederacy, and also the terrible civil rights that Roman Catholics had leading to the Catholic Emancipation and aftermath. I have a feeling Carmilla has something to do with the British sucking the life out of the Irish during the famine with its uncaring poor response to the crisis.

Some informative sites I found about these topics are:

www.ohio.edu/chastain/rz/youngire.htm

www.victorianweb.org/history/emancipation2.html

www.nde.state.ne.us/SS/Irish/Irish_pf.html

Egenolf Article

After reading Egenolf's Maria Edgeworth in Blackface: Castle Rackrent and the Irish Rebellion of 1798, my understanding of Castle Rackrent and Edgeworth have dramatically increased. Part of me wishes I would have read this article before hand, but after considering for awhile it makes sense to read it after a first take reaction. Egenolf makes a very interesting and informative analysis of the themes and reasons for which Edgewrth wrote in relation to the time period and events that surrounded her. “and reading of the novel is incomplete without considering these surrounding events” (Egenolf p.851). I'm not sure if I agree with all Egenolf has to say, but I will admit that she provided very legitimate and intriguing representations of Edgeworth and the Anglo-Irish aristocracy of the time.

I think I was way off in much of my original interpretation of Castle Rackrent. At first I got the impression that Edgeworth was hinting at an opinion that the distribution of wealth should be radically changed and that she was completely opposed to the structuring of social classes in Ireland at the time.

I did not, however, know beforehand that Edgeworth herself was Anglo-Irish and that she was apart of the upper class. As Egenolf says,

“...presents information in the editorial commentary to convince us of its simplicity and authenticity, while simultaneously presenting evidence which alerts us to the political tension in Ireland. The form of Castle Rackrent thus imitates the type of government the Edgeworths were advocating for the Irish—rational and fair Anglo-Irish land ownership which would benevolently guide the native peasants and commercially manage the land. Although the Edgeworths consistently supported education for all classes, Maria believed the lower classes should not partake in governing...” (Egenolf p. 851).

It seems that although Edgeworth is in favor of celebrating Irish identity, she does not want to be in danger of losing her position in society for various reasons. For one, she had good reason to be scared of an unorganized uprising of native Irish insurgents that could possibly become violent towards Anglo-Irish landowners (seeing them as being connected to Great Britain and thus need to be removed.) Egenolf gives examples of how her family (especially her father) was threatened in the article. Also, philosophically, thinking the lower class (mostly uneducated) should not govern is nothing new. Even in the United States, the Electoral College was created so “educated” people could be elected to vote for the common “uneducated” man. However, in Edgworth's case, it seems that she is concerned with redistribution for two reasons.

The first of these has to do with the paradox of who actually has claim to or the right to own the land in Ireland. As Egenolf says, “A central question of the novel becomes , Whose land is it and what right do they have to it? One glossary note warns of the cunning rhetorical maneuvers the Irish employ to obtain their landlords' property and the caution which must be exercised in yielding to even the smallest claim: 'Thady calls it their whiskey; not that the whiskey is actually the property of the tenants, but that it becomes their right after it often has been given to them' (Egenolf p.854). Because Irland is one of the English's oldest colonies it is impossible to actually say who has the original right or who has ties to the land there.

Edgeworth seems to be saying that the Anglo-Irish should stay in power and manage the land because no one can really say who has the right to the land. She also backs this up by saying that they are educated enough and are more capable of managing the wealth and power than the lower class. Her opinion of this is probably due to what she saw during the rebellion and reflects her fear of an angry, violent, and disorganized uprising of the Irish lower class could put Ireland in danger of a collapse of its infrastructure (or possible invasion of the French if they won independence).

The second concern with redistribution of wealth and class structure seems to come from a possibly selfish point of view. It seems that Edgeworth just didn't want to give up her power and place in the upper class. Even though her family inherited its land, (it being given to them because of British domination) she feels that she still has the right to continue passing it down to her family's children...because her class will always be more qualified (than the native, inferior lower class) to govern and manage land and wealth. Egenolf says,

“Edgeworth here pointedly summarizes the condition of Anglo-Irish landholders at the end of the eighteenth century. The land was theirs only by law, but they had been conditioned to believe that their claim was inherently just and that any move to redress this situation could dangerously upset the balance of power” (Egenolf p. 859).

This, however, is puzzling in to what extend Edgeworth's desire for the Anglo-Irish to keep there power in governing solely based on the argument that they are more educated and more just to govern. I can not tell wether Edgworth realizes that the class structure and law are based on British colonial discourse. Even if she did realize this, does she want to stay in power for selfish reasons? I will end with another quote from Egenolf that has to do with Edgeworths “blackface” use of the lower class Irish in the novel...and possibly promotes her desire for the Anglo-Irish to maintain possesion of land and government:

“Just as the political turmoil in Ireland arose of the native Irish, the most ominous signs of the turmoil in Castle Rackrent appear at those points where the narratives (Thady's and the Editor's) discuss property rights. Edgeworth recasts the physical threat of the native Irish in a linguistic light, for in reality, all that separates Anglo-Irish landlords from their tenants are special groups of words which form such documents as the Penal Laws...in a court of law emphasize the pervasiveness of language in controlling the possession of land” (Egenolf p.853).

What is interesting to consider is that even though the Edgeworth's promoted education for all classes, it seems they did not want the lower class to ever have an opportunity to govern themselves because of the violence that could be involved (directly threatening their family at the time) in a redistribution of wealth, power...and gaining full independence from Britain. It seems that the Edgeworths (especially Maria) wanted more equal representation with England and thought Ireland was too uncivilized to be independent ( largely wanting the status quo of heretical hierarchy not to change because their family was already in a position of power).

Is Edgeworth flexing her muscles with Castle Rackrent in order to reinforce the idea that the Anglo-Irish should keep their power and governing authority? And if so, is she doing it for selfish reasons knowing that the law and her “claim” to the land is a product of colonial dscourse?

Progressive Philosophy: Castle Rackrent

After refreshing my knowledge of the 1798 Irish rebellion and the 1801 Act of Union, Edgeworth's Castle Rackrent presented itself in a new light for myself.

Clearly, inspired by the French Revolution (and almost receiving military aid from France), the newly formed United States, and drastically new concepts and philosophies of economics (capitalism and a free market), the Irish (specifically the United Irishmen) led a rebellion against the English in oder to achieve separation from the British Empire. The rebellion was crushed by the English military and as a result of the aftermath, the British chose to lead Ireland into a false sense of better representation to subdue Irish separatists.

In 1801, as a result of the failed military effort to gain independence, The Irish parliament and British parliament passed the Act of Union. Much like Scotland had been included in the Kingdom of Great Britain, Ireland had previously been excluded. Ireland, as a result of the Act of Union, became apart the United Kingdom. This did not grant the Irish independence or more favor with the British, in turn actually pushed Ireland even further under the hammer of being a British colony. Also on a side note, the Union Flag (the flag England uses to this day) was created.

Anyways, I read Castle Rackrent (1800) as a social commentary on many issues reflecting the time it was written. I think Edgeworth was commenting on numerous themes ranging from the idea of national identity, social class, economic structure, culture, gender, race...and many other topics. As Marilyn Bultler says in the introduction, Edgeworth's contribution to literature is “a remarkably intuitive, perceptive and far-reaching portrait of an unequal society” (p. 4) I think that even though Thady, and the editor reveal much through their perspective, Edgeworth's tone is predominately shown through her own voice:

“It is a problem of difficult solution to determine, whether an Union will hasten or retard the melioration of this country. The few gentlemen of education, who now reside in this country, will resort to England: but they are nothing inferior to men of the same rank in Great Britain. The best that can happen will be the introduction of British manufactures in their places. Did the Warwickshire militia, who were chiefly artisans, teach the Irish to drink beer? Or did they learn from the Irish to drink whiskey?” (p.122).

Although, this quote could be interpreted various ways in what she is saying, I got at least one centralized message from it. I feel that Edgeworth is commenting about the state of Ireland in general (it's conflict of identity, it being controlled through British colonial discourse, it's notion of class structure and heirarchies....ect.). She is commenting on the numerous external and internal problems the country is facing in its struggle to form a a national identity as well as its methods in dealing with the British in it's desire for independence. It also at the same time makes a statement that even though Ireland is under British rule (acting as a colony) it still has its own deserve set of discourses and culture that can never be considered controlled by or inferior to the British.

Edgeworth shows his through her writing through numerous ways. Although she uses English to write Castle Rackrent, she also incorporates Irish words (such as kilt, gasoon...ect.) and phrases as a form of empowerment over traditional ”correct” English and literary structures. Her use of dual linguistics as well as narrative structure sets her novel apart from other contemporary pieces at the time. She is not only making a giant step in showing that female written literature is just as legitimate, but that her writings being “Irish” (as a unique identity) are just as legitimate (if not original and more progressive than) are just as qualified (especially in writing about social realism) as any other literature of the time (or future). As Butler says,

“Indeed for modern readers, Edgeworth's worth handling of these these themes often has the advantage because it it fresh, odd, complex and skeptical. Ireland was more a colony than Scotland, and Edgeworth wrestles with the practical, political and ethnical consequences of her country's colonial status” (p. 3)

I would also like to address the question of whether Jason should be considered a villain or not. First off, I recognize that most of the story is told through Thady. \Thady's wisdom and philosophy are based on a preconceived “proper” construction of class, entitlement, duty and economics. He chooses to be loyal to whatever heir inhabits the Castle Rackernt estate (no matter how horribly they manage money or make very poor life decisions). His loyalty and fatherly compassion are admirable but also show that he considers himself to be born into a certain class and his role in society is to stay in that class and be the servant of a hierarchy based on heredity.

Ireland seems to be set up much like a traditional feudal system based from Britain. Wealth and land are only obtained through heredity and marriage. This hierarchical system could also be viewed as British colonial discourse in having Ireland mimic its own structure. Or even keep the Irish subjects through bribery and intermarriage promising land and wealth. This is reinforcing British dominance and keeping the Irish as a colony through forming and reinforcing their philosophy of class and economics.

Jason (other than all the heirs of the estate) acts responsibly and takes advantage of opportunities presented to him. Over time, his hard work and power accumulation allows him to buy the estate and literally move into an upper class. His father shuns him and thinks he is horrible for not staying loyal to his birth class and master (even though the heirs have squandered what they've had). Again, Thady is a product of an imposed class structure and feels obligated to stay a servant and loyal to the hierarchy(based on heredity). Jason could be viewed as a symbol of capitalism. The economic philosophy of a free market and the philosophy of a democratic government were radically new and different at the time. Like stated before, the Irish were inspired by the French Revolution and creation of the United States to rebel in 1798. Could Edgewod have been playing with a suggestion that Ireland's class structure, government, and economic philosophy (distribution of wealth) needed to dramatically change in order to more constructively fix its infrastructure and in order to gain or create an independent identity and nation? If so, she is contemplating an idea that is extremely different and certainly dramatically progressive. If Jason is meant to be viewed as breaking the that heretical wealth and power through hard work and opportunity, then I don't think he is to be seen as a villain.

Violence and the Constitution of the Novel

According to Lloyd, “For nationalist historiography, the violence of Irish history is symptomatic of the unrelenting struggle of an Irish people forming itself in sporadic but connected rising against British domination” (p.125) This statement made me think of not just the Irish resistance, but the resistance to colonial discourse throughout the entire British empire. Irish violence is only one example of how a racial stereotypes are constructed in order to discredit and suppress an indigenous people. British colonial discourse involves a relationship between power and knowledge. The ways people are conceived (knowledge) tend to fall within certain hierarchical formations (power). The British empire used the military force, education, language, culture (social practices) , and phenotypical grouping in order to make indigenous people (the colonized) fall into a colonial relationship.

The British used rules of inclusion and exclusion within the discourse of truth and morality based on the prior assumption that their culture was superior. This also shows a dualistic method of thinking (good/evil, civilized/primitive, teacher/pupil) which in other words is a system of positives and negatives. Often times when a colonizer invades and occupies a geographical region it forces a diverse number of peoples with many discourses to somehow merge to create a single identity. This the problem with this dualistic way of thinking is that it leaves no room for gray areas and diverse peoples.

During colonialism in Ireland, the British used not only military force and violence to suppress the indigenous people but also used education and religion (through missionaries) to impose the correct language (English) and enforce the idea that British culture (especially literature) was the superior example that must be practiced in order to be considered legitimate. This could explain why the Irish (the subaltern in the British empire) are stereotyped as violent. As Lloyd writes, “...from the perspective of dominate history, the subaltern must be represented as violence.” (p127) The Irish literary traditions (including oral tradition) were objectified by the British rule and associated with violent resistance in order to group the entire island of people as violent (and therefore must be ruled and taught the correct discourse). This marketed (to British citizens) the necessity to maintain authoritarian rule over the Irish and further increase racism and hatred towards them.

So this brings a question: If Irish literature is based on oral structure and other languages, such as Gaelic, are they assimilating into the British idea of what is correct in the use of English to create literature or create a unified history and identity when there previously was none (that is black and white)? First let's consider the previous idea that says through stereotyping the Irish and their literary structures as being violent and inferior supports and benefits the colonizer (British).

As Llyod says, ...that which can not be assimilated to the state can only be understood only as outside the law, disruptive and discontinuous, unavailable for narration; ...the history of the state requires a substrate which is counter to its laws of civility in which it represents as outrageous and violent, in order that the history of domination and criminalization appear as a legitimate process of civilization and the triumph of law.” (p.127)

Llyod is saying that subaltern or (colonized) have a dual history. One that is their own filled with authentic or original culture (although ranging in diversity throughout the occupied area) and one that is imposed or forced by the dominant occupier (colonizer). Llyod explains it, “on the one hand they play out own discrete and complex formations and traditions; on the other, occluded by their difference from dominant narratives and forms and by those forms themselves they are nonetheless 'intertwined with [the history] of civil society and thereby with the history of States and groups of Sates'” (p127)

This would seem to say that the group of people in Ireland have not assimilated into British culture through using the English language. They more so have maintained their own diverse culture and identity through the use of an imposed and enforced language. In doing this the binary oppositions created by Britain become deconstructed. The occupied (or colonized) people insist upon taking up the position of having a unique identity apart from what is being imposed upon them. They become the creator of their own knowledge about their own culture (no matter how diverse) rather than act as a subject to authoritarian imposed culture (that considers itself superior). Even though this happens, the colonizer (Britain) will see this alteration of “correct” English and market or define it as inferior...thus connecting it violence. In doing this is stereotypes the Irish people as naturally being violent and justifies the occupation and rule. As if to say that those people need superior British rule and culture to function as a society.