Anna Barbauld's Criticism of Fiction —Johnsonian Mode, Female Vision

AnnaBarbauld'sCriticism ofFiction—Johnsonian Mode,FemaleVision KATHARINEM.ROGERS AnnaBarbauldiscreditedwithwritinganexceptionallygoodimitation ofSamuelJohnson'scriticalstyleinherearlyessay"OnRomances."Her maturecriticismcontinuestoshowaJohnsonianmoralconcern,aJohnsonianabilitytofixonthesignificantissues ,aJohnsonianclarityof analysisandrealisticunderstandingofhumannature.Take,for example,heropinionthat"allfictionshaveprobablygrownoutofreal adventures"—basedontheJohnsonianbeliefthatrationalbeingshavea preferencefortruth—whichshesupportsconvincinglybyshowinghow fantasticadventurescouldhavebeendevelopedfromactualevents.The effectsofscientificknowledgeandinventionswouldnaturallyseemmag- icaltosocietiesthatlackedthem;writtencommunications"wereeasily turnedintotalismansbyilliteratemen,whosawthatagreatdealwas effectedbythem,andintelligenceconveyedfromplacetoplaceina mannertheycouldnotaccountfor."1 ButhervoiceisdistinctivelydifferentfromJohnson's,andthediffer- encehasmuchtodowithhergender.Shewroteherbestcriticismonthe novel,anewformparticularlyassociatedwithwomen—asreadersfrom thebeginning,andaswritersfromthemiddleoftheeighteenthcentury. LikeClaraReevebeforeherandJaneAustenafter,Barbauldthought thefiction-writerdeservedtobeclosertothepoetinthetempleoffame (TheProgressofRomance,EveningI;NorthangerAbbey,ch.5;"Onthe 27 28 / ROGERS Origin,"2).Althoughthemostexcitingandsignificantgenericdevelop- mentoftheeighteenthcenturywastheriseofthenovel,itgotlittle attentionfrommalecritics.Evenmalenovelistsweremainlyconcerned withlegitimizingtheirownparticularworksbyemphasizingdifferences fromothersoftheirkind.SamuelRichardsoncalledClarissaahistory andpointedlydistinguisheditfrom"alightNovel,ortransitory Romance"(Prefaceto1759edition,xix,xxi).InthePrefacetoJoseph Andrews(1742),HenryFielding'sfirstconcernwastoseparatehiswork fromthetraditionoffiction;seekingaboutforarespectableaffiliation, heseizeduponepic.2FrancesBurney,incontrast,presentedEvelina (1778)asanovel,deploredthedisparagementofthegenre,andtraceda traditionofillustriousnovelists(Preface).3ReeveandBarbauldtookup Fielding'scomparisontodefendthegenreasawhole:Barbauldclaimed that"Agoodnovelisanepicinprose"("OntheOrigin,"3). Johnsonwroteaboutevenminorpoetsratherthanmajornovelists. Hisonlypublishedworkonfiction,Rambler4(1750),focusesexclu- sivelyonitsmoraleffects.Becausenovelistsportrayeverydaylifeand, supposedly,address"theyoung,theignorant,andtheidle,"theyare underaparticularobligationtoconveywholesomemorality.Johnson proceedstodefinethismoralitywithanarrownesshedidnotapplyto otherwriters,suchasShakespeare;forhewouldnotallowambiguityor complexity.Hecautionsthatmixedcharacterswillcorruptreadersof novels:theheromustbeasvirtuousasishumanlycredible,andthe immoralcharactersaltogetherodious.Bynotnamingasinglenovelist, Johnsonsuggeststhatnotoneisdistinguishedabovetheothersorwor- thyofbeingconsideredexceptasamoreorlessinnocentpurveyorof lightentertainment.Apparentlyitdidnotoccurtohimtomentionhis friendRichardsonasanexceptionorpositiveexample,eventhoughhe admiredthemoralityandknowledgeofhumannatureshowninRichard- son'snovels.Johnson'sdisparagementofnovelsandexcessiveemphasis ontheirpotentiallydangerousmoraleffectswastypicalofmalecritics, suchasVicesimusKnox,whofearedthatsomeofFielding'sand Richardson'sscenesmight"corruptamindunseasonedbyexperience." Criticswhoacceptedtheprevalentassumptionthatnovelreaderswere predominantlyyoungwomenwereevenmoreworriedaboutmoralcon- sequences,sincewomen'spuritywasconsideredmoreimportantthan men'sandatthesametimeparticularlyatriskbecauseoftheirliabilityto sexualstimulation:HenryPyewarnedthatnovelreading"excitesand inflames"eroticpassionin"thegentlersex."4Womenwerenotsowor- riedaboutfemalesexuality. Johnson'sdisparagingattitudeledhimtodevalueTomJonesandto seeintheheronothingmorethanaperniciousexample.AlthoughBar- Barbauld'sCriticism / 29 bauldalsohadmoralqualmsaboutTom,sheevaluatedhiminamore balancedway.Agreeingthatcharacterswhocombinesignificantfaults withamiablequalitiescansetadangerousexample,shecouldstillseethe differencebetweenTomandthecrude,callousheroespresentedasvirile patternsbySmollett:Jones"hasanexcellentheartandarefinedsensibil- ity,thoughhehasalsopassionsofalowerorder"(introductiontoField- ing,xxiv).Barbauldwrotethecriticismofthegreateighteenth-century noveliststhatwemightwishJohnsonhadwritten. Barbauldhadfewprecursorsasaseriouscriticofthenewgenre. ClosestintimeandvalueisClaraReeve,whoseProgressofRomance (1785)isthefirstseriousdefenseandhistoryoffictioninEnglish.5 AlthoughReevediscussesallprosefiction,whatpresumablyprompted herworkwastheurgetodefendthenewformofhertime,therealistic novel.ThereareradicalaspectstoReeve'sbook:sherefusestotieworth togenreandraisesthepossibilitythatthecanonhasbeenarbitrarily formed(similaritiesbetweenTheOdysseyandthetaleofSindbadthe Sailorprove"thatthereisfrequentlyastrikingresemblancebetween worksofhighandlowestimation,whichprejudiceonly,hindersusfrom discerning"[1:23-24]);andsheputsherideasintoaconversationin whichawomaninstructsamanonliterarytheory.Butsheshowslittle literaryinsight:hertreatmentofindividualworksissketchyandoften reflectsnarrowlyconventionalviews.Herwidereading,however,may havesuppliedtheoutlineandnamesoflittleknownworksforBarbauld's ownessayontheoriginsanddevelopmentofthenovel.6 Barbauld,ontheotherhand,developedperceptiveanalysesofmany issuesandworksthatReevemerelylisted,andsheappliedthecommonly acceptedgeneralizationsinanoriginalway.Barbauldsaw,forexample, that,ifrealismistheessentialcharacteristicofthenovel,Robinson CrusoeshouldbeincludedinTheBritishNovelists,despiteitslackofthe sentimentalappealthatwouldhavebeenexpectedatthetime;andshe recognizedthatDefoe'srealismwasakintoRichardson's:"Theywere bothaccuratedescribers,minuteandcircumstantial,"althoughDefoe wasconcernedwiththingsandRichardsonwith"personsandsenti- ments"(introductiontoDefoe;introductiontoCorrespondence,xx). Moreover,althoughBarbauldmeasurednovelsintermsofherpercep- tionoftheworldandhumannature,sheacutelydevelopedthedifference betweentheexpectationsreasonableinlifeandthoseoffiction.Inlife, TomJones's"parentswouldeitherneverhavebeenfound,orhave provedtobepersonsofnoconsequence,"Joneshimself"wouldpass fromoneviciousindulgencetoanother,tillhisnaturalgooddisposition wasquitesmotheredunderhisirregularities,"andSophiawouldhave eithermarriedhimclandestinelyandbecomepoorandunhappy,or"con- 30 / ROGERS queredherpassionandmarriedsomecountrygentlemanwithwhomshe wouldhavelivedinmoderatehappiness,accordingtotheusualroutine ofmarriedlife."ButinthecontextofFielding'sfiction,ofcourse,such conclusionswouldbeunthinkable("OntheOrigin,"54). Richardsonwaslessjudicious,shebelieved,whenhesuggestedthat LadyClementina(inSirCharlesGrandison)wouldultimatelyaccepther secondchoiceinmarriage.Althoughitisrealisticandmoraltoshowa womansuccessfullyovercomingahopelesspassion,itisnotartistically sound,becausecommon-sensemoderationisinconsistentwiththe strengthandexaltationofClementina'spassionasRichardsonhasdrawn it.Amoralisnotproperlyenforcedwhereitdestroystheartisticcoher- enceofthenovel(introductiontoCorrespondence,cxxii-cxxiii). AlthoughBarbauldsharedhercontemporaries'concernwiththemoral effectsofliterature,sheforthrightlyacknowledged,asAphraBehnhad beforeher,thatitsprimarypurpose(atleast,theprimarypurposeof novelsorcomedies)istoentertain—not,thatis,"tocallinfancytothe aidofreason,todeceivethemindintoembracingtruthundertheguise offiction...withsuch-likereasonsequallygraveanddignified"(Behn, prefacetoTheDutchLover[1673],1;"OntheOrigin,"44).Barbauld analyzedthepleasurenovelsaffordasJohnsonmighthave,hadhebeen moresympathetictothem:"Itispleasanttothemindtosportinthe boundlessregionsofpossibility;tofindrelieffromthesamenessof every-dayoccurrencesbyexpatiatingamidstbrighterskiesandfairer fields;toexhibitlovethatisalwayshappy,valourthatisalwayssuccessful ;tofeedtheappetiteforwonderbyaquicksuccessionofmarvellous events;andtodistribute,likearulingprovidence,rewardsandpunish- mentswhichfalljustwheretheyoughttofall"(45). Barbauld'sfinestcriticismwasinspiredbyRichardson,whofirstade- quatelyexpressedfemalesensibilityintheEnglishnovelandcreatedthe formthatwomennovelistscoulduse.InhereditionofhisCorrespon- dence(1804),sheidentifiedhimas"thefatherofthemodernnovelofthe seriousorpathetickind,"whichsheincisivelydefinedasaformthat combined"thehighpassion,anddelicacyofsentimentoftheold romance,withcharactersmovinginthesamesphereoflifewithour- selves,andbroughtintoactionbyincidentsofdailyoccurrence"(xi, xvii). BarbauldrespondedfullytothegreatnessofClarissa.Sherepresents Richardson'ssuccessinsustaininginterestwithoutunderplotsorsur- priseswithanarchitecturalimageworthyofJohnson:"Wedonotcome uponunexpectedadventuresandwonderfulrecognitions,byquickturns andsurprises:weseeherfatefromafar,asitwerethroughalong avenue,thegradualapproachtowhich,withouteverlosingsightofthe Barbauld'sCriticism / 31 object,hasmoreofsimplicityandgrandeurthanthemostcunninglaby- rinththatcanbecontrivedbyart."Aswedrawnearthemansion,our eyesandimaginationsarefilled"withstillincreasingideasofitsmagnificence .Astheworkadvances,thecharacterrises;thedistressisdeepened; ourheartsaretornwithpityandindignation;burstsofgriefsucceedone another,tillatlengththemindiscomposedandharmonizedwithemo- tionsofmildersorrow;wearecalmedintoresignation,elevatedwith pioushope,anddismissedglowingwiththeconscioustriumphsofvir- tue"(Correspondence,lxxxiii-iv).Barbauld'smetaphorclarifiesour responsetoRichardson'snarrativeprocessbyconvertingitintovisual termsandestablishestheimpressivenessofhisnovelbyidentifyingit withanoblebuilding. AsBarbauldsharedJohnson'sgenerousappreciationofliterarygreat- ness,shealsosharedhisbeliefinthecritic'sresponsibilityfornoticing faults,whilealwaysretainingacharitablerecognitionofhumanlimitationsandadesiretoexcusethemasmuchasshehonestlycould .She concedes,forinstance,thatitisimprobablethatLovelace'sconfidant, Belford,wouldtamelyacquiesce"inavillainywhichheallalongso stronglydisapproves";butsheexplainsthat"Belfordisabeing,created inordertocarryonthestory,andmustnotbemadetoostrictlythe objectofcriticism.Anovelwritermustviolateprobabilitysomewhere, andareaderoughttomakeallhandsomeandgenerousallowancesforit. Weshouldopenabookasweenterintoacompany,wellpersuadedthat wemustnotexpectperfection"(Correspondence,evi). Ontheotherhand,shefoundnosufficientreasonfortheinordinate lengthofSirCharlesGrandison.Contemporaryreaders'requestsfor anothervolumeofGrandisondidnotindicatethatitwastooshort,but thatRichardsonhadfailedtoterminateitatthepropertime;thatis,with thehero'smarriage.Havingpassedthepointwherethestorycametoits naturalend,Richardsonmightaswellhavecontinueditindefinitely. PerhapsClarissaalso"runsoutintotoogreatalength,butboldwerethe handthatshouldattempttoshortenit.SirCharles,onthecontrary, wouldbeimprovedbymerelystrikingoutthelastvolume,and,indeed,a goodpartofthesixth,wheredescriptionsofdress,andparade,and furniture,aftertheinterestiscompletelyover,likethegaudycolouring ofawesternsky,givessymptomsofasettingsun.Butitisungratefulto dwellonthefaultsofgenius"(exxxii-exxxiii).Withoutoveremphasizing minorfaultsinamajornovel,sheacutelynoticesRichardson'sself- indulgentlong-windednessandhisexcessivepreoccupationwithexpen- sivematerialobjects. Likehercontemporarycritics,Barbauldrecognizedthatrealisticfictionhadparticularpowertomovereaders ;but,unlikethem,shesawthis 32 / ROGERS influenceaspositiveandennobling:byfillingthereader'sheart"withthe successiveemotionsoflove,pity,joy,anguish,transport,orindignation ,"arealisticnovelistcanmoreeffectivelyinculcate"virtuousand noblesentiments"thancanawriterwhoportraysonlyidealizedfigures (Correspondence,ix-x).Althoughwemayfindhertoomuchpreoccu- piedwithmoraleffectandmoralteaching,herunderstandingofmoral- itywasbroadandsophisticated,raisingherabovetheplatitudesofher day.WhileReeveunreservedlyadmiredthemoralityofPamela,Bar- bauldshrewdlypointedtoitsdefects.OncePamelabeginstoentertain hopesofmarryingMr.B.,"wecanonlyconsiderherastheconscious possessorofatreasure,whichsheiswiselyresolvednottopartwithbut foritsjustprice"(lxiii-lxiv).Richardsonwouldhaveusbelievethat PamelamarriedMr.B.becausehehadwonheraffection,butisitlikely thatavirtuousgirl'saffectioncouldbewonbybriberyandbullying? Suchinsultswouldbeeasiertooverlook,Barbauldpointsout,bya womanmarryingformoneyandposition.TheAndrewsfamily'sgrati- tudetoMr.B.attheendisexcessivelyhumble,sincetheyshouldhave seenthathe"marriedhertogratifyhisownpassions"(lxvi).Thisassess- mentofRichardson'slimitationsrecallsFielding's,butismorejudicious thanhiswholesaledebasementinShamela. BarbauldacutelydemolishedRichardson'smoralequivocationsinSir CharlesGrandison,suchashisattempttouniteChristianprinciplesin SirCharleswithreadinesstoprovehimselfvirileandgentlemanlyby engaginginduels.Richardson'ssolution,makingSirCharlesdisarmhis opponentsandletthemgo,isnotsatisfactory;foritmakeshisprinciples dependentonhisskillatfencing."Incertaincases,"sheforthrightly concludes,"thecodeofthegospelandthecodeofworldlyhonourare irreconcileable,and...amanhasonlytomakehischoicewhichhewill giveup"(Correspondence,cxxviii-cxxix). Ontheotherhand,Barbauldwholeheartedlyadmiredthemoralteach- ingofClarissa—butshedefineditbetterthanRichardsondidhimself. ThelessonthatRichardsonrepeatedlyspellsoutisthatyoungladies mustnotplacetheiraffectionsuponlibertines—butthismaxim"hasnot dignityorforce...tobethechiefmoral"ofagreatnovel.Simultaneously ,RichardsonimpliesthatheisexhibitingClarissa"asararepattern ofchastity"—butthatistoconcurwithLovelace'sconceitedandcon- temptuousbeliefthatallwomenareseducible.Pamela'svirtuewasgenu- inelytried,becauseofthesocialdistancebetweenherandMr.B.;but ClarissahadnomotivewhatsoevertoyieldtoLovelaceasamistress. Therefore,hervirtue"couldneverhavebeeninthesmallestdanger." What,then,isthemoralofthebook?"TherealmoralofClarissais,that virtueistriumphantineverysituation;thatincircumstancesthemost Barbauld'sCriticism / 33 painfulanddegrading,inaprison,inabrothel,ingrief,indistraction,in despair,itisstilllovely,stillcommanding,stilltheobjectofourvenera- tion,ofourfondestaffections"(Correspondence,xcix-cii).Thenovelis virtuousbecauseitinspiresenthusiasmforvirtue.7Thismoralhasthe requisite"dignityandforce";itremainsvalidandvaluabletoday. BarbauldevaluatedRichardson'scharacter,also,withJohnsonian judiciousness—althoughherverdictwasmorefavorable,perhapsmore just,thanJohnson's.Johnsonsawonlya"loveofcontinualsuperiority" inRichardson'sconstantcare"tobesurroundedbywomen,wholistened tohimimplicitly,anddidnotventuretocontradicthisopinions."Simi- larly,BarbaulddemurelyremarkedonRichardson's"mentalseraglio" andacknowledged"thatithadatendencytofeedthatself-importance whichwasperhapshisreigningfoible.Experiencingnocontradiction, andseeingnoequal,hewasconstantlyfedwithadulation."Shequalified thisjudgment,however,bypointingout"thattheladiesheassociated withwerewellabletoappreciatehisworks.Theywerebothhiscritics andhismodels,andfromtheirsprightlyconversation,andthedisquisitionsonloveandsentiment ,whichtookplace,hegatheredwhatwas moretohispurposethangravertopicswouldhaveproduced.Hewasnot writingadictionary,likeJohnson,orahistory,likeGibbon.Hewasa novelwriter;hisbusinesswasnotonlywiththehumanheart,butwith thefemaleheart"(Correspondence,clxxii...