The Whores Rhetorick: Narrative, Pornography, and the Origins of the Novel

TheWhoresRhetorick:Narrative, Pornography,andtheOriginsoftheNovel JAMESGRANTHAMTURNER Inthelastdecadewehavewitnessedasurgeofinterestinthe"discourseof sexuality"anditspoorrelation"pornography"—oncedismissedby historiansoftheEnlightenmentasaninsignificantbore.Thisinterestis sharedbysocialhistoriansseekinglightonthefamilyandthesexual underworld,byfeministsexposingthepoliticsofmasculinity,bytheorists tryingtoconfirmordenyFoucault's"historyofsexuality,"andbyliteraryscholarswantingtoput"thebody"backintotheirreading.Inaparallel developmentofrecentyears,historiansofthenovelhaveexploredits seventeenth-centuryorigins,notinasinglekindofpredecessor,butina complexwebofhighandlowgenres,scandalandphilosophy,newsand romance.Thisessaywillmaponesmallvalleybetweenthesetwinpeaks: thepossiblecontributionofearlierpornography—hereexemplifiedbytwo seventeenth-centurywritingsonprostitution—totherealismlaterassociated withthenovel. Mostdefinitionsof"pornography,"however,aretoocrudeandtoo anachronistictoservetheneedsoftheeighteenth-centuryliteraryhistorian. "Pornography"isafightingword,itsgoalslocalandpolemic.Acrossthe politicalspectrum,eachcamphasevolveditsowncriteriaofdefinition, effectiveastacticalweaponsbutpitifullyinadequatetoanyoneawareofthe complexoperationoftextsinculture.Conservativesobjecttothesexual contentperse,nottohowitispresented.Liberalsdefinethegenretoo narrowly,usingconceptualmodelslongsincediscardedbyliterarytheorists. Mostoftheseliberaldefinitionsdependonasimpledichotomybetween pornography(assumedtobeevilandworthless)andsomemoreacceptable wayofrepresentingsexuality("Art,""Science,"or"Erotica")thatisnever properlyanalyzed;manyofthemcharacterizethetextintermsofasingle 297 298/TURNER intentionoreffect—somethingliterarycriticsfindunbearablynaive. Meanwhile,radicalanti-pornographyfeminists,stillarguingfromasingleeffectmodel ,definethegenretoobroadly,equatingallmalerepresentations ofwomenwiththemostviolentandextremeformofcommercial pornography:"Pornographyisthetheory,rapeisthepractice."Thesetwentieth-centurycontroversies,whichinevitablycoloranyattempttounderstandtherelationofeighteenth-century"pornography"toitsliterary andsocialculture,replicatecontemporaryconcernsthatragedthroughoutthe period.AstutefeministssuchasSarahFygerecognizedthatlewdrepre- sentationsofwomenwereintendedtoviolatethem,notjustinthe imaginarytextbutintherealworld:assheremarkstotheobscenesatirist RobertGould, YouwouldadulterateallWomankind, NotonlywithyourPen.1 InonesensetheEnglishnovelgrowsoutoftheanti-pornographyandanti- libertinecampaignofSamuelRichardson,whoinsistedthatthemono- maniaceroticfantasiesofLovelaceinflictedrealandirreversiblyphysical damageonwomen;rapewasthepracticeofhislibertinetheory,andminor indecenciesorsoft-core"freedoms"werecalculatedtoleadinexorablytothe worstoutrage.Thisessaywillnot,however,attempttotracetheporno- graphicincanonicalfiction.Instead,itposesthequestionof"pornography andnarrative"inmorerestrictedterms—derivedfromtheoriginaletymology inpome,orprostitute—byconcentratingoncertainconjunctionsofsexual andnarrativeeffectsinearlymodernwritingsabout,orpurportedlyby,what JohnClelandcalls"womenofpleasure."Narrowasthissampleof pornographiamaybe,itstillraisesimportantquestions.Whatconnections canbetracedbetweenclandestinesexuallyexplicitfictionandthe"riseof thenovel"?Couldthelibertineproclamationanddisplayoftaboosexuality enjoyanaffinity,guiltyandsecret,withthebourgeoisconstitutionof"real life"andsubjectivityinadetailednarrative? Libertinediscourseitselfseemsdividedonthispoint.Inafamous passage,FannyHillworriesthatwith"asubjectofthissort,whosebottom orgroundwork[is],inthenatureofthings,eternallyoneandthesame," wordswill"flatten,andlosemuchoftheirduespiritandenergy,bythe frequencytheyindispensablyrecurwith,inanarrativeofwhichthatpractise professedlycomposesthewholebasis."2Sexualityanddiscourseareas- sumedtobeatodds.Directrepresentationingutter-languagerevoltsthe readerwithitsvulgarity,whilethegenteelvocabularyofArdors,Transports, andEcstasieslacksenergyandrequiresthe"supplements"ofthereader's imagination,beyonddiscoursealtogether.Clelandhereanticipatesone strandoftheliberalobjectiontopornography,whichdistinguishesitfrom trueartbecauseitismonotonous,fixatedonasingleorganinafeatureless pornotopia?Fanny'snarrativedefinescommunicablelanguageitselfasa supplementtothesexual"subject,"superadded(quiteliterally)byher TheWhoresRhetorick/299 "rationalpleasurist"lover,whoteachesherstylistic"cultivation"and bequeathsheranindependentfortune,makingheratoncemarriagableand expressive—inshort,novelizable. Acontrarymodel,however,appearsinapreciselycontemporarylibertine text,theMarquisd'Argens'Thérèsephilosophe.Heretheheroine'snarra- tiveseemstoproceeddirectlyfromhersexualfulfilment.Thérèselives quitecontentwithmasturbationandvoyeuristicpleasureuntiltheCount seducesher,appropriatelyenoughinabook-linedpicturegallerythatsums upthewholehistoryoferoticrepresentation.Thisdouble"consummation" providesboththeendandthebeginningofthelibertinefiction:itcloses thebook,sinceperfectpleasureleavesnothingmoretobesaid,butitalso provokestheactofwritingitself.Intheopeningparagraph,Thérèse respondstotheCount'schallengetotransformherexperiencesinto"a paintingwherethescenesinwhichwehavebeenactorslosenoneoftheir lasciviousness,andmetaphysicalreasoningspreservealloftheirenergy."4 Writingherstorybecomesaseduction,aninvitationtomutualpleasure ("écrivons!"),apromisetoreveal"touslesreplisdesoncoeur,"allthefolds ofherheart(1:3)—justasthereaderliterallyunfoldsthepagesandthefold- outprintsofthebook,engravingsoftheveryimagesthatseducedThérèse inthefirstplace.Indeed,shewillbenotonlyre-plicatedbutcreatedbyher narrative:"sonametouteentièrevasedévelopperdanslesdétails"(1:2-3). IanWatt'sparadigmofEnglishformalrealism—the"bourgeois" constitutionofrealityandsubjectivityinadetailednarrative—showsup whereonewouldleastexpectit,inFrenchlibertinefiction.Inthismodel, sexualfulfilmentsupposedlyleadstoamutually-generatingcycleofrep-resentationandaction,an"unfolding"ofnovelisticrealismbyacomplicityofnarratorandreaderexactlyhomologoustotheunfoldingofthebodyin arousal. Yetevenwithinthisparadigmatictextthemodeldoesnothold.The othermainnarrativeembeddedinThérèsephilosophe,thatoftheheroine's friendMmeBois-Laurier,putsthisidyllicarrangementintoquestion, suggestingaquitedifferentrelationbetweeneroticwholenessandnarrative authority;Bois-Laurier,theprocuressandorganizeroferotictableaux,isa sexualmutant,"neithermannorwoman"(2:3),bornwithhervagina permanentlysealed.Narrativeisgeneratedbythemutationorabolitionof sexuality.MoreovertheUrsprungofthenovel,theCount'sdesiretobe recounted,occursnotimmediatelybutonlyafteraten-yearinterval—asif thenarrativeimpulsespringsnaturally,notfromfemalesexualflorescence, butfrommaleaging. Ourexamplessofarcomefromahighpointinthedevelopmentbothof thenovelandofpornography,whenFannyHillandClarissa,Thérèseand TomJones,appearedwithinafewmonthsofoneanother.Ambitious 300/TURNER philosopheslikeDiderotandLaMettriewroteeroticainthelate1740s, whileambitiousnovelistslikeRichardsonfoundtheirworkdenouncedas pornography—preciselybecauseitgavecentralimportancetosexualityand "unfolded"itsmeaninginthemostintimatedetails.(AsRichardson explainedofhisownfiction,"intheminutiaelieoftentheunfoldingsofthe Story,aswellasoftheheart.")5Aswehaveseen,evenabriefsampling fromthisefflorescenceofclandestinewritingrevealsahighlyself-conscious andcomplexsenseoftherelationbetweensexualityandfiction.Butcan thisself-awarenessbetracedinthoseseventeenth-centurytextsthatmight constitutean"origin"forthenovelofsexualexperience?Weshouldnow begintoanswerthislargequestionwithasmalltest-case,tracingthe contradictoryrelationofnarrative,sexualrepresentation,andthe"Novel"in apairoftextsthatfallintothenarrowestandmostliteraldefinitionof pornographia:ananonymoustreatisecalledTheWhoresRhetorick, CalculatedtotheMeridianofLondon,andConformedtotheRulesofArt (London,1683),anditsprototypeLaRetoricadellePuttanebyFerrante Pallavicino,firstpublishedin1642butreissuedinhiscompleteworksin 1671.Pallavicinohadnohandinthelateradaptation—hefellfoulofthe papalauthoritiesandwasburntatthestakeinhismid-twenties—buthe contributedtoliteraryhistoryinseveralgenres.Anotherworkreissuedin 1671,//CorriereSvaligiato,influencedepistolaryfictioninearly eighteenth-centuryEngland;CharlesGildonadaptedthiscollectionof supposedlystolenlettersunderthesuggestivetitleThePost-BoyRob'dof HisMail,orThePacquetBrokeOpen. Pallavicinoprovidesagoodstarting-pointforthisenquirysincehegivesusnotonlyapraxisofsexualnarrativebutatheory:hisscandalousparodyoftherhetoricaltreatisespellsoutexactlyhowNarrano,oneofthemain categoriesofrhetoricalmethod,relatestotheprostitute'sart.Rhetorical inventionallowshertocaptureanycustomer,andtopromptextragiftson anyoccasion,by"foldingherselfintoalltheforms,andadjustingherselfto allthepleasures,"thatmightincreaseherprofit;piegarsiintutteleforme— compareThérèse'spromisetounfoldthe"replisdesoncoeur."Butthesex workermustbetotallyawareofherfictionality,must"makeachimaera"of herselftocreatetheimpressionthathercaressesspringfromlovealone. Thismethodicalself-production,goingthroughallthesubdivisionsof rhetoricsuchasDispositio,Elocutio,andsoon,requiresnarrativeatseveral levels.Inthe"exordio"thecourtesansnaresloversbydemureglancesin public,"turningherselfintoadisplayapparatusorprojectionscreen [un'apparato,unostrato]."Theninthe"narratione"itselfsheinventsan intriguingandaffectinghomelifetoinvolvetheclientmoredeeplyand renderheryieldingmoreplausible;thewhorebecomesnotacoarsetrickster butaThérèse-likenovelist,"sweeteninghernarrativebyweavingin fascinatingincidentsfiguredinherownperson,"by"distinctinductionof particularaccidentsofherownlife."6Pallavicino'slanguageexplicitly equatesthe"artificiosatessitura"ofsexualcaptivation,the"benintessuto TheWhoresRhetorick/301 discorso"ofthewhore'snarrative,andthe"weaving"ortessituraofhisown discourse("thissmallcontexture,"astheEnglishversionputsit).7 Admittedlythis"narratione"isend-directed,apretexttothe"confirmatione" whentheloversactuallygotobed.Butthesexualactbecomesamicronarrativeinitsownright ,asthecourtesanpositions"herMembers"likethe elementsofawell-structuredsentence,forthe"miglioreeffetto."Indeed, shearrangescopulationlikea"Comedy,""unfoldingtheamorousscene"and endingwithakindofreversedénouement,"redoublingtheknotsofhands andfeet";correspondinglythecustomer'sdesire,whichhebelieves "authenticated"byhisexperience,becomesmerelyanurgeto"shewhis skillintheimitation."8Evenaftertheevent,theprostituteistoldtoexpel malepost-coitalnauseaandreincite"ildesideriodigioire"witherotic discourseandsong(RP62).TheEnglishversionincreasesthisChinese- boxeffect—aphrodisiacnarrativewithinaphrodisiacnarrative—byaddingthe "facetiousNovel"(WR44). OurtheoriesofwhatweusedtocalltheRiseoftheNovelwouldbe fruitfullycomplicatedbyembeddingtheminthisseventeenth-century context,whichlinksnarrativefictionsimultaneouslytotwoartsthatmake theprivatepublic:prostitutionandrhetoric.Rhetoricenjoyedthehighest artisticstatus,andyetitspersuasivegoalmadeitunashamedly "promotional,"instrumental,andstimulative—preciselythecriteriathatare nowusedtodistinguishartfrompornography.Mostrecentcondemnations ofpornography(withtheexceptionoftheradicalfeministcritique,which allowsnomitigationbyartisticquality)dependonaRomanticideologyof artremovedfrom"interest"and"arousal,"freefromgoal-orientedpersuasion andpalpabledesignsuponthereader.Butrhetoric—andarguablyallartin theearlymodernperiod—wassupposedtoarouse.Itplacednarrativeatthe serviceofpubliccausesinpublicplaces,evenwhilerecognizingthattheact ofpersuasionitselfwasintenselyprivate.Accordingtoatypicalmanual suchasCyprianoSoarez'sDeArteRhetorica,theexplicittargetof Pallavicino'sparody,theinnercoreofthelistenermustrespondtothe dynamismofanoratorskilledindisposinglanguageandbodilygesturefor "maximumforce,"soastobe"inaffectibuspotentissimus."Everyphysi- cal"motus"thusexcitedinthelistenermustalsobefeltbythespeaker: CiceroandHoracearebroughtintoprovethat"ifyouwanttomakeme weep,youfirstmustgrieveyourself."9Itseems,then,thattheprestigious artsofpersuasionwerequitecompatiblewiththescandalousartsofsexual arousal. Oneobviousobjectiontothisequationofrhetoric,proto-novel,and pornographiaisthat,accordingtoofficialtheoriesofrhetoric,persuasion mustserveamoralend.PallavicinoandhisEnglishadaptersidestepthis neatly.Outofonesideoftheirmouthstheyclaimtobewarningyoung menagainsttheevilsofwhoredom,announcingadidacticanddissuasive purposefortheirpornographia(asDefoewouldlaterdo).Butinthesame breaththeyenvisageaproto-Flaubertianrolefortheartist,whose 302/TURNER responsibilityisnottodiscriminateagainstabjectandscandalousmaterials buttorenderthemwithsupremeaestheticpower.Theguidingprinciple"in mediositaestvirtus"comestomeanthatthevirtuousmanis"indifferent," distancedfromgoodaswellasevil,applyinghimselfwithequalspiritto both"asthedesignsinhandmayseemtorequire";disegnoandvirtuoso clearlyimplyaestheticratherthanmoralcriteria.Hereagainthewriter identifieshimselfwiththecourtesan,whomheinstructstodisregard"fase nefas"andtotransformthemostbestial(anal)body-functionsintothe highestart—"conspiritoelevato."10 Theauthorattimesclaimstobeexposingfraud,buthistheoryofmoral indifferenceunderminesthisstanceandhisauthorialpracticesuggestsan affinity,evenacomplicity,withtheartofprostitution.Pallavicino lamentsthathecannot"chimerizaretantefintioniefurberie,"chimerizesuch fictionsandfourberiesasthecourtesanproducesdaily,fortheir"talento"is "moltosuperiorealladebolezzadelmioingegno"(RP3).Aswesawwith thetessituraofnarration,thevery"fictions"and"colors"hedenouncesin theprostitutedefinehisownachievement.(FannyHillwillfallintothe sametrapwhensheasksthesensitivereaderto"givelifetothecolours wheretheyaredull,orwornwithtoofrequenthandling,"adouble-entendre thatironicallycollapsesthedistinctionbetweenbodyandlanguagethatit purportstomaintain.)11TheWhoresRhetorickaddsapublicdimensionto thisparallelofsexandart:theprostitutetries"tosatisfieallmenaccording totheirseveralexigences";theauthor"wouldpretendwithhisPen,to gratifieallMankind."12Eventheostensibleexposécommunicatesafurtive eroticpleasure,thepleasureofrevealingsecrets,sharingfemalespacebehind thescenes,stealinglanguagethatbelongstosomeoneelse,buryingone's faceinhermostprivatethings.Itisnoaccident,Ithink,thatPallavicino alsoinventsanimportantdeviceforepistolaryfictioninhisCorriere Svaligiato—thetrasgressivemeta-narrativeof"thePost-boyrobbedofhis mail,orthepacketbrokeopen." InbothLaRetoricadellePuttaneandTheWhoresRhetorickanolder procuressgivesadvicetoayoungacolyte,adapting(andintheEnglish versionplagiarizing)Aretino'sdialoguesof1535.Buttheseseventeenth- centurytextsgomuchfurtherthanAretinoinlayingbaretheapparatoof illusionandthepsychologicalbasisofdeception:earlymodernpornog- raphyineffectrehearsesnovelisticrealismbyshowinghowtoconstructa newformofsubjectivity,aconsistentandclose...