|
 |
|
| Smith, Julianne. 'Teaching
Joanna Baillie's De Monfort.' British Women Playwrights
around 1800. 15 June 2004. 6 pars. <http://www.etang.umontreal.ca/bwp1800/essays/smith_baillie.html>
|
Copyright © Contributor, 2004-2008. This essay
is protected under the copyright laws of the United States and
the Universal Copyright Convention. Publication (print or electronic)
or commercial use of any of the copyrighted materials without direct
authorization from the copyright holder is strictly prohibited.
|
| 1. |
Seminar participants in the "Summer Undergraduate Seminar in Nineteenth-Century Drama" (instructors: Julianne Smith and Erika Olbricht) were assigned to read De Monfort in addition to two essays on Joanna Baillie from Tracy Davis & Ellen Donkin's Women and Playwriting in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Beth Friedman-Romell's "Staging the state: Joanna Baillie's Constantine Paleologus" and Susan Bennett's "Genre trouble: Joanna Baillie, Elizabeth Pollack—tragic subjects, melodramatic subjects." In addition, they looked at Keum-wha Lee's "Commentary on De Monfort and Count Basil" in the online Bluestocking Archive. The following paragraphs reflect the development
of class discussion and highlight the issues raised by this group
of readings. |
| 2. |
Students were interested in the relationship between Jane and De Monfort—especially in regard to gender and the ambiguities of the nature of their relationship.
Jane is an idealized women, and yet she goes against some female
stereotypes just as De Monfort defies some male stereotypes. Jane
is rational; De Monfort is passionate. But Jane still retains elements
of the feminine ideal since she is a domestic as well as a moral
marker. Her "queenliness" precedes even her physical presence in several instances, and she is unable
to disguise her nobility and beauty even behind a veil. Act II,
scene i (the masquerade party scene) is interesting to examine
in this regard. We asked questions such as how does disguise function
here? And is disguise different for men and women? What is being
hidden in these disguises? Rezenvelt makes a speech about how women
are not what they seem (ll. 136-154) and then turns to De Monfort
and asks him if he can similarly disguise (as if "a woman turn'd" l.168) his feelings of hatred toward Rezenvelt. The ensuing attempts to unveil
Jane and reveal her identity are most ardently pursued by her brother,
who appears to be attracted to her in a very unbrotherly way, and
it is Rezenvelt who most actively protects Jane's identity until
she reveals it herself to keep De Monfort and Rezenvelt from further
hostilities. The ambiguities about the brother/sister relationship
are never resolved, even at the end of the play. |
| 3. |
Students also brought up the ambiguity about whether De Monfort himself is a
hero or villain. They noted that their expectations were shaped
by the familiar gothic or melodramatic formula in which hero and
villain are clearly discernable. As such, they began reading with
the assumption that De Monfort is the hero and Rezenvelt the villain.
Baillie makes these roles more complex, however, and students noted
their lack of sympathy with De Monfort overall. Questions raised
in this part of the discussion focused not only on the vexed issue
of hero/villain but also on whom this play is really about; Baillie's
own misgivings (footnoted in our text) about whether the play should
end with De Monfort's death or should go on to give us the denouement
involving Jane et al. in Act V, scenes iii and iv were interesting
in this regard. If the play ended at scene ii, De Monfort would have the last word as he gives himself over to the authorities for
his punishment—a noble gesture that may partially redeem his character. Scenes iii and iv, however,
give the focus to Jane—who also has the final speech in this case. And interestingly, Baillie does not
exact from Jane any of the renunciation of self we often expect
to see in nineteenth-century literature. There is no indication
of what Jane's future might hold, but there is also no hint that
she will take the veil or put her own life on hold as penance for
her brother's passion (or perhaps for her own?). |
| 4. |
Other issues discussed included the ambiguities about "closet drama" in this period. Beth Friedman-Romell's essay begins by questioning the parameters
of closet drama, and because this term was on the table, students
noted the way the word "closet" itself is used in the text. At one point in the play (Act II, scene ii), Jane
says to her brother,
Come to my closet; free from all intrusion,
I'll school thee there; and thou again shalt be
My willing pupil, and my gen'rous friend;
The noble Monfort I have loved so long;
And must not, will not lose.
Though here the closet is invoked as a private space, it
may receive visitors whose presence is ambiguous. In her
list of various interpretations of closet drama, Friedman-Romell
has noted that "'Closet' may mean the revelation of what is conventionally private—the personal, the domestic, the emotional . . . the subtextual expression of
repressed homoerotic desire . . . or even the writer's own
social or sexual ‘closeting' . . . . (152-153). Conflicting notions of the play as public/private
performance and the social strictures on female behavior
and authorship are of interest in this arena—and Susan Bennett's essay on ways female playwrights "intervene" in the theatre to "claim . . . a particular place for women" is a helpful and articulate resource here (216). |
| 5. |
An additional area of interest was Baillie's stage directions. Students noted
that the stage directions constructed much of the meaning since
they were very specific. They speculated on what it might be
like to read (or act) the play without them. Actors, they felt,
must feel constrained by so much directive. And the reader has
perhaps similar constraints and must read the play more like
a novel in which characters' inner lives are more thoroughly
revealed. Since earlier playwrights don't give such stage directions,
Baillie is an interesting marker for the way plays may become
more overtly psychological through the use of stage directions.
|
| 6. |
Our discussion concluded with the question, why is De Monfort an important play to read? Responses to this query noted the following:
- De Monfort may be used to illuminate theatre history—especially issues such as the nature of closet drama and the emerging use of
elaborate stage directions.
- De Monfort provides dramatic and compelling material for the discussion of gender, social,
and familial roles onstage and off.
- De Monfort problematizes received notions of such categories as gothic/melodrama, heroine/hero,
and public/private.
|
| |
Julianne Smith
Pepperdine University
Julianne Smith is Assistant Professor of English at Pepperdine University. She
is co-editor of The Nineteenth-Century Playtext Database
|
| |
-
Baillie, Joanna. De Monfort. Plays on the Passions. 1798. Ed. Peter Duthie. Orchard Park, NY: Broadview, 2001. 300-387.
-
Bennett, Susan. 'Genre Trouble: Joanna Baillie, Elizabeth Pollack—Tragic Subjects, Melodramatic subjects.' Women & Playwriting in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Eds. Tracy C. David and Ellen Donkin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 151-173.
-
Friedman-Romell, Beth H. 'Staging the State: "Constantine Paleologus".' Women & Playwriting in Nineteenth-Century Britain. Eds. Tracy C. David and Ellen Donkin. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 215-232.
|
|
|
|
|
|
