Works Cited
Brown, Charles Brockden, and Mary Chapman.Ormond, or, The Secret Witness. Broadview Literary Texts. Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press, 1999.
Hartley, Lucy. Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture. Cambridge studies in nineteenth-century literature and culture, 29. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.
Layson, Hana. "Rape and Revolution: Feminism, Antijacobinism, and the Politics of Injured Innocence in Brockden Brown's Ormond." Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal. 2. 1 (2004): 160-191.
Lukasik, C. ""The Vanity of Physiognomy": Dissimulation and Discernment in Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond." Amerikastudien. 50. 3 (2005): 485-506.
Porter, Martin. Windows of the Soul: Physiognomy in European Culture 1470-1780. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.
Shapiro, Stephen “In a French Position: Radical Pornography and Homoerotic Society in Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond or the Secret Witness” Ed. Foster, Thomas A.Long Before Stonewall: Histories of Same-Sex Sexuality in Early America. New York: New York University Press, 2007.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Final Completed Draft!
Female Identity: Physiognomy and Other Follies of Identity Construction in Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond
Charles Brockden Brown, like many of his eighteenth century literary contemporaries, was influenced by the practice of physiognomy. Brown's novel, Ormond, features many characters utilizing physiognomy as a way of discernment and character recognition. Physiognomy came into prominence because it offered a way in which people could judge the character of another person based on their physical appearance — generally the face. Furthermore, it discussed a topic that proved to be poignant to Brown's audience. Namely, Americans soon formed the question as to what, exactly, could be used to distinguish people and their character. A growing middle class made monetary gains harder to distinguish, prompting people to look to physiognomy as a reliable measure people’s status. However, as researchers will argue, Brown, as author, questions the role physiognomy could have in society by introducing a clever actor: Ormond. Ormond, his sister Martinette, and Craig are all skilled users of disguise and deception, revealing the limits and fallacies of physiognomy as whole.
Christopher Lukasik’s “The Vanity of Physiognomy: Dissimulation and Discernment in Charles Brockden Brown’s Ormond” posits that Brown demonstrates the limitations of physiognomy throughout Ormond. For instance, the character Constantia Dudley notes, “Faces, it turns out, can be ‘heterogeneous’ and thus, perplexing to interpret” (Lukasik 493). However, Lukasik's sole focus is on Constantia’s inability to discern the intentions of people based on their facial features. Lukasik uses textual evidence not only from Ormond and other seduction novels that Brown was in discourse with, but also the essays of Johann Kaspar Lavater. Lavater wrote influential essays on physiognomy in the same period in which Brown was writing his novels. Lavater’s pieces, aptly named Essays on Physiognomy, were widely read and mostly accepted by contemporary society during this period. Lavater believed, “man's essence could be known as long as his actions, gestures, and expressions could be observed, because the state of an individual's mind (and soul) could be derived from these observations” (Hartley 32). According to Lukasik, Lavater’s theories and writings received notice in post-War America due to “the threat of rapid social and political mobility in America, one that was facilitated by dissimulation and the fluid culture of genteel performance” (Lukasik 489). In this burgeoning young country, any man with a notable presence, acting skills, and enough charisma contained the potential to become socially or politically elite. Such a fluid culture was relatively unprecedented at this time in the world. However, this does not account for the physiognomic studies that are undertaken in addition to the women within the novel. My essay extends Lukasik's work by considering how other characters, particularly the males, perceive and judge Constantia and Helena Cleves. Could physiognomy be more successful in reading the actions of the novel's female characters and/or determining female identity? Specifically, I will examine the relationship between physical appearance and the construction of gender within Ormond through the characters of Constantia, Helen, and Martinette de Beauvais.
However, to properly examine these questions, I would first like to establish a detailed working definition of physiognomy for the purposes of this paper. Physiognomy as a field of study has existed since ancient Greece. Naturally, this longevity has produced a wide variety of differing theories and interpretations. Thankfully, Lavater's own words offer us the most clear and concise answer possible. He states: “the exterior or superficies, of man, in motion or at rest, whether viewed in the original or by portrait. Physiognomy is the science of knowledge of the correspondence between the external and internal man, the visible superficies and the invisible contents” (Lavater 19). Lucy Hartley, in her work, Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture, interprets Lavater's words by stating, “Through physiognomy, the method of reading the external appearance as a sign of the internal state, one could arrive at a definition of man which mapped an individual's inner soul or being onto their external appearance” (Hartley 33).
Cultural conventions and emotional responses, in particular, were important to physiognomic studies. Mosche Barache offers some key examples that relate to the study of Ormond. One such example regarding the unconscious, typical gestures that all people make sheds certain light on to actions that will greatly affect Constantia as the plot develops. Barache states:
Blushing or turning pale, jerking back before a danger suddenly revealed to us – these are the examples we know from everyday life…the other type of gesture may be termed conventional. As symptomatic gestures are derived from nature, the conventional gesture is considered a product of what we call culture…Most important in our context is that conventional gestures are in the first place conceived as a means of communication. The readability of the natural gesture is a side – or after – effect; it has little to do with the aim of the gesture. The conventional gesture is – at least in its origins – performed in order to convey a message. (Qtd in Hartley 92)
The distinction of class culture becomes a key point in order to discern Constantia's character. For example, it is frequently observable in Constantia's shyness when being regaled with the tales of Martinette's time in the French military, where she acted as a man by attacking French royalists. Stephen Shapiro, in his article “In a French Position” notes, “Constantia becomes flushed on hearing of Martinette's adventures, but hesitates at what she considers to be the final violation of passive femininity, not dressing like a man, but the bloody rupture of flesh” ( Shapiro 372). Constantia's docile and inoffensive personality is highlighted in her squeamishness. While Martinette felt that her actions were noble and her “hand never faltered when liberty demanded the victim” Constantia can hardly bear to hear of such violence. Martinette's ease and ability to cross dress and fit in with the French military provides an important distinction to the fallacies of physiognomy in the text. Even a woman, as Martinette is, can bypass the standard physiognomic traits of a woman by acting and disguising herself to fit the situation in need. Constantia, a character described by Sophia Westwyn as having a frame “so exquisitely delicate, and therefore so feeble” (Brown 61), does not have the constitution nor the trait of dishonesty, as evidenced by her actions in Ormond.
In fact, Constantia's complicit honesty becomes one of the principle traits that eventually leads her to the harrowing situation with Ormond at the conclusion of the novel. The narration gives evidence to Constantia's trustful nature when describing the predicament following Craig’s swindling of her father's fortunes: “she was superior to the folly of supposing him exempt from sinister influences, and deaf to the whispers of ambition; and yet the manner in which she was affected by this event convinced her that her heart had a larger share than her reason in dictating her expectations” (Brown 53). Despite Constantia's much touted wisdom and education, her actions remain heavily guided by her emotions. Her lack of clarity due to emotional turbulence greatly increases the risk in future actions she undertakes. Even though, as the narrator notes, Constantia was raised by Mr. Dudley to be “not alluring and voluptuous but eloquent and wise” (Brown 62). Mr. Dudley's unique education, that deterred his daughter away from the “ornamental and sensual” studies that were typical of the day for women, provides key insight as to why Constantia's uniqueness in both mind and appearance becomes the attraction of so many. Ormond's text reads:
Mr. Dudley, therefore limited her studies to Latin and English. Instead of familiarizing her with the amorous effusions of Petrarch and Racine, he made her thoroughly conversant with Tactitus and Milton. Instead of making her a practical musician or pencilist, he conducted her to the school of Newton and Hartley, unveiled to her the mathematical properties of light and sound, taught her, as a metaphysician and anatomist, the structure and the power of the senses and discussed with her the principles and progress of human society (Brown 62).
With this examination of Constantia's education, the narrator effectively produces a Wollstonecraftian critique of sentimental gender norms by constructing a female protagonist that acts and thinks contrary to popular norms (Layson 163).
Constantia's peculiar characteristics in both action and study remain the pivotal reason why she becomes the target of Ormond's attentions in the latter half of the novel. Her unusual education is one of the most prominent reasons which explain why her attempts at using physiognomy fail. Martin Porter, in his work Windows of the Soul, notes, “[During the 18th century], art of physiognomy lost its intellectual status and became more incomprehensible within the framework of the new scientific paradigm, it came increasingly to be seen as a curiosity with which women preoccupied themselves. It was a skill for which women became renowned for being particularly adept” (Porter 196). Mr. Dudley's unorthodox educational instruction led Constantia to no longer have the typical mind of an eighteenth century woman, masculinizing her in the eyes of others and providing an additional reason for the duplicity that Ormond enacts on her. Physiognomic scholar Jacques Pernetti even states that, “I am apt to think that their [women] Minds unembarrassed with the Spinosites of scholastic sciences, are more clear and vivid, more subtle and delicate, and consequently better adapted for physiognomic researches” (Porter 196). Pernetti's statement continues to offer credibility to Constantia's differential mind and, as physiognomy will suggest, what is known in the mind is shown in the face. Constantia's face, as Craig and Mr. Melbourne would note, was one not easily forgotten.
Craig, having improved his fortunes considerably since his initial theft of Mr. Dudley's wealth, had befriended the eponymous Ormond and begun a partnership with him. However, despite Craig’s best attempts at remaining hidden, he is spotted one day by an errand-running Constantia. His initial reaction elicits a surprising emotion, “He suddenly espied a figure and face on the opposite side of the street, which an alteration of garb and the improvements of time could not conceal from his knowledge. He was startled at this incident, without knowing the extent of its consequences” (My Emphasis; Brown 113). Craig, despite his relative lack of physiognomic education, still recognizes the face and countenance of Constantia from a distance. This example of physiognomic reading offers an example of the lasting impression that Constantia's physical features leave on people. Her dimorphic existence of having both the education of an eighteenth century man coupled with the physical body and perceptions of an eighteenth century woman is such a rarity to the other characters within the text that her very features allow perfect recall of her identity, despite the passing of time. Porter goes so far as to say that, “one might immediately assume that physiognomy was taken to have been a form of female 'sensibility'.” (Porter 197) In essence, Constantia lacks this sensibility and remains unaware of the dangers that wait in the guises of both Craig and especially Ormond. In addition to Constantia's distinct characteristics interacting with the villainous characters of the piece, they also feature prominently when faced with the more virtuous members of Ormond's cast. For instance, Constantia’s reactions with Mr. Dudley's former acquaintance Mr. Melbourne provides an adequate example. Melbourne states, prior to receiving information of the woefully dire straits the Dudley family is in, “it seems to me madam as if I had seen you before. Your face, indeed, is of that kind which, when once seen, is not easily forgotten” (Brown 121). Even though Melbourne has not seen Constantia in years, her distinguishable characteristics would not, could not, leave his memory.
Beauty, another pertinent feature of physiognomic reasoning, features prominently within the plot of Ormond, particularly in regards to Helena. When the reader is first introduced to Helena she serves as Ormond's primary “love” interest. Sophia Westwyn, Ormond's narrator, initially notes that, “Helena Cleves was endowed with every feminine and fascinating quality. Her features were modified by the most transient sentiments and were the seat of a softness at all times blushful and bewitching” (Brown 132). Already the reader is presented with a stark contrast between Helena and Constantia in physical appearances alone. Helena has been gifted with “all those graces of symmetry, smoothness, and lustre, which assemble in the imagination of the painter when he calls from the bosom of her natal deep in Paphian divinity, blended their perfections in the shade, complexion and hair of this lady” (Brown 132). To look at Helen is stunning and pleasurable; practitioners of physiognomy greatly emphasized that outer physical beauty was a key component to both virtuousness and intelligence. Porter cites an older English physiognomic text that explains precisely what fair features would be expected to mean to an eighteenth century reader: “The face of such well borne and complexioned, are on such wise: that is, mean of composition in the cheeks, and temples, declining unto a fatness. Such a creature is judged to be just, loving, and faithful, and of a good understanding” (Porter 185).
However, the fallacies of physiognomy begin to appear when the narrator continues to describe Helena: “it is obvious to inquire whether her mental were, in any degree, on a level with her exterior accomplishments (Brown 133). The text quickly answers that question by noting: Helena uttered so justly, so happily and so copiously that those who her heard her speak were naturally impressed; however, this is followed by, “the truth is, she was calculated to excite emotions more voluptuous than dignified” (My Emphasis; Brown 133). Helena's “presence produced a trance of the senses rather than an illumination of the soul. Her understanding bore no disadvantageous comparison with that of the majority of her sex; but, when placed in competition with that of some eminent females or of Ormond, it was exposed to the risk of contempt (Brown 133).
The educational differences between Helena and Constantia provide a stark contrast. While Helena can not be considered uneducated, she can, however, be considered improperly educated. Hana Layson, in a modern essay on Ormond states “She has been made absolutely beautiful and absolutely dependent by the conventional, feminine education” that predominated that era. Wollstonecraft would lament that this type of education “renders women ‘the prey of their senses. . . . All their thoughts turn on things calculated to excite emotion; and feeling, when they should reason’’ (Qtd in Layson 60–61). The contradictory description of Helena reveals the fallacies of physiognomy which focuses on the external and physical traits of a person. While beauty was said to convey wisdom and intelligence, it is her lack of these two things that leave Helena “Disabled” and “unable to stand alone” should Ormond encounter another woman more suited to his desires (Brown 156). Textual evidence shows Constantia as a thoughtful, intelligent and competent person, whereas Helena is portrayed as a mere emotional ‘‘husk’’ with no intellectual or moral content (Brown 133).
When Ormond does abandon Helena in favor of Constantia, despite Constantia's protests out of consideration for her friend, her foreshadowed collapse inevitably takes place as she promptly commits suicide. Ormond, much like Constantia, “places enormous emphasis on the importance of intellectual equality within marriage” (Layson 177). Ormond could not bring himself to marry someone such as Helena with whom he does not share ‘‘a similitude or sympathy of minds’’ (Brown 132). Physiognomy would suggest that Helena's looks, devotion, and love for Ormond would belie great intelligence and a similarity in mental states; the text clearly notes that this is not the case whatsoever. What attracts Ormond to Constantia is her educational deviation from the normal standard. Her cool logic, rationale and aptitude are qualities that he sees in himself and wishes for others to have. Ormond took advantage Helena’s devotion and love toward him. He knows with certainty that Helena's judgment is woefully underdeveloped. The text explicitly makes it clear that she is not capable of independent, rational consent and, indeed, he does not rely fully on reason to persuade her to accept the illicit arrangement of serving as his mistress (Layson 177). Ormond exploits Helena's weaknesses and appeals to the ‘‘the illusions of her heart than the convictions of her understanding’’ (Brown 136). Ormond's insidious rejection of Helena and pursuit of Constantia leads Helena to commit suicide eventually leads to his own downfall, as the very wits and logic Constantia employ recoil on his greed.
Ormond, while having entrapped Constantia in a corpse-ridden farmhouse, attempts to rape her in a final test between rationality and femininity. Constantia, as evidenced by her horror Martinette's bloodthirsty tales, clearly has difficulty in defending herself and taking another's life. However, she is not willing to lose her chastity to this man or in this manner either. In a startling reversal of gender roles, instead of taking the oft-used role of martyr, Constantia summons the fortitude to defend herself. Brandishing a penknife she quickly and randomly delivers a small piercing to Ormond, leaving little blood on the floor but effectively killing him. This successful first strike, reminiscent of an initial sexual encounter, further masculinizes Constantia, especially in comparison to the limp and violated Ormond, which would have been the expected position for the typical eighteenth century woman. Despite Constantia being “stretched upon the floor” with features that were “pale and motionless, and with all the tokens of death’’ (Brown 272), she clings to life and remains very much alive.
Brown’s attempt at conveying the inadequacies of physiognomic thought through the entirety of Ormond remain strong when examining both genders. The appearances and deliberate actions of actors such as Craig and Martinette subtlety expose the multitude of weaknesses physiognomy holds. Furthermore, Brown explicitly exposes the contradictions that are present within physiognomy by examining the characters of Constantia and Helena. Traditionally, the beauty of Helena would, in physiognomic terms, belie wisdom and good judgment; however, she possesses neither trait. Constantia, however, possesses average physical features but is arguably the most rational and competent character portrayed within the novel. Brown simultaneously displays the failings of not only physiognomy but also the educational system of eighteenth century women. Perhaps if Helena’s education had mimicked Constantia’s, one based in logic, then her fate would have been that of a survivor, rather than victim.
Charles Brockden Brown, like many of his eighteenth century literary contemporaries, was influenced by the practice of physiognomy. Brown's novel, Ormond, features many characters utilizing physiognomy as a way of discernment and character recognition. Physiognomy came into prominence because it offered a way in which people could judge the character of another person based on their physical appearance — generally the face. Furthermore, it discussed a topic that proved to be poignant to Brown's audience. Namely, Americans soon formed the question as to what, exactly, could be used to distinguish people and their character. A growing middle class made monetary gains harder to distinguish, prompting people to look to physiognomy as a reliable measure people’s status. However, as researchers will argue, Brown, as author, questions the role physiognomy could have in society by introducing a clever actor: Ormond. Ormond, his sister Martinette, and Craig are all skilled users of disguise and deception, revealing the limits and fallacies of physiognomy as whole.
Christopher Lukasik’s “The Vanity of Physiognomy: Dissimulation and Discernment in Charles Brockden Brown’s Ormond” posits that Brown demonstrates the limitations of physiognomy throughout Ormond. For instance, the character Constantia Dudley notes, “Faces, it turns out, can be ‘heterogeneous’ and thus, perplexing to interpret” (Lukasik 493). However, Lukasik's sole focus is on Constantia’s inability to discern the intentions of people based on their facial features. Lukasik uses textual evidence not only from Ormond and other seduction novels that Brown was in discourse with, but also the essays of Johann Kaspar Lavater. Lavater wrote influential essays on physiognomy in the same period in which Brown was writing his novels. Lavater’s pieces, aptly named Essays on Physiognomy, were widely read and mostly accepted by contemporary society during this period. Lavater believed, “man's essence could be known as long as his actions, gestures, and expressions could be observed, because the state of an individual's mind (and soul) could be derived from these observations” (Hartley 32). According to Lukasik, Lavater’s theories and writings received notice in post-War America due to “the threat of rapid social and political mobility in America, one that was facilitated by dissimulation and the fluid culture of genteel performance” (Lukasik 489). In this burgeoning young country, any man with a notable presence, acting skills, and enough charisma contained the potential to become socially or politically elite. Such a fluid culture was relatively unprecedented at this time in the world. However, this does not account for the physiognomic studies that are undertaken in addition to the women within the novel. My essay extends Lukasik's work by considering how other characters, particularly the males, perceive and judge Constantia and Helena Cleves. Could physiognomy be more successful in reading the actions of the novel's female characters and/or determining female identity? Specifically, I will examine the relationship between physical appearance and the construction of gender within Ormond through the characters of Constantia, Helen, and Martinette de Beauvais.
However, to properly examine these questions, I would first like to establish a detailed working definition of physiognomy for the purposes of this paper. Physiognomy as a field of study has existed since ancient Greece. Naturally, this longevity has produced a wide variety of differing theories and interpretations. Thankfully, Lavater's own words offer us the most clear and concise answer possible. He states: “the exterior or superficies, of man, in motion or at rest, whether viewed in the original or by portrait. Physiognomy is the science of knowledge of the correspondence between the external and internal man, the visible superficies and the invisible contents” (Lavater 19). Lucy Hartley, in her work, Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture, interprets Lavater's words by stating, “Through physiognomy, the method of reading the external appearance as a sign of the internal state, one could arrive at a definition of man which mapped an individual's inner soul or being onto their external appearance” (Hartley 33).
Cultural conventions and emotional responses, in particular, were important to physiognomic studies. Mosche Barache offers some key examples that relate to the study of Ormond. One such example regarding the unconscious, typical gestures that all people make sheds certain light on to actions that will greatly affect Constantia as the plot develops. Barache states:
Blushing or turning pale, jerking back before a danger suddenly revealed to us – these are the examples we know from everyday life…the other type of gesture may be termed conventional. As symptomatic gestures are derived from nature, the conventional gesture is considered a product of what we call culture…Most important in our context is that conventional gestures are in the first place conceived as a means of communication. The readability of the natural gesture is a side – or after – effect; it has little to do with the aim of the gesture. The conventional gesture is – at least in its origins – performed in order to convey a message. (Qtd in Hartley 92)
The distinction of class culture becomes a key point in order to discern Constantia's character. For example, it is frequently observable in Constantia's shyness when being regaled with the tales of Martinette's time in the French military, where she acted as a man by attacking French royalists. Stephen Shapiro, in his article “In a French Position” notes, “Constantia becomes flushed on hearing of Martinette's adventures, but hesitates at what she considers to be the final violation of passive femininity, not dressing like a man, but the bloody rupture of flesh” ( Shapiro 372). Constantia's docile and inoffensive personality is highlighted in her squeamishness. While Martinette felt that her actions were noble and her “hand never faltered when liberty demanded the victim” Constantia can hardly bear to hear of such violence. Martinette's ease and ability to cross dress and fit in with the French military provides an important distinction to the fallacies of physiognomy in the text. Even a woman, as Martinette is, can bypass the standard physiognomic traits of a woman by acting and disguising herself to fit the situation in need. Constantia, a character described by Sophia Westwyn as having a frame “so exquisitely delicate, and therefore so feeble” (Brown 61), does not have the constitution nor the trait of dishonesty, as evidenced by her actions in Ormond.
In fact, Constantia's complicit honesty becomes one of the principle traits that eventually leads her to the harrowing situation with Ormond at the conclusion of the novel. The narration gives evidence to Constantia's trustful nature when describing the predicament following Craig’s swindling of her father's fortunes: “she was superior to the folly of supposing him exempt from sinister influences, and deaf to the whispers of ambition; and yet the manner in which she was affected by this event convinced her that her heart had a larger share than her reason in dictating her expectations” (Brown 53). Despite Constantia's much touted wisdom and education, her actions remain heavily guided by her emotions. Her lack of clarity due to emotional turbulence greatly increases the risk in future actions she undertakes. Even though, as the narrator notes, Constantia was raised by Mr. Dudley to be “not alluring and voluptuous but eloquent and wise” (Brown 62). Mr. Dudley's unique education, that deterred his daughter away from the “ornamental and sensual” studies that were typical of the day for women, provides key insight as to why Constantia's uniqueness in both mind and appearance becomes the attraction of so many. Ormond's text reads:
Mr. Dudley, therefore limited her studies to Latin and English. Instead of familiarizing her with the amorous effusions of Petrarch and Racine, he made her thoroughly conversant with Tactitus and Milton. Instead of making her a practical musician or pencilist, he conducted her to the school of Newton and Hartley, unveiled to her the mathematical properties of light and sound, taught her, as a metaphysician and anatomist, the structure and the power of the senses and discussed with her the principles and progress of human society (Brown 62).
With this examination of Constantia's education, the narrator effectively produces a Wollstonecraftian critique of sentimental gender norms by constructing a female protagonist that acts and thinks contrary to popular norms (Layson 163).
Constantia's peculiar characteristics in both action and study remain the pivotal reason why she becomes the target of Ormond's attentions in the latter half of the novel. Her unusual education is one of the most prominent reasons which explain why her attempts at using physiognomy fail. Martin Porter, in his work Windows of the Soul, notes, “[During the 18th century], art of physiognomy lost its intellectual status and became more incomprehensible within the framework of the new scientific paradigm, it came increasingly to be seen as a curiosity with which women preoccupied themselves. It was a skill for which women became renowned for being particularly adept” (Porter 196). Mr. Dudley's unorthodox educational instruction led Constantia to no longer have the typical mind of an eighteenth century woman, masculinizing her in the eyes of others and providing an additional reason for the duplicity that Ormond enacts on her. Physiognomic scholar Jacques Pernetti even states that, “I am apt to think that their [women] Minds unembarrassed with the Spinosites of scholastic sciences, are more clear and vivid, more subtle and delicate, and consequently better adapted for physiognomic researches” (Porter 196). Pernetti's statement continues to offer credibility to Constantia's differential mind and, as physiognomy will suggest, what is known in the mind is shown in the face. Constantia's face, as Craig and Mr. Melbourne would note, was one not easily forgotten.
Craig, having improved his fortunes considerably since his initial theft of Mr. Dudley's wealth, had befriended the eponymous Ormond and begun a partnership with him. However, despite Craig’s best attempts at remaining hidden, he is spotted one day by an errand-running Constantia. His initial reaction elicits a surprising emotion, “He suddenly espied a figure and face on the opposite side of the street, which an alteration of garb and the improvements of time could not conceal from his knowledge. He was startled at this incident, without knowing the extent of its consequences” (My Emphasis; Brown 113). Craig, despite his relative lack of physiognomic education, still recognizes the face and countenance of Constantia from a distance. This example of physiognomic reading offers an example of the lasting impression that Constantia's physical features leave on people. Her dimorphic existence of having both the education of an eighteenth century man coupled with the physical body and perceptions of an eighteenth century woman is such a rarity to the other characters within the text that her very features allow perfect recall of her identity, despite the passing of time. Porter goes so far as to say that, “one might immediately assume that physiognomy was taken to have been a form of female 'sensibility'.” (Porter 197) In essence, Constantia lacks this sensibility and remains unaware of the dangers that wait in the guises of both Craig and especially Ormond. In addition to Constantia's distinct characteristics interacting with the villainous characters of the piece, they also feature prominently when faced with the more virtuous members of Ormond's cast. For instance, Constantia’s reactions with Mr. Dudley's former acquaintance Mr. Melbourne provides an adequate example. Melbourne states, prior to receiving information of the woefully dire straits the Dudley family is in, “it seems to me madam as if I had seen you before. Your face, indeed, is of that kind which, when once seen, is not easily forgotten” (Brown 121). Even though Melbourne has not seen Constantia in years, her distinguishable characteristics would not, could not, leave his memory.
Beauty, another pertinent feature of physiognomic reasoning, features prominently within the plot of Ormond, particularly in regards to Helena. When the reader is first introduced to Helena she serves as Ormond's primary “love” interest. Sophia Westwyn, Ormond's narrator, initially notes that, “Helena Cleves was endowed with every feminine and fascinating quality. Her features were modified by the most transient sentiments and were the seat of a softness at all times blushful and bewitching” (Brown 132). Already the reader is presented with a stark contrast between Helena and Constantia in physical appearances alone. Helena has been gifted with “all those graces of symmetry, smoothness, and lustre, which assemble in the imagination of the painter when he calls from the bosom of her natal deep in Paphian divinity, blended their perfections in the shade, complexion and hair of this lady” (Brown 132). To look at Helen is stunning and pleasurable; practitioners of physiognomy greatly emphasized that outer physical beauty was a key component to both virtuousness and intelligence. Porter cites an older English physiognomic text that explains precisely what fair features would be expected to mean to an eighteenth century reader: “The face of such well borne and complexioned, are on such wise: that is, mean of composition in the cheeks, and temples, declining unto a fatness. Such a creature is judged to be just, loving, and faithful, and of a good understanding” (Porter 185).
However, the fallacies of physiognomy begin to appear when the narrator continues to describe Helena: “it is obvious to inquire whether her mental were, in any degree, on a level with her exterior accomplishments (Brown 133). The text quickly answers that question by noting: Helena uttered so justly, so happily and so copiously that those who her heard her speak were naturally impressed; however, this is followed by, “the truth is, she was calculated to excite emotions more voluptuous than dignified” (My Emphasis; Brown 133). Helena's “presence produced a trance of the senses rather than an illumination of the soul. Her understanding bore no disadvantageous comparison with that of the majority of her sex; but, when placed in competition with that of some eminent females or of Ormond, it was exposed to the risk of contempt (Brown 133).
The educational differences between Helena and Constantia provide a stark contrast. While Helena can not be considered uneducated, she can, however, be considered improperly educated. Hana Layson, in a modern essay on Ormond states “She has been made absolutely beautiful and absolutely dependent by the conventional, feminine education” that predominated that era. Wollstonecraft would lament that this type of education “renders women ‘the prey of their senses. . . . All their thoughts turn on things calculated to excite emotion; and feeling, when they should reason’’ (Qtd in Layson 60–61). The contradictory description of Helena reveals the fallacies of physiognomy which focuses on the external and physical traits of a person. While beauty was said to convey wisdom and intelligence, it is her lack of these two things that leave Helena “Disabled” and “unable to stand alone” should Ormond encounter another woman more suited to his desires (Brown 156). Textual evidence shows Constantia as a thoughtful, intelligent and competent person, whereas Helena is portrayed as a mere emotional ‘‘husk’’ with no intellectual or moral content (Brown 133).
When Ormond does abandon Helena in favor of Constantia, despite Constantia's protests out of consideration for her friend, her foreshadowed collapse inevitably takes place as she promptly commits suicide. Ormond, much like Constantia, “places enormous emphasis on the importance of intellectual equality within marriage” (Layson 177). Ormond could not bring himself to marry someone such as Helena with whom he does not share ‘‘a similitude or sympathy of minds’’ (Brown 132). Physiognomy would suggest that Helena's looks, devotion, and love for Ormond would belie great intelligence and a similarity in mental states; the text clearly notes that this is not the case whatsoever. What attracts Ormond to Constantia is her educational deviation from the normal standard. Her cool logic, rationale and aptitude are qualities that he sees in himself and wishes for others to have. Ormond took advantage Helena’s devotion and love toward him. He knows with certainty that Helena's judgment is woefully underdeveloped. The text explicitly makes it clear that she is not capable of independent, rational consent and, indeed, he does not rely fully on reason to persuade her to accept the illicit arrangement of serving as his mistress (Layson 177). Ormond exploits Helena's weaknesses and appeals to the ‘‘the illusions of her heart than the convictions of her understanding’’ (Brown 136). Ormond's insidious rejection of Helena and pursuit of Constantia leads Helena to commit suicide eventually leads to his own downfall, as the very wits and logic Constantia employ recoil on his greed.
Ormond, while having entrapped Constantia in a corpse-ridden farmhouse, attempts to rape her in a final test between rationality and femininity. Constantia, as evidenced by her horror Martinette's bloodthirsty tales, clearly has difficulty in defending herself and taking another's life. However, she is not willing to lose her chastity to this man or in this manner either. In a startling reversal of gender roles, instead of taking the oft-used role of martyr, Constantia summons the fortitude to defend herself. Brandishing a penknife she quickly and randomly delivers a small piercing to Ormond, leaving little blood on the floor but effectively killing him. This successful first strike, reminiscent of an initial sexual encounter, further masculinizes Constantia, especially in comparison to the limp and violated Ormond, which would have been the expected position for the typical eighteenth century woman. Despite Constantia being “stretched upon the floor” with features that were “pale and motionless, and with all the tokens of death’’ (Brown 272), she clings to life and remains very much alive.
Brown’s attempt at conveying the inadequacies of physiognomic thought through the entirety of Ormond remain strong when examining both genders. The appearances and deliberate actions of actors such as Craig and Martinette subtlety expose the multitude of weaknesses physiognomy holds. Furthermore, Brown explicitly exposes the contradictions that are present within physiognomy by examining the characters of Constantia and Helena. Traditionally, the beauty of Helena would, in physiognomic terms, belie wisdom and good judgment; however, she possesses neither trait. Constantia, however, possesses average physical features but is arguably the most rational and competent character portrayed within the novel. Brown simultaneously displays the failings of not only physiognomy but also the educational system of eighteenth century women. Perhaps if Helena’s education had mimicked Constantia’s, one based in logic, then her fate would have been that of a survivor, rather than victim.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
A very early draft
LIT 6009
Dr. Logan
9 April 2006
Physiognomy: Successes and Failures of Physical Interpretation
In Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond
Charles Brockden Brown, like many of his 18th century literary contemporaries, was influenced by the practice of physiognomy. Brown's novel, Ormond, features many characters utilizing physiognomy as a way of discernment and character recognition. Physiognomy came into prominence because it offered a way in which people could judge the character of another person based on their physical appearance — generally the face. Furthermore, it discussed a topic that proved to be poignant to Brown's audience. Namely, Americans soon formed the question as to what, exactly, could be used to distinguish people and their character. Since monetary gains began to be harder to distinguish because of a growing middle class, people then looked to physiognomy as being a reliable measure of discernment towards people’s status. However, as researchers will argue, Brown questions the role physiognomy could have in society by introducing a clever actor; Ormond. Ormond and his sister Martinette are both skilled users of disguise and deception, revealing the limits and fallacies of physiognomy as whole.
Christopher Lukasik’s, “The Vanity of Physiognomy: Dissimulation and Discernment in Charles Brockden Brown’s Ormond” argues that Brown demonstrates the limitations of physiognomy throughout the book. For instance, the character Constantia notes, “Faces, it turns out, can be ‘heterogeneous’ and thus, perplexing to interpret” (Lukasik 493). However, Lukasik's sole focus is on Constantia Dudley's inability to discern the intentions of people based on their facial features.
Lukasik uses textual evidence not only from Ormond and the other seduction novels that Brown was in discourse with, but also the essays of Johann Kaspar Lavater. Lavater wrote influential essays on physiognomy in the same period in which Brown was writing his novels. Lavater’s pieces, aptly named Essays on Physiognomy, were widely read and mostly accepted by contemporary society during this period. Lavater believed, “Man's essence could be known as long as his actions, gestures, and expressions could be observed, because the state of an individual's mind (and soul) could be derived from these observations” (Hartley 32). According to Lukasik, Lavater’s theories and writings received notice in post-War America due to “the threat of rapid social and political mobility in America, one that was facilitated by dissimulation and the fluid culture of genteel performance” (489). In this burgeoning young country, any man with a notable presence, acting skills, and enough charisma contained the potential to become socially or politically elite. Such a fluid culture was relatively unprecedented at this time in the world. My essay extends Lukasik's work by considering how other characters, particularly the males, in the novel judge Constantia and Sophia. Could physiognomy be more successful in reading the actions of the novel's female characters and/or determining female identity? My essay uses physiognomy to ask what produces the air of virtuousness or vulnerability that makes Constantia the target of Ormond in this seduction novel. Furthermore, I will examine whether physiognomy can prove successful in evaluating the personality traits of other characters that interact with Constantia using the ground work that was laid by Johann Kaspar Lavater.
However, in order to answer these questions, I would first like to establish a detailed working definition of physiognomy for the purposes of this paper. Physiognomy as a field of study has existed since Ancient Greece. Naturally, this longevity has produced a wide variety of differing theories and interpretations. Lavater's own words offer us the most clear and concise answer possible. He states:
The exterior or superficies, of man, in motion or at rest, whether viewed in the original or by portrait. Physiognomy is the science of knowledge of the correspondence between the external and internal man, the visible superficies and the invisible contents. (Lavater 19)
Hartley in his work, Physiognomy and the Meaning of Expression in Nineteenth-Century Culture, interprets Lavater's words by stating, “Through physiognomy, the method of reading the external appearance as a sign of the internal state, one could arrive at a definition of man which mapped an individual's inner soul or being onto their external appearance” (Hartley 33).
Cultural conventions: Gestures of the first kind are performed spontaneously, involuntarily and perhaps even without our being aware of the fact that we are performing them. Blushing or turning pale, jerking back before a danger suddenly revealed to us – these are the examples we know from everyday life…the other type of gesture may be termed conventional. As symptomatic gestures are derived from nature, the conventional gesture is considered a product of what we call culture…Most important in our context is that conventional gestures are in the first place conceived as a means of communication. The readability of the natural gesture is a side – or after – effect; it has little to do with the aim of the gesture. The conventional gesture is – at least in its origins – performed in order to convey a message.
Where I am going with this:
Contextual evidence
"Imperfect disclosures”: cross-dressing and containment in Charles Brockden Brown's Ormond / Heather Smyth Smith, Merril D. Sex and Sexuality in Early America. New York: New York University Press, 1998.
Helena Cleves- beautiful but a lacking sufficient mental facilities
Stonewall, Constantia- Defense in defeating an "invader"
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Context
I'm fortunate enough to have the Broadview edition of Ormond so, a lot of contextual support is already completed. However, said edition does not contain many instances of physiognomy. I hope my work thus far has at least provided a basic working definition for what physiognomy is. But I'm always a fan of visual aids and definitions. So, this contextual evidence will be directed to help my loyal readers get a more comfortable idea of what my topic is really about.
Firstly, is a link to the works of Charles Le Brun. Le Brun was a painter who lived and worked in France during the same era Brockden Brown was writing. This site offers reproductions of some of his plates and engravings in great detail. You can see the commonalities that were associated with certain people and animals. I would absolutely include some reproductions of Le Brun's engravings in an edition of Ormond in order to showcase physiognomy in action.
http://www.maitres-des-arts-graphiques.com/-EXBArchive.Physiognomie1.html
Johann Caspar Lavater revitalized physiognomic thought in Brown's time. His works, known around the world, were frequently cited and highly influential in the field of psychology. It was his primary piece, Aphorisms on man, that stood above the rest as the most famous and cited. An edition of Ormond that focused on physiognomy would not be complete without the principle treatise of one of it's founding fathers.
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/Evans/?p_product=EVAN&p_theme=eai&p_nbid=C46G49JEMTIzODYxNjU3Ny4yMDYxNDk6MToxNDoxMzIuMTcwLjY5LjE4OA&p_action=doc&p_queryname=1&p_docref=v2:0F2B1FCB879B099B@EVAN-0F3019C08BC11C08@28954-0FDD5F1763CB1218@1
More to come
Firstly, is a link to the works of Charles Le Brun. Le Brun was a painter who lived and worked in France during the same era Brockden Brown was writing. This site offers reproductions of some of his plates and engravings in great detail. You can see the commonalities that were associated with certain people and animals. I would absolutely include some reproductions of Le Brun's engravings in an edition of Ormond in order to showcase physiognomy in action.
http://www.maitres-des-arts-graphiques.com/-EXBArchive.Physiognomie1.html
Johann Caspar Lavater revitalized physiognomic thought in Brown's time. His works, known around the world, were frequently cited and highly influential in the field of psychology. It was his primary piece, Aphorisms on man, that stood above the rest as the most famous and cited. An edition of Ormond that focused on physiognomy would not be complete without the principle treatise of one of it's founding fathers.
http://infoweb.newsbank.com/iw-search/we/Evans/?p_product=EVAN&p_theme=eai&p_nbid=C46G49JEMTIzODYxNjU3Ny4yMDYxNDk6MToxNDoxMzIuMTcwLjY5LjE4OA&p_action=doc&p_queryname=1&p_docref=v2:0F2B1FCB879B099B@EVAN-0F3019C08BC11C08@28954-0FDD5F1763CB1218@1
More to come
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)