By Ariel Chu
In The History of Romances, Pierre Daniel Huet argues that romances obscure truth by substituting reality with dishonest, pre-modern “Fictions” (Huet, 123). Charlotte Lennox’s The Female Quixote appears to support this claim: by criticizing a modern woman who clings to antiquated romantic conventions, The Female Quixote exemplifies Huet’s idea that a “primal” belief in romance is a hindrance to modernity. However, The Female Quixote itself uses the framework of a classic romance to convey its message, complicating Huet’s assertion that romances are inherently “dishonest” and irrational. While both Huet and The Female Quixote acknowledge the absurdity of romances, Huet’s dismissal of the genre is contradicted by The Female Quixote’s success in using a romantic framework to offer rational social commentary.
Initially, The Female Quixote seems to support Huet’s idea that romance is the discursive mode of primal, pre-modern societies. The novel’s conceit hinges upon the “foibles” of its protagonist, Arabella, a noblewoman who has been raised in rural isolation as a result of her father’s desire to abandon the city. Described as a “simple” countrywoman who disregards Christianity, Arabella can be viewed as an example of one of Huet’s “prophane,” primal individuals. Removed from urban England and the “modernity” that it symbolizes, Arabella is forced to use her library of French romances “as real Pictures of Life, from [which] she draws all her Notions and Expectations” (Lennox, 19). Just as Huet claims that fiction is the flawed method by which pre-modern societies sought to gain an understanding of the world, so Arabella treats her fictional romances as “Histories” from which she gains the idea that “Love [is] the ruling Principle of the World” (Lennox, 19). This fundamental “[addiction] to Poetry, Invention, and Fiction” (Huet, 16) accounts for Arabella’s inability to comprehend modern society in her later years, strengthening Huet’s belief that primal societies were unable to attain modernity because of their intrinsic reliance on irrational storytelling.
Arabella’s “pre-modern” sensibilities are exemplified not only by her physical distance from the city, but also by her cultural distance from modernity. Lennox frequently describes Arabella as “unconcerned with her appearance;” she wears a veil to “preserve her modesty” instead of being concerned with modern fashions. Arabella is also dismissive of “the usual Topicks of Conversation among young Ladies” (Lennox, 402) and, upon her forays into Bath and London, experiences ridicule due to “The Singularity of her Dress” and her romantic inclinations. These attributes further solidify Arabella as one of Huet’s “primal” and pre-modern figures. Furthermore, Arabella’s idolization of figures outside of classical antiquity validates Huet’s belief that the romance genre has its origins in dishonest paganism. Arabella extolls the “fair and virtuous glory” (Lennox, 126) of the “whore” Cleopatra, uses a pagan Amazonian princess as a model for conduct, and defends romance authors for “[delivering] down to Posterity the heroic Actions of the bravest Men, and most virtuous of Women” (Lennox, 79) outside of the Classical canon. Her praise of these figures, who are either mocked or not recognized by Arabella’s peers, cements her foolishness in the eyes of the other characters. Thus, Arabella’s idolization of non-Classical figures further alienates her from a grasp on the modern world, further supporting Huet’s assertion that romances are inherently harmful due to their dishonest pagan origins.
Huet does believe that there are “good” romances—that is, narratives that have “moral instruction” as their primary aim. However, Huet also believes that romances are dangerous in that readers are liable to interpret fiction as actual “Histories,” which impedes their understanding of what has actually occurred in the world. Huet’s fears are realized in Arabella’s attempts to apply her fictional ideals to 18th century interactions. For instance, Arabella’s belief in antiquated “Subjects of Love and Gallantry” (Lennox, 145) causes her to call for the banishment and death of her prospective suitors, much to the shock of her peers. Arabella’s obstinacy not only prevents her from acting in accordance to social conventions, but also keeps her from accepting the viewpoints of other learned individuals. Even when challenged by her experienced uncle, a war veteran, Arabella maintains the truth of a story in which a “Master only of a single Sword… disposed the Destinies of Monarchs by his Will” (Lennox, 239). In an even more egregious example, Arabella successfully persuades a historian “who has read no Authors, but the Antients” into believing that one of her fictional romances actually chronicles a “Piece of History” that has “escaped his observation” (Lennox, 302). By showing how ridiculous this conflation of imagination and history can be, Lennox and Huet both propagate the idea that romances are capable of using “dishonest” fictions to obscure reality.
Moreover, The Female Quixote views Arabella’s process of reforming into a “modern,” rational woman as the primary aim of the narrative. In the same way that Huet mourns that “’Genius… is disposed and addicted to Poetry, Invention, and Fiction” (Huet, 16), other characters refer to Arabella’s romantic inclinations as her “one foible,” bemoaning that “had she been untainted with the ridiculous Whims [that romances] created in her Imagination,” she would be “one of the most accomplished Ladies in the World” (Lennox, 67). Accordingly, Arabella’s romantic nature is seen as the only flaw hindering her from entering modern society, marrying Mr. Glanville, and inheriting the entirety of her father’s estate. The end of The Female Quixote thus shows Arabella’s “reformation” after a debate with her physician, which leads her to see the merits of accepting modernity. To reward her for her change of heart, Lennox writes that Arabella and her lover Mr. Glanville are afterwards “united…in every Virtue and laudable Affection of the mind” (Lennox, 428), absent of the “foibles” of Arabella’s romantic delusions. This conclusion seems to be in alignment with Huet’s argument, as it shows how Arabella’s ability to eschew romance and come to “rational” terms with the world has ushered her into a state of advantageous modernity.
However, The Female Quixote is more than a simple reiteration of Huet’s ideas. While Lennox’s portrayal of Arabella seems to be in alignment with Huet’s complaints about the absurdities of romance, The Female Quixote itself is written in a romantic style. In other words, the very genre that Huet criticizes is the genre that Lennox employs to make a rational and logical observation of Arabella’s “foibles.” Rather than criticizing romance through Huet’s idea of straightforward “moral instruction,” The Female Quixote adopts and parodies familiar tropes to expose Arabella’s ignorance and the absurdity of viewing the world through a romantic lens. In this way, Lennox successfully harnesses the style and framework of romance in order to create rational social commentary, a possibility that Huet does not consider in his critique of the genre.
Throughout the novel, Lennox turns common romance tropes into compelling arguments for Arabella to seek rationality. Huet states that romances “have Love for their Principal Subject, and don’t concern themselves in War or Politicks” (Huet, 8). In accordance with this definition, The Female Quixote focuses on the romantic relationship between Arabella and her suitor Mr. Glanville, who seeks to “reform” her. It is through the promise of marrying Mr. Glanville that Arabella sees a positive consequence to eschewing her antiquated beliefs; therefore, in contrast to Huet’s argument, the “irrational” romantic conceit of “love” is used not as a means of obscuring the truth, but rather as a motivation for embracing reality. In addition, Lennox is guilty of propagating falsehoods—like Arabella, Lennox attempts to convince readers that fictional persons and events once existed. For instance, Lennox attempts to provide readers with the illusion of historical accuracy by censoring names for “privacy” (“Countess of —–”). Yet, rather than being “dishonest,” this imitation of reality serves as a textual contrast to Arabella’s “fictions,” setting up a “real world” that eventually proves more compelling than Arabella’s romantic ideas. Thus, while Lennox’s focus on love and imitation of historical fact are the hallmarks of traditional romance that Huet abhors, these hallmarks are not used as accessories to Arabella’s folly, but rather as ways of guiding Arabella in the direction of rationality.
In addition, Lennox satirizes familiar romance tropes in order to provide commentary not only about Arabella’s irrationality, but about the nature of fiction in general. For instance, while Mr. Glanville seems to be introduced as the archetypal lover who pines after Arabella, he is no less “disposed to laugh at the strange Manner in which she [receives] his Expression of Esteem for her” (Lennox, 47). By setting up seemingly familiar archetypes, Lennox is then able to expose the absurdity of romantic narratives by having the characters themselves acknowledge the “folly” of their situation. The chapter names within the novel also parody the drama of a romance, detailing, with mocking emphasis, the “adventures” and ‘stupendous Instances of Valour” that occur in Arabella’s commonplace life. Ultimately, both Arabella’s absurd actions and Lennox’s own overly-dramatic narrative style expose the absurdity of portraying the mundane “real world” through the lens of overwrought fiction. By adopting the style of romance with satirical intent, Lennox is able to use “romance” as a method of valid critique in a way that Huet never considered in his criticism of the genre.
There is yet another way in which Lennox and Huet differ in their approaches to romance: while The Female Quixote does not overtly endorse romance, it acknowledges that fiction and reality can coexist and learn from each other. This viewpoint is embodied by Arabella’s physician, who, in advising Arabella to become “equally acquainted with both” (Lennox, 424) romance and reality, is able to help Arabella reconcile her fantasies with real life. Furthermore, the juxtaposition that Lennox creates between Arabella’s fantastical notions and the true nature of society allows Lennox not only to observe 18th century English society, but also to criticize it by using romance as a basis of comparison. For instance, Arabella’s foil, Miss Glanville, is described as “envious” and vain in contrast to Arabella’s own “generous” personality. While Miss Glanville is relatively urbane and spends much of her time talking about “Winnings and Losings at Brag, the Prices of Silks,” and “the newest Fashions” (Lennox, 402), Arabella’s modesty and wit—honed by years of reading the romances that Huet condemns—actually endears her to the other characters. While Miss Glanville’s actions seem far more typical of 18th century society than do Arabella’s delusions, the narrative appears to favor Arabella’s “Wit and Good Sense” (Lennox, 367) over the “insipid Discourse” (Lennox, 402) of more cosmopolitan women. Though Arabella is mocked for her worship of pagan figures and adherence to ancient “Laws of Romance,” her virtuous principles still place her above the other women of her time. As a result, The Female Quixote contradicts Huet’s belief that modern narratives are superior to romances due to their alleged rationality and morality.
Contrary to Huet’s belief that romances obstruct the “truth” of human experience, The Female Quixote is able to relay an accurate depiction of 18th century England even while employing a framework of romance. By placing a depiction of “normal” life against a backdrop of Arabella’s absurd beliefs, Lennox is able to emphasize the rational nature of modern society while still retaining traditional elements of romance. Additionally, by purposefully adopting a romantic language and narrative style to describe ordinary scenarios and characters, Lennox proves that “romance” can be harnessed in the form of satire to make meaningful social commentary (in this case, to criticize the absurdity of portraying life through the lens of fiction). Finally, the ensuing juxtaposition between Arabella’s idealistic fictions and the comparatively cynical nature of reality allows Lennox to criticize aspects of modernity, contradicting Huet’s assertion that contemporary narratives trump the irrationality of past romances. Therefore, while the plot of The Female Quixote echoes Huet’s disdain for romances, the framework of the novel challenges Huet’s assertion that romances cannot succeed in providing accurate portrayals and critiques of society. Instead of “[forsaking] the Study and Speculation of [the truth]” (Huet, 123), as Huet suggests, The Female Quixote is a “romance” that analyzes the nature of the real world by comparing it with the ridiculousness of fiction.
References:
1. Huet, Pierre-Daniel. The History of Romances: An Enquiry into Their Original; Instructions for Composing Them; an Account of the Most Eminent Authors; …Written in Latin by Huetius; Made English by Mr. Stephen Lewis. London: Printed for J. Hooke, and T. Caldecott, 1715. Print.
2. Lennox, Charlotte, Amanda Gilroy, and W. M. Verhoeven. The Female Quixote. London: Penguin, 2006. Print.