The Terror of French Women

The Terror of French Women:

A Commentary on Female Revolutionaries

            The French Revolution was terrifying in its entirety. Many factors influenced this historical, slaughter filled, chaotic nightmare experienced in Paris during the later part of the eighteenth century. As one could imagine, this horrific event caused a significant amount of influence on the writers of the romantic era, who mostly resided in the territories of Great Britain. However, one of the most shocking aspects of the Reign of Terror was the abundance of control the Parisian women held over the revolt.

            During and prior to the French Revolution, women were viewed by the public in a more traditional sense; they were the weaker sex that should be submissive to their male counterparts. This description is seen in the presentation over “Women and the Law; Addressing Inequality, Imprisonment, and Madness” where it is discussed that women held no authority over anything in the eyes of public courts. This however, was not the prominent issue in Paris. No one had any sort of authority outside of the upper class and all poor were seen as nothing but poor. Not to mention the poor had absolutely nothing- no bread, no money, no job opportunities, literally nothing. So just to quickly recap, that would leave the women of Paris and surrounding areas in the class viewed at rock bottom, and viewed within that class as the rock bottom of human beings. They were basically seen as the inanimate trash of a population viewed as below humans. Just adding insult to injury, women were viewed publically as emotionally unstable and insane. As seen in Wolstencraft’s Maria, women often were placed in mental institutions for practically no reason, so there is no surprise that the women of the French Revolution were often seen as insane. Perhaps another insight into the frustrations of French women and the public view is seen in The Castle of Otranto. This story discusses the subservient role of women and their power-hungry male counterparts. It is quoted in the bog post “Women and Power” that “Walpole seems to be making a political statement and commenting on those in power following their misguided whims as opposed to what is right. Manfred and Frederic both act on their passions without regard for those involved” which in this case, is lower class women being submissive to their lower class husbands and ultimately submissive to the upper class and royals- including royal women who have control over the country. This shows a paralleled corruption of power through the characters in Otranto and the gender and class issues of eighteenth century France. So if the government is corrupt, the women are oppressed, and majority of the population is unhappy, why would it matter if women were a strong aspect of a revolution where everyone was revolting? Many possible answers to this question are similar to those found when the public looked down on the creature in Frankenstein. Like the creature, the women are just as human as men, yet any sort of equal involvement is seen in a disgusted manner. As discussed in “A Human Monstrosity” on the blog, each individual woman is seen in a more respected way by those around her; she sees the starvation and oppression of her family and does something about it. However, seeing a street mob of ladies in dresses over throwing the Bastille was definitely frowned upon in society because of their gender and the judgmental nature of man. Another reason the public looks at the women involved in this movement is because of the movement itself. In “Religion in Christabel” on the blog a point becomes apparent about how the French Revolution was meant to be this amazing movement of passion and bringing power back to the people, yet instead it became a gruesome and morbid blood bath. The actions that occurred were so shocking and grotesque that the public could not understand how most of it was instigated and promoted by the gentler sex. Despite the opinion of the public view, the women were triggered by many aspects of their oppression and surroundings to do such terrible acts.

            Women are scientifically more emotional creatures and maybe this played a major role in why the behaved the way they did during their revolution. When the royal family acted in a way of absolute rule and grandeur while the people of the lower classes sat starving in the streets and robbed by taxes, the women’s maternal instincts set in and acted out. The upper class is much like the rulers discussed on the blog in “Percy Coleridge?” where they used their power to create a frivolous life that was ultimately destroyed. The devastation of the frivolity is similar to the downfall of the upper class in the revolution. The female revolutionaries were often seen as crazed deviants living on the fringe of society as seen when speaking of the creature in Frankenstein in “Separation of Self” on the blog. However, the women act in a way similar to the insanity discussed in “Obsessions and Crazy People” where the only crazy people are completely swallowed by an all involving emotion. The emotion is driven by a cycle of pitiful lives that they are forced into with no escape except death. Much like in the blog post “Innocence Versus Experience” where the chimney sweep is forced into a horrible life with little hope, the poor women of the lower class feel the same way. They were born into their position, inheriting nothing and leaving with nothing. Perhaps this is why they have little inhibitions while revolting- they quite literally have nothing to lose. Even the loss of life was not a threat to these females because they commonly suffered premature deaths due to starvation, illness, and like “Born of the Dead” on the blog discusses- childbirth. Frankenstein killed because he had nothing and no one; similarly the women had nothing and watched their loved ones die regularly. The women believed their revolt was justified by bringing the people what was rightfully theirs much like the prophecy spoken of in “Rightful Inheritance and the Supernatural” on the blog. The French revolutionaries believed that the violence suffered by the upper class was deserved. But there is something to be said on the matter. Both in “Frankenstein” on the blog and in the novel, the point about Frankenstein being unaccepted is brought to light. Were the female revolutionaries frowned upon because they were doing something wrong or because they were not relatable and breaking social norms?

            But why was this so terrifying that it still stands as a major massacre in history? Similar to Isabella in The Castle of Otranto as discussed in “Small Instances of Atypical Female Behavior” the women of the revolution were attempting to control their own fate, but why is this so horrifying? Men kill masses on their rise to power, why can women not do the same? The idea of the gentler of the sexes doing something so horrible is an unexpected blow. Just like Lamia is discussed in the blog post “Difference in Descriptions” appearance is everything. The lamia is deceitful in appearance and actions much like the thought of being behind one of the largest massacres in history during the Reign of Terror. However, it is discussed in “Known and Unknown Monsters” that the two different lamias differ because one has expressed a target of motive and the other has not. The women of the French Revolution definitely had a motive, but it was not clear to the world. In “The Negative View of Women in Clare’s Don Juan” on the blog, women are said to be the one stirring the mischief pot and says they are more sinful than men as a whole, which is reflected when they kill a list of upperclassmen just for being upper class. In this post and in “Problem with a Poison Tree” there is a question of sin. The later discusses Lucifer as a snake and the apple in the Garden of Eden. The two go hand in hand, what makes violent women so terrifying to the public is the biblical connection of Eve’s partnership with the devil to eat the forbidden fruit and deceive Adam into taking a bite as well ultimately resulting in the banishment from the perfect garden. The world was afraid that the horrific acts destroying a country were not godly and yet another partnership with the devil to destroy man. Yes, that is a very dramatic conclusion, but it was a prominent view in a very traditional period of time.

            Ultimately, what came from the fighting female role in the French Revolution were basically women fighting against oppression and for power and freedom for themselves and their class, however this is not what was achieved. Their class witnessed an overthrow of abusive power and broke their bonds but women went right back into very traditional roles afterward. In the end, their reasons for fighting were emotional and to save those around them, but the whole-hearted fight of passion for others advanced others but not necessarily themselves. The women of the French Revolution are still seen just for being violent and cold-hearted instead of passionate idealists fighting out of love for others.

Works Cited

Black, Joseph. The Age of Romanticism. Peterborough, Ontario [u.a.: Broadview, 2006. Print.

"French Revolution." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 05 Aug. 2013. Web. 06 May 2013.

"Liberty Equality, Fraternity: Exploring the French Revolution." Chapter 5 Page 1. N.p., n.d. Web. 05 May 2013.

"Last Man"

—Millennialism 

—Often apocalypses take place after a new millennium occurs

—Belief that the world runs on a 1000 year cycle

—Major transformations for society in 1000 year intervals

—Considered a factor in many religions

—Christian millennialism is seen in the belief of the Second Coming

—Prophecies predict the “Revelation of John” to last 1000 years prior to the Second Coming

Environmental Apocalypse

—Environmental

—adjective

—1.relating to the natural world and the impact of human activity on its condition: acid rain may have caused major environmental damage

— aiming or designed to promote the protection of the natural world: environmental tourism

—Apocalypse

—2.an event involving destruction or damage on an awesome or catastrophic scale: a stock market apocalypsean era of ecological apocalypse

"Darkness"

—“I had a dream, that was not at all a dream”

—dream theory

—Many biblical references

—Adds to the apocalyptic setting

—Strengthens ethos

—Over reaction in panic due to loss of passion

—Momentary period of equality

—Byron’s fondness of animals and nature

—Humans have progressed too far

—“She was the universe”- Hindu god Kali (seen on blog)

—Mt. Tambora

—Iambic pentameter, but not rhymed

"The Last Man"

—Shows extinction of one man, versus the entire race

—More explicitly Christian viewed

—Shows hope in afterlife despite death

—More lyrical/ballad feelings, similar to “Rhyme of Ancient Mariner” when spoken out loud

—Interest contrast to “Darkness”-

—Focuses the sun’s death, still showing light

Connection

—Campbell discusses that the two poems are similar because he and Byron had a discussion about the topic of environmental ruin.

—This casual discussion was said to have influenced both writers dramatically

—Feels as though “Darkness” sets the scene while “Last Man” adds a human narrative

—Byron shows extinction of a race

—Campbell shows extinction of the last individual

Cycle:

—Step 1: Man has become far too advanced

—Step 2: Man creates some “new advancement”

—Step 3: The “new advancement” back fires

—Step 4: Apocalypse occurs

—Step 5: Human sacrifice of “Last Man” to recreate human world

Motif in Film

—9

—Tim Burton film showing an apocalyptic world where there is no human life. A scientist who saw the evil created 9 dolls to harbor the 9 aspects of his soul who ultimately bring life back.

—http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnoJecu9e7c

—WALL-E

—The environment is destroyed, no inhabitants on Earth, little robot running around looking for  sign of life. 

Motif in Literature

—Adam and No Eve

—Short Story by Alfred Bester about a man who creates a shuttle like invention and realizes from space that his launch created a catalyst that destroyed life on earth. The story ends with him committing suicide so the bacteria in his body can recreate evolution and eventually human life. 

Born of the Dead

I found it very interesting in "Frankenstein's Womb" that the creation says he and Mary Shelley are similar because they are both born from the dead because her mother died in childbirth. Perhaps this is another allegory in her writing. Death from child birth complications was very common during the 1800s. Maybe Shelley is making a plea for advancements in this field to prevent loss of life for the mothers? The creation has no mother, as would a child in the situation, all that is left is the "father" (Victor) who disowns him, much like many children whose mothers died during child birth experienced. They became orphaned despite a living parent which is what the creation has to live through. Mary could also be making a statement about how this unfortunate incident leads to these innocent, yet neglected, children who have tendencies to lash out.

Frankenstein

Victor wanted to create something beautiful and sublime, instead getting a monstrous creature. What if the creature had come out aesthetically picturesque and pleasing? Would both Victor and the community be more patient and understanding? They would know the truth of how it was created - unnaturally with bits and pieces of humans and animals - but because its beautiful would they be accepting, or still see it as monstrous on the sole basis of what it is; not a natural being. If the creature looked like a normal person, would Victor and the community be more willing to work with it in order to teach it to be like them? To be more human? If so, would they always secretly live in fear of what is inside of the creature?

A Human Monstrocity

As I read Frankenstein, I am continually intrigued by the format of the creature. The monster is mad from individual human (and animal) parts, yet seen as a creature unlike any other? If an observer looks at just the creature's forearm, or nose, or foot, or and segment it would look strikingly similar to the observer's own piece of flesh. Now this comparison of parts ignites two different thoughts in my mind:

1. Humans as a whole are a monstrosity. And when we look at history this may indeed be true. For instance, take the French Revolution. When looking at the Jacques executing who they deem guilty in their Reign of Terror without justification or remorse we look at the whole event an act of inhumane and horrible circumstances setting all of society's biggest flaws on a platter with the clear potential of damnation on earth being reached. However, if you were to look at each human as an individual they would not seem quite so horribly insensitive. The individual does not seem crazy, scary, or out of the norm. We see this when we look at the whole of the society much like looking at the whole of the monster.

2. Human judgement is natural and imminent. Despite the monster's features being almost completely human, we are horrified. He is made of humans, yet we conclude him not to be one of us? Why is this? It is because we outcast those who are even slightly different. If we cannot directly identify ourselves to the same category then the other does not belong. Yet there are no written rules of this matter. Who decides the monster is not human and on what grounds? There is no law or precedent, just the consensus of fear amongst the public judged upon appearances.

Separation of the Self; Frankenstein's Flaw

For me personally, the apparent separation of the ‘self’ from society is one of the most striking and terrifying elements of the novel. When I think of someone living on the fringes of society, I typically associate two extremes: one being the solitary monk of a monastic order, and the other being a loner/crazed deviant of society. Neither of which play into the story, I know. 

In Frankenstein the laboratory has replaced the monastery, and the ‘passions’  reflect obsession and scientific ‘exploration’ as opposed to religious reflection. Victor himself is separated from society of his own volition- choosing to indulge his obsessions and block out any persons he cares about. It’s important to see his connection to his creation, however, as both a father and brother character. This unnatural brotherhood ignores all natural progressions of life and subsequent death, or even the natural order of birth. By choosing to identify with the monster over people in society, Victor gives in to his idealization of what his creation could be. 

This identification of ‘self’ with the monster drives him further from the natural order, and yet quickly turns to revulsion upon its realization. Here the separation comes between F. and the monster (who is in many ways an avatar for Frankenstein himself). F’s monster then physically and mentally reenacts the cycle of separation by his own right. Firstly, in his physical presence, we see his body to be a collection of separated parts that are perversely joined together. Secondly, the monster acts to further push away the people that Frankenstein cares about, just as F. did during his experimentation. Notice that NONE of this results in good outcomes? 

(Presentation notes) Women and the Law; Addressing Inequality, Imprisonment and Madness

Women were viewed by society to be the weaker sex, and faced unequal treatment regarding rights by law, job opportunities, and education. Men had the ability to sue their wives for adultery, gain full custody of children in the case of divorce, as well as a full range of educational and legal resources at their disposal. Women on the other hand were unable to sue their husbands (unless attempting to prove physical danger - which was RARELY proven), were seen as the property of their husbands (along with any assets they owned prior), and faced a lack of educational resources and occupational options.

Mary Wollstonecraft is seen by many critics to be the ‘Mother of Feminism’, drawing from many of her own life experiences to form the basis of many of her feminist and ‘radical’ writings. Mary advocated for the rigorous education of young girls into their adulthood, something that was lacking in her time. She also rejected the idea that women were inherently weaker or less capable than men, and strongly fought against the subjugation of women, both in marriage and society. Coming from a family composed of a violent father and a submissive mother, she strove to avoid facing the same ills, but like many others before her- also faced her own demons when it came to her personal life. Pregnant and unmarried (Mary Shelley is the wonderful result of this pregnancy) Mary Wollstonecraft surrounded herself with friends who strongly supported her publications as a means of supporting herself independently, and only later met someone with whom she found herself an equal. 

“The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria”- the asylum setting parallels the lack of physical and mental freedoms that women experienced in society (i.e. the protagonist is imprisoned by her husband unjustly)

“Was not the world a vast prison, and women born slaves?” ( pg. 167)

Mary felt that by denying women serious, rational pursuits, society relegated them to a lifetime of vanity and weakness/inequality. She uses fiction to address feminist ideas of education and morality, medical theories of the mind, and gender differences in a way that is approachable and instructive to the women readership. This novel also helped to pioneer the celebration of female sexuality and cross-class identification between women. 

The heroine’s inability to relinquish her romantic fantasies of life and character reveals women’s collusion in their oppression through false and damaging ‘sentimentalism’. The novel criticizes the patriarchal institution of marriage and the laws that protect it by aligning women with the insane: a minority to be championed in Romantic society. 

This representation reflects a Societal view rather than an Individual view; addressed the wrongs done to women (repression), and by women (sentimentalism).

'Mary Wollstonecraft' by John Opie

 'A Rake's Progress' by William Hogarth (Bedlam depiction)

 'Mary Wollstonecraft' by John Opie

'The Nightmare' by Henry Fuseli

WORKS CITED:

Black, Joseph, ed. The Broadview Anthology of British Literature- The Age of Romanticism. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Pr, 2010. Print.

Blake, William. "Drawings for Mary Wollstonecraft's "Original Stories from Real Life"" (c. 1791): Electronic Edition. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2013.

"Mary Wollstonecraft." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 July 2013. Web. 04 Apr. 2013.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. Mary, A Fiction and The Wrongs of Woman, or Maria. Ed. Michelle Faubert. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview Pr, 2012. Print.

Negative View of Women in Clare's Don Juan

What I found particularly interesting in John Clare's Don Juan A Poem is the negative view of women throughout the work. In lines 15-16, Clare writes "Wherever mischief is til womans brewing Created from manself--to be mans ruin." Without knowing his past or relationship history, I would guess that he had been heartbroken by a woman or have ill will toward women.
During this time period I know it was common to view women as closer to nature and "hysterical." I also know that women were blamed for the fall of man because Eve ate the apple in the biblical story of how mankind succumbed to sin. I wonder if Clare felt that women were to blame for his misery and thus is "mischief" is about, it is most defintely "womans brewing."(line 16)
This also makes me wonder if Clare viewed woman as wholly more sinful than men, and if so, who does he blame his own sin on? Does he believe that his sin is a result of something that a woman did to him?

Vulgarity at its Finest

While reading Don Juan by Clare, my jaw was completely dropped. However, the vulgarity of the subject matter was a very clever strategy to use. His very vibrant choice words and visuals invoke a tavern or pub feel. The questionably stated subject matter engages the reader in a personal conversation with many personal opinions expressed freely. This method of audience engagement really draws in the reader while using vulgar expressions to create a level of humor over serious political views (Queen Victoria and the Prime Minister for example). Overall I found his method of getting his point across in an almost drunken manner to be effective. It was entertaining. And if anyone takes what he says offensively it can be disregarded by means of the sloppy drunk friend we all know who behaves inappropriately after hours.

Religion in Christabel

There are small hints throughout the poem leading the reader to believe Geraldine is an evil creature because she constantly deflects any prayer or thanks given to religious figures. For example "[Christabel] 'Praise we the Virgin all Divine,/Who hath rescued thee from thy distress!'/'Alas, alas!' said Geraldine,/ 'I cannot speak for weariness" (halfway through part 1). Geraldine holds conversation with Christabel throughout their encounter and her rescue, however anytime a religious figure is made known by Christabel, Geraldine makes an excuse as to why she will not join in praise or prayer. This may be because (as we discussed in class) the lamia is a Greek mythology creature, not a creature created by the Christian God. However, it could also be a message of warning. Geraldine may be the embodiment of the French Revolution- a passionate, and beautiful idea of bringing power to the people; however, a ruthless and utterly disguising the process is below the surface, far from that of Christian ideas of love. Geraldine masks the good intention and trustfulness of Christabel (who can be viewed as England)  with the passions she is capable of stirring within the powerful figures of Christabel's life, perhaps making the story a warning to the people to keep morals above passions.

Known and Unknown Monsters

When we are introduced to Lamia she is described as a serpentine monster with some redeeming human features. Only after receiving aid from Hermes does Lamia become a beautiful woman. Geraldine seems to be normal throughout “Christabel,” aside from several hints: needing help over the threshold in line 131, the growling dog in line 148, and the mark on her chest in line 252. Yet even though Lamia is the more physically monstrous, Geraldine strikes me as more evil. Lamia is motivated by her desire to be with Lycius. Geraldine is never given any motivation but the reader is still led to believe she has some ill intention. The mystery surrounding Geraldine makes her appear sinister. In reality there is not much to indicate that Geraldine is evil but Coleridge sets the reader up to believe that she is. Keats describes a monster but gives her motivation that is somewhat innocent. Geraldine, to me, is more frightening than Lamia because she is entirely mysterious.

Difference in Descriptions

Keats describes Lamia with contradictions. She is not just one color but variations of colors. She has characteristics of a zebra but also that of a leopard. The moons are dissolv’d or shine bright. In line 53 lustres contradicts the connotation given in the word gloomier. In lines 55 and 56 she is a lady elf, as wells as a demon’s mistress or a demon’s self. Keats description prepares for the idea that Lamia is not what she seems and although she appears in a certain state and manner it is a deception. The description makes the reader wary of this deception. Coleridge, however, describes Geraldine in correlating terms. She is a damsel bright in white silken robes. She is stately and glitters with gems in her hair. Geraldine is surprising because of her exceeding beauty. In lines 146-170 Lamia is somewhat exposed. She is described in negative words that bring about the typical image of a serpent. The mixed colors and animal images from before are replaced here with the picture of pain scarlet, yellow, and hot. 

What Does This Living Hand Represent?

I think in the poem "This Living Hand," Keats uses this image of a hand to symbolize life and death. The "warm and capable hand" invokes a happy and calm emotion contrasting with the "cold" and "icy silence" which give the image of death. Keats also uses the word "if" suggesting that the hand is still alive and capable of loving since in the line, "so haunt thy days and chill thy dreaming nights" could possibly suggest that even those that have died are still with those living. In the final line, "hold it towards you" suggests by taking the hand, you are not embracing life or death but acknowledging it.

The Problem with A Poison Tree

Of all the poems in the songs of Experience I thought the Poison Tree was a good take on explaining how hatred and envy can destroy someone. I thought it was very odd  though how in this set of poems with such a clear message of morality would have a poem about destroying another person, even if that person is someone you don't like and killing them without it being admonished or shown in a light of horror or disgust. The only reason I can think of to do this is that it's a allegory that the foe is killed but the narrator is just as "dead" as their foe because they had to "feed" the seed of hatred with tears of fear and deceit a clear showing of that hatred and wrath change a person yet their are no ultimate consequences for the narrator. The religious symbols of a snake and a apple are clear references to Lucifer and the ultimate sin of pride and envy that got him and a third of the host kicked out of heaven, so perhaps the narrator is lucifer with the fow being humanity, a very disturbing idea.

Innocence Versus Experience

Blake has an interesting way of defining innocence and it relates closely to why he links Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience. The distinction between the two is seen in The Chimney Sweep; however two separate poems written under the same title in books with two separate motives. The version of The Chimney Sweep told in the Songs of innocence speaks of a young boy sold after the death of a parent. He does his job and finds joy and peace in his dreams of freedom granted by God. However, The Chimney Sweep in Songs of Experience speaks of a young boy who has two living parents who basically force him into misery. The end of the poem speaks of heaven as the cause of misery on earth due to the authoritative figures of the time. The link between misery and heaven could be a cynical statement often linked as far back as medieval religion in which a more miserable life on earth ensured prosperity in the afterlife. Perhaps Blake is using this as a way to define innocence as one’s undisturbed thoughts versus the cynic and corrupted effect of society on a person’s attitude. The authoritarians use religion to keep the civilians enslaved in a self perpetrated and pitiful life to retain power, causing the boy’s repressed childhood and loss of innocence through the gaining of experience. Also making an underlying statement that innocence is known until it is lost through experience, otherwise meaning we cannot acknowledge and appreciate our innocence until it is gone.

Obsessions and Crazy People

“The Brownie of the Black Haggs” is one of the most interesting stories I’ve ever read, by far. Any time there is some true insanity and mental instability in a story, I get intrigued. Especially interesting is how much more perturbed Lady Wheelhope seems thanks to the contrast in her surrounding characters. She’s the only insane one in a relatively large cast of perfectly normal, if not plain people. What most interested me, though, is the specific way that Lady Wheelhope’s insanity manifests itself. She’s not Ophelia walking around speaking nonsense, or Lady Macbeth being haunted by hallucinations. She is obsessed, fully consumed by an emotion. It really reminds me of Wuthering Heights, which deals with a similar obsessive madness. I won’t spoil the story, but trust me, it’s...well, I’ll call it a 19^th century, high-class, English Jerry Springer.

Shock Value in "the Slave Trader in the Dumps"

Looking back on Cowper's "The Slave Trader in the Dumps", it is interesting to note just how often shock value was used in famous works of that time period. He disturbs us with this narrator who seems to delight in the misery of the slaves. Jonathan Swift  told the poor to feed their babies to the rich in A Modest Proposal, and Robert Browning creeped out his readers with the sinister implications in My Last Duchess. Shock value seems to have been a typical way that points were gotten across to audiences back then. It certainly got my attention.

Women and Power

As SMJ points out, in “The Castle of Otranto” women have a subservient role. Isabella, Matilda, and Hippolita endeavor at all times to do what is right by God and their male authorities. A key component of the plot is that Isabella acts in a manner that seems rebellious to Manfred by running from him. She, though, is serving a higher authority, which is Providence, and protecting her innocence.

All three women find themselves at one point torn between what the male authorities ask of them and what is right. Manfred and Frederic both have moments where their priority is to obtain a young woman, and they use their power to try to do so. It is fitting then that Theodore keeps his passion in check, and although seemingly of lowly status he treats the female characters with the most respect.

Walpole seems to be making a political statement and commenting on those in power following their misguided whims as opposed to what is right. Manfred and Frederic both act on their passions without regard for those involved. Theodore, however, can’t act on his love for Matilda and is not in the place to force her into marriage as Manfred and Frederic have the power to do with whomever they desire. Perhaps Walpole is using the female characters as a vehicle to portray the corruption caused by excessive use of power?

Small Instances of Atypical Female Behavior

I found that in "The Castle of Otranto", I was really intrigued by the characteristics of the women in the novel. Mostly uniform with the attributes of female characters displayed in literature both prior to and in the 18^th century, the women are portrayed mainly as obedient and kept individuals who lack independence in thought, choices, and identity. However, two of the female characters do display moments of uncharacteristic and surprising behavior. Firstly, there is Isabella, who despite her initial role as simply a bargaining tool, becomes the only character to attempt to control her own fate. While her hope to escape is entirely in response to the actions of Manfred, she escapes and saves herself from what would have been a future of compliance and submission. The other main example of defiance of the typical female character is Matilda, in that she releases Theodore from prison, completely and entirely knowingly defying her father. I found it very interesting to see quite strong instances of self aware and defiant behavior in two women from a time of passive, obedient, and disinteresting female literary characters.

Rightful Inheritance and the Supernatural

It's interesting to note that throughout  the story when a mysterious situation takes place, typically the supernatural elements correlate to one of the themes; one theme in particular being rightful inheritance. Conrad's death, resulting from the fallen helmet that resembles Alfonso's helmet, is an unnatural way to die. It puts emphasis on the supernatural aspect of the helmet killing Conrad, son of Manfred and it seems that the main focus is the importance of the helmet and Alfonso and what he reflected.  Alfonso reappears other times in mystical forms and alludes to rightful inheritance. Rightful inheritance that specifically doesn't belong to Manfred, but instead Theodore.