New Uracil Dimers Showing Erythroid Differentiation Inducing Activities
SHOWING AND TELLING - ScholarWorks
-
Upload
khangminh22 -
Category
Documents
-
view
1 -
download
0
Transcript of SHOWING AND TELLING - ScholarWorks
SHOWING AND TELLING:
VISUAL CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NARRATIVE STRUCTURE OF
NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE’S THE BLITHEDALE ROMANCE AND EDITH
WHARTON’S SUMMER
A Thesis
Presented to the Faculty of the Department of English
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
in
English
(Literature)
by
Juan Espinoza
SPRING
2020
iii
SHOWING AND TELLING:
VISUAL CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NARRATIVE STRUCTURE OF
NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE’S THE BLITHEDALE ROMANCE AND EDITH
WHARTON’S SUMMER
A Thesis
by
Juan Espinoza
Approved by:
__________________________________, Committee Chair
Nancy Sweet
__________________________________, Second Reader
Susan Wanlass
____________________________
Date
iv
Student: Juan Espinoza
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this thesis is suitable for electronic submission to the Library and
credit is to be awarded for this thesis.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator ___________________
Doug Rice Date
Department of English
v
Abstract
of
SHOWING AND TELLING:
VISUAL CULTURE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE NARRATIVE STRUCTURE OF
NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE’S THE BLITHEDALE ROMANCE AND EDITH
WHARTON’S SUMMER
by
Juan Espinoza
In her 1934 autobiography, A Backward Glance, Edith Wharton admonished
critics of her 1917 novel Summer who viewed the novel as a “pleasing romance of
summer life.” Wharton saw her novel as part of the same Dark Romantic literary
traditions of New England established by authors like Nathaniel Hawthorne. This project
moves beyond Wharton’s connections of genre and geography to explore how both
Hawthorne’s and Wharton’s literary works were intimately situated within their
respective era’s popular culture and how popular entertainments of each era shaped the
form, style, and worldview of each author’s literary works. I begin by analyzing how
Hawthorne’s 1852 novel The Blithedale Romance is narrated as though it were a series of
tableaux vivant or “living pictures,” antebellum entertainments with a moral message,
though they were also often an excuse to skirt censorship laws. I then explore how, in
much the same way, Wharton’s Summer uses the circus freakshow, a form descended
from the tableaux vivant that displayed Otherness as a medical and scientific
vi
entertainment. In Summer the freakshow is used with disturbing effect as a way to
deliver an otherwise simple “seduced and abandoned” plot. Together these novels
suggest that literary fiction is shaped by the popular culture that surrounds it. As that
popular culture evolves, so too does the form of literary fiction. Large changes in
popular culture, like those between tableaux vivant and the freakshow, are mirrored by
minor differences in the narratives of literary fiction like those between The Blithedale
Romance and Summer.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Nancy Sweet
_______________________
Date
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This Master’s Thesis was made possible by many, many people. I would like to thank
the following people:
Dr. Nancy Sweet and Dr. Susan Wanlass for their support throughout this process and
throughout my master’s degree.
My family, especially my mother Traci Johnson and my father Luis Espinoza, who
supported me throughout this entire journey.
My brothers, José and Carlos Espinoza.
My friends, especially Anthony Perez and Catalina Carapia-Aguillon, and Ambyr Gage,
Ademidun Adejobi, David Ng, Sophia Louie and so, so many others.
My colleagues, for supporting me in my many other endeavors.
And Dora Monterroza, for putting up with me, for supporting me, for inspiring me, for
pushing me to be the best person I can be.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... vii
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE STAGE ...............................................................1
2. HUSH, POSE, AND YOU WILL BELIEVE: TABLEAUX VIVANT AND
BLITHEDALE .............................................................................................................25
3. THE GREATEST SHOW IN NEW ENGLAND: FREAKSHOW, CIRCUS, AND
SUMMER ....................................................................................................................58
4. STRIKING THE SET: CONLCUSIONS AND NOTES FOR FURTHER
READINGS AND VIEWINGS ..................................................................................92
Works Cited ....................................................................................................................106
1
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE STAGE
In her 1934 autobiography, A Backward Glance, Edith Wharton admonished
critics of her 1917 novel Summer. Critics of the time were excited for the release of
Summer. Many reviews drew a comparison between Wharton’s earlier work Ethan
Frome and Summer, with the Nation favoring the former and the Times Literary
Supplement seeing the two novels as equals (Rattray xvi). To Wharton, Summer was
squarely in the dark, regional traditions of fiction established by authors like Nathaniel
Hawthorne. Wharton felt, for good reason, that her critics were instead expecting
Summer to be “the reflection of local life in the rose-and-lavender pages of their favourite
authoresses” (Wharton, A Backward Glance 294). After all, the New York Times Book
Review naively titled their review “Summer a Pleasing Romance of Village Life” (xix).
Wharton’s stab at her reviewers is a less emphatic rebuke of “women’s writing” than
Hawthorne’s own scorn of the “damned mob of scribbling women” he felt was ruining
the critical reputation of his own work in 1855 (Wagner-Martin 243). Hawthorne’s 1852
novel The Blithedale Romance came before his “scribbling women” phase, but some of
the reviews of the novel are no less damning than those he would receive—and comment
on—later. The Norton Critical Edition of Blithedale contains one review, by an
anonymous reviewer for the Westminster Review, declaring that Blithedale “will never
attain the popularity which is vouchsafed…to some of its contemporaries” and which
went on to say that “Hawthorne has a rich perception of the beautiful, but he is sadly
2
deficient in moral depth and earnestness” (262, 263). Reviews of Blithedale fall into
roughly two camps. One camp identifies Blithedale as a roman à clef for the real-life
Brook Farm. The Penguin Classics Edition quotes a review from the Christian Examiner
that states emphatically that “Mr. Hawthorne is presenting…a delineation of life and
character” at Brook Farm (x). Orestes Brownson, father to a Brook Farm participant, was
often reluctantly roped into the roman à clef reading but tried, in his reviews, to lead the
other camp that saw Blithedale “connected with some of [his] friends” but ultimately
showing “very little of the actual persons engaged in it” (x). Though the reviews were
decidedly mixed for each novel, it is interesting that the two authors, connected through
time and genre, share a connection through their novels’s similar persistent misreadings.
However, it is also easy to see that the novels share a similar narrative structure.
Blithedale is the story of failed love at a failed socialist utopian community. It follows
three main characters: Zenobia, a proto-feminist and author; Hollingsworth, a criminal
reformer; and Miles Coverdale, a minor romantic poet and flaneur who narrates the story
after the fact. The love triangle that develops between the three is complicated by the
introduction of Priscilla and Westervelt. Summer follows Charity Royall in her love
affair with the urbane Lucius Harney, who is visiting North Dormer to sketch colonial era
houses. The love affair is complicated by Lawyer Royall, Charity’s adoptive ward.
When Charity becomes pregnant by Harney and Harney leaves her for the beautiful
Annabel Balch, Charity runs away to the outlaw community on the Mountain, her
ancestral home. Lawyer Royall brings the exhausted Charity back to town and promptly
3
marries her. Each novel has very similar characters. Hollingsworth and Lawyer are the
brooding older men, Coverdale and Harney the feckless young men, Priscilla and Charity
the delicate but brooding young women, and Zenobia and Annabel Balch the
“temptresses.” Besides complicated sexual/romantic relationships, each novel deals with
themes of power and control. More specifically, the male characters use their power to
control, confine, judge, and punish women. In Blithedale, the gaze is each male
character’s, but especially Coverdale’s, main means of control. In Summer, that male
gaze is suffused into an Orwellian panopticism lorded over by Lawyer Royall.
Though the similarities in critical receptions and the narrative structures are
intriguing, simply put, I find Wharton’s claim of literary kinship with Hawthorne the
most intriguing. Wharton’s genealogical claim establishes her roots in both a
geographical space, New England, and a generic vein, Dark Romanticism, a dark
counterpoint to Romantic literature often conflated with the Gothic because of its
fascination with the irrational, demonic, and grotesque, as opposed to Romantic
literature’s focus on the sublime and euphoric. With this project I will add another
category to the connection between Hawthorne and Wharton: performance. By this I
mean two things, the actual performances within the novels and readings using a
performance studies lens. I take this approach because both novels include detailed
accounts of and slight references to a range of actual performances and actual popular
entertainment spectacles of their respective eras. I use the term performance
interchangeably with entertainment and spectacle because historical accounts of these
4
performances stress both the performer, the spectacle, and the entertainment value of
each performance. Indeed, it seems, in reading historical accounts, that performance,
spectacle, and entertainment are inextricably linked and not distinct categories. A
performance genealogy can be traced through strictly literary works1. Hawthorne’s 1860
novel The Marble Faun could be read as blending sculpture, painting, and architecture
with popular forms of Gothic and travel writing. Wharton’s The House of Mirth, with its
spectacular, fantastical, and infamous tableaux vivant scene could be read as a blending
of popular stage performances with the popular novel. However, Blithedale and Summer
do not just feature performance, they use performance as a frame with which to deliver
their narratives. Hawthorne uses performance, the nineteenth-century fad of tableaux
vivant2 specifically, as a frame for his first-person narrator, Miles Coverdale, to deliver
Blithedale. Wharton similarly uses performance to deliver Summer through her third
person narrator. That performance, the freakshow or circus sideshow, is a direct
descendant of the tableaux vivant used in Blithedale.
Thus, this project is as much a study of Hawthorne and Wharton as it is a study of
popular culture and how both high and low entertainment together form a dynamic
1 For a discussion of this literary connection using both literature and tableaux vivant, see
“Tableaux Vivants: Masculine Vision and Feminine Reflections in Novels by Warner,
Alcott, Stowe, and Wharton” by Grace Ann and Theodore R. Hovet.
2 It is important to note a seemingly trivial concern before proceeding too far forwards:
spelling. Many modern critics use the proper French spelling of tableaux vivant for the
plural, as I do. However, it seems to be common practice to also use the Americanized
tableaux vivants, which, when referring to 19th century writing, seems to be the preferred
method. When quoting, I retain the spelling of the author or critic; however, when
writing, I will use the French version of the term.
5
entertainment ecosystem that evolves over time. In this respect, my work taps into the
same critical vein as Mark Storey’s critical work, which suggests that nearly any
combination of works by Henry James could be included as literary intermediaries
between Hawthorne and Wharton. Storey reads James’s works as exemplify how
literature can participate in the evolution of visual culture from the straightforward
theatrics of antebellum stages to the kaleidoscopic three-ring circuses of postbellum
entertainments. Blithedale and Summer serve as more intriguing points along the
evolutionary timeline than Storey’s readings of James’s works because the two novels are
both far enough apart to not be bogged down with the minutiae of change (as Storey’s
study of James is) and close enough together to not fall victim to grand historical
oversimplifications. In other words, they are situated at the right distance to establish a
valid overarching evolutionary narrative. Too, the connections between Hawthorne and
Wharton and tableaux vivant and freakshow are well documented; Blithedale and
Summer allow me to suture the authors and the entertainments together into one unified
narrative. In examining these two points along the evolutionary timeline, this project also
proposes a way for current readers and scholars to understand literature’s place in their
current entertainment ecosystem.
As mentioned above, the entertainments I will focus on will be the tableaux vivant
and freakshow. Both are now functionally extinct, existing in some form within our
modern entertainments but not existing on their own as they did in past centuries. Along
with studying these actual performances, this project also uses “performance” as it is used
6
by varying fields of study. For instance, this project uses a performance studies approach
to read each novel. Tracy C. Davis, in her introduction to The Cambridge Companion to
Performance Studies, sees a timeline of academic “turns”—vogueish philosophies or
stances of studying that supposedly shook up academia—of which the “performative
turn” is the most recent in line. The performative turn itself acknowledges “how
individual behavior derives from collective, even unconscious, influences and is manifest
as observable behavior, both overt and quotidian, individual and collective” (1). The
“performative turn” was built first from the “linguistic turn” of theorists like Jacque
Derrida. In linguistics, a performative is what J. L. Austin calls an utterance that does
things with words. For example, promises, oaths, and naming utterances are not
necessarily true or false, but are actions done through words. Stanley Cavell takes up this
notion and expands performativity to also include the ability for language to carry and
thus perform emotion3. The performative turn subsequently built from the “cultural turn”
of Michel Foucault (1). The more well-known definition of performativity comes from
the “cultural turn” approach of Judith Butler. Butler’s concept of “performativity of
gender” argues that identities are “performed,” as in made up of many actions and
costumings. Gender, in turn, can be replaced by any number of other terms to suggest
that our reality and identities are made up of actions, costumes, and roles. For example,
3 This is, of course, not the entire history of linguistic performativity. Scott Lash
conducts a thorough and easy-to-read interview in Theory, Culture & Society with
philosopher John Searle on linguistic performativity titled “Performativity or Discourse?
An Interview with John Searle.”
7
Nicholas Ridout argues that democracy is a performative act because we must play the
role of a member of the polis. However, Davis also points out that key terms pertaining
to the field of performance studies have a certain “heterogeneity” to their definitions and
uses (7). One key contention within performance studies is between “adherents of
performance studies” and those “making use of the power of ‘performance’ as an
explanatory metaphor without regard for…‘limits’ to the performative” (1). This project
will use the “heterogeneity” of the term “performance” to explore the many layers of
performance in each novel and will push the boundaries of the performative metaphor by
moving beyond the performer/audience dichotomy of many performance studies to
include director, critic, and theatre space.
However, I feel that if I am to fully explain the connection through performance,
it is necessary to provide here some historical context for this project. The following
sections proceed chronologically, delving into the history first of tableaux vivant and then
of freakshow. Along with the history, I provide some technical, cultural, and critical
information of each performance type. This historical section serves as a basis from
which to begin excavating the connections between Hawthorne and Wharton. In fact,
even here certain themes emerge that both historians of the performances and critics of
the novels hold in common. Critics of both the entertainments and the novels discuss the
dynamics of the gaze and the many attempts to subvert the power of the gaze. Another
common theme is mixture. Critics of performance inevitably talk about the mixing of
8
audience and stage, viewer and viewed, while critics of the novels talk about the mixture
of reliable and unreliable narration, objective and subjective reality.
Hawthorne begins his introduction to Blithedale by declaring that, “In short, [his]
present concern with the Socialist Community is merely to establish a theatre…where the
creatures of his brain may play their phantasmagorical antics” (Hawthorne 1). Even
before the play begins, readers are cued to seek out the theatrical, to favor the subjective
over the objective, in The Blithedale Romance. Critics have taken this cue to discuss the
most spectacular theatre genres of the novel: mesmerism and masque. Michael S.
Martin’s and Samuel Coale’s separate investigations into masque and mesmerism
respectively argue for theatre not as an innocent entertainment but a phantasmagorical,
almost psychotropic, exploitative performance. In Blithedale, the two argue,
performance is a way to challenge reality or a way to exercise one’s power over others,
the narrative, and, to an extent, reality. However, masque and mesmerism are only two
examples from the breadth of theatric and performative references in Blithedale that stem
from Hawthorne’s “interest in large-scale nineteenth-century American spectatorship and
entertainment” (Martin 85). Though Hawthorne’s particularly contentious relationship
with mesmerism does provide a fertile ground for critical readings, this project explores
the rest of the ecosystem of entertainments that Hawthorne could have drawn from.
Equally prevalent, and equally odd, as mesmerism and masque are the tableaux
vivant, or living pictures, put on by the inhabitants of Blithedale Farm before the
“Zenobia’s Legend” chapter (Hawthorne 106). Like the masque, tableau has a long
9
history. It is important to note here that tableaux vivant were not a homogenous
performance type nor were they singularly an American experience during Hawthorne’s
life. In fact, the tableau, like most theatrical traditions that originated in Europe, “carries
a long history dating to the early Renaissance” though it can be traced even further back
to medieval morality plays, where, “at important moments in [the] morality plays,
[performers] often used a tableau to give the central personage (together with the
audience) a moral insight” (Patterson 616, Bussels 239). Even in these pre-modern
performances, the form’s basic themes, and contradictions, are clearly present. Stijn
Bussels discusses the extensive use of tableaux vivant in the “joyous entry” ceremonies
of the Lowlands. The joyous entry was a performance staged by the town to welcome a
new ruler but to also deliver a political message to the ruler regarding what the town saw
as the moral, ethical, and legal relationship between state and city. However, the
tableaux of the joyous entries did not draw solely on the medieval performance traditions
of the morality play. They drew extensively from Classical and medieval treatises on the
rhetoric of painting and theatre. Bussels suggests that, at least “In 1458,” tableaux were
“an ideal means to experiment with the capacities of both [theatre and painting] to present
the political relation between” the town and the visiting ruler (Bussels 238). This pre-
modern history presented by Bussels suggests that tableaux, from the beginning, were
performances that freely mixed media to serve a certain end and communicate a certain
message concerning power relations between two parties, in this case the ruler/audience
and the town/performer. An important caveat is, as Bussels points out, that the tableaux
10
of the joyous entry were not always easy for the audience, whether ruler or townsperson,
to decode. In Bussels’ history, this difficulty is inherent in the tableaux’s mixed-media
formant. Combining the rhetorics of painting and performance led to a product that was
overladen with meaning. Though the historical consequences of this for the Lowlands
are not important to this project, the concept of overdetermined meaning is, as will
become clear.
What became the popular tableaux vivant of the later nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries “can be traced to the eighteenth-century Neapolitan drawing room
displays”—or attitudes—“by Lady Emma Hamilton…who famously covered her
seminude form with shawls” (Assael 746). These attitudes were performed “for private
and aristocratic entertainment” (Patterson 616). One of those aristocrats, who is often
credited in the historical and critical literature for popularizing tableaux in Europe and
subsequently America, was Goethe who showcased tableaux in his novel Elective
Affinities (Patterson 616). For his part, Goethe thought Lady Hamilton’s performances
were inspired by religious tableaux, which Peter McIsaac, in his discussion of Goethe and
tableaux, traces back to renaissance Italy (McIsaac 155). McIsaac also argues that,
beyond simply popularizing tableaux, Goethe was also responsible for popularizing the
linking of several tableaux into a kind of cycle to create more complex meanings. By
juxtaposing several tableaux, the performer could suggest a narrative (156) without
actually moving or acting. Goethe is also credited by McIsaac and Cynthia Lee Patterson
as the originator of many of the gender issues present in later tableaux. Goethe
11
effectively rendered tableaux performance feminine and viewing—and thus decoding—
tableaux masculine. However, the tableaux still were not easily decoded by the audience.
McIsaac suggests that Lady Hamilton’s performances were often mediated by Lord
Hamilton who provided “suggested interpretations” in the form of “commentary or poetic
passage” (McIsaac 157). Lady Hamilton’s “attitudes” bring up several interesting points
absent in earlier tableaux. For one, audiences of Lady Hamilton’s were often unsure of
just who they were looking at. On the one hand, it was Lady Hamilton in front of them.
On the other hand, “once [her shawls] dropped, she was said to portray a series of grand
gestures as if the statues she represented, like Helena, Cassandra, and Andromache, had
come to life” right there in the parlor (Assael 746). McIsaac furthers this by saying
“whereas the figure frozen in a pose is the presented ‘material,’ she can likewise be
recognized as the creative instance” (McIsaac 157), i.e. Lady Hamilton blurred the line
between artist and art object.
That Lady Hamilton’s body was displayed so brazenly—ostensibly as art—was in
stark contrast to another practitioner of the tableaux at the time: Stéphanie de Félicité, the
Countess of Genlis who advocated for the tableaux’s pedagogical uses. Specifically, the
Countess of Genlis “advocated a strict, religiously based method that avoided the use of
theoretical explanations” in favor of “historical scenes [that] were enacted as tableaux
vivants in the hopes that bodily emulation of certain poses would transmit proper morals,
politics and Bildung well before young minds could grasp those abstract concepts”
(McIsaac 165). Though McIsaac does not speculate as to why this split between the
12
artistic and the instructive occurred, it is possible to see how the tableaux’s uncertain and
uneven past in politics, theatre, and painting could lead to such a bifurcation. The
tableaux of the joyous entries could just as easily be split between their political and
moral exigencies and their artistic exigencies. What is most important about Lady
Hamilton, the Countess of Genlis, and the eighteenth-century period is, simply, the
bifurcation. It is the bifurcation of tableaux production, viewership, and criticism into
pedagogical and artistic camps that defines the rest of the history of both the tableaux
vivant and the freakshow as well as both performances’ critical receptions.
The nineteenth century saw tableaux move from the courtly home and into
popular public venues, though the form continued to have a strong presence inside the
home. Robert Lewis corroborates much of the above history of tableaux, suggesting that
the home sphere “constituted protected space, a sanctuary and refuge from the fray, and
from the frenzy of modern, commercial urban life” and that “in the select company of
family and invited guests, there could be some pretense that entertainments were
‘instructive,’ ‘improving,’ character-developing rather than ‘dissipating’” (Lewis 282).
Lewis’s work adds, however, that “in aristocratic society in early nineteenth-century
England, the favorite tableaux subject was art, either classical sculpture or Renaissance
painting” (Lewis 283). The early “parlor” tableaux, those performed in the homes of
aristocrats, often mimicked the “attitudes” of Lady Hamilton. Lewis suggests that it was
these parlor tableaux that initially moved from Europe to America when “American
visitors on the Grand Tour witnessed [these] ‘attitudes’ and were duly impressed” (Lewis
13
283). In America, the parlor tableaux were often “clichéd examples of American
Victorian taste…striving for melodramatic effect” because “knowledge of the fine arts
was not widely disseminated” in America as it was in Europe (285, 284). With the
invention of chromolithography Americans had more and more colorful access to
classical works of art (284). Lewis is sure to point out that parlor tableaux evolved into
ever more complex productions, often taking up the entire parlor so that the audience had
to view the tableaux from the front room through the doorway between the two rooms
(287). This move from small attitudes to grandiose productions mirrored the same
evolution in public tableaux discussed by McCullough.
One critic suggests that outside the home, “the earlier nineteenth century versions
of the tableau vivant took place in disreputable venues and were seen as lewd
entertainment for those who had little or no pretense to be lovers of ‘high art’” like Lady
Hamilton (Huxley 220). However, this claim cannot be taken as altogether true. For one,
public tableaux performances could still be passed off as “moral” even if they could not
be passed off as “high art.” In the mid-1800s, Louis Godey used popular tableaux as
inspiration for illustrations in his magazine, Godey’s Lady’s Magazine4. “Godey’s match
plates”—illustrations juxtaposing moral and immoral actions such as industry and
idleness—“proved quite popular during the 1840s and 1850s, many enacting a
performative morality reminiscent of the popular stage tableaux vivants, and moral
4 For a continued discussion of Godey’s and literature, see Monika M. Elbert’s “Striking
a Historical Pose: Antebellum Tableaux Vivants, ‘Godey’s’ Illustrations, and Margret
Fuller’s Heroines.”
14
melodramas also captivating audiences at mid-century” (Patterson 614). These match
plates were often illustrated first then made more robust with the addition of a story or
essay from prominent writers. Moral melodramas themselves “involve[ed] scene-
opening and -ending dramatic tableaux, accompanied by music” (616). The ending
tableaux was especially powerful because it “presented the core melodramatic truth to the
audience” (617) similar to the medieval morality play tableaux. Tableaux were also
being performed on their own as well. It is important to note that “while the dramatic
tableau freezes action in a melodrama or other stage performance, the tableaux vivants
provide the opposite effect, bringing to life on the stage scenes taken from painting or
sculpture” (616). These tableaux were initially actors and circus performers posing as
classical statues. Over time tableaux showcased pictures or “scenes” whose “productions
had shifted to a more grandiose style involving whole companies of performers”
(McCollough 19). Tableaux attempted to imitate a piece of art as closely as possible and
yet remained obviously theatric, blending realism, fantasy, and theatre together.
Tableaux, like the mesmeric performances covered by Coale, involve “an erotic tension
between male ‘persons of taste,’ who are bearers of the look, and female signs of ‘the
beautiful,’ who are their object” (Chapman 31). And like mesmerism, “there was a ready
and eager market for tickets, and there were entrepreneurs, legitimate and otherwise, who
were ready to exploit that part of the public which was more interested in the
‘proportions’ of the female artists than the ‘classical’ works of art they represented”
(McCollough 29).
15
However, the same bifurcation between Lady Hamilton and the Countess of
Genlis persisted into the nineteenth century. Though there were dubious practitioners
whose tableaux more closely resembled pornography, “supporters [of tableaux] could
inscribe tableaux vivants with aesthetic registers, allowing them to be claimed for
respectability rather than immorality—to be upheld as art rather than obscenity” (Assael
745). Brenda Assael quotes from The Daily Graphic, a nineteenth-century newspaper,
which said “it was good for the public to see at least ‘a fac similie’ of high art” (751)
suggesting that critics understood the erotic tensions of tableaux, but understood that
even copies of art could provide some benefit and instruction to the public. Detractors,
however, argued that tableaux were solely an excuse to ogle the female body. If the
tableau itself and the public reception of tableaux were always inherently a complicated
and contradictory affair, so too were the laws regarding public tableaux performances.
Nudity—real or implied—was only allowed if the model was still. Any movement on the
model’s part would result in a charge of indecency. Though this seems easy enough to
regulate, complaints of indecency levied against tableaux led to strict government
oversight. A line from Assael is instructional: “Contemporaries, unable to discern
whether what they were viewing was ‘nude’ or ‘naked,’ ultimately concluded that
prohibition was inappropriate” (745). Regulators could condemn a tableau just as easily
as they could condone one. The slippery distinctions between “naked” and “nude” left
lawmakers and moralists with no real ground to make a stand on. Instead, tableaux seem
to have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis, with performers and directors occupying
16
both the moral and immoral spheres equally. The odd mixture of moral and immoral
tableaux presented during the nineteenth century suggest that the form was malleable to
the whim of the director or advertiser, the audience, and even the venue it was being
performed in. However, as the Godey’s example suggests, tableaux were so popular that
they transcended even the visual medium and inspired, if not infiltrated, the written
medium of fiction. It is into this ecosystem of entertainment that Hawthorne would have
entered and written Blithedale and, indeed, it is this ecosystem that Blithedale and
Coverdale imitate.
Wharton, writing a half-decade later, would participate in an entertainment
ecosystem evolved from Hawthorne’s, one that would include the freakshow. No one
exemplifies the historical progression from the tableaux to the freakshow quite like
Phineas Taylor Barnum. Though P.T. Barnum is famous for his part in Barnum and
Baily Circus, his exploits in entertainment run the full gamut between tableaux and
freakshow. Patterson discusses P.T. Barnum, almost in passing, as one of several
“museum theatre” owners who ran moral-reform melodramas and small historical
reenactment theatres fit for respectable ladies and families (617). As mentioned
previously, a moral-reform melodrama used a tableau at the end of a scene to highlight
and convey the moral message in all of its weight and power. However, fully
understanding how the tableaux led to the freakshow requires exploring a concurrent
ecosystem of entertainment, one that combined spectacle with the sciences of the day.
This is a slight, but important, detour from Barnum, one that illuminates his role in
17
American entertainment. Nadja Durbach connects the Early Modern era’s proclivity
towards collection and display to the display of “freaks” in the Victorian/Antebellum era.
What were originally “museums and cabinets of curiosity in the early modern period
institutionalized the display of natural wonders and in the process connected the culture
of an emerging scientific profession to that of spectacular entertainment” (56-7).
Durbach goes on to say that “in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, these collections
and catalogues of anomalous animals, plants, and minerals expanded to include human
monstrosities, both whole and in parts” (57). However, the cabinet of curiosity is really
nothing more than an archive of artefacts to be looked at and perhaps studied and there is
no inherent narrative or message in the display of a deformed person or part in an
archival cabinet of curiosity5. Robert Bogdan points out that in displaying human
deformity, showmen did their best to control the messages associated with the freaks in
the show, especially “pity” because audiences did not want to associate amusement with
negative emotions. Moral messages, often used in early freakshows, quickly gave way to
other messages. Instead of relying on a moral message, the displays were examples of
the era’s other proclivity: the application of new fields of science to help categorize—and
thus understand—the world. Durbach is emphatic when proclaiming that the evolution of
science and medicine in particular is “inextricably linked to the show world” (60). The
line between collecting, studying, and entertaining was, without a doubt, a very thin one
5 The distinction between annal, archive, and narrative history is well laid out in Hayden
White’s “The Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.”
18
and, like the tableaux, was ripe for exploitation by promoters more interested in money
than scientific discovery. Even the line between voyeur and scientist seems to be just as
miniscule. Whatever the motive, the freakshow seemed to fill a niche during its height of
popularity from the 1850s to the 1940s (Bogdan). By providing the public and the
professional with examples beyond established categories recognized by science, the
freakshow helped to expand not just what constituted illness or monstrosity but what
constituted normalcy. What the tableaux did for the moral message of a stage
melodrama, the freakshow did for the medical and scientific message of the cabinet of
curiosity, it created and sustained the image and narrative of a normal body through
spectacle6.
Examples of Barnum’s own participation in this ecosystem of entertainment are
instructive. The smallest example is his “Feejee Mermaid,” the top half of a monkey
sewn to the bottom half of a fish and passed off as a mummified example of an exotic
animal. The mermaid was purported to be a hybrid animal, defying the classifications of
the animal kingdom. This defiance made it exotic and unique. However, as the
description implies, it was obviously a fake, two preserved halves sewn together to create
the illusion of a creature uncategorizable by the understandings of biology and zoology.
On the other end of the spectrum were Barnum’s largest and most ambitious
entertainments, his “hippodromes” and their “ethnological congresses.” As the name
6 For a more in-depth discussion of how that message was received and constructed by
audiences, see Jan Alber’s “Narratology and Performativity: On Processes of
Narrativization in Live Performances.”
19
implies, the ethnological congress grew out of the study and classification of races of
people. Barnum’s hippodromes purported to include presentations of all the people of the
world and, in reality, employed over 600 diverse people to maintain the hippodrome and
perform the various “races” of the congress (Adams).
And between these two extremes were Barnum’s actual freakshows. Though the
line between entertainment and scientific pursuit is thin, it divides critical readings of the
freakshow. On the one hand is Robert Bogdan who, in his work in disabilities studies,
brings to light how the Barnum freakshow linked freak “exhibits with science [which]
made the attractions more interesting, [and] less frivolous to Puritanical anti-
entertainment sentiments” (541) similar to how tableaux used a veneer of artistic integrity
to avoid charges of indecency. Bogdan essentially claims that freakshows participated in
scientific discourses in order to downplay their sensationalism and upsell their
instructional value. To legitimate the performance, many freakshows used “museum” in
their titles to play up the “association of this form of entertainment with natural sciences”
(Bogdan ). Similarly, the street barkers who tried to rope in passersby often called
themselves “professors or doctors” (541). The performances, according to Bogdan, were
draped in show business artifice as they showcased people with actual medical
conditions. Much of the scenery and plot for the exhibits was taken from “the scientific
reports and travelogues of 19th and early 20th century natural scientists” as well as
“pseudo-scientific writing on classification and anthropological reports about the ‘races
of man’” (541). Of course, in the exhibit “the odd, bizarre, erotic, and savage were
20
highlighted” (541) instead of the scientific. These traits helped to play up the Otherness
of the freaks and the exoticness of the foreigners on display. However, some of the
exhibits and promotions focused on how the freak “was [an] upstanding, high status
citizen with extraordinary talents of a conventional and socially prestigeful nature”
despite their particular condition (542). Bogdan points out that it was advancements in
science that led many people to move past the superstitious stigmas surrounding the birth
defects of the freakshow performers. This allowed the emphasis of the presentation to be
on “how the abnormality was a discrete condition and not a reflection on the integrity or
morality of the exhibit or his or her parents” (543). In other words, changing cultural
attitudes allowed the show to focus on the scientific instead of the moral. Freaks no
longer were freakish as punishment for a sin, but for some “scientific” reason.
On the other hand, Lisa Kochanek and Nadja Durbach both separately point to
how the freakshow was an integral part in the evolution of actual medical science. In
fact, the freakshow was just one performance type out of the many, often found in the
fairground and in the circus, that played a part in medical science. Indeed, “since the
Renaissance, dissections [had] been performed in anatomy theatres that were in many
cases open to the public and thus encouraged a degree of performativity that linked them
to the playhouse” (Durbach 44). Indeed, the worlds and rhetorics of the freakshow and
the medical community borrowed heavily from each other. As discussed above,
freakshow barkers called themselves doctors to lend an air of respectability and often got
“doctors” to comment on the uniqueness of the freaks on display. Kochanek uses a “Dr.
21
Kahn” as an example of the London medical freakshow: “the most infamous Leicester
Square exhibition, however, was Dr. Kahn's Museum, with its live and waxen
monstrosities and its lectures on male and female anatomy, supplemented by inexpensive,
explicit pamphlets on sexual hygiene” (Kochanek 227). Doctors, on the other hand,
borrowed heavily from the freakshow world. Durbach quotes from a 1902 manual by
J.W. Ballantyne that shows the British obstetrician comparing “congenital hypertrichosis
(the superabundance of hair)” to “the Sacred Hairy Family of Burma,” a famous
freakshow exhibit (Durbach 55). Both authors quote heavily from case studies published
in Victorian editions of the British Medical Journal and the Lancet that exhibit “the
professional need to distance medical looking from sideshow voyeurism” (Kochanek
231). Each case study “establishes the need for a physician’s presence, gives empirical,
factual definition of the situation, allows the doctor to speculate about causes for the
abnormality, and supplements verbal description with graphic representation” (Kochanek
233). Without the written medical account, the engravings were almost indistinguishable
from freakshow handbills and often “reproduce[ed] many of the tropes of anatomical
illustrations dating back to the Renaissance that…aestheticized and sometimes even
eroticized the écorché” (Durbach 64). Again, like tableaux, even these medical accounts
and their often eroticized and aestheticized graphic representations have a long history
from the Anatomical Venuses of the renaissance to the “Sleeping Beauties” of the late-
nineteenth and early-twentieth century travelling fairs (Hoffmann).
22
Like the tableaux, the freakshow appeared in many forms in many places. It is
important to point out, as Hoffmann does, that at some point the freakshow would more
than likely not have been a separate, independent entertainment. Instead it more than
likely would have been a part of a larger circus or travelling show. Even as far back as
the 1860s and 1870s, the freakshow was appearing in fiction. Hildegard Hoeller argues
that the Ragged Dick character created by Horatio Alger had much in common with
Barnum’s own Tom Thumb. Both were “charming miniature [men]” (190). While Tom
Thumb entertained middle class viewers with his body, Ragged Dick entertained them
with his story and allowed them “to face and appease fears about pressing social issues”
(190). Hoeller goes so far as to say that Dick’s rise to wealth is as true as any
“Barnumesque humbug” (190). However, the freakshow enters into Wharton’s fiction at
a much less ambivalent time. By the time Wharton wrote Summer the freakshow had
also absorbed the rhetoric of the eugenics movement. Bluford Adams sees eugenicist
politics creeping into the freakshow as far back as Barnum’s hippodromes. In fact,
Adams compares Barnum’s two hippodromes and finds that the later version more
obviously denigrated foreign cultures and subordinated those cultures to the Anglo and
American cultures presented at the hippodrome. However, the medical spectacle was still
very much a part of the freakshow ecosystem during Wharton’s time writing Summer. In
this way, the freakshow actually doubled back to its earliest tableaux predecessors and
actually began to include a kind of morality founded on the eugenics movement’s push
for a racial hierarchy. By displaying and studying the body of the racially Other, an
23
Anglo-American audience member could conclude the reasons for the racially Other’s
supposed moral and intellectual inferiority.
The freakshow drew on many staging elements of the tableaux. A highly
decorative stage and highly evocative costumes each highlighted the freak’s (often
erroneously ascribed) Otherness. The freakshow also borrowed from the tableaux’s
narrativizing tendencies, presenting a freak as a medical anomaly one day and a missing
link in human evolution the next. Both forms of entertainment played into the American
popular appetite for spectacle and entertainment. From this brief history of the tableaux
and the freakshow, several important points emerge that will be important for
understanding Blithedale and Summer. Perhaps the most important point is that the
actual history and experience of these entertainments would have been much less
organized and much less linear than the history presented above. Indeed, both the
tableaux and the freakshow would have existed alongside many other entertainments as
their own independent shows. However, they would have also existed as parts of many
different kinds of entertainments. The tableaux, as mentioned, was an integral part of the
melodramatic theatre and the freakshow was an important part of travelling shows and
circuses as well as “museums” like Barnum’s American Museum in New York. The
tableaux, especially in its moralistic form, existed in different spaces and different media,
as a dramatic pause in a melodrama, in Godey’s match plate illustrations and stories, and
likely as a home tableaux production. The freakshow could present itself in multiple
forms at the same time, as both an ethnological congress for early practitioners of
24
anthropology and as Wax Venuses, Sleeping Beauties, and live performers at various
places for curious onlookers with a penchant for medical sensationalism and progressive
health crusades. Thus, there is no stable timeline or definitive performance with which to
relate Blithedale to tableaux and Summer to freakshow. Instead, the novels embrace the
messy, irregular, and often contradictory histories, messages, and performances of
tableaux and freakshow. In doing so they demonstrate that any one entertainment is
simply a part of a larger, dynamic ecosystem of entertainments, that each entertainment is
inspired by and inspires the others, that each entertainment exists, comingles, and
competes with the others.
25
Chapter 2
HUSH, POSE, AND YOU WILL BELIEVE:
TABLEAUX VIVANT AND BLITHEDALE
Nathaniel Hawthorne’s The Blithedale Romance, to reiterate the introductory
chapter, is a story of failed love at a failed socialist utopian community. It follows three
main characters: Zenobia, a proto-feminist and author; Hollingsworth, a criminal
reformer; and Miles Coverdale, a minor romantic poet and flaneur who narrates the story
after the fact. The love triangle that develops between the three is complicated by the
introduction of Priscilla, who turns out to be the mesmeric Veiled Lady, and Westervelt,
her show promoter and mesmerist. The novel has inspired many, often contradictory,
readings in part because its narrator, Miles Coverdale, is trying, through the act of
narrating his memoir, “to compose a self, to locate in retrospect an authenticity that
continues to elude him” (Millington “American Anxiousness” 299). As Tony Tanner, in
his introduction to the Oxford World’s Classics Edition, states, authenticity continues to
elude Coverdale because “the atmosphere of Blithedale has been saturated with artifice of
all kinds from the start” because “everybody is, more or less, posing…and at least
Coverdale knows he is posing” (x, xxxii). The complicated relationship between
Blithedale and authenticity has led readers and critics of Blithedale to fall into two
camps, both spurred on by Hawthorne’s introduction to his novel in which he declares
that he “availed himself of his actual reminiscences” of his time at Brook Farm in writing
Blithedale, but counters himself by saying “his whole treatment of the [Brook Farm]
26
affair is incidental to the main purpose of the Romance” (Hawthorne 1) The first camp
sees, or actively tries not to see, Blithedale “as a roman à clef, in which the feminist
Zenobia may stand for Margaret Fuller, who visited Brook Farm; the reformer
Hollingsworth (or the mesmerist Westervelt) for Albert Brisbane, the community's
‘apostle of Fourierism’; and the narrator, Coverdale, for Hawthorne himself” (White 78).
Hawthorne acknowledges this reading in his introduction to the novel, saying that “many
readers will probably suspect a faint and not very faithful shadowing of Brook Farm”
(Hawthorne 1). The roman à clef reading is intriguing because the history and the social-
sexual politics of Brook Farm, Fourierism, and reform so closely mirror those presented
in Blithedale.
From April to November of 1841, the then thirty-seven-year-old Nathaniel
Hawthorne lived and worked at Brook Farm, a Transcendentalist utopian community
about eight miles outside of Boston near West Roxbury (Wineapple 24). The enterprise
itself lasted only six years until 1847. Hawthorne obviously did not live at Brook Farm
for all six years, and his patience with the enterprise was even shorter lived. After only
two months, Hawthorne wrote his then fiancé, Sophia Peabody, “in exasperation, ‘A
man’s soul may be buried and perish under a dung-heap or in a furrow of the field, just as
well under a pile of money” (24). Though he portrays himself as a skeptic of utopias and
reform, Hawthorne’s relationship with Brook Farm is much more complicated. He was a
“full-fledged member” who spent “$1,500 in all (the full amount of his earnings for the
previous year)” to build a house and purchase two shares of the community (23, 24). The
27
chronology presented in the Cambridge Companion points out that Hawthorne was a
trustee and director of finance for Brook Farm and hoped to bring Sophia there with him.
Hawthorne shared more than his money with the enterprise, sharing in the sentiments of
George Ripley, the founder of Brook Farm, and the literati of 1840s Boston that Brook
Farm could demonstrate “a way of life that would be a beautiful, sustainable, and humane
alternative to the competitive, exploitative world that, these experimenters felt, an
emerging market capitalism was already producing all around them” (Millington
“Introduction” xiii). Brook Farm began as a “simple cooperative joint stock venture
attempting a kind of agrarian socialism” (Kolodny 253n27) during Hawthorne’s tenure.
In either 1843 (according to Norton) or 1844 (according to Oxford), Brook Farm took on
aspects of Fourierism, a form of anarchist/socialist theory named after French social
theorist Charles Fourier (Dugdale 251n52). Fourier’s theories “attracted great interest
and sparked debate among reform-minded American intellectuals” because they offered a
“scathing critique of the inequities of modern life and devised a complex system of
communal living and working designed to achieve complete social harmony” (Norton
183). More than fifty Fourierist communities sprang up across America between the
1840s and 1850s (Tanner xxiv), attesting to the widespread utopian and reformist
movements of those decades. American reformists often elided Fourier’s more radical
sexual theories when they presented his work to the public and yet, to many in the
American public, Fourierism was synonymous with radical free love (Tanner xxiv) and
Brook Farm, after its alignment with Fourier’s theories, was always and already
28
synonymous with Fourierism (Kolodny xv). In fact, even the novel’s inception mirrors
its narration, lending at least a patina of credibility to the roman à clef reading. Since he
was not there while Brook Farm was Fourierist, Hawthorne had to borrow several
volumes of Fourier’s works from a Brook Farm associate in preparation for writing
Blithedale in 1851, a whole decade after he had left Brook Farm (Kolodny xiv). Some
critics go so far as to read Blithedale together with Hawthorne’s 1852 campaign
biography of Franklin Pierce as proof of Hawthorne’s virulent skepticism of reform
(Beauchamp 39) while several others do so to tease out more nuanced understandings of
Hawthorne’s sentiments.7
The other camp is equally spurred on by Hawthorne’s introduction and his
“present concern…to establish a theatre, a little removed from the highway of ordinary
travel, where the creatures of his brain may play their phantasmagorical antics”
(Hawthorne 1). Michael S. Martin focuses his critical attentions to Blithedale’s many
allusions to Milton’s masque Comus and the mythological and fantastical overtones those
allusions lend the novel. However, many scholars focusing on the theatrics of the novel
tend to focus on mesmerism, a medical and scientific theory and performance where
entranced mediums “having submitted to the trance, supposedly discovered new insights,
wisdom, and revelations he or she may have been consciously unable to discover” (Coale
274). Richard H. Brodhead suggests that Hawthorne, in grouping the mesmeric Priscilla
with the reform-minded Zenobia and Hollingsworth, saw the cultish overtones of
7 See Robert Levine’s “Sympathy and Reform in The Blithedale Romance.”
29
mesmerism as part of a larger cultural milieu that mixed pseudoscientific and
philosophical theories with social theories. Brodhead specifically suggests that
Hawthorne saw mesmerism in the same league as many of the utopian movements and
popular reform movements of the time, specifically citing Swedenborgianism, women’s
rights, and criminal reform.8 However, for a novel so infatuated with performance,
Coverdale does seem to miss a lot of the performances going on around him. Brodhead
must ask, “did a book ever miss so much of the story it purports to tell?” Coverdale
mistakenly walks into the middle of the masque, the actual tableaux happen as a matter of
fact without our seeing them, and the story only starts after Coverdale leaves a mesmeric
performance of The Veiled Lady. Performance, to Brodhead, is central to Blithedale but
it is also “imperfectly knowable” (339). Indeed, Tanner points out that, even if he does
eventually witness a performance, “Coverdale is usually too far away in some sense or
another…out of earshot or eyeshot” to know fully what is happening (xxxii). This, in
essence, is the world of entertainment as Hawthorne’s America came to know it. The
entertainment world of the 1850s began to develop a sense of commercialization, one that
actively advertised entertainments into popularity. That commercial engine, as Brodhead
argues, was visible enough for the public to know it existed, but “that [it shut] the public
out from detailed knowledge of its motives or arts of contrivances” (340). In other
words, the audience was always out of earshot or eyeshot of the burgeoning business of
8 W.D. King’s “‘Shadow of a Mesmeriser’: The Female Body on the ‘Dark’ Stage”
provides a detailed analysis of mesmeric performances and their cultural connections.
30
entertainment and thus only knew the incomplete narratives of what they were shown or
told. To this end, Brodhead and Tanner equally declare that Coverdale is “pre-eminently
an observer” (Tanner xxix), “he exists only in and as a watcher” (Brodhead 341) not as a
practitioner of the entertainment business. Coverdale’s specific spectatorness—Brodhead
goes so far as declare all spectatorness in the antebellum period—mirrors performances
like Priscilla’s own static mesmeric spectacle. In his static position, Coverdale can watch
and observe Priscilla’s performances, the performances of the Blithedalers, and, more
importantly, he can watch his own recollections of his experiences at Blithedale Farm.
However, Coverdale is not aware of the larger machinations of those scenes that he
witnessed.
The Coverdale who narrates, whom I will refer to as Coverdale the Elder when it
is necessary to distinguish, relates Blithedale after the fact. In doing so, he sets his
younger self (i.e. Coverdale the Younger), his former compatriots, and Blithedale farm in
a series of tableaux vivant. These entertainments were, like Priscilla’s mesmeric
performances, static representations of virtues and vices, depictions of classic art, or
allegorical figures. Too, they were incorporated into melodramatic theatre to heighten
the plot by freezing it just as it reached its moral apex. Since a tableau is a static
performance, Coverdale can remain immobile and observant though he also remains
ignorant of the larger issues surrounding the tableau like those discussed in the
introduction. Tableaux often contained an overabundance of symbolism and, if they were
performed outside of respectable venues, often relied on moral imagery to shield their
31
performance from the censors. A tableau thus would have added extra layers of
interpretation and uncertainty on top of that already established by Brodhead. An
audience member at a tableau would have to sift through the layers of meaning and
(false) moral messaging—not to mention the maze of show business propaganda—to
even begin to approach a singular message or insight in a tableau. However, it is
important to recognize that Coverdale, though static, is not inactive. “He is…a shameless
fetishist” (Tanner xxiii), actively collecting mementos—physical and mental—
throughout the story that hold deep and abiding significance to his understanding of his
experiences at Blithedale, to the tableaux that he stages in his narrative. Tanner
complicates this too by declaring that Coverdale is “a late product of that Puritan-
Transcendentalist line of American thought which requires a second order of justifying
meaning behind the merely materially visible and palpable” (Tanner xxxvi). So, each
and every image Coverdale recollects is not just an image, it is laden with significance for
Coverdale, his understanding of himself, his sense of ethics, and his narrative of his
experiences at Blithedale. Although he is an active audience of his own tableaux, he
often will not stop analyzing the scene for meaning. Tanner further complicates this by
pointing out that “the original [Miles] Coverdale was the first translator of the Bible, in a
version reputedly pretty inaccurate” (xxiii). Not only is the tableaux form itself fraught
with inconsistencies and overburdened images, Blithedale’s Miles Coverdale, the one
who translates each of the tableaux he presents, is himself spectacularly inconsistent and
inexpert at doing so.
32
With this in mind, this chapter explores how Coverdale, in recollecting his
experiences at Blithedale, narrates his scenes as though they were tableaux vivant
performances. As evidences in the introductory chapter, tableaux did not have a singular,
master form. Instead, tableaux encompassed a range of forms, from the parlor theatrics
of bourgeois homes, to the moral climax of melodramatic theatre productions, to stand
alone representations of allegories and ancient paintings, to seedy theatres who used
tableaux to skirt censorship laws, to reformists who staged allegorical tableaux
representing their cause. Coverdale equally does not stick to one particular form of
tableaux, but instead draws from the entire range of tableaux productions in his attempts
to glean an understanding of himself and his experiences. The catch, as there always
seems to be with Blithedale, is that Coverdale is ultimately unconvinced by his own
search and his own discoveries. Coverdale, Millington declares, possesses “the ability to
elude the implications of experience” (“American Anxiousness” 315). Where melodrama
would lead Coverdale to a moral conclusion and mesmerism would lead him to a
supernatural conclusion, the tableaux leads Coverdale to a conclusion he can
simultaneously accept and reject, believe in and question. The tableau is the perfect form
for Coverdale’s elusion because it is so overburdened with moral, allegorical, and
theatrical meaning and so overburdened with its own sensationalist history as to almost
be meaningless in and of itself. In this sense, Coverdale can—and does—avoid coming
to any worthy conclusion at the end of his search for self and meaning.
33
Coverdale, at the beginning of the novel, is working mainly in the melodramatic
tradition of tableaux. This is not to say that his tableaux or his motives carry the same
moral weight and authenticity that a melodrama might suggest. Upon leaving a mesmeric
performance by The Veiled Lady, Coverdale runs into Old Moodie, who has a mysterious
and unnamed favor to ask of Coverdale. The favor, a “very great one” at that (Hawthorne
7), irks Coverdale, who is in a rush to leave for Blithedale Farm. However, Moodie
piques Coverdale’s interest by suggesting that “some older gentleman, or…some
lady…who may happen to be going to Blithedale” may be better suited to the favor (7).
It is not the mystery of the errand, but the mystery of the woman involved in the errand
that draws Coverdale in. In the tableaux reading of this project, the mysterious favor has
already been given meaning by Moodie: only Moodie knows what the favor is, and he is
withholding that information. With the woman, on the other hand, Coverdale sees a
blank stage, ready to have a meaning placed upon her by his directorial hand. In terms of
the tableaux history, Moodie and Coverdale are playing for a spot as Lord Hamilton, the
male voice explicating the mysterious female form of Lady Hamilton’s attitudes. Moodie
recognizes that Coverdale, as a young man, would be interested in the female form
instead of the performance and so suggests, to Coverdale’s dismay, that an older man or
woman would be better suited to the favor because presumably neither would be seeking
a pseudo-sexual gratification in directing the woman in question.
After being turned down for the favor, Coverdale returns home. The scenes in his
“bachelor apartment” are instructive for several reasons. For one, Coverdale reveals
34
definitively that he is narrating the novel after the fact. For another, he makes his
directions (and the fact that he is directing) explicitly clear. Coverdale the Elder reveals
his narration at the very start of Chapter II. Not only does he reveal that he is temporally
well removed from his experiences at Blithedale, he also reveals the kind of narrator he
is. He likes to expound on certain images, in this case a fire. Though the scenes of the
chapter are staged on the day he leaves for Blithedale, Coverdale begins by recollecting
the fire at Blithedale Farm on the first “April afternoon, but with the wintry gusts of a
snow-storm roaring in the chimney” (9). The image comes back to Coverdale only after
he “rake[s] away the ashes from the embers in [his] memory” (9). The Blithedale fire,
burning only faintly, is compared to the “phosphoric glimmer, like that which exudes,
rather than shines, from damp fragments of decaying trees” (9). Around “ such chill
mockery of a fire” (9)—which at once refers to the phosphoric glimmer of Coverdale’s
simile, his fading and perhaps false memory, and the actual roaring fire in the Blithedale
hearth—Coverdale imagines sitting “talk[ing] over [their] exploded scheme for beginning
the life of Paradise anew” (9). The subtext and references that this small tableau refer to
are only revealed much later in the novel, so the tableau does not make perfect sense to
the reader here. However, this tableau does indicate that Coverdale not only inscribes the
images in his memory with poetic meaning, he over-inscribes them with meaning leading
to a confused, jumbled message being relayed to the audience of the tableau. This small
tableau also reveals that Coverdale does not maintain a strict timeline for his narration.
35
The Coverdale the Elder inserts himself in the narrative to comment on and philosophize
on the experiences of his younger self.
By revealing himself as the narrator, Coverdale the Elder is adding a layer of
uncertainty to the narrative on top of Hawthorne’s own layers of historical and authorial
uncertainty added in the introduction. Kenneth Marc Harris sees Coverdale’s and
Hawthorne’s uncertainties as two of the almost infinite layers of obfuscation and ironic
posturing in the novel. It is hard to argue that Blithedale is not rife with irony and thus
holds the reader at several removes from the Truth, but where Harris’s reading focuses on
the distance itself—or rather why Coverdale/Hawthorne might choose that distance—the
tableaux reading focuses on the way the distance is constructed by Coverdale. Following
Coverdale’s overdetermined fireside speech, he describes his bachelor apartment and his
actions as his younger self prepares to leave for Blithedale. The simple narrative of the
scene—the narrative that is never really shown or experienced by the reader so much as it
is told to the reader—is that Coverdale drinks the rest of his liquor with a friend and
smokes a few cigars and then leaves in a blizzard. The narrative is mediated by
Coverdale, who chooses to focus on the moral choices motivating his actions instead of
the actions themselves. As he relates the scene and action, Coverdale the Elder provides
deliberate images and pauses to pose the actor (i.e. himself) to create a poetic meaning
out of a mundane scene. In the background of the tableau, the snow is falling outside the
apartment. But it is not just snow; it is a snow that is both “dreary” and “dingy,”
impressed with “an old conventionalism” (11). The blizzard itself has a “business-like
36
perseverance” and has “guarantee from a thaw” (10). The blizzard is not just snow; it is
an urban, capitalistic snow opposed to the Paradise of Blithedale. In the foreground is
Coverdale himself. The action we see is his deliberating on leaving; he does not say if he
is literally on the threshold, but he might as well be. In the middle ground, his apartment,
“one of the midmost houses of a brick-block,” is “partaking of the warmth of all the rest”
of the apartments along with the “sultriness of its individual furnace heat” (10).
Obviously, the quarters are comfy, but they are also convivial. His quarters come with
the finer things in life, like Coverdale’s closet full of claret. What is important to note is
that Coverdale the Younger does not expound on the poetic image of leave taking; it is
Coverdale the Elder who provides the poetic commentary. This distinction becomes
clear when, during his expounding, Coverdale questions leaving for “the better life” (10).
“Possibly, it would hardly look so now” like the better life, Coverdale the Elder says,
reminiscing (10, my emphasis). The above phrase is the lead in to two paragraphs of
poetic expounding on one paragraph of tableau imagery. Coverdale takes this space to
mull over his choice to leave. He tries to convince himself that the choice to leave for
Blithedale was heroic, that it was the very real possibility of Blithedale’s failure that
explicitly made his choice to leave heroic. His leaving for Blithedale stands as an
example of his good deeds compared to his life of listless flânerie: “whatever else [he]
may repent of,” Coverdale implores some audience (the reader, God, himself), “let it be
reckoned neither among [his] sins nor follies” that Coverdale once believed in the
perfectibility of society (11). Staying or leaving does not become of choice between a
37
warm room and a blizzard. Instead, it becomes a moral, almost biblical choice with
complex consequences for Coverdale. It is important to note the pattern of Coverdale’s
thoughts here. He moves from concrete images to a moral quandary to a philosophical or
ethical stance. However, it is the still image of his preparing to leave that launches the
whole tract. Like a tableau, the scene is not simply a man’s leaving a nice apartment in a
blizzard. The image of leaving during a blizzard is supposed to convey the moral weight
of concepts like heroism and human perfectibility to the audience. In essence, Coverdale
skirts around Harris’s questions regarding Truth in favor of moral and ethical questions
(was leaving for Blithedale right and good?), the answers to which can only come out of
careful examinations of subjective experiences.
In his bachelor apartment, Coverdale establishes some of the basic processes he
goes through to turn a scene into a tableau. The scenery of the apartment launches
Coverdale into an extended philosophical treatise, or as Patricia Ann Carlson puts it in
her study of Hawthorne’s settings, inspires Coverdale to “swell the actions of a single
time and place to a universal meaning” (195). One way that Coverdale swells the action
is by blurring the line between his past and present selves, the self that acts and the self
that expounds. However, the apartment tableau is still in the “scene ending”
melodramatic tradition. As the action swells, it is the action itself that gains
philosophical significance in the apartment tableau. Coverdale is, after all, taking his
final leave of his apartment and so the action is ripe for heightened, melodramatic
commentary. In a tableau vivant, however, the single time and place of the still image is
38
brought to life and impresses upon the viewer a sense of life and, in keeping with its
penchant for allegory, a sense of timelessness and universality. Thankfully, Coverdale
does not wait long to provide a good example of a tableau vivant.
Coverdale takes leave of his apartment and climbs into a carriage with three other
gentlemen bound for Blithedale Farm. They leave the windows open despite the blizzard
because they cannot contain their excitement. Riding by “snow-encrusted…deserted
villas, with no footprints in their avenues” on his way to Blithedale farm, Coverdale
“virtually consumes the rural landscape in a single sentence” as if the landscape was one
large tableau for him to enjoy (Hawthorne 12, Carlson 193). But if Coverdale consumes
the scene, he also digests it. Coverdale transmutes the scenes into a moral tableau,
denigrating the immoral cityscape and elevating the pure countryscape. He laments the
“track of old conventionalism” stamped into the city snow by feet and city smoke but
relishes the empty “wave-like drifts” of snow that fall through the “country fires, strongly
impregnated with the pungent aroma of peat” (Hawthorne 11, 12). The irony is lost on
Coverdale that the snow still falls through smoke in either locale, but then that is not the
point for Coverdale. For him, the country is symbolic, even allegorical, of a sort of
Arcadia apart from the morally corrupt city. The air of the country has, after all, not been
“spoken into words of falsehood, formality, and error like all the air of the dusky city”
(11). The city/country dichotomy brings to mind the match plates of Godey’s that
contrasted virtue and vice. Both Coverdale and the match plate artists can do this
because they utilize allegorical references that help to provide a larger significance than
39
the image might suggest alone. What makes this scene particularly difficult to parse out
is that Coverdale the Elder explicitly states that he is remembering this moment. The
question becomes, then, if transmutation of the scene is done by the Elder, in retrospect,
or by the Younger to be recollected by the Elder. To whom did Coverdale address his
aside and almost describe the snow as dingy? Us or his fellow carriage riders? The
ambiguity of the scene suggest that Coverdale, the Elder and Younger, are partaking in
one allegorical still image not bound by any temporality.
The other way Coverdale swells the action of a single time and place is by using a
similar strategy to his apartment tableau and suggesting a more complete narrative than
the images actually represent (Chapman 26). After arriving at the Blithedale farmhouse,
or what Coverdale calls “Paradise,” he is seated inside with his fellow travelers around a
fire “built up of great logs…that farmers are wont to keep” (Hawthorne 12-3) since they
cannot be sold as lumber. All the faces around the fire are “a-blaze” with “the past
inclemency and present warmth” (12) of the evening. The faces imply both the warm fire
of the farmhouse but also the snowstorm the men recently came in from. The image that
ties the two times—the present around the fire and the past in the blizzard—is the melting
snow in the men’s beards. The image of snow melting by the fireside becomes symbolic
of past hardships melting away. Similarly, Coverdale also implies some nameless but
universal “farmer” is somewhere present to provide the logs. However, Coverdale really
swells the time and place when he suggests that a “family of the old Pilgrims might have
swung their kettle over precisely such as fire” as Coverdale is sitting around at Blithedale
40
(13). This combined with the obviously biblical reference to Paradise and Coverdale’s
penchant for calling the farmhouse “Eve’s bower” “adds depth and breadth to his tale by
supplying an innuendo both of mythological significance and of the endless flux of
eternity” (Carlson 195). Coverdale’s image does not just encompass his present and
immediate past, it encompasses the Pilgrims and Biblical times, characters, and locations.
I would call these first few tableaux quite innocent and morally sound, especially relative
to Coverdale’s tableaux that follow. For now, Coverdale is concerned with
understanding his actions as moral decisions and with understanding his original euphoria
at joining Blithedale. These first tableaux help Coverdale to analyze his past by staging
and viewing his past but also by connecting incidents in his past to other incidents (even
those we as readers have not encountered in the novel yet) and larger storylines like the
Bible and American history.
From there, Coverdale’s tableaux devolve into the current conception of tableaux:
theatrical productions “simultaneously celebrated as a means of promoting virtue and
denigrated as a licentious display of semi-nude women in public” with audiences “more
interested in the ‘proportions’ of the female artists than the ‘classical’ works of art they
represented” (Chapman 26, McCollough 29). This is because Coverdale encounters
others who try to direct the narrative of Blithedale. Until this point, we were given only
Coverdale’s directorial vision. For example, we had no reason (beyond simple distrust of
the narrator) to assume that Blithedale was not a Paradise. However, Zenobia,
Coverdale’s first directorial opponent, is quick to put the Blithedale-as-Paradise tableau
41
into question. Zenobia’s “deliberate theatricality” may bring “out everyone else’s
unconscious feigning” (Harris 137) but it especially exposes Coverdale’s attempts to
direct. As her first move, Zenobia assigns “the domestic and indoor part of the business”
to the women and work “afield” to the men (Hawthorne 16). Coverdale, incensed by
Zenobia’s directorial power grab, counters with his original concept of Blithedale-as-
Paradise. In his directorial vision, women’s work is “that which chiefly distinguishes
artificial life—the life of degenerated mortals—from the life of Paradise” (Hawthorne
16). Zenobia counters by asking Coverdale for all the “material signs that could betoken
the moral qualities possessed” by a Paradise including figs, pineapples, and bread-fruit
(Chapman 31, Hawthorne 16). As discussed previously, a tableau’s moral power comes
through inductively, i.e. the scenery and set pieces of a tableau are what suggest the
larger moral position or lesson. Zenobia’s counterargument makes it clear that without
the proper scenery—the tropical fruits—the tableau absolutely cannot function the way
Coverdale conceives of it.
This is not to say that Zenobia fully dismisses the Blithedale-as-Paradise tableau.
Like an Eve, Zenobia does introduce elements of sexuality into the tableau, blurring the
line between the pornographic and the morally instructive. Coverdale, in deriding
Zenobia’s gendered division of labor, laments that the women will have to tend to the
washing even though “Eve…had not clothes to mend, no washing-day” (Hawthorne 16).
To this, Zenobia responds by saying “as for the garb of Eden, I shall not assume it till
after Mayday,” which she accentuates with a playful shiver (17). The shiver sends
42
Coverdale—the Younger and, it seems, the Elder—into a fervor. In reality, Zenobia’s
“admirable figure” and “fine intellect” are “so fitly cased” in a dress “in an American
print…with a silken kerchief, between which and her gown there was one glimpse of a
white shoulder” (15). What “a great piece of good-fortune that there should be just that
glimpse” of Zenobia’s body (15) because, as the shiver indicates, she knows there is “an
erotic tension between ‘persons of taste,’ who are bearers of the look, and female signs of
‘the beautiful,’ who are their object” and she actively exploits that tension between her
and Coverdale (Chapman 31). Zenobia’s directorial power, like that of Lady Hamilton’s,
comes from her costumes which she uses as “an adjunct to [her] action[s] in order to
assert her power over the supernumeraries in her self-directed drama” (Carlson 202). To
Coverdale, Zenobia’s shiver suggests the most powerful costume of all: her “fine,
perfectly developed figure in Eve’s earliest garment” (Hawthorne 17). By exploiting the
tension between the male look and the female object inherent in tableaux, Zenobia is able
to wrest control of the directorial powers from Coverdale. She does not outright dismiss
his Blithedale-as-Paradise vision. Instead, she revises it with her in the center, dictating
her part, those of the supernumeraries around her, and, most importantly, her audience of
male lookers.
However, Coverdale and Zenobia are not entirely opposed to each, nor can they
afford to be. On the one hand, they can co-exist, though it is an uneasy coexistence to
say the least. After the playful shiver, Zenobia exits the sitting room to “the ‘homey’
kitchen and parlor of the farmhouse [that] provide her with a mise en scène appropriate to
43
her act of ‘rustic hostess’” (Carlson 203). The dinner table and the space of the kitchen
and parlor is Zenobia’s own domestic tableau separate from Coverdale’s homosocial
tableau around the hearth. In her own space, Zenobia can appear “to be the very picture
of the spirit of hospitality” (203). As Zenobia planned, the two have separate spaces to
direct their various tableaux. On the other hand, they both accept—willingly, grudgingly,
playfully—that they will continue to compete over the directorial powers of Blithedale.
Zenobia recognizes that Coverdale will continue to attempt to direct the narrative of
Blithedale. Early in their time at Blithedale, Coverdale laments that “the clods of earth,
which [they] constantly belabored and turned over and over, were never etherealized into
thought” (Hawthorne 66), or in other words, that his farm labor leaves no time or energy
for poetry. Zenobia teasingly deflates Coverdale’s poetic lament by suggesting
Coverdale will, in his old age, turn into Silas Foster, the cantankerous old farmer teaching
the Blithedalers to farm, and not into a revered poet. Though she accepts his version of
Blithedale in that moment, she cannot help but point out, as she did in their first meeting,
the absurdity at the logical end of Coverdale’s poetic passages. At other times, Zenobia
mocks Coverdale’s poetry as a way for her to understand the narrative of Blithedale and
her place within that narrative. After learning of her tragic fate, Zenobia suggests that
Coverdale will be “turning this whole affair into a ballad” (223). She only demands that
the moral “shall be distilled into the final stanza, in a drop of bitter honey” (224). For
Zenobia, Coverdale’s predictable balladry provides certainty for Zenobia where her lived
experience does not. Similarly, Coverdale recognizes Zenobia’s own artistic endeavors
44
and powers. He is quick to point out, even before leaving for Blithedale, that “Zenobia,
by-the-by…is merely her public name; a sort of mask in which she comes before the
world” (8). Zenobia’s real name is never revealed to the reader, so it is safe to assume
that Coverdale respects the part of Zenobia’s directing that concerns herself. Coverdale
also seems to accept the fact that Zenobia leads the actual “tableaux vivants” and other
“occasional modes of amusement” at Blithedale Farm (106) and that, generally, she holds
more sway over the Blithedalers. In essence, Coverdale must admit Zenobia’s tableaux
into his own tableaux, subsuming them but never quite controlling them. Whereas
Coverdale can contract or expand his own temporality by blending his past and present
selves, Zenobia’s tableaux dilate and contract the aperture of the narration. In these
moments of actual performance and moments of Zenobia’s direction, we become privy to
the depth and breadth of the world of performance that is only a small part of Coverdale’s
tableaux. We also come to realize just how narrow Coverdale’s gaze is, or as Brodhead
puts it, how much Coverdale actually misses.
However, the Coverdale and Zenobia are in competition for more than just the
narrative of Blithedale. The two are in competition for the most valuable artistic
territory: a woman. After his convalescence, Coverdale meets Zenobia and Priscilla “a-
maying together” (58), with Zenobia “decking out” Priscilla in a “variety of sylvan
ornament[s]” of flowers and blooming boughs (59). In Priscilla’s bouquet “had been
stuck a weed of evil odor and ugly aspect, which…destroyed the effect of all the rest” of
the flowers (59). Coverdale soon deduces, from Zenobia’s “eye, which seemed to
45
indicate a slightly malicious purpose in the arrangement” (59), that Zenobia had inserted
the weed. Zenobia jokingly asks Coverdale if Priscilla is “worth a verse or two” (59).
Coverdale points out that “there is only one thing amiss” and Zenobia flings away the
weed. The scenery suggests to Coverdale that Priscilla is, as a woman should be,
“happier than any male creature” (59), but to Zenobia, Priscilla “provokes one’s malice”
at “see[ing] a creature so happy—especially a feminine creature” (59). In this instance,
the moral being conveyed is dictating the scenery. Zenobia, seeing an object of malice,
inserts the weed of evil odor; Coverdale, seeing an object of childlike wonder, removes
the weed to better complete the effect. In the middle is Priscilla, the innocent model
supposedly at the whim of both directors.
Priscilla, though, is being pursued by more than just Coverdale and Zenobia, and
this is why the two directors cannot exist purely as antagonists. Hollingsworth, the
philanthropic criminal reformer who brought Priscilla to Blithedale, is equally interested
in directing the meaning of Blithedale and Priscilla. Coverdale and Zenobia both
understand on the first day that Hollingsworth makes no secrets of his plans for
Blithedale: to use the farm for his criminal reform project. The two make a sort of pact
on the first day before Hollingsworth even arrives to “systematically commit at least one
crime a piece” in order to appease Hollingsworth (Hawthorne 22). Implicit in the pact is
that Hollingsworth directs his world through the lens of his moral-reformist message and
that for Zenobia and Coverdale to pose in a tableau for Hollingsworth they will need to
make the stuff of that tableau—namely themselves as the models—match the moral
46
message. However, Coverdale and Zenobia are not prepared for Hollingsworth’s intense
directorial style. Nowhere is this more apparent than at Eliot’s Pulpit. If for no other
reason, the history Coverdale provides for Eliot’s Pulpit gives the scene a façade of
tableau-like allegorical meaning. Though the story goes that “the venerable Apostle Eliot
had preached there, two centuries gone by, to an Indian auditory” it is also true that “the
old pine forest…had fallen, an immemorial time ago” (118). The Apostle Eliot, or John
Eliot, was a pastor who, in 1651, “founded the first community of Praying Indians”
(Kolodny 256n65). He was also known for preaching to slaves and for translating “the
Bible and a catechism into the Indian tongue” (256n65). The man was real enough, but
Coverdale’s confused timeline—“two centuries” versus “immemorial time ago”—
suggests that the scenery is like somewhere the Apostle Eliot would have preached and
that is good enough for the tableau. Again, the exact historical details are not important.
The moral details are important, and it is important that the scenery match the moral
message of the tableau. The foliage grows out of the “shattered granite boulder, or heap
of boulders with an irregular outline and many fissures…as if the scanty soil, within
those crevices, were sweeter to their roots than any soil” (118-9). The foliage thus
provides an allegory of ascetic living. The canopy of a large birch tree “serve[s] as a
sounding-board for the pulpit” (119) while the floor serves as the pew where the Indians,
and in this case Coverdale, Zenobia, and Priscilla, sit to listen to their respective
Apostles.
47
The sermon, though led by Hollingsworth, is usually taken up by the others who
would talk afterwards “around [the exhausted Hollingsworth], on such topics as were
suggested by the discourse” (119). Coverdale and Zenobia seem to ignore the religious
imagery of Eliot’s pulpit. Stripped of its religious imagery, the scene resembles a kind of
theatre pit and the group the “unclassified miscellany that [make] up the pit” (Grimstead
55). The pit at a theatre, according to David Grimstead, was a democratic and
indefinable lower-middle-class area that had no real directing force, social or theatrical,
save for their own “relative seriousness and intensity of…interest” in theatre (55). It was
the boxes that usually housed the respectable middle-class theatergoers, the ones more
obviously directed by mandates of “taste,” or, as Grimstead phrases it, “pretensions to
quality” (55). Within the less socially self-policing space of the pit, Coverdale and
Zenobia are free to discourse on women’s rights, the topic of the day. Coverdale, in his
usual eloquence, declares his desire “to have all government devolve into the hands of
women” (Hawthorne 121) while Zenobia does her best to convince him of his own
shortsightedness and implicit desire for young, beautiful women to govern over him.
Priscilla, concerned, asks Hollingsworth’s opinions on the matter. And does he ever
deliver. It is important to note that Coverdale and Zenobia both assume the space of
Eliot’s Pulpit is a space of equal opportunity, but this is an illusion as much as the
historicity of the place is an illusion. Just as “democracy freed drama from its literary
conventions” and theatre from its class conventions it also “begot a conformity or
voluntary compliance with other conventions that was at least as strict as anything
48
imposed before” (Grimsted 171). In other words, even though the pit seemed like a
miscellaneous but roughly egalitarian mass of humanity, it eventually succumbed to the
same pressures of “taste” and “convention” of the boxes. Hollingsworth is the avatar of
that conservative “taste” that tamed the pit. His rub with the group is that the discussion
does not fit his moral message. Zenobia, and Coverdale, for that matter, “do not seem to
‘belong’ to men—they have neither husbands nor fathers” and thus can move and
converse freely within what they perceive to be a democratic theatre pit (Chapman 38).
In other words, they do not have a punitive social guide to observe their actions and so
feel free to act as they see fit. Hollingsworth sees a feminist radical and as anti-reformist
stirring in his church pews discussing how to upend the gendered order of his world.
Hollingsworth, in his sermon damning the proto-feminist discussion, “call[s] upon [his]
own sex to use its physical force, that unmistakable evidence of sovereignty” to force the
“petticoated monstrosities” back to “their proper bounds” (Hawthorne 123). By “some
necromancy of his horrible injustice,” Hollingsworth deploys, doubly so, the conventions
of tableau (“silence and immobility” [Chapman 31]) onto the scene and forces the tableau
directions from Coverdale and Zenobia, who are both cowed into silent submission at
Hollingsworth’s feet while Priscilla acts the part of “ the gentle parasite, the soft
reflection of a more powerful existence” that Hollingsworth desires of women
(Hawthorne 124, 123). Using the language of Mary Chapman, Hollingsworth “mans”
each of the other characters. Priscilla and Zenobia both have their looks forced towards
Hollingsworth in adoration and humility respectively while Coverdale is forced into
49
submission by the despotic Hollingsworth. In fact, Coverdale is forced out of the tableau
space altogether and becomes nothing more than an audience member gazing passively
on Hollingsworth’s tableau of “true manhood.” To add to the insult, Coverdale is then
forced to watch Hollingsworth’s tableau of his phalanstery after the troupe walks away:
Zenobia and Hollingsworth standing prominently on the hill above the whole farm on the
prominent land where Hollingsworth wishes to build his phalanstery, Priscilla in the
wooded background.
What is important about the Eliot’s Pulpit scene is that Coverdale is forced to
inhabit a space outside the tableau proper by Hollingsworth. However, there are several
instances where Coverdale exists—of his own volition—outside the main tableau or as
something other than the director of the tableau. Through all of chapters VI and VII
Coverdale is laid up in bed recovering from a sickness. At first, he is delirious and
incoherent; Hollingsworth and Zenobia pose around Coverdale as they try to nurse him
back to health. However, this does not mean that Coverdale the Elder is not framing the
scenes as tableaux. In fact, tableaux seem to be the only way that Coverdale can make
any sense of the other characters and construct a narrative of the time he was unconscious
in a feverish daze. That is to say that tableaux are a way for Coverdale the Elder to fill in
the blanks of his memory from the few incidents he can recall. Zenobia is construed as
both a mediocre nurse and a beautiful but mocking sprite. The two images exist in the
same person such that a tableau is the only way to combine the two. Just as tableaux in
real life purported to be moral but often objectified beautiful women, so too does
50
Coverdale’s tableau try to reconcile the two images of Zenobia. Hollingsworth’s image
is more straightforward. Coverdale recasts Hollingsworth as a caretaker of his soul,
someone who may not feed Coverdale with “gruel [that] was very wretched stuff” (48),
but someone who acts as a confidant and spiritual guide. Hollingsworth is seen as
praying over Coverdale and even receives Coverdale’s fever-dream confession that
Zenobia is not who she seems.
As Coverdale is convalescing, it makes sense that he is not out directing
Blithedale farm towards his artistic image. That role is given up to Zenobia and
Hollingsworth. During his time in bed, “there had been a number of recruits to [the] little
army of saints and martyrs” at Blithedale (62). After Coverdale wakes up—or rather
decides that laying around longer would be “nonsense and effeminacy” (58)—he wakes
up to a farm that is made under Hollingsworth’s directions. Hence Coverdale’s
complaint mentioned previously about his art not being able to coexist with his labor.
Coverdale cannot write versus because, as Hollingsworth notes, Blithedale is now a
tableau of good labor and earnest living: “There is at least this good in a life of toil, that is
takes the nonsense and fancy-work out of a man, and leaves nothing but what truly
belongs to him” (68). Where Coverdale sees Blithedale as a “modern arcadia” fit for
lounging shepherds and bards, Hollingsworth sees a farm where labor refines the man
and saves the soul. This tension is something that Coverdale’s other tableaux try to
explain and understand. As Coverdale, Hollingsworth, and Zenobia rest at the end of
their day—after posing in the tableaux of good work—Hollingsworth derides Coverdale,
51
saying the poet “is not in earnest, either as a poet or a laborer” (68). Though Coverdale
tries to defend himself by saying his “bones feel as if [he] had been earnest[ly]” laboring
(68), the charge of idleness has been leveled against him and he spends several extended
passages constructing tableaux in hopes of figuring out just what it is he earnestly
believes and is willing to do.
One of the most important tableaux Coverdale stages in his quest for self-meaning
and purpose is the tableau of his “hermitage,” or a “kind of leafy cave, high upward into
the air, among the midmost branches of a white-pine tree” where “a wild grapevine, of
unusual size and luxuriance, had twined and twisted itself up into the tree” and, in the
process, “caught hold of three or four neighboring trees, and married the whole clump
with a perfectly inextricable knot of polygamy” (98). I include much of the initial
description because even there Coverdale shows his directorial motives more clearly than
he can amongst the others at Blithedale. The natural and the human, the stand of trees
and the polygamy, come together in the perch. The trees are brought together in a kind of
free love but also by the grapevines that Coverdale allegorizes further in his other self-
tableaux. In setting up his hermitage, Coverdale opens “loop-holes through the verdant
walls” of grapevines turning his hermitage into both a “turret” and an “observatory”
(Hawthorne 98, 99). Coverdale’s hermitage, his director’s seat, is a place to see and
comment on the images of the other Blithedalers. “Through one loop-hole” he is able to
see the river, some Blithedale workers digging peat, and a cart road where Hollingsworth
is working a “yoke of oxen hitched to a drag of stones, that were to be piled into a fence”
52
(99-100). As Coverdale watches Hollingsworth, he asks, “are we his oxen” and “what
right has [Hollingsworth] to be the driver” (100). Coverdale, “at [his] height above the
earth” (100), labels Hollingsworth’s directorial vision “philanthropic absurdities” (100).
In fact, from his height above the earth he declares the whole of Blithedale, from the
mundanity of daily work to Hollingsworth struggling against the “stubborn, stupid, and
sluggish,” absurd but Hollingsworth’s end goal of criminal reform and his tyrannical
means are especially ridiculous given that there “is enough else to do” instead of
“dragging home the ponderous load of” Hollingsworth’s dogma (100). Turning slightly,
Coverdale can also see Priscilla in Zenobia’s window, though with the distance he must
rely on the “eye of faith” to be sure that it is Priscilla (100). She is simply knitting, but
Coverdale allegorizes Priscilla’s needle work into a mythical tale “of her fragile thread of
life…inextricably knotted” together with “other and tougher threads” (100).
However, Coverdale only assumes it is Priscilla there and admits he has “idly
decked her out” in “fancy work” (100), directing her, needlessly, in her costume, action,
and meaning. Taking in the whole scheme with his “bodily eye,” Coverdale realizes,
from his vantage point, that Blithedale “looked so ridiculous that it was impossible not to
laugh aloud” despite the joke being “a little too heavy” (101). Coverdale’s senses and his
“eye of faith” lead him to “disbelief in moral beauty or heroism, and a conviction of the
folly of attempting to benefit the world” (101). However, he quickly retracts his
statements upon hearing Westervelt, the devilish showman, coming up the path beneath
the hermitage. Westervelt’s “disagreeable characteristics,” namely his worldly and “cold
53
skepticism [that] smothers what it can of our spiritual aspirations, and makes the rest
ridiculous,” have tainted Coverdale’s perceptions of Blithedale (101). Coverdale tries to
convince himself that he actually sees the “essential charm” of the Blithedalers; that
Hollingsworth’s dreams are “glorious, if impractical,” that Zenobia’s character possesses
a “noble earthiness,” and that Priscilla’s grace “lay so singularly between disease and
beauty” (101). But, as he laments, a part of himself agrees with Westervelt’s worldly
skepticism. There are several important things happening in these moments. Coverdale
is taking in the images of Blithedale and transmuting them into a dialogue on morality
and the perfectibility of humankind. However, the scene he gazes upon can be
interpreted in multiple ways: the “coldly skeptic” or the romantic. Coverdale comes to
understand that he possesses both natures, that he is both a romantic and a skeptic.
Coverdale does not stop there, however. He is also looking to understand more
than just his own nature; he wants to know what it is that he believes in if he is skeptical
of every other Blithedaler’s utopian vision. To help himself understand, Coverdale
creates another tableau where he poses on the fringes, just outside the image proper. In
his other hermitage, a corner booth in a tavern, Coverdale takes “a boozy kind of pleasure
in the customary life that was going forward” in his tavern tableau (175). His tableau of
“second stage drinkers” and “staunch, old soakers” might as well be of the gold-fishes
swimming in the tiny bar fountain that “any freakish inebriate” could empty his glass
into. The drinkers might as well be like the goldfish: “[inhaling] jollity with the essential
element of [their] existence” (178). To explain the connection between the drinkers and
54
the goldfish, Coverdale declares that “human nature has a naughty instinct that approves
of wine” (175), which for Coverdale means moments of “renewed youth and vigor, the
brisk cheerful sense of things present and to come” (178) that alleviate the tyranny of
“the worldly society at large, where a cold skepticism smothers what it can of our
spiritual aspirations, and makes the rest ridiculous” (101). Finally, able to put into words
his feelings about Blithedale, Coverdale summarizes his tavernal philosophy by declaring
that reformers “must do away with evil by substituting good” (175). It does no good, for
Coverdale, to save a soul by working to death as Hollingsworth would prescribe. Instead,
to truly reform someone, they must experience the good in life. Despite—or in spite of—
the “temperance-men” and their sermons, Coverdale believes the “cold and barren world
will look warmer, kindlier, mellower, through the medium of a toper’s glass” (175). If he
had his way, Coverdale would appear to the Blithedalers as the “allegorical figure of rich
October.” He is impatient for the grapevines of his hermitage to ripen, what he calls the
“abundance of his vintage,” out of which a “wine might be pressed” that would be
“endowed with a new kind of intoxicating quality,” a wine he might give to Blithedale to
assuage some of “the curse of Adam’s posterity,” a wine that “gives substance to the life
around us” (99, 208, 206). Coverdale’s reformist mission is summed up in one fabulous
tableau of inebriation and salvation.
However, Coverdale is not quite convinced of his own philosophy. In his tavern
tableau, Coverdale cannot help but note the presence among the paintings of sirloins and
salmons of a painting “in an obscure corner” of a “New England toper, stretched out on a
55
bench, in the heavy, apoplectic sleep of drunkenness” (Hawthorne 176). The only
comfort the painting provides comes in “forced reflection, that, real as he looked, the
poor caitiff was but imaginary, a bit of painted canvass, whom no delirium tremens, nor
so much as a retributive headache, awaited, on the morrow” (176). While Coverdale tries
to initiate himself into his inebriate’s philosophy, he cannot help but remember the
overbearing temperance morality embodied by its “death-in-life” mascot, the toper. The
world and reality that Coverdale occupies does not allow for any ecstatic, Dionysian
revelry. Whereas Coverdale’s Arcadian tableaux of early Blithedale can be easily
corrected by simply removing a stinking weed from Priscilla’s bouquet, Coverdale’s
tavernal tableau cannot be directed away from the performances of the temperance
movement. The world provides a kind of memento mori: instead of remembering that
one must die, one must remember they have to come back to reality, that drunkenness can
only last so long and should not be drawn on forever, a memento sobriatate one could
say. As a preeminent observer, Coverdale cannot help bringing in this memento, as a
moralist he cannot ignore it, and as an equivocator par excellence he cannot help but use
it to undermine his newfound moral stance. Coverdale uses his experiences elsewhere to
help him make sense of the New England toper. Earlier, before leaving Blithedale,
Coverdale allegorizes a pen of pigs as though they too were under his directorial control.
The pigs, “symbols of slothful ease and sensual comfort,” enjoy a “ponderous and fat
satisfaction of their existence” (143, 144). To Coverdale “they alone are happy” because
the pigs “were involved…and buried alive, in their own corporeal substance” (144). And
56
yet Coverdale cannot leave on that allegoric note. Silas Foster invites him to “eat a part
of a spare-rib” (144) when he returns to Blithedale. The pigs then become a symbol of
fleeting youth and vigor fully feasting on their corporeal bounty; Silas Foster cannot help
but remind Coverdale of the death in life of the pigs. Even Coverdale’s hermitage “had
been formed by the decay of some of the pine-branches, which the [grape] vine had
lovingly strangled with its embrace” presenting Coverdale’s “one exclusive possession”
that “symbolized [his] individuality” as much life-in-death as the toper (98, 99).
Coverdale, contrary to Kenneth Marc Harris’s argument, does not mistake his
mental projections of toperism and Rich October for reality. Instead, Coverdale
grudgingly admits his projections are inconsistent with the pain of human life and so
must settle for keeping that pain “at a supportable distance through [dramatic] irony”
(Harris 120). Or rather, it may be better to say that Coverdale the Elder does not mistake
his projections for reality. Again, reality is not the point of the narrative for Coverdale
the Elder. The point is the moral and philosophical meaning of his personal narrative.
Coverdale, charged by Hollingsworth with believing nothing, excavates his past in search
of something to believe in. To excavate the moral and philosophical meanings of his
past, Coverdale narrates his past and sets himself, in hindsight, in his own tableaux for
him to look upon from his present moment. Coverdale is “immobilized” in his hermitage
and in his tavern booth, sat perfectly still for the viewer—himself in the present
moment—to gaze upon. However, he is not posed femininely with eyes lifted in
adoration, eyes dropped in submission, or bare shoulders shivering. Instead he exists
57
outside of the frame of the tableaux—his hermitage literally frames both images while his
booth exists outside the “customary life that was going forward” in the tavern (175). By
dilating the aperture of his memory this wide, Coverdale can do more than just question
the images his younger self is seeing. By viewing a tableau of himself looking at a
tableau of Blithedale or the tavern, Coverdale can compare and contrast his younger self
(and older self) to those images in order to excavate an understanding of his relationship
to Blithedale and his compatriots. In his hindsight, Coverdale is trying to provide himself
“access to the virtues represented by [his] individual tableaux” in order to “[actualize] a
newer, better” self in the present (Chapman 28, 29). In other words, he is trying to not
just understand his past self but is trying to piece together something resembling a belief
system for his present self. Unlike traditional tableaux, Coverdale is not trying to install
virtue into his character but instead is trying install a purpose into himself, both past and
present. Though he jokingly will join any cause “provided, however, the effort did not
involve an unreasonable amount of trouble,” Coverdale the Elder is quick to point out
that the “reader must not take [his] own word for it” (Hawthorne 246, 247). Though
purpose, “the want of which…has rendered [Coverdale’s] life all an emptiness” (246), is
still missing in Coverdale’s life, he at least has a method—directing his memory as
though it was a series of tableaux—for creating a meaningful purpose out of the disparate
images and scenes of his past. Whether he cares to do so is another question entirely.
58
Chapter 3
THE GREATEST SHOW IN NEW ENGLAND:
FREAKSHOW, CIRCUS, AND SUMMER
Wharton, writing her autobiography eighty-two years after Hawthorne’s The
Blithedale Romance, would swell the action of her own narrative, connecting herself with
Hawthorne as she herself looked back over her experiences and into the mythical history
of New England literature. It was through her 1917 novel Summer specifically that
Wharton felt connected to Hawthorne’s writing. To reiterate, Summer follows Charity
Royall in her love affair with the urbane Lucius Harney, who is visiting North Dormer to
sketch colonial era houses. The love affair is complicated by Lawyer Royall, Charity’s
adoptive ward. When Charity becomes pregnant by Harney and Harney leaves her for
the beautiful Annabel Balch, Charity runs away to the outlaw community on the
Mountain, her ancestral home. The next day, Lawyer Royall brings the exhausted
Charity back to town and promptly marries her. However, Wharton only really
connected herself to Hawthorne through genre and place. This chapter explores how, like
Hawthorne’s Blithedale, Summer uses the entertainment of the era to develop and
complicate the narrative. Where Hawthorne uses the tableaux vivant, its complicated
history, and its complex presentations and receptions to accentuate his narrator’s
ambiguous morality and desires, Wharton uses the freakshow to give her narrative the
kaleidoscopic feel of a circus or carnival midway, to develop a pervading atmosphere of
horror and disgust, and to play with our ability as readers to identify with and be repelled
59
by characters. As this long list suggests, Wharton, like Hawthorne, did not confine her
use to one form of freakshow only. Instead her narrative utilizes the wide variety of
freakshow performances to explore many aspects of freakishness.
This approach, though similar to Hawthorne’s, implications unique to Summer.
For one, Blithedale’s first-person narration, delivered as it is by the always-obfuscating
Coverdale, heightens and intensifies the novel’s themes of indeterminacy and
unknowability. As readers, we must confront Coverdale as we read and grapple with him
as a narrator. In Summer, readers are presented with a third-person narrator who will, at
times, use free indirect discourse to enter into the psyche of Charity. In these moments, I
argue, we identify with Charity, at least the part of her that resembles us, and at times we
are doubly repulsed by her as she returns our gaze. At other times we observe Charity
from afar, seeing her through an unaffiliated third person narrator. In these instances, I
argue, she is posed like a freak, generally immobile, removed from the audience on a
decorated stage not unlike a tableau performer, under the watchful, amateur
medical/scientific gaze of the audience. For another, the entertainments and show
businesses of Hawthorne’s era are not entirely erased but are instead evolved into a
different form. This is not to say that the tableaux vivant was extinct by the time
Wharton was writing; it would still have been a popular entertainment. Indeed, the
tableaux vivant plays a central role in Wharton’s 1905 novel The House of Mirth. As
described in the introductory chapter, the freakshow is a term for several related
entertainments where people with exceptional attributes—skin color, physical and mental
60
deformities, diseases—were exhibited to audiences eager to “study” the performers. To
this category of “born” freaks, Janet Davis adds the category of “made” freaks, those with
body modifications and those with spectacular acts like fire or glass eating. The
freakshow was descended from tableaux vivant in that the performer is usually posed
with symbolic decorations that, like a tableaux vivant, suggest certain kinds of
freakishness or with a narrative mediating the audience’s interpretation of the performer
the same way Lord Hamilton would have mediated Lady Hamilton’s attitudes. Where
the tableau dealt in morality and social enlightenment, the freakshow dealt with education
and the new sciences of genetics, evolution, anthropology, and “ethnology,” though it
could easily adopt a moral register in discussions of freakish women, certain deformities,
and sexual maladies. Too, Brodhead’s description of the commercialized entertainment
industry of the 1850s would also have been relevant in Wharton’s time. In fact,
Brodhead’s examination of the relationship between P.T. Barnum and the performer
Jenny Lind holds true in understanding the interests and motivations uniting show
promoters, especially Barnum, and freakshow performers.
Of the critical attention paid to Summer—which is scant compared to the attention
paid Wharton’s other works—very little addresses the performances in the novel.
Instead, most critical readings of Summer focus on Wharton’s use of freakishness in
Summer. Or, to be entirely true to the critical material, the critical attention has been
focused around the critics’ own disgust, and in some cases their morbid curiosity, with
the novel and its characters. Gary Totten’s approach to reading Summer is an instructive
61
example. Using race and eugenic theories popular around the time Summer was written
(and popular with Wharton), Totten sees the Mountain people as a mix of dysgenic
savages who live in animalistic, grungy squalor. Totten also sees Charity, who is
originally from the Mountain, as a racialized and Othered abomination in the
oppressively Anglo-normative town of North Dormer. Though Totten never outright
discusses the novel or the characters in terms of freakishness, the implication is surely
present that the world of the novel and many of its characters are radically different—
physically, mentally, racially, socially, and so on—from Totten’s presumed reader and
from the normative Euroamerican characters of the novel (i.e. Lucius Harney, Lawyer
Royall, Annabel Balch). In Summer, that radical difference is not just present, it is put on
display to examine and judge. It is also important to recognize that the audience of this
display is not only in the novel but includes the reader as well. Readings like Totten’s
have been consistent from the novel’s initial publication. In her introduction to the
Oxford World’s Classics edition, Laura Rattray suggests that the novella was “like its
protagonist…regarded for many years as a product of ‘tainted origin’, an illegitimate
child in the author’s oeuvre” (Rattray xiii). Rattray argues that critics of the 1910s were
excited to see the kind of novel Wharton would produce out of her time in Europe during
World War I. Expecting—unfairly, as Wharton would later argue—something in the
generic vein of what Nancy A. Walker calls the “seduced and abandoned” novel, critics
were surprised that Wharton and Summer did not blindly follow generic conventions.
Wharton does begin with the “seduced and abandoned” formula. In Summer, Charity
62
Royall is seduced by, has a torrid affair with, and is ultimately abandoned by the urbane
Lucius Harney, a young Bostonian architect visiting Charity’s small town of North
Dormer to sketch colonial houses. However, Walker is quick to point out in her critical
reading that Wharton quickly throws aside the façade of genre. With such a radical shift
away from the moral novel formula and towards a more gothic novel, it may not be
surprising that critics were disgusted with Summer and how it differed from their generic
expectations. T.S. Eliot, in a review of Summer, wrote that the novella would “certainly
be considered ‘disgusting’ in America” (xvi) presumably for the overt themes of
sexuality and incest. Many modern critics have continued talking about Summer with
disgust. Kathy Grafton takes a Freudian psychological approach and labels Charity and
Harney as sexually deviant and perverse. Karen Weingarten takes a particularly
interesting approach to Wharton’s treatment of abortion. Weingarten combines Hannah
Arendt’s political theories concerning war refugees together with Wharton’s history
aiding refugees in World War I. Only those lives recognized and embraced by the law,
Weingarten argues, are actually “legible.” Charity, in her search for a home and a life, is
a haunting, unhomed, illegible figure who is only made legitimate when she marries
Lawyer Royall.
Each critic discusses some aspect of Summer that is disgusting, distasteful,
grotesque, abject, or abhorrent to them as readers and yet they cannot help but to analyze
those aspects. Indeed, it is the repulsion/attraction behind the critical work that further
suggests the freakshow reading. There is both a taboo and a spirit of inquiry motivating
63
the audience’s gaze, and that gaze and its attendant motives are returned by the freak
performer. The freakshow need not be spectacular, but the audience needs to knowingly
gaze upon something or someone that transgresses normality with a sense of curiosity.
And to be perfectly clear, the critical literature stops short of labelling Summer and its
characters freakish. However, the way that the disgusting elements of Summer are
showcased suggests that the world of the novel is constructed like a freakshow. The best
illustration of this freakshow is the scene in the brown house. Charity and Harney go to
the swampy, dilapidated home of Bash Hyatt at the base of the Mountain so that Harney
can sketch its colonial architecture. Before going to the Mountain, Harney learns from
Charity, Lawyer Royall, and some other unnamed source about the Mountain and its
people. The people of North Dormer, according to Charity, “took the Mountain for
granted, and implied its disparagement by tone rather than explicit criticism” (Wharton
33). That is, Charity thinks this until she overhears Lawyer Royall explicitly telling
Harney that the Mountain is a “blot” full of “scum” who “herd together like heathens”
(36). The “gang of thieves and outlaws” living on the Mountain are, according to Lawyer
Royall, living within town limits but without “a sheriff or a tax collector or a coroner”
that are requisite for civilized life (36). Lawyer Royall’s comments suggest that the
Mountain is a negative space, everything the town is not. Harney, in his own research,
thinks the first Mountain people “are supposed to have been men who worked on the
railway” (33). Combined with Charity’s own “swarthy” features (3) and Lawyer
Royall’s “thieves and outlaws” comment (36), the Mountain people are an example of
64
what Totten calls the era’s “variegated whiteness” (Totten 70). Harney’s comments bring
to Totten’s mind the “many Irish immigrants [who] settled in western Massachusetts
between 1850 and 1900,” many of whom “worked on the railroads during the late
nineteenth century” (71). Charity’s and Lawyer Royall’s comments lead Totten to
believe the Mountain people may also be “[drawn] from stereotypes associated with the
Italian immigrants who settled in Western Massachusetts at the turn of the century,”
stereotypes specifically concerning “popularly held beliefs about the dubious intellect and
character of Italian immigrants” (70). In modern terms, these people would be white, but
Totten points out that eugenic discussions of Wharton’s era considered Nordic peoples to
be white and other Europeans to be less white the further south they originated.
The Mountain people are not only culturally abject Others, they are racially abject
Others. North Dormer is made all the whiter by the racial freaks of the Mountain.
Specifically, the people on the Mountain are a peculiar kind of freakshow called the
ethnological congress. Janet M. Davis argues that American “zoological proprietors
pioneered [the] systematic, full-blown exhibits of exotic people with animals” (118).
According to Davis, “located inside the menagerie tent, the ethnological congress of
‘strange and savage tribes’,” such as the potentially Irish and Italian immigrants,
“physically collapsed human and animal boundaries in a spectacular act of Otherness”
(118). Davis’s reproductions of lithographs show “well-appointed Euroamerican families
viewing the display of the ‘strange and savage tribes’ as an instructive exercise” (119) on
not just the natives but on their own Euroamericanness. Examples abound in the brown
65
house scene of animal language applied to the freaks. The young woman of the house is
an “unkempt creature,” the old man’s face is “so sodden and bestial” (Wharton 42, 43).
The family live “like vermin in their lair” and are referred to by the collective phrase
“poor creatures” (44, 45). Like any good freakshow, the Hyatts display not only their
“‘born’ (for the congenitally deformed or racially exotic)” freakishness, but their “‘made’
(when the acts involved conscious bodily disfigurement…)” freakishness as well (Davis
118). The little girl has “a scar across her cheek,” and the old woman with the kitten is
referred to later as a “half-witted old woman” (43, 49). However, the Hyatts’ Otherness
and the town’s contempt for people like the Hyatts do not make for a freakshow, only for
freakish characters. The brown house scene makes for a show by positioning Charity and
Harney as viewers of the Hyatts, not just as guests of the Hyatts. After they are allowed
to stay to wait out the storm, Charity and Harney “[sit] down on a bench made of a board
resting on two starch boxes” (Wharton 43). They are literally positioned as audience
members would be positioned watching the Hyatts and their awkward cultural practices
such as not “rousing the sleeping man” in the corner (43). Charity and Harney both try to
interact with the Hyatts but are cut off each time. Charity tries to beckon two
apprehensive children to come to her when she sees them peeking through a doorway.
Harney, on his initial entrance, enters the brown house with “a general ‘How are you?’ to
which no one responded” (43). If it were not for a few civilized actions by the Hyatts, the
brown house could be read as a tableau. To help quell Charity’s shiver—her dress is
drenched by the storm after all—the younger woman brings her a broken teacup full of
66
whiskey. The younger woman is playing her part, a savage playing at being civilized.
This gesture also brings money into the already theatric staging of the scene. Harney
feels as if he should pay, or at least tip, for the whiskey that he drinks. He “feel[s] in his
pocket for a dollar and draw[s] it out” (44) in an attempt to pay the performers/Hyatts for
their performance of civility. For Harney, no show of civility or savagery is free of cost.
As Davis shows in her study of the ethnological congress, the show at the Hyatts’
reinforces Harney’s own Euroamericanness and to an extent enforces Charity’s own
white-like identity. The Hyatts and their savagery are contained within the brown house,
ostensibly the stage of the freakshow. The Hyatts are under Harney’s and Charity’s gaze.
At a safe remove, Harney and Charity can, as Davis puts it, “judge for [themselves] what
the freaks ‘had’” that made them outlaws and thieves or “why [the freaks] came down to
that fever hole” brown house (Davis 118, Wharton 45). The most obvious example of
diagnosis involves the old man sleeping in the corner. On the one hand, Charity can
piece together the relationship between the sleeping man and the actions of the other
Hyatts to diagnose why the scene is so oppressively silent. The children, “it occur[s]” to
Charity, are afraid of waking the old man, and “probably the woman shared their fear”
(Wharton 43, emphasis added). Charity cannot be certain; she can only make a
hypothesis as to why the room is silent. Charity can take the minute details of the scene
and piece together something of a “reason” for its construction just as a freakshow
audience would amateurishly guess at the source of the freak’s condition. On the other
hand, Harney cannot quite make the same kind of diagnosis, though he does make two
67
diagnoses. There is a suggestion in the scene that Harney diagnoses the old man’s
alcoholism, though Harney remains seemingly blind to the old man’s violence. Though
Charity quietly shrugs away the whiskey in the broken teacup, Harney takes it, drinks it,
and makes a motion to pay for it. In contrast to the old man, Harney can hold his liquor
and goes through the socially acceptable sequence of actions for drinking liquor. In this
sense, Harney’s diagnosis is that the old man drinks the wrong way, i.e. to excess and to
stupor, while his own drinking habits are diagnosed as the right way, i.e. polite and paid
in full. However, this is only a superficial diagnosis on Harney’s part. Harney also
leaves still wondering why the family moved to the “fever hole,” the answer to which
Charity can easily supply: because the “fever hole” is an improvement to the mountain.
In addition, Harney actually more gravely misdiagnoses the Hyatts as a dashingly roguish
“handful of people who don’t give a damn for anybody” (33). However, on the ride back
to North Dormer, Harney is unsettled. He looks “oppressed by what he had seen” at the
brown house (45). Harney and Charity have an awkward, stilted discussion about him
trying to pay for the whiskey. He only really says “I wasn’t sure—” to which Charity
fills in with the real diagnosis, that “[he] knew they were [Charity’s] folks, and thought
[she’d] be ashamed to see [him] give them money” (45). In the moment when Harney
puts the dollar back in his pocket, he has correctly diagnosed Charity as being freakish
like the Hyatts, as being not entirely “normal.”
Interestingly, Charity (at least in the brown house moment) is made all the more
human, white, and American by way of comparison to the Hyatts. However, as Davis
68
puts it, despite Charity’s differences, during the live performance “the relationship
between self and Other is constantly in flux…because as an entertainer, [the freak]
returns the audience’s gaze with [their] own, thus undermining the controlling function of
the gaze” (Davis 27). The squalor of the brown house brings to Charity’s mind the
“kitchen at the red house, with its scrubbed floor and dresser full of china” (Wharton 44).
The “smell of dirt and stale tobacco” inside the Hyatts’ brown house brings to Charity’s
mind “the peculiar smell of yeast and coffee and soft-soap” (44). Importantly, Charity is
clear in declaring that “she always hated” those smells and the images of the kitchen, but
in light of the brown house ethnological congress, the aspects of the red house “now
[seem] the very symbol of household order” (44). In other words, the brown house
reveals to Charity how white and how right her experiences are in the red house she lives
in with Lawyer Royall. Returning to the teacup of whiskey, every instinct and habit
learned while living in the red house informs Charity’s head shake and maintains her
distinct position within the audience of the performance. To accept the cup, itself a
grotesque version of her own wares and its contents would be to accept her inheritance as
a “child of a drunken convict” (37). Yet Harney gladly takes the cup and drinks because
for him the cup is nothing more than a peace offering from a savage. As with any good
service, Harney feels the need to tip the younger woman and pulls a dollar out of his
pocket only to put it back. Charity “guessed that he did not wish her to see him offering
money to people she had spoken of as being her kin” (44, emphasis added). The
emphasis is added here to highlight the swirling relations between Charity, Harney, and
69
the freakish Others. Had Harney gone through with his action, the boundary between
audience and performer could have been replaced. However, by putting the dollar back,
Harney shows (to Charity) he understands that Charity is both abject freak and normal
citizen, that she has some affinity with the freaks and could take offense to his actions.
Harney’s gesture and Charity’s conjecture together reveal that although the “stage could
contain the racial Other, the ethnic threat [that makes] the nonwhite body safe through the
trappings of the freak show” (Fahy 56), the inviolate boundary between spectator and
horrible spectacle is only an illusion. Harney realizes that Charity has been a freak
passing as human this entire time.
While the freakshow allows Harney the opportunity to haphazardly explore his
curiosity, it has the effect for Charity of redoubling the normalness of her middle-class,
Euroamerican experience in the red house. However, in tandem with Harney’s diagnosis
of Charity as a freak, the brown house scene begins to come undone as a strict analogue
to a freakshow. Specifically, Charity is highlighted as a liminal character somewhere
between object and viewer, consumer of the show and player in the show. She is
reminded of her normal experiences in the red house but is also reminded of her
Otherness in relation to Harney. What the brown house scene ultimately brings into
consideration is that the world of Summer is a freakshow, but that the show is not strictly
contained and constrained to a limited space, i.e. a stage. The freakshow as a socially and
culturally normative performance, indeed the ability to view any Other as a tableaux-like
performance, according to Joseph Boone, relies on “the illusion of some ineffable but
70
inviolate boundary dividing spectator and spectacle, subject and object, self and other”
(93).9 Though the boundaries of the freakshow as a strictly staged performance break
down in the brown house, that does not mean that the freakshow of Summer ceases to
exist, nor does it mean that it loses its function as a cultural norming practice. On the
contrary, it means Charity and Harney are not the only audience viewing a freakshow and
that the freakshow is being performed in various places. The brown house scene
suggests, actually, the opposite of a neatly contained freakshow: that Harney has entered
into a space, North Dormer and its surroundings, defined by its freakshowness and that
there is a larger audience of the much larger freakshow. In her introduction, Laura
Rattray points out the “prevalence of disabilities among the women who make up the
background of Summer” (xxi). Allie Hawes has an “uneven, limping step” (81). Verna
Marsh, the lady hired to do the cooking at the red house, is deaf with “old deaf-looking
eyes” (80). Though she is never seen, Carrick Fry’s wife is paralyzed (38). Each
character is linked to their physical disability, whether “born” or “made.” Since we are
not given much history of the women, a viewer (or reader) can only attempt to diagnose
what each “has.” However, Miss Hatchard is given a more extended show. Miss
Hatchard, Harney’s cousin, is “too lame to come around” the library (Wharton 8). She
obviously has a physical disability like the other secondary characters. However, she
also has a mental disability. After Lawyer Royall tries to force his way into Charity’s
9 Judith Sensibar uses Boone’s work in her chapter “Edith Wharton as Propogandist and
Novelist” to argue that Wharton’s travel writing resembles tableaux.
71
bed and after he asks Charity for the first time to marry him, Charity goes to Miss
Hatchard to ask for a job to earn some money to get away or to hire a woman to help
keep house. The implication is that Charity needs another woman present to help ward
off Lawyer Royall’s advances. However, Miss Hatchard’s response is milquetoast at
best: “The… the housework’s too hard for you, I suppose?” Miss Hatchard’s inability to
overtly discuss the matter of sex, rape, and incest looming in the red house leads Charity
to feel “compassion for Miss Hatchard’s long immaturity” (15). Charity decides Miss
Hatchard must “be talked to like a baby” (15). The effect of this realization makes
Charity feel “incalculably old” (15). Miss Hatchard, despite her age, is diagnosed by
Charity as having the mental and emotional capacity of a child. Charity’s diagnostic gaze
if reflected back to her by Miss Hatchard. In that moment, standing across from Miss
Hatchard, Charity experiences something akin to progeria, a disease that prematurely
ages children,10 that makes Charity feel “incalculably old” despite her age. “Alone” with
a “deeper sense of isolation,” Charity realizes that her sense of feminine comradery with
Miss Hatchard was only a childish myth. With that myth proven false, Charity’s identity
as an adolescent quickly disappears, replaced with an old, supposedly wise and resolute
woman.
However, it is not just the world of North Dormer that is freakish. Charity is
made even more freakish because, just like her own experience in the brown house, the
10 For a more in-depth discussion of “literary progeria” see Conan O’Brien’s “The ‘Old
Child’ in Faulkner and O’Connor.”
72
boundary dividing Charity and the reader is not inviolate. Like Winegarten, I see
Wharton’s work during World Way I as an instructive lens to explore Charity’s
freakishness. Wharton did many odd jobs during World War I, among them was
propagandizing. Thomas Fahy argues that “WWI propogandists recognized the power
(as well as the draw) of” freakshow performers and “enfreak[ed] the enemy” in their
propaganda. By depicting the enemy as freakish and inhuman, propagandists appealed to
fear and hatred of the enemy in the American public. But, unlike the safely staged show,
propogandists “didn’t want to contain the threat” (56). Instead, “they wanted to remove
the safety net that freakshows offered and to depict the Other as unleashed on American
soil” (56). These elements combined gave recruitment efforts a powerful urgency and
served to legitimize the war efforts. Wharton does something similar with Charity,
unleashing her miscegenated freakishness on North Dormer. It is important to note that
Charity is not necessarily a racial freak to the reader, though she is still an abjection of
the reader. Charity is marked as a freak within the novel by the same animalistic
language used to describe the Mountain people. The animal language used to describe
Charity is less distasteful than the language used to describe the Mountain people, for
example when “a kind of animal secretiveness possessed her” and “the secretive instinct
of the animal in pain was so strong in her” (Wharton 52, 80, emphasis added). However,
Charity is also described as a freakish and bestial sexual deviant. On the night that
Harney fails to show for supper at the Royall house, Charity ventures out after dark to
find him. It is weird enough that “the darkness drew her” on that night, but it also draws
73
on her animal instincts and pulls her to “the hill and…the larch-wood above the pasture”
(51). Instead, she spots Harney’s light on in Miss Hatchard’s house and is pulled towards
him. Besides the “animal secretiveness [that] possessed her” (52), she is made animal by
the way she moves towards Harney: “crouch” and “crept” (54, 55). She even stalks
Harney like a predator stalking prey. She notices Harney had “taken off his coat and
waistcoat, and unbuttoned the low collar of his flannel shirt” and particularly notices the
“vigorous lines of his young throat, and the root of the muscles where they joined the
chest” (53). This would be erotic if Charity was not stalking “softly on the short grass,
and keeping so close to the house that [Harney], even if roused by her approach, would
not be able to see her” (52). Her epiphany is that she could easily rouse Harney and do
“the thing that did happen between young men and girls” (54), but she gives up the
position of hunter/dominator and declares that Harney “must seek her: he must not be
surprised into taking her” (55). She must be the prey, not the hunter.
Charity’s freakishness extends beyond even North Dormer. Charity is cast as
freakish to the reader. In the above example, Charity is “aroused…by the clandestine
nature of” stalking Harney and “doing something taboo” (Grafton 357, 359). The
passage is focalized through Charity. The boundary between reader and Charity is
dissolved so that the reader is in contact with Charity at her most erotic as she considers
her “sensual urges” and “the forbiddenness of her own actions” (358). Our inquisitive
gaze is returned to us as we find ourselves, figuratively speaking, hunched next to Charity
in the bushes. However, Charity’s most abject and freakish trait is her ignorance. Robert
74
Bogdan, in his taxonomy of freakshow performances, argues that when freaks were
presented as “exotic,” advertisers “appealed to people’s interest in the culturally strange,
the primitive, the bestial, the exotic” with “the emphasis on how different and, in most
cases, how inferior to person on exhibit was” (540, 542). This is in comparison to
Bogdan’s “aggrandized mode” of promotion where advertisers would tell the public “the
‘freak’ was highly educated, spoke many languages, and had ‘snobbish’ hobbies like
writing poetry or painting” (542). Charity is presented to us throughout in the exotic
mode and thus her ignorance is an extension of her bestiality. She decides not go to
school so that she can stay with the lonely Lawyer Royall, and what little interest is
stirred in her for knowledge is quickly doused: Charity “found it easier to take North
Dormer as the norm of the universe than to go on reading” (Wharton 4). For Charity,
reading and knowledge are associated with death and imprisonment; there is a sort of
taboo about them for Charity. Charity calls the Honorius Hatchard Memorial Library a
“prison-house” (6) where Charity “wondered if [Honorius] felt any deader in his grave
than she did in his library” (6). Though she is “blind and insensible of many things, and
dimly knew it” (10), the reader is all too aware of the weight, and irony, of “her
ignorance of life and literature” (19). Charity is not a classically tragic figure doomed by
her ignorance, the way, say, The House of Mirth’s Lily Bart is doomed by her pride.
Instead, Charity’s ignorance is an abjection of the reader’s knowledgeable position.
Consider Nancy A. Walker’s structuralist argument that Summer is a reworking of a
“seduced and abandoned” novel. Walker’s argument is based on knowledge gleaned
75
from reading: of novels, historical texts, the writings of other knowledgeable readers, etc.
Walker—as well as the presumably mistaken contemporary reviewers of Summer—
approaches Summer with knowledge that Charity very clearly lacks because of her
aversion to reading. That is to say, Charity is the abjection of the reader, a sort of
illiterate and uninformed freak. If the boundary between the abject freak and the
audience/reader is dissolved in the voyeur scene discussed above, then it is re-established
in places where the narrator takes over the narrative. For example, the narrator evaluates
Charity’s relationship to Harney and concludes that “there had been nothing, therefore, in
the outward course of events to raise in Charity’s breast the hopes with which it
trembled” (Wharton 38). The intrusion of the narrator brings back the division between
Charity and the reader by commenting on the narrative facts, bringing back into sharp
relief the constructed nature of the narration.
The ill-defined stage of the freakshow extends even further out to include even
Harney, though Harney would arguably be presented to us in the aggrandized mode. As
Kathy Grafton argues, Harney is freakish in his sexual proclivities. A large portion of the
critical literature, including Grafton’s work, focuses on Charity’s sexuality and for good
reason. Returning to the scene between Charity and Miss Hatchard, Charity more openly
expresses her sexual situation. Compared to Miss Hatchard, Charity brazenly brings up
the issue of rape, incest, and sex where normally those issues would be silenced. Though
in this example it might be unfair to label Charity a sexual deviant, her blatant sexuality
and knowledge of sex is the reason for her freakishly premature aging in the presence of
76
Miss Hatchard. However, as Grafton points out, Harney has his own sexual proclivities
that make him stand out as freakish. Harney is a freak because he is uncanny. If Charity
is the abjection of the reader because of her ignorance, then Harney is the mirror image of
the reader because of his erudition. However, that mirror image, like many of the mirror
images in Summer, is actually distorted like a funhouse mirror. Lucius Harney occupies,
in a broad application of Carol Wershoven’s work, the place of the “female intruder,” a
trope Wershoven identifies in much of Wharton’s fiction. For Wershoven, a Wharton
narrative is most often made dramatic by a female character who “intrudes” upon the
until-then peaceful world of the protagonist. However, in Summer, it is Harney who
intrudes into the world of North Dormer. This casts Harney in a kind of literary drag,
occupying a male position within Summer, but a female position within Wharton’s
oeuvre and to the erudite reader. Too, he is uncanny because despite his urbane and
erudite character he is positioned as a near-equal rival to Charity. The two compete for
Annabel Balch, or “the patriarchal ideal, the ‘fixed and upright’ womanhood that both
Charity and Harney want to possess” (Fedorko 73). To put it another way, the beautiful
Annabel Balch is someone Charity wants to be, and Harney wants to be with. Kathy A.
Fedorko goes even further to argue that Charity and Harney are two halves of a single
self, the male and female, intellect and sensuality, some kind of Siamese twin on display
for the reader.
However, Harney is able to perform in more ways than the freakshow. For
example, as established previously, he is a drag queen to the erudite reader. When
77
glancing backwards at Hawthorne’s works, Harney can be seen to have the same effect
on Charity as Westervelt has on Priscilla. Within the novel Harney is a kind of
mesmerist or hypnotist over Charity. Harney is often linked with the spiritual world as
either a sort of mesmerist or connected to death. He suddenly appears, seemingly from
nowhere, “as if he were a vision” (Wharton 84) when Charity tries to escape North
Dormer. For a man who is often described as shortsighted, Harney’s vision is often
disturbingly described. As Charity spies on him in the night, Harney lays on the bed
“motionless and with fixed eyes, as though following his vision to its bitter end” (55). He
is looking towards the ceiling of his room, but his eyes see through the ceiling towards a
vision of the future. In that moment, Charity is reminded of similar scene where Harney,
looking up towards the afternoon sky, seems to be focused elsewhere than in the moment.
His eyes also have a hypnotic effect on Charity. Harney’s shortsighted eyes widen and
deepen “as if to draw [Charity] down into them” in a trance (102). His touch also sends
her into a catatonic state somewhere between the waking realm and the pseudo-spiritual
realm supposedly accessed by mesmerists. The mesmeric/hypnotic performance was
often erotically charged as male performers often enacted their performance on female
subjects. Harney exhibits his fair share of sexuality and does so more often and in more
extreme language than Charity does. Kathy Grafton argues that Harney, in Freudian
fashion, needs “a certain kind of degradation of Charity to occur before he can find her
sexually accessible” (350). As a degraded object of sexual desire (compared to the
elevated object of love, i.e. Annabel Balch), Charity is often acted upon by Harney.
78
Though Grafton focuses on each character individually, together the two suggest a
relationship based on power plays over and under one another. Harney’s habit of kissing
Charity involves “push[ing] the hair from her forehead, bending her face back…and
leaning over so that his head loomed black between her eyes and the paleness of the sky”
(Wharton 96). Compared to Charity’s predatorial infatuation with Harney’s throat,
Harney’s kisses are practically vampiric as he goes “feeling for the curve of her throat
below the ear, and kissing her there, and on the hair and eyes and lips” (110). Harney’s
embraces have a kind of “spell” (112) over Charity that binds her to him. As Charity
runs away from the red house, Harney catches up to her and exclaims: “Did you think
you could run away from me? You see you weren’t meant to” (85). Before Charity can
say anything, he kisses her. From that point onwards, Harney looks at Charity but rarely
hears her. In fact, his “kiss blotted…all out” (93), and only “at stated hours, the ghost of
[Charity] came back” to town (94). The “new world” of Harney’s that Charity comes
back from is an “abyss” (110) where she is “suspended in the void” (90). As in their first
kiss, Harney’s world is one of darkness, or as Charity puts it, one on “the other side of the
grave” (81). Not only is he intimately linked with the Memorial Library, which Charity
already links with death, but his hands that he continually wraps around Charity’s hands,
face, and hair convey a touch that is “lifeless” (63), returning to Charity early on the
feeling of abjection, disgust, and terror similar to what she gets from touching her dead
mother’s body. The death-in-life aspect of Harney’s spiritualist persona is reminiscent of
several different performance types. For example, he could be said to do a kind of
79
somnambulist performance in the vein of “Sleeping Beauty” displays. Kathryn A.
Hoffmann’s discussion of the “Sleeping Beauty” focuses on static displays of women
ostensibly for medical and scientific educational purposes similar to how the ethnic
freaks were showcased for anthropological education. The somnambulist supposedly
performed in a mythical or pseudoscientific realm between life and death. Too, Harney’s
death-in-life qualities resemble the real life case of Julia Pastrana who was, in life,
displayed as a “hairy woman” freak but who, in death, was exhibited in London with the
handbill proclaiming her a “NEW AND UNPARALLELLED DISCOVERY in the ART
OF EMBALMING, Whereby the Original Form and Almost Natural Expression of Life
are Retained” (Durbach 39, 38, original emphasis). Though it seems safe to assume there
were probably examples of male “sleepers” and male freaks displayed after death, it is
interesting that Hoffmann and Durbach both focus on female performers. This reinforces
Harney’s drag performance discussed earlier but refocuses that performance inside the
novel rather than outwards towards the reader. Harney’s performances suggest that the
world of Summer is not a one-dimensional performance, but rather a plethora of
performances all contained in a sprawling geographic space.
With this in mind, I again want to refine the term “freakshow.” Though
exhibitions like the one displaying Julia Pastrana existed mostly independent of larger
fairs and circuses, it seems to be that the opposite was more common. Looking at
Hoffmann’s work on “Sleeping Beauties,” rarely were the exhibitions of medical models
and somnambulists spectacular enough to exist independently of the larger circuses and
80
fair. Hoffmann is clear in explaining that the individual exhibition might travel, but that
in their various stops they existed largely as one of the attractions in a larger fair or
circus. Similarly, even discussions of Julia Pastrana in London reference specific
neighborhoods in London and other large towns known for their sordid performance
venues.11 Harney’s various performances point to the same kind of entertainment
ecosystem existing in Summer. In other words, the sum of the performances equals a
world that is circuslike. To be clear, the term is not carnivalesque but circuslike. The
concept of the carnivalesque comes out of pre-modern festivities wherein normal law and
order were suspended, upended, and comically reversed. On the one hand, this allowed
common people a modicum of freedom to resist the power of the church and royalty,
while, on the other hand it allowed the church and royalty to maintain power by giving
the people an illusion of freedom. The circus is very much not of this dynamic. Though
the circus can be traced back to the same carnival tradition, the circus is more aptly
described as a leisure activity, enjoyed by people for the purpose of entertainment.
Further, the circus was also a capitalistic venture that continually worked to monetize
leisure time and entertainment. Brodhead points to the 1850s as the emergence of a
“more massively publicized order of entertainment…by which artistic performance
(broadly understood) came to reach larger and more stabilized mass publics” (334-5).
Along with the publicizing machine, Dana Anderson notes a similar pattern bombarding
11 For more information on Britain’s various entertainment districts, see Lisa A.
Kochanek’s “From Sideshow to Science” in Victorian Periodicals Review
81
Americans in the mid- to late-1800s wherein trolley companies of the time, looking to
maximize profit, “realized that encouraging weekend family excursions [on their trolley
lines] was their best chance” at maximizing ridership and profit (3). The sudden influx of
riders to parks and gardens led to a boom in entertainments to fill the otherwise “bucolic”
space (3). Enter P.T. Barnum. Barnum was intimately associated with this culture of
monetized leisure. In a study of circus literature, Yoram S. Carmeli quotes the circus
book author William S. Bosworth as saying of Barnum “When he could not discover a
genuine wonder he manufactured one and he also adroitly mixed the real and the faked
that the visitor could not tell the false from the true” (Carmeli 216). Barnum publicized
the exhibition and subsequent autopsy of the supposedly 161-year-old former slave Joice
Heth in the 1830s (Reiss), legitimized his display of the “Feejee Mermaid” with lectures
from a “Dr. Griffin” in the 1840s (Levi), and publicized the opera singer Jenny Lind’s
tour of America in the 1850s (Brodhead). Barnum’s hippodromes of the 1870s,
precursors to his more famous circus, featured the “Congress of Nations.” With its
“roster of nearly 1000 performers” the Congress of Nations was “an epitome of ‘well-
regulated labor’” (Adams 39). While the showrunners like Barnum were busy
publicizing the entertainments, other laborers worked with the express purpose of
creating a well-regulated experience for patrons.12 While this construct may have
12 Frederickx et al and Bigné, Andreu, and Gnoth both conduct empirical studies of the
theme park experience, specifically how emotions of pleasure and arousal are
manufactured by theme park promoters. Durrant et al and Chaim Noy both conduct
qualitative studies of patrons interacting with park infrastructure. Finally, Stephen Lyng
82
provided some opportunities for freakshow performers to experience a “normal” life with
normal freedoms, the critical readings suggest that the paying public would rarely if ever
have seen anything but the highly mediated circus performance.13 Summer exhibits its
entertainments in several different ways. Throughout the novel there are slight allusions
to circuslike entertainments embedded in several motifs. Too, there are scenes that can
be read as circus-like entertainments because they so closely resemble the entertainment.
In a much more obvious sense, Summer, like The Blithedale Romance, is full of actual
entertainments and performances. However, the most spectacularly circus-like instance
is the Fourth of July at Nettleton, a larger, more prosperous town near North Dormer.
Beginning with the circus-like entertainment, one of the major motifs in Summer
is mirrors and reflections. These images begin simply enough but devolve into more and
more bizarre and ultimately nightmarish visions. The progression of reflections suggests
that the motif is more appropriately read as a house of mirrors and not simply as
reflection. At the beginning of the novel the reflection motif can be read as an extension
of the novel’s preoccupation with looks. For instance, on the very first page, Wharton
sets up this motif as Charity, upon realizing Harney is new to town, scuttles back into the
red house ostensibly to look for a key she already had, but really to hide from the city
fellow. In the entranceway Charity looked at her reflection in “a narrow greenish
writes a compelling psychological study of how park promoters play into patrons’ desires
for novelties and thrills. 13 Brottman and Brottman pg. 93 provides a well laid out description of the myth of the
noble freak and ethnographic research that dispels that myth.
83
mirror…hung on the passage wall” (1) and “wished for the thousandth time that she had
blue eyes like Annabel Balch” (1). This passage can be read as simply one of several that
bring forward Charity’s Otherness by way of her complexion. However, the mirrors do
not always show the same swarthy girl when Charity looks into them. Later, in Nettleton,
Charity is still unsure of her own image, but with Harney’s blue brooch she walks out of
the restaurant dressing room “with her head held high” (70). She is taken aback by “the
glow of her face under her cherry-coloured hat, and the curve of her young shoulders
through the transparent muslin” of her dress (70). This progression of reflections
suggests that the mirrors do not always objectively reflect reality but instead reflect a
subjective experience of reality. The reflection motif is not so simply about looks, but
about experiences. In this sense, the reflection motif is more aptly read as a house of
mirrors than simply reflection. As the narrative progresses, the reflections become more
and more distorted. On a boat ride on a lake in Nettleton, the reflection on the water
becomes twisted up with “the inverted tree-tops interwoven with the green growths of the
bottom” (73). Later, while riding back at night to the red house on bicycles, the stars
“looked as faint as their own reflections in water” (96). The reflections are disoriented
and disorientating, mixing up and inverting up and down. Late in the novel, finally
married to Lawyer Royall, Charity looks at the mirror above the dressing table in their
marital suite and sees “the high head-board and fluted pillow-slips of the double bed and
a bedspread so spotlessly white that she had hesitated to lay her hat and jacket on it”
(147). The reflection does not reflect the entirety of the bed tableau. It leaves out the
84
large engraving of a lake scene “full of drowsy midsummer radiance” with two lovers
boating “on a lake overhung with trees” (147) that reminds Charity, cruelly, of her Fourth
of July with Harney. The final reflection is so nightmarish because from Charity’s initial
vantagepoint it only shows the incestual bed and not the engraving that reminds her of
Harney and Nettleton. Ironically, instead of a warped image, Charity is seeing a sliver of
her new reality clearly reflected back to her.
In a similar vein, there are also distinct passages that read like close analogues to
performances. The passages are contained within several pages, not sprawled throughout
the novel, giving them a sense of a limited experience. In this case that limited
experience is one peep show and one cabinet of curiosity. After hearing that Harney is
leaving North Dormer, Charity brazenly leaves the red house at night and muses on
“climbing the hill and plunging into the larch-wood above the pasture” (51). Instead, a
light in Miss Hatchard’s house catches her eye and convinces Charity that Harney is
there. She sneaks over to the house and peeps into the window. Charity sees Harney
trying to sketch “quietly sitting at his drawing-board” (52). In a fit of frustration, Harney
flings away his sketches and sullenly rests his chin on his hands at his desk. “He had
taken off his coat and waistcoat, and unbuttoned the low collar of his flannel shirt” so that
Charity could see “the vigorous lines of his young throat, and the root of the muscles
where they joined the chest” (53). Charity has an unobstructed—though voyeuristic—
view of Harney in his private state of semi-undress. The extreme attention to detail,
looking in at the connections of his muscles, suggests that Charity is not just looking at
85
him but studying him and his body. In a gender reversal, Charity is peeping backstage at
Harney hoping to catch a glimpse of him undressed just as several circuses would often
have a “‘Gentlemen Only’ ‘cooch’ show” where they “could pay an extra twenty-five
cents to stand in a small enclosed area watch” so that “they might see nude women”
(Davis 5, 126, 5). Instead, Charity is the voyeur looking in on Harney.14 Another scene
closely resembling a performance is Charity’s visit to Dr. Merkle’s office after she first
discovers that she is pregnant by Harney. The office begins with a “Stuffed fox on his
hind legs proffer[ing] a brass card-tray to visitors” (Wharton 117). The rooms are full of
“gold-framed photographs of showy young women” and Dr. Merkle herself is dressed
extravagantly in a “rich black dress, with gold chains and charms hanging from her
bosom” (117). The whole room gives off the air of a cabinet of curiosity. The stuffed
fox done up like a greeter resembles any one of Barnum’s humbugs while the over-
whelming number of pictures and chains and charms—not to mention the that Dr. Merkle
“get[s] so many things of that kind” (150)—suggests that Dr. Merkle is a collector of
some kind. Though she might not collect deformed specimens, she does collect and
showcase the girls she works on and the collateral they put up for their abortions.
Similarly, it would not be too far of a stretch to suggest that Dr. Merkle’s office is a kind
of medical sideshow, one like the “wax venus” shows of medical models of women used
14 Davis does discuss “female impersonators” and several gag cooch tent performances in
which audiences were duped into watching men perform; see ch. 5 in The Circus Age.
For a more in-depth discussion of semi-nude male performances see David Huxley’s
“Music Hall Art: La Milo, Nudity, and the Pose Plastique 1905-1915”
86
ostensibly to explain medical procedures and educate audiences on the dangers of sex.
These shows combined science and pornography into one show, much the way Dr.
Merkle combines her medical practice with gilded displays of her patrons.
Even more obviously, there are numerous actual performances throughout
Summer. In an attempt to run away from the red house, Charity leaves North Dormer and
along the road comes across a gospel tent that she initially mistakes for a circus tent in
town for the Fourth of July. When the preacher asks Charity to repent and lay her sins
before God, she quickly derides him and says “[she] only wish’t [she] had any to lay”
(84). The exchange is brief but important. On a much larger scale is the North Dormer
Old Home Week,15 a big production featuring songs, dances, speeches, and a town dance.
Though Charity takes part in the production work and has a part on the stage, it is Lawyer
Royall who takes over most of the actual performance. His oration transfixes the crowd
in the stuffy town hall, and even when the set breaks apart and Charity faints from the
heat the crowd cannot help but remember Lawyer Royall’s speech. However, it is the
Nettleton Fourth of July that is the biggest and most spectacular performance of them all.
While the rest of the performances happen sporadically or are so diffused as to be almost
imperceptible, the Nettleton Fourth of July is one large scene of performance after
performance that congeals into one dizzying site similar to a fair midway. Though it
might be surprising to see a whole town done up like a fair midway, the idea of a leisure
15 For more on Home Weeks and historical pageants, see David Glassberg’s American
Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early Twentieth Century
87
park at the end of a short train ride was not something unheard of in the early twentieth
century. In plotting the history of the roller coaster, Dana Anderson discusses how “the
proliferation of attractions such as coasters and assorted carnival rides materialized from
the commercial exchange between trolley companies and the power syndicates which
provided their electricity” (4). Trolley companies seeking to make money on weekends
when they were still being charged for electricity would build parks at the end of their
trolley lines to attract people onto the trolleys: “Investors descended upon gardens, parks,
and other typical bucolic leisure locales and enlivened them with enough shows and rides
to pique the interest of the most sedentary families” (4). Again, there are several types of
performances throughout the Nettleton Fourth of July, some obviously performances and
some analogues to performances. As discussed earlier, there is the boat ride that Charity
and Harney take on the lake. There are also several food options just off the main street,
one of which is discussed as the house of mirrors previously. Charity and Harney see a
movie where “all the world has to show seemed to pass before” Charity (Wharton 72).
Upon leaving the movie, Charity and Harney climb into an electric run-about. The driver
offers to take them to the ballgame, which is happening on the outskirts of the town.
Charity and Harney stay in Nettleton for the fireworks show: “From every point of the
horizon, gold and silver arches sprang up and crossed each other [and] sky-orchards
broke into blossom, shed their flaming petals and hung their branches with golden fruit”
(76). Despite the dazzling fireworks display, Charity is even more excited to see that on
the lake is a boat done up as a set piece of “Washington crossing the Delaware” (76), an
88
example proving that tableaux were not extinct. In between the fireworks, “the velvet
darkness settle[s] down” around the crowd (76). Charity and Harney are watching all of
this on a set of bleachers, Harney one seat above Charity with his knees around her. In
the darkness, Harney clasps Charity’s head with both his hands, draws it backwards, and
kisses her, revealing to Charity “an unknown Harney…[one] who dominated her and yet
over whom she felt herself possessed of a new mysterious power” (77). The fireworks
display can be read as a kind of dark ride, where riders are led through a cavernous tunnel
full of wonders or horrors. Besides the obvious entertainment, “a significant purpose…is
to provide a cover of darkness for activities on the part of its riders” since the darkness of
the ride “gives opportunity for an immediate change to behaviors which are socially
unacceptable in other [brighter] contexts” (Kwaitek 10, 127). Harney, sensing the liberty
of the darkness around him, takes his chance and kisses Charity. However, the dark ride
also narrativizes the experience it provides riders, often using either kitschy love
symbolism or supposedly horrific hell symbolism. Unfortunately for Charity, the
Nettleton dark ride uses hell symbolism in the form of a drunken Lawyer Royall.
As the couple tries to leave on a boat heading up the lake, they run into Julia
Hawes again, a scandalized woman from North Dormer who was rumored to have visited
Dr. Merkle and fallen into a life of ill repute. She ominously tells Charity that the Fourth
of July was “a family party” (Wharton 77). From behind Julia Hawes comes Lawyer
Royall, drunkenly trying to steady “himself on the hand-rail in a desperate effort at
erectness” (78). He moves a bit closer to Charity and Harney and, drawing “himself up
89
in the tremulous majesty of drunkenness” (78), declares for all to hear that Charity a
“bare-headed whore” (78). And this is ultimately why the world of Summer is a circus
and not a carnival, because Lawyer Royall is everywhere exerting and declaring his
power. He is the ringleader, the P.T. Barnum to the world of Summer.16 Not only does
he show up at Nettleton in Charity’s happiest moment, he shows up throughout the novel
to direct the events even though he is rarely seen. Looking back towards the beginning of
the novel, Miss Hatchard has to consult the select-men of North Dormer when Charity
asks for another woman in the house or a job to earn enough money to leave (16).
Ultimately, Charity is gifted both a female maid and the job by Lawyer Royall, who
declares Charity the next librarian of the Honorius Hatchard Memorial Library. Later,
Lawyer Royall gifts Charity the money he makes from renting his buggy to Harney. It is
Lawyer Royall who resides over the Old Home Week. It is Lawyer Royall who shows up
at Nettleton. It is Lawyer Royall who shows up at the dilapidated old house the young
couple uses for their trysts. And ultimately it is Lawyer Royall who saves Charity. After
confirming her pregnancy, Charity writes the absent Harney and gives him permission to
marry his true sweetheart, Annabel Balch. Without anything to keep her in North
Dormer, Charity decides that she will have her baby in her ancestral home, on the
Mountain. On her trek up the mountain, Charity is caught in a storm and so must ride
with the town preacher up the Mountain. To her surprise the preacher is going up the
16 For a further discussion of the power that Lawyer Royall holds of Charity and North
Dormer, please see William E. Hummel’s “‘My Dull-Witted Enemy’: Symbolic Violence
and Abject Maleness.”
90
Mountain to watch over Charity’s mother, who is on her death bed. Charity makes it just
in time to see her mother pass. Charity stays the night on the Mountain to wait out the
storm, but the conditions are so rough, and Charity has eaten so little that she can barely
even stand in the morning. In fact, she can barely even think. In her stupor, she is
rescued by Lawyer Royall, who was alerted by the preacher and travelled all night to
reach the Mountain. However, in her stupor, Charity is little more than a walking corpse,
little more than the real-life freak Julia Pastrana or the supposedly 161-year-old ex-slave
Joice Heth, still posing at the commands of her exhibitors even in death. Perhaps most
disturbingly, we are paralyzed in the face of Lawyer Royall’s actions. In these final
moments, the narrative is focused through Charity. The abundance of ellipses in the
stream of the narration suggests that it mirrors Charity’s thoughts. And so, we are,
narratively speaking, in close proximity to her. Instead of some grandiose, kaleidoscopic
circus entertainment, we are seated front and center to the exhibition of Charity’s death-
in-life performance, so close, in fact, that we can see Lawyer Royall directing, or rather
manipulating, Charity. The food that Lawyer Royall secures for them after coming back
down the Mountain helps her to “feel like a living being again” (141), except that “the
return to life was so painful that the food choked in her throat” (142). Charity’s
“consciousness [grows] more and more confused and immaterial, [becomes] more and
more like the universal shimmer that dissolves the world to failing eyes” (143).
However, she is still somewhat alive with the feeling that “if she ceased to keep close to
[Lawyer Royall], and do what [Lawyer Royall] told her to do, the worlds would slip
91
away from beneath her feet” (146). In order to keep herself alive, Charity submits and
gives Lawyer Royall what he has been lusting after since the beginning of the novel: she
marries Lawyer Royall. The freak can never really escape the circus.
92
Chapter 4
STRIKING THE SET:
CONLCUSIONS AND NOTES FOR FURTHER READINGS AND VIEWINGS
I would like to conclude by more deeply exploring the reading of The Blithedale
Romance and Summer I have just provided. I examined Blithedale for traces of tableaux
vivant within the narrative and Summer for traces of freakshow. My goal, in doing this
reading, is to argue that visual culture and literary culture evolved hand-in-hand on one
cultural timeline. In a way, I glanced backward, like Wharton, to explore this new,
unified timeline of entertainment culture. Where Wharton was concerned with
geography and genre, I was concerned with how each author was influenced by his and
her era’s visual and entertainment landscape. Wharton’s argument has its own logic and
narrative, tracing a genealogical line backwards from herself to Hawthorne, her generic
predecessor. I have done something similar, looking back at two points, i.e. the two
novels, to suggest that there is, indeed, a singular, unified timeline of American
entertainment culture, one that addresses both visual and literary culture together. As Jan
Alber argues, I have looked backwards and “made a narrative by the sheer act of
imposing a narrative on” the history of Hawthorne, Wharton, and American literary and
entertainment culture. Hayden White’s discussion of narrative and recorded history helps
to explain why, after providing my reading, I want to more deeply explore my reading of
the two novels, the two authors, and the two entertainments. According to White,
different kinds of historical records have different degrees of narrativity. The annal is
93
simply a sequence of events that lists events by date without any comment on their
significance, and the chronicle begins to narrativize dates and events but is “usually
marked by a failure to achieve narrative closure” (9). A history, on the other hand,
provides a fully realized narrative account of events. And if a history is a story, and
If every fully realized story, however we define that familiar but conceptually
elusive entity, is a kind of allegory, points to a moral, or endows events, whether
real or imaginary, with a significance that they do not possess as a mere sequence,
then it seems possible to conclude that every historical narrative has as its latent
or manifest purpose the desire to moralize the events of which it treats. (White 17-
18)
The desire to moralize, for White, is the desire “to identify [events] with the social
system that is the source of any morality we can imagine,” or put differently,
narrativizing, as a moralizing act, glues together real events and social meaning (18). In
other words, to create a narrative out of disparate events is not simply a nonchalant
activity, but instead is a complex rhetorical act, one that is brought about by the desire for
significance and that alters our understanding of events, of “reality, not by direct
application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality
through the mediation of thought and action” (Bitzer 4). If historical narratives are
rhetorical, it follows that we should “examine [historical] narratives and other
communicative acts in the pragmatic context of the intent of their producers” (Nielson et
al 64). I have done this with Coverdale in Chapter One and have done this, to an extent,
94
with Wharton’s autobiography in the Introduction. I propose to do this to myself, here, as
well.
I would like to think that this project has some affinity with Coverdale, making
much out of a seemingly trivial, small phrase. I have, after all, built this project from one
passage in Wharton’s autobiography. In doing so, I believe that I, like Coverdale, have
come to see both “the narrative potential of life” and that “events do not offer themselves
as stories” (Ryan 377, White 8). We, as “spectators” of events, have each “construct[ed]
a narrative structure as a way to rationalize” the events we have witnessed. However, I
like to think that I have been more forthcoming with my motives than Coverdale. My
goal was always to suture each novel to its respective moment in the history of visual
culture. In doing so, I have identified the novel (the event, as White would say) with a
social system, both the novel’s own social system (albeit strictly of entertainments) and
my own social system of New Historical literary criticism. My purpose—as I found
during the writing of large portions of this project—in doing this twice to novels sixty-
five years apart is to develop a valid and credible evolutionary narrative. Here, I would
like to also consider the reliability of the way of reading that I present in this novel. That
is to say, that I wonder what would happen if a similar reading to mine was conducted
with a novel and entertainment further down the timeline. I wonder if, and how, a recent
novel might reveal a similar relationship between literature and visual culture and how a
recent novel might further our understanding of the evolution of literary and visual
culture.
95
I would like to dig further into this notion of evolution. Though I suggest that my
timeline is an evolutionary timeline, I would argue as well that it maps more than just the
evolution of Romantic literature and/or visual culture. Instead, it might be more accurate
to use the term “ecological” evolution, or a broad study of the interaction between
individual cultural objects and their human and physical environments. This notion of
“ecology,” even loosely applied as it is here, provides a deeper understanding of my
project. In terms of ecology, to view a novel in isolation would be to examine it as an
induvial. Wharton, in her glance backward to Hawthorne, was looking at her literary
work in relation to Hawthorne’s literary work as a population of similar individuals (i.e.
novels). To view an individual (the novel) in relation to a different kind of individual
(tableaux vivant) would be to study a community of interrelated types (of entertainment).
To then study those communities in relation to every other community and to every other
cultural artefact would be something like the project of New Historicism, seeking out the
extended web of connections between even the most mundane cultural artefacts. Indeed,
my project limits its discussion to a community of entertainments, but it also considers
the ways in which consumers consume and producers produce entertainment. To view
either novel or either performance in isolation would be to ignore the complex
relationships between entertainments that existed in those historical moments. To view
those relationships only in one moment would ignore the dynamism of entertainment. To
ignore the ways in which audiences viewed entertainments and the ways showbusiness
shaped entertainments ignores potential cultural and economic understandings of each
96
era. For example, as mentioned in the Introduction, tableaux vivant existed as several
different performances at the same moment and even infiltrated literary and magazine
writing, and to ignore that would be to ignore the complex interrelated media landscape
of Hawthorne’s world. Further, to ignore the lineage of the freakshow, specifically its
roots in tableaux, would be to ignore the audience/performer dichotomy specific to the
freakshow and to several scenes in Summer. Ignoring showmen like P.T. Barnum, whose
work spanned the era between Hawthorne and Wharton, and his penchant for
manipulating each entertainment to lure in his patrons would be to ignore a significant
aspect of the history of entertainment.
Of course, the full extent of this complexity is incredibly difficult to record in one
definitive source. Too, this project does not intend to act as the definitive source for
recording the full extent of the complexity of ay era. This project only uses Blithedale
and Summer as evidence of that complexity. This is not to say that the novel is some
zenith of entertainment or some paragon of artistry. Instead, this is to say that the novel,
as a dialogic medium, can and does have the unique ability to carry multiple, often
contradictory elements in its narrative. In other words, the novel is a medium that can
represent multiple versions of tableaux vivant or freakshow within the text itself. The
novel is, then, a kind of archive in which to study Hawthorne’s and Wharton’s eras, one
that enables a reading like mine to happen at all. However, this project also considers
how communities of entertainments change over time. Again, the Introduction lays out
how tableaux evolved from parlor theatrics for bourgeois Europeans into the circus
97
freakshow. Thankfully, Wharton explained the connection between herself and
Hawthorne. However, if this evolutionary stance is to be considered reliable, then one
should be able to extend both the visual cultural timeline and the literary cultural timeline
forward beyond the freakshow and Wharton respectively. Having done that, one should
also be able to take a novel from somewhere on that extended timeline and conduct the
same experiment I have: suturing together the visual and literary entertainment timelines
through a close reading of a novel. Indeed, both timelines do extend beyond the limits of
this project.
There is a through line from tableaux vivant to freakshows to cinema, one that
necessarily includes the circus. Thought the circus is maybe not “dialogic” in the same
sense as a novel, it did contain multitudes of entertainments under a common producer’s
name. Indeed, it is “well-documented by both film and circus historians that cinema
shared not only its subject matter but its first venues with fairgrounds and circuses, so the
audiences were often literally the same” (Stoddart 3). Vanessa Toulmin explores this
relationship between film and circus travelling shows in Britain, where “bioscope” or
“Theatrograph” operators first appeared in 1896 and played to provincial audiences and
music hall patrons alike (219). These early films had motifs that clearly point to their
genealogy. In their examination of the early films of Georges Méliès, Vito Adriaensens
and Steven Jacobs point to “films made shortly before and after 1900 [that] often make
explicit the contrast between the new medium of film and the traditional arts by means of
the motif of the statue or the painting coming to life” (41). In other words, early
98
filmmakers had an affinity for tableaux vivant. By filming a perfectly still model, the
film maker could make it seem like the statue had come to life. Since this was before
major advances in editing, the trick shot could be easily completed without much special
direction. Helen Stoddart, on the other hand, explores the relation between circus and
cinema, in general and in America, noting that early films tended to favor circus
performances because they were so spectacular. Early circus films simply recorded the
circus act “for its own sake” (Stoddart 3). The clunky film technology often kept film
from fully embracing the “colorful, fast-moving, and spatially dynamic acts of the circus”
(Stoddart 6). However, Stoddart points to films made after 1913 that “began to move
away from pure exhibitionism to ‘narrativisation’ and thus…from attempts to show or
capture circus acts to telling stories about them” (6). Stoddart sees this move towards
narrativization as a move towards using editing techniques to mimic the movements of
circus performances, relying on editing to show the trick or tumble instead of simply
recording and displaying the act itself.
Daniel Weigand takes a slightly different approach, examining the cultural impact
of early cinema, specifically how cinema “reformers” and variety theatre “reformers”
shared similar ideologies and both fit into larger reform movements of the time.
According to Weigand, “like the cinema reformers, the variety reformers were concerned
with elevating forms of entertainment that originated among and addressed the lower
classes—such as circus shows—in order to lend them a semblance of art for middle-class
audiences” (15). In the above example, the traces of tableaux vivant’s early, moralistic
99
practices can be found in early cinema, as cinema itself was viewed as a similar tool for
moral improvement. Looking much further beyond the eras covered in the project,
tableaux can still be seen in modern film. Judit Pieldner explores magical realism in
Hungarian and Romanian cinema and how that cinema uses tableaux vivant to create a
sense of the fantastical. Pieldner even begins her exploration in Hungarian prose works
of the 1990s. For Pieldner, the aesthetic of a tableau lends itself to the magic realist
mode, as both are concerned with “excess…saturation and density” of images and the
“dialogue between the ‘real’ and its artistic rendition” (99). With so much of the circus
and variety theatre still present in modern cinema, it is easy enough to say that these early
entertainment types have “spilled over into and, indeed, have been significantly extended
by the mechanized and technologically complex twentieth- and twenty-first-century
popular pleasures of cinema” (Stoddart 1). In other words, they have not vanished so
much as they have influenced and, in some cases, been subsumed by more modern,
technological entertainments.
However, the legacies of circus and tableaux are fairly innocuous. The
freakshow, on the other hand, has a more troubled legacy. There is, of course, the 1932
film Freaks directed by Tod Browning, director of 1931’s Dracula. Freaks was
controversial on its release because it cast real freakshow performers as its main
characters. Joan Hawkins quotes a 1932 audience member’s review of Freaks as a movie
“so loathsome I am nauseated thinking about it” (143). Indeed, the bodily grotesque and
horror of Freaks can still be found in many horror movies. The films of David
100
Cronenberg and Guillermo Del Toro each revel in the same bodily horror and grotesque
of Freaks, their shock and horror coming from the display of their freakish monsters.
Mikita and David Brottman draw a more formal through line from freakshows to modern
entertainment. On the one hand, they see a very prominent role for freaks “in the
clandestine outlets of subculture, such as hard-core pornography” (106). Less
sensationally, they also see the freakshow present in “human interest documentaries”
about exceptional humans, in late-night talk shows that display tragic human interest
stories for the audience’s “perverse voyeurism in the guise of thoughtful and
understanding sensitivity” (95), and in the tabloids and punk culture of the 1990s.
Brottman and Brottman also make an interesting case for ethnographic freakshows
showing up in academic discussions of tribal peoples who “are isolated in the ‘zoos’ of
research papers” (94). Too, they point to sensational “mondo ‘documentaries,’” like
those found on supposedly educational television networks, “with their ‘realistic’
depictions of bizarre human behavior and strange cultural practices” (94). The many
iterations of the freakshow are still present though they have “been (unhealthily)
repressed, or else channeled into popular cultural outlets” (106). Like tableaux, the
freakshow is still very much with us today.
Too the literary timeline can be extended beyond Wharton herself. Susan
Goodman argues that “Wharton wanted to be remembered in two traditions: one of
mostly male English and European prose masters, the other of fascinating women” (16).
However, that tradition, in genre at least, includes the likes of the fascinating American
101
prose master F. Scott Fitzgerald, who, like Wharton, wrote from the notion that “the most
significant kind of reality is to be found in the observed manners of the immediate social
group” (Way vii-viii). For Brian Way, the “subtle artistry” of Wharton’s and Fitzgerald’s
fictions, the way both fictions examine “the point where a character’s inner life and
[their] social life blend together,” suggest that Fitzgerald should be viewed in the shadow
of Wharton. Way even mentions the actual moment that Fitzgerald stood in Wharton’s
shadow, sending copies of The Great Gatsby to Wharton for her to review and the
subsequent meeting over tea. If one takes Wharton’s other initial criteria from her
autobiography, namely geography, then Goodman’s discussion of the expatriate artist
community in France is instructive. Goodman’s understanding is that “Wharton may
have come [to France] more as a supplicant to the French aristocrats and academicians on
the Right Bank and [Gertrude] Stein as a pasha to the American artists and collectors on
the Left” (118). It was “the salon [that] gave them both a stage” from which to minister
to their artistic circles (118). Wharton shared her expatriate experience with many
American artists of the time and should be seen in light of that movement. The line from
Hawthorne, however, is similarly laid out. Samuel Coale, in his book-length work In
Hawthorne’s Shadow, sees Hawthorne as the prime example of American Romance
fiction. Coale argues that Hawthorne “the romancer,” in his attempt “to lure the reader
into his dark art,” “must create a spell” with his fiction (9). Coale sees the same
“spellbinding” qualities in “[William] Faulkner’s winding sentences, [John] Cheever’s
dark corners, [Joyce Carol] Oates’s breathless prose, and [Joan] Didion’s chantlike style
102
of incantation” (9). Coale also argues that the “Manichean vision” of Hawthorne’s work
was perhaps most prevalently replicated in the fiction of the 1960s. More interestingly,
Coale sees Hawthorne’s works as diametrically opposed to “novels of character” by
authors like Saul Bellow, Philip Roth, John Updike, and Paul Theroux. Instead, novelists
who “write fables of vision in which characters are subordinated to the author’s more
public visions of society in general, of a world in arbitrary flux, a wasteland, a realm of
ultimate conspiracy” more closely resemble Hawthorne’s work. These modern
romanticists, according to Coale, include Thomas Pynchon, John Hawkes, and E.L.
Doctorow. Emily Miller Budick, in her study of female Romance authors Engendering
Romance, similarly sees Hawthorne’s legacy carried on by female authors, specifically
citing Wharton but also Carson McCullers, Flannery O’Connor, and Toni Morrison.
Again, if this project is reliable, one should be able to take a novel and a popular
visual entertainment from the above timelines and see evidence of that visual
entertainment within the novel. It is important to stress that this action, connecting a
novel to a visual entertainment, connects an event with a social system. Perhaps this
project is connecting “novel reading” in a general sense with a specific sense of media
communities and New Historical criticism of this current moment. This current moment
includes media phenomena like “extended universes,” right- and left-wing media spheres,
and even fully immersive or interactive media. It would seem that the “extended
universe” model, where a story unfolds over movies, tv shows, comics, novels, web
shorts, and so on, would be (deliberately and knowingly) made for a wide-ranging
103
analysis of the kind practiced by New Historicists. However, I would caution that an
examination of deliberately multimedia storylines is actually incompatible with this
project. Instead, a more compatible reading would be to examine how multimedia
“universes” have shaped fictional narratives and narrativity. I would also caution that
there are certain elements of my current moment that this project only touches on for the
sake of space. As Brodhead argues, Hawthorne and Coverdale represent a new form of
audience, one that sits quietly and observes. The nature of the audience shifts slightly in
Chapter Two with my analysis of the freakshow to an audience who deduces. Extending
this project to include recent history might be better served by exploring in more detail
what the audience is constructed to be (or instructed to do) by current entertainments.
However, Brodhead’s work also suggests that, if there was a new way for an audience to
gaze upon entertainment, then there must be some new understanding of gazing itself.
Performance thus became a phenomenon not simply isolated on a stage but rather one
suffused into the culture. In examining a recent novel, considerations of recent cultural
understandings and usages of “performance” might prove fruitful.
This brings to light another potential outcome of this project, this time concerning
the theoretical approach. Performance studies and studies of performativity attend to
issues of gaze, culture, and objects of the gaze. However, the trend in the performance
studies literature seems to be for performance studies to ignore any agent who controls
the performance and thus controls how that performance is viewed and interpreted. In
other words, performance studies seems to ignore the director. As far as this project is
104
concerned, performance in Blithedale and Summer suggests that the entirety of the
performance should be considered because the performance is directed by someone.
Coverdale directs the “creatures of his brain” in tableaux, and Lawyer Royall is revealed
to be directing the action of North Dormer. Too, in Summer an unnamed narrator
infiltrates the narrative to direct the audience’s understanding of the events and
characters. These directors are not apolitical. They have motives and agendas and they
have the power to enact those motives. Despite Tracy C. Davis’s admonition, this project
suggests that the performative metaphor should be extended beyond its current
boundaries to include the whole machine of performance including the director. This
project makes a similar, though less passionate, case for including physical space into the
performative metaphor as well. Performance studies already attends to space but only
when that space is the performance. As David Turnbull argues, people perform space as
they move through and interact with space. The tableaux and the freakshow, and their
descendants in film too, each deliberately use the physical attributes of their exhibition
space to heighten their performance. From competing tableaux and freakshow exhibits
on the same city block to special lighting techniques and stagecraft in the performance
halls, each performance uses physical space for the performance itself. This project also
implies a question of degree of performativity. Indeed, Blithedale is far and away more
obviously influenced by performance than Summer. The amount of critical literature on
Blithedale’s infatuation with performance—and the lack of the same for Summer—
supports this premise. It would seem, then, that Blithedale could be considered more
105
performative than Summer, or at least it more readily lends itself to a performance studies
reading. Marie-Laure Ryan suggests that novels can be categorized by their degree and
kind of narrativity. Perhaps novels—anywhere on the unified timeline of American
entertainment culture—can also be categorized by their degree and kind of performativity
as well. Finally, this project brings into consideration what happens if reading is
understood as gazing. Alber argues that audiences make sense of live performances by
narrativizing them. This project flips that, asking instead what happens with readers
make sense of a novel by watching it like a performance.
106
WORKS CITED
Adams, Bluford. “‘A Stupendous Mirror of Departed Empires’: The Barnum
Hippodromes and Circuses, 1874—1891.” American Literary History, vol. 8, no.
1, Spring 1996, pp. 34-56. JSTOR.
Adriaensens, Vito and Steven Jacobs. “The Sculptor’s Dream: Tableaux Vivants and
Living Statues in the Films of Méliès and Saturn.” Early Popular Visual Culture,
vol. 13, no. 1, 2015, pp. 41-65. Routledge.
Alber, Jan. “Narratology and Performativity: On Processes of Narrativization in Live
Performances.” Narrative, vol. 25, no. 3, October 2017, pp. 359-373). Project
Muse.
Anderson, Dana. “Sign, Space, and Story: Roller Coasters and the Evolution of a Thrill.”
Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 3, no. 22, Autumn 1999, pp. 1-22. Ebsco.
Assael, Brenda. “Art or Indecency? Tableaux Vivants on the London Stage and the
Failure of Late Victorian Moral Reform.” Journal of British Studies, vol. 45, no.
4, October 2006, pp. 744-758. Cambridge University Press Online.
Bigne, J. Enrique, Luisa Andreu, and Juergen Gnoth. “The Theme Park Experience: An
Analysis of Pleasure, Arousal and Satisfaction.” Tourism Management, vol. 26,
no. 6, pp. 833-844. ScienceDirect Journals.
Bitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy & Rhetoric, vol. 1, no. 1, January
1968, pp. 1-14. JSTOR.
107
Bogdan, Robert. “The Exhibition of Humans with Differences for Amusement and
Profit.” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 15, no. 3, March 1987, pp. 537-550. Wiley
Online Library.
Boone, Joseph A. “Vacation Cruises: Or, the Homoerotics of Orientalism.” Special
Topics in Colonialism and the Postcolonial Condition, a special edition of PMLA,
vol. 110, no. 1, January 1995, pp. 89-107. JSTOR.
Brodhead, Richard H. “Veiled Ladies: Towards a History of Antebellum Entertainment.”
A Norton Critical Edition of The Blithedale Romance by Nathaniel Hawthorne,
edited by Richard H. Millington, W.W. Norton & Co., 2011, pp. 330-349.
Brottman, Mikita and David Brottman. “Return of the Freakshow: Carnival
(De)Formations in Contemporary Culture.” Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 18,
no. 2, April 1996, pp. 89-107. JSTOR.
Budick, Emily Miller. Engendering Romance: Women Writers and the Hawthorne
Tradition 1850-1990. Yale University Press, 1994.
Bussels, Stijn. “Making the Most of Theatre and Painting: The Power of Tableaux
Vivants in Joyous Entries from the Southern Netherlands (1458-1635).” Art
History, vol. 33, no. 2, April 2010, pp. 236-247. Wiley Online Library.
Carlson, Patricia Ann. Hawthorne’s Functional Settings: A Study of Artistic Method.
Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1977.
108
Carmeli, Yoram S. “The Invention of Circus and Bourgeois Hegemony: A Glace at
British Circus Books.” Journal of Popular Culture, vol. 29, no. 1, June 1995, pp.
213-221. Wiley Online Library.
Chapman, Mary. “‘Living Pictures’: Women and Tableaux Vivants in Nineteenth-
Century American Fiction and Culture.” Wide Angle, vol. 18, no. 3, July 1996,
pp. 22-52. ProjectMUSE, doi:10.1353/wan.1996.0016
Coale, Samuel Chase. In Hawthorne’s Shadow: American Romance from Melville to
Mailer. University of Kentucky Press, 1985.
---. “The Romance of Mesmerism: Hawthorne’s Medium of Romance.” Studies in the
American Renaissance, 1994, pp. 271-288. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stabe/30227659.
Davis, Janet M. The Circus Age: Culture & Society Under the American Big Top. The
University of North Carolina Press Chapel Hill, 2002.
Davis, Tracy C. “Introduction: The Pirouette, Detour, Revolution, Deflection,
Deviations, Tack, and Yaw of the Performative Turn.” The Cambridge
Companion to Performance Studies, edited by Tracy C. Davis, Cambridge
University Press, 2008, pp. 1-8. Cambridge Companion Online.
Dugdale, John. Explanatory Notes. The Blithedale Romance, by Nathaniel Hawthorne,
edited by Tony Tanner, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. vii-xli. Oxford
World’s Classics.
109
Durbach, Nadja. “‘Skinless Wonders’: Body Worlds and the Victorian Freak Show.”
Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, vol. 69, no. 1, January
2014, pp. 38-67. Oxford Academic.
Durrant, Abigail, et al. “Pursuing Leisure: Reflections on Theme Park Visiting.”
Computer Supported Cooperative Work, vol. 21, no. 1, 2012, pp. 43-79.
SpringerLink Journals.
Elbert, Monika M. “Striking a Historical Pose: Antebellum Tableaux Vivants, ‘Godey’s’
Illustrations, and Margret Fuller’s Heroines.” The New England Quarterly, vol.
75, no. 2, June 2002, pp. 235-275. JSTOR.
Fahy, Thomas. Freak Shows and the Modern American Imagination: Constructing the
Damaged Body from Willa Cather, to Truman Capote. Palgrave Macmillan,
2006.
Fedorko, Kathy A. Gender and the Gothic in the Fiction of Edith Wharton. The
University of Alabama Press, 1995.
Frederickx, Sofie, et al. “The Relationship Between Arousal and the Remembered
Duration of Positive Events.” Applied Cognitive Psychology, vol. 27, no. 4, July
2013, pp. 993-496. Wiley Online Library.
Glassberg, David. American Historical Pageantry: The Uses of Tradition in the Early
Twentieth Century. University of North Carolina Press, 1990.
Goodman, Susan. Edith Wharton’s Inner Circle. University of Texas Press, 1994.
110
Grafton, Kathy. “Degradation and Forbidden Love in Edith Wharton’s Summer.”
Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 41, no. 4, Winter 1995, pp. 350-366. JSTOR.
Grimsted, David. Melodrama Unveiled; American Theater & Culture 1800-1850.
University of Chicago Press, 1968.
Harris, Kenneth Marc. Hypocrisy and Self-Deception in Hawthorne’s Fiction.
University Press of Virginia, 1988.
Hawkins, Joan. Cutting Edge: Art-Horror and the Horrific Avant-Garde. University of
Minnesota Press, 2000. ProQuest Ebook Central.
Hawthorne, Nathaniel. The Blithedale Romance. Edited by Annette Kolodny, Penguin
Classics, 1983.
Hoeller, Hildegard. “Freaks and the American Dream: Horatio Alger, P.T. Barnum and
the Art of the Humbug.” Studies in American Fiction, vol. 34, no. 2, Autumn
2006, pp. 189-214. Project Muse.
Hoffman, Kathryn A. “Sleeping Beauties in the Fairground: The Spitzner, Pedley and
Chemisé Exhibits.” Early Popular Culture, vol. 4, no. 2, July 2006, pp. 139-159.
Ebsco.
Hovet, Grade Ann and Theodore R. Hovet. “Tableaux Vivants: Masculine Vision and
Feminine Reflections in Novels by Warner, Alcott, Stowe, and Wharton.”
Humanities International Complete, vol. 7, no. 4, Dec 1993. Ebsco.
111
Hummel, William E. “My ‘Dull-Witted Enemy’: Symbolic Violence and Abject
Maleness in Edith Wharton’s Summer.” Studies in American Fiction, vol. 24, no.
2, Autumn 1996, pp. 215-236. Project MUSE.
Huxley, David. “Music Hall Art: La Milo, Nudity, and the Pose Plastique 1905-1915.”
Early Popular Visual Culture, vol. 11, no. 3 , 2013, pp. 218-236. Ebsco.
King, W. D. “‘Shadow of a Mesmeriser’: The Female Body on the ‘Dark’ Stage.”
Theatre Journal, vol. 49, no. 2, May 1997, pp. 189-206. JSTOR,
www.jstor.org/stable/3208681.
Kochanek, Lisa A. “Reframing the Freak: From Sideshow to Science.” Victorian
Periodicals Review, vol. 30, no. 3, Fall 1997, pp. 227-243. JSTOR.
Kolodny, Annette. Introduction and Notes. The Blithedale Romance, edited by Annette
Kolodny, Penguin Classics, 1983, pp. vii-xxx, 249-260.
Kwaitek, Brandon. The Dark Ride. 1995. Western Kentucky University, Master’s
thesis.
Lash, Scott. “Performativity or Discourse? An Interview with John Searle.” Theory,
Culture, and Society, vol. 32, no. 3, 2015, pp. 135-147. SAGE.
Levi, Steven C. “P.T. Barnum and the Feejee Mermaid.” Western Folklore, vol. 36, no.
2, April 1977, pp. 149-154. JSTOR.
Levine, Robert S. “Sympathy and Reform in The Blithedale Romance.” The Cambridge
Companion to Nathaniel Hawthorne, edited by Richard H. Millington, Cambridge
University Press, 2004, pp. 207-229. Cambridge Companions Online.
112
Lewis, Robert M. “Tableaux Vivants: Parlor Theatricals in Victorian America.” Revue
Francaise d’etudes Americaines, no.36, April 1988, pp. 280-291. JSTOR.
Lyng, Stephen. “Edgework: A Social Psychological Analysis of Voluntary Risk Taking.”
American Journal of Sociology, vol. 95, no. 4, January 1990, pp. 851-886.
JSTOR.
Martin, Michael S. “‘I saw a concourse of strange figures’: The Masque, Voyeurism, and
Coverdale’s Self-Consciousness in The Blithedale Romance.” Nathaniel
Hawthorne Review, vol. 40, no. 2, Fall 2014, pp. 85-102. EbscoHost.
McCollough, Jack W. Living Pictures on the New York Stage. UMI Research Press,
1983.
McIsaac, Peter. “Rethinking Tableaux Vivants and Triviality in the Writing of Johann
Wolfgang von Goethe, Johanna Schopenhauer, and Fanny Lewald.” Monatshefte,
vol. 99, no. 2, Summer 2007, pp. 152-176. Project Muse.
Millington, Richard H. “American Anxiousness: Selfhood and Culture in The Blithedale
Romance.” A Norton Critical Edition of The Blithedale Romance by Nathaniel
Hawthorne, edited by Richard H. Millington, W.W. Norton & Co., 2011, pp. 298-
316
---, editor. The Cambridge Companion to Nathaniel Hawthorne, Cambridge University
Press, 2004. Cambridge Companions Complete Collection.
---, editor. Introduction and Notes. A Norton Critical Edition of The Blithedale
Romance by Nathaniel Hawthorne, W.W. Norton & Co., 2011.
113
Nielson, Henrik Skov et al. “Ten Theses about Fictionality.” Narrative, vol. 23, no. 1,
January 2015, pp. 61-73. Project Muse.
Norris, Margot. “Death by Speculation: Deconstructing the House of Mirth.” The House
of Mirth. Edited by Shari Benstock, Bedford St. Martin’s, 1994, pp. 431-446.
Case Studies in Contemporary Criticism Edition.
Noy, Chaim “‘Look at me! Oh Lord have mercy!’: Images of Roller-Coaster Riders and
the Work of Self-Recognition.” Visual Studies, vol. 32, no. 1, pp. 47-59.
Routledge.
O’Brien, Conan Christopher. The “Old Child” in Faulkner and O’Connor. Harvard,
Master’s thesis.
Patterson, Cynthia Lee. “Performative Morality: Godey’s Match Plates, Nineteenth-
Century Stage Practice, and Social/Political/Economic Commentary in American’
Popular Ladies’ Magazine.” Journal of American Studies, vol. 48, no. 2, 2014,
pp. 613-637. Cambridge University Press Online.
Pieldner, Judit. “Magic Realism, Minimalist Realism and the Figuration of the Tableau
in Contemporary Hungarian and Romanian Cinema.” Acta Universitatis
Sapientiae: Film and Media Studies, vol. 12, no. 1, September 2016, pp. 87-114.
Directory of Open Access Journals.
Rattray, Laura. Introduction. Summer, by Edith Wharton, edited by Laura Rattray,
Oxford University Press, 2015, pp. ix-xxxi. Oxford World’s Classics.
114
Reiss, Benjamin. “P.T. Barnum, Joice Heth and Antebellum Spectacles of Race.”
American Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 1, March 1999, pp. 78-107. JSTOR.
Ridout, Nicholas. “Performance and Democracy.” The Cambridge Companion to
Performance Studies, edited by Tracy C. Davis, Cambridge University Press,
2008, pp. 11-22. Cambridge Companion Online.
Ryan, Marie-Laure. “The Modes of Narrativity and Their Visual Metaphors.” Narrative
in Nice, special issue of Style, vol. 26, no. 3, Fall 1992, pp. 368-387. JSTOR.
Sensibar, Judith L. “Edith Wharton as Propagandist and Novelist,” A Forward Glance:
New Essays on Edith Wharton, edited by Clare Colquitt, et al, University of
Delaware Press, 1999, pp.149-171.
Stoddart, Helen. “The Circus and Early Cinema: Gravity, Narrative, and Machines.”
Studies in Popular Culture, vol. 38, no. 1, Fall 2015, pp. 1-17. JSTOR.
Storey, Mark. “Spectacular Distractions: P.T. Barnum and American Modernism.”
Modernism/modernity, vol. 21, no. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 107-123. Project Muse.
Tanner, Tony. Introduction. The Blithedale Romance, by Nathaniel Hawthorne, edited
by Tony Tanner, Oxford University Press, 2009, pp. vii-xli. Oxford World’s
Classics.
Totten, Gary “‘Inhospitable Spledour’: Spectacles of Consumer Culture and Race in
Wharton’s Summer.” Twentieth Century Literature, vol. 58, no. 1, Spring 2012,
pp. 60-89. JSTOR.
115
Toulmin, Vanessa. “Telling the Tale: The Story of the Fairground Bioscope Shows and
the Showmen Who Operated Them.” Exhibition, special issue of Film History,
vol. 6, no. 2, Summer 1994, pp. 219-237. JSTOR.
Turnbull, David. “Performance and Narrative, Bodies and Movement in the Construction
of Places and Objects, Spaces and Knowledge: The Case of the Maltese
Megaliths.” Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 16, no. 5, 2002, pp. 125-143. Sage.
Wagner-Martin, Linda. “Wharton and Gender.” Wharton in Context, edited by Laura
Rattray, Cambridge University Press, 2012.
Walker, Nancy A. “‘Seduced and Abandoned’: Convention and Reality in Edith
Wharton’s Summer.” Studies in American Fiction, vol. 11, no. 1, Spring 1983,
pp. 107-114. Project Muse.
Weigand, Daniel. “Tableaux Vivants, Early Cinema, and Beauty-as-Attraction.” Acta
Universitatis Sapientiae: Film and Media Studies, vol. 15, no. 1, October 2018,
pp. 9-32. Directory of Open Access Journals.
Weingarten, Karen. “Between the Town and the Mountain: Abortion and the Politics of
Life in Edith Wharton’s Summer.” Canadian Review of American Studies, vol.
40, no. 3, 2010, pp. 351-372. Project Muse.
Wershoven, Carol. The Female Intruder in the Novels of Edith Wharton. Associated
University Presses, 1982.
Wharton, Edith. A Backward Glance. Appletone-Century Co., 1934.
116
---. The House of Mirth. Edited by Shari Benstock, Bedford St. Martin’s, 1994. Case
Studies in Contemporary Criticism.
---. Summer. Edited by Laura Rattray, Oxford University Press, 2015. Oxford World’s
Classics.
White, Craig. “A Utopia of ‘Spheres and Sympothies’: Science and Society in The
Blithedale Romance and at Brook Farm.” Utopian Studies, vol. 9, no. 2, 1998, pp.
78-102. JSTOR.
White, Hayden. “the Value of Narrativity in the Representation of Reality.” Critical
Inquiry, vol. 7, no. 1, On Narrative Autumn 1980, pp. 2-27. JSTOR.
Wineapple, Brenda. “Nathaniel Hawthorne 1804-1864: A Brief Biography.” A
Historical Guide to Nathaniel Hawthorne, edited by Larry J. Reynolds, Oxford
University Press, 2001, pp. 13-45. ProQuest EBook Central.