Orphans and Class Anxiety in Nineteenth-century English Novels

207 Pages·2008·0.67 MB·English

by  Junghan Choi

SSStttooonnnyyy BBBrrrooooookkk UUUnnniiivvveeerrrsssiiitttyyy

The official electronic file of this thesis or dissertation is maintained by the University
Libraries on behalf of The Graduate School at Stony Brook University.

©©© AAAllllll RRRiiiggghhhtttsss RRReeessseeerrrvvveeeddd bbbyyy AAAuuuttthhhooorrr...
Orphans and Class Anxiety in
Nineteenth-century English Novels
A Dissertation Presented
by
Junghan Choi
to
The Graduate School
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
in
English
Stony Brook University
August 2008
Stony Brook University
The Graduate School
Junghan Choi
We, the dissertation committee for the above candidate for the Doctor of
Philosophy degree, hereby recommend acceptance of this dissertation.
Helen M. Cooper – Dissertation Advisor
Associate Professor, English
Susan Scheckel – Chairperson of Defense
Associate Professor, English
Peter J. Manning
Professor, English
Lou Charnon-Deutsch
Professor
Hispanic Languages and Literature
This dissertation is accepted by the Graduate School.
Lawrence Martin
Dean of the Graduate School
ii
Abstract of the Dissertation
Orphans and Class Anxiety in
Nineteenth-century English Novels
by
Junghan Choi
Doctor of Philosophy
in
English
Stony Brook University
2008
Thisdissertationdiscussesthemostpopularoutsidersinnineteenth-
century English novels—orphans. Both real and fictional orphans
are often known to formulate the threatening force that disturbs
conventional domesticity and obscures social boundaries, for with-
out heritage or parentage an individual in the nineteenth century
is home-less, name-less, and class-less. Suggesting Mary Shel-
ley’s creature in Frankenstein as the first orphan prototype in
nineteenth-century novels, this dissertation shows the inevitable
tension between orphans and society. However, this study also
argues that literary orphan characters encourage purposeful sepa-
iii
ration from domestic history and pursue self-reformation rejecting
social and cultural interference. Novels that I have chosen insist
upon legal and cultural transformation concerning the marginal-
ized, but most of all they provide compelling stories that endanger
orphans’ physical and psychological stabilization yet shelter their
individualities from domestic imprisonment. The prevalent class
anxiety and social prejudice could discourage the self-development
of this trope of outsiders, but I argue that they intentionally dis-
possessdomesticityandrejecttearfulfamilialreunionbecausethey
find conventional social definition unnecessary and iniquitous. The
examination of these unique orphan characters does not provide a
historically accurate portrayal of “real” orphans. This study as-
sumes that ”real” orphans suffered from extensive economical and
familial difficulties and those literary orphans enjoy the privilege of
orphan-hood recreated by Bront¨e, Eliot, Collins, Thackeray, Craik
and Dickens.
iv
Contents
Acknowledgements vii
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Obstinate Reality Remains Undisturbed. (1997) . . . . . 5
1.2 “The victim of a systematic course of treachery and decep-
tion”(1838) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3 Sentimental Readers and Crying Orphans (1807) . . . . . . . . 13
1.4 An Orphan Priest’s Blasphemy (1795) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5 A Bastard’s Conspiracy (1608) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2 Invisible Orphans-To Threaten, To Serve and To Moralize 23
2.1 The Unreliable Poor and the Unreliable Workhouses . . . . . 26
2.2 Orphanages or Orphan Asylum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.3 Illegitimacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
2.4 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3 Dismantling Class Anxiety: Two Orphans’ Obsession with In-
dividuality and the New Family of Orphans 44
v
3.1 Lucy’s only question: “Who am I indeed?” . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.2 George Eliot’s New Victorian Family: “We are a family of or-
phans.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4 TheirInappropriateResistance: FemaleImpostorsintheHouse 82
4.1 A Female Orphan’s Request: “Give me any name you like.” . 87
4.2 My Family Is In My Way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
4.2.1 The Ambitious Angel in the House . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.2.2 “Why don’t she ever sing to me?” . . . . . . . . . . . 125
5 Orphans or “Sincere” Heroes 129
5.1 Daniel Deronda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
5.1.1 “My name is Daniel Deronda. I am unknown, but not
in any sense great”(522). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
5.1.2 “I am your mother. But you can have no love for me.” 154
5.1.3 A Hero Must be Historical. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
5.2 “[You] want to found a family...all coming generations shall
live to the honor and glory of your name-our name.” . . . . . 168
5.2.1 The Mad Woman and Our Hero . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
6 Conclusion 184
Bibliography 190
vi
Acknowledgements
I could not have written this dissertation without Professor Helen Cooper,
ProfessorLouCharnon-Deutsch,ProfessorSusanScheckel,andProfessorPeter
Manning. Especially Professor Cooper’s patience, encouragement and meticu-
lous attitude have made me a better scholar. Above all, I came to realize that
I cannot live without my husband. Thank you.
Chapter 1
Introduction
Outsiders create social and political tension as soon as they enter a sta-
bilized society. In the name of progress and assimilation, outsiders pressure
those within to accept their strangeness and attempt to transcend their own
difference. Yet how do they appeal to these inside residents when their ex-
istence personifies immorality and illegitimacy? Or how do they demand ac-
ceptance when they deliberately choose transgression and alienation? The
abandoned, the alienated, the ignored-orphans can be considered an emerging
force for disruption within the domestic sphere, but this study underscores
the potential social flexibility and mobility encouraged by the disturbing yet
enlightening representation of orphans in nineteenth-century English novels.
Such orphans suggest a revision of conventional Victorian domesticity and
the creation of distinct individualities separate from domestic history. Ex-
amining orphan characters leads to defining their formulation of autonomous
individuality as a necessary procedure to achieve social mobility and cultural
acceptance. In the novels that I discuss, orphans’ denial of their own identities
1
does not guarantee assimilation; in fact, it only accentuates their destabilized
selfhood. The internal acknowledgment of their unconventionality dignifies
their self-identity, which ironically leads to the more affable relationship. The
profoundly meaningful and intimate relationship between orphans and society
may depend upon their abilityto extend and negotiate principles of traditional
domesticity and ideologies, while preserving their eccentricities.
Julia Kristeva describes orphans’ internal frustration and substantiation of
their identities most effectively in Strangers to Ourselves. She writes:
To be deprived of parents—is that where freedom starts? Cer-
tainly foreigners become intoxicated with that independence, and
undoubtedly their very exile is at first no more than a challenge to
parental overbearance. Those who have not experienced the near-
hallucinatory daring of imagining themselves without parents-free
of debt and duties-cannot understand the foreigners’ folly, what it
providesinthepleasure(“Iammysolemaster”), whatitcomprises
in the way of angry homicide (“neither father nor mother, neither
God nor master...”). If I tried...to share with them some of the
violence that causes me to be totally on my own, they would not
know where I am, who I am, what it is, in others, that rubs me
the wrong way. (21-3)
The impossibility of imagining orphan-hood signifies the difficulty of formu-
lating an elemental relationship with such social outsiders. The dangerous
assumption that orphans must enjoy their “freedom” aggravates themselves,
and Kristeva admonishes readers that an unprepared and shallow approach
would cause violence, resentment, and disconnection. However, this does not
mean that society should fear orphans either. She stresses how orphans suffer
from the disposition to destabilize themselves psychologically. They refrain
from communication, not out of resentment, but out of social ignorance and
2