Author: squ

The poetry of Michael Field has many qualities that allow for feminist critique, not least the fact that the name Michael Field is a pseudonym shared by two female writers, Katharine Bradley and Edith Cooper. Their poems in Sight and Song are unique in their perspective; I will be looking at “The Birth of Venus” as an exemplar of the poets’ accomplishments in the volume overall.

Firstly, the content of Sight and Song is interesting in and of itself. The poems are about paintings that were most accessible to wealthy, educated men. Women at this time were largely prohibited from receiving an education, and while the paintings referenced in Sight and Song were also popularized by widely-available things like postcards and small posters, most women would not have a level of familiarity with the paintings that an educated man would. These men would have similar interpretations of the works based on the similar teaching of art history that they had received; the meaning of the paintings in Sight and Song would have been largely accepted based on the interpretations of scholarly men.

But both Bradley and Cooper had received a good education, and were probably familiar with the paintings in the same way that educated men were. They had received similar interpretations of the works, filtered through a masculine perspective despite often focusing on feminine bodies. Michael Field chose to write about the meaning conveyed by these ubiquitous paintings from the ignored perspective of women, rather than from the context of agreed-upon interpretations from men.

“The Birth of Venus” by Sandro Botticelli was an especially well-known painting, respected for its technical virtuosity and style. The nude figure of Venus was meant to allude to a divine perfection of form, an impossibly beautiful goddess of love. The painting represents a glimpse at a brief moment of vulnerability for Venus, when she was new to the world but still a perfect goddess that imbued sensuality and desire. She was just created, and could not have clothes yet, so this painting represents her body in its natural state.

This painting is especially ripe for masculine interpretation; it was practically designed for the male gaze, to be a view of Venus in all of her unconcealed glory. But interpretations of the painting focus on the spectator being a witness to this private moment, where the goddess of love is fully realized in her body, but innocent to the capabilities of her perfect form. Michael Field writes a poem that acknowledges the feelings of Venus herself as she is objectified by those around her.

The poem details the imagery present in the image of Venus, with her “coiling hair” (Line 7) representing untamed sexuality, while she is hurriedly given a cloak to cover herself that is “daisy-stitched” (Line 13), representing virginal purity. Venus was born as an ideal goddess that incites desire, which means that she had no time to experience life without being sexualized. Even as a newborn being, she is immediately given a garment to cover herself. The final stanza of the poem speculates on the sensation of guilt that the innocent newborn Venus must have felt. She does not understand why she must conceal her body, and cannot vocalize what she feels, but simple expressions like the “tearful shadows in her eyes” (Line 42) convey her sorrow.

In a letter to Robert Browning cited in the introduction to Michael Field, The Poet edited by Marion Thain and Ana Parejo Vadilla, the two poets wrote that “[They] have many things to say that the world will not tolerate from a woman’s lips” (p. 23). Among these things are the perspectives of women who have seen the objectification of women in art, and know the reality of this feeling. Rather than writing poems that focus on the beauty of Venus in her exposed nudity, Michael Field wrote a poem that captured the innocence of the newborn Venus as well as her coming to an understanding of how much power her body has. The poem itself is in some ways a feminist interpretation of Botticelli’s painting that recognizes the interpretations of scholars as a representation of beauty, but also acknowledges that the painting shows a conscious being who has been caught in a private moment and has been viewed for centuries without regard to how she must feel.

The poem “The Birth of Venus” is a representation of Bradley and Cooper’s goals to make the humanity of figures in art recognized, and the pseudonym of Michael Field was unfortunately the only way for that goal to even come close to being achieved. The perspective offered by the poems in Sight and Song were made possible by the concealment of feminine authorship, but remain important in their willingness to go against the accepted masculine perspective that uncritically objectified female figures in art.

As Christopher Craft outlines in his article “’Kiss Me with Those Red Lips’: Gender and Inversion in Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, there are models of what masculinity and femininity should look like, defined by the symbolism of blood and biting. The Count blurs the boundaries of those models, and influences others to do the same. The presence of gender roles and sexuality in Dracula are important to Dracula’s characterization as a threat to England’s values, something that will disrupt the status quo.

Craft notes the symbolism of the mouth in the novel; it holds the power of conveying sexuality, the fangs acting as a phallic substitution in the metaphor of biting as sexual penetration. Victorian gender norms dictated that the act of penetration was masculine, while the female’s role is to submit. These roles are quickly reversed in the novel when Jonathan Harker is attacked by the three vampire women. The sexuality of vampirism is emphasized by the decidedly erotic language used to describe the scene. The “voluptuous lips”, the “hot breath on [Jonathan’s] neck” (Stoker 45), and the detailed sensuality all draw comparisons to sex. But Jonathan, a man, is submitting to the vampire women. He even describes his passionate anticipation of the act of his neck being bitten, his eagerness to be penetrated by the women. The penetration is averted by Count Dracula’s discovery of the situation. The Count angrily claims that the right to Jonathan’s penetration is his own, while the women tauntingly argue that he is incapable of love, making the erotic connotations of vampirism even more explicit.

Jonathan makes clear in his writing that he is conflicted about the desire he felt towards the vampire women; he realized it was wrong, but felt strongly attracted to the women regardless. Jonathan is susceptible to the influence of Dracula through his effeminate tendencies, but avoids a complete transformation into a vampire through his recognition of the taboo of masculine submission.

The fates of the other characters who are preyed upon by Dracula are determined by their attitudes towards the power dynamic represented in the act of conversion into a vampire. In order for the conversion to be completed, the victim must suck the blood of the vampire who infected them. Count Dracula’s next two targets, Lucy and Mina, would have to penetrate the Count with their fangs to finalize their transition into a vampire. Lucy, whose secret wish to marry multiple men foreshadows her susceptibility to breaking societal taboos, becomes a vampire. It is worth noting that Lucy’s “purification” from vampirism is accomplished by her husband driving a stake through her heart. Her complicity in the reversal of the masculine nature of penetration is cured by Lord Godalming, characterized as a strong and noble man, penetrating her with a stake. The vampire is defeated by the reclaiming of penetration by an ideal masculine figure.

Mina is forced to drink the Count’s blood, but avoids Lucy’s fate through her sheer conviction and horror at being made to penetrate the Count. Mina is also characterized with traits that other characters identify as masculine, such as resourcefulness and courage, while also being a prototype of the pure and modest woman. This duality could also have played a role in her ability to resist becoming a vampire; her “masculine” intellect allows her to recognize her submissive nature as a woman.

In my earlier analyses of the xenophobic themes in the novel, Dracula can be seen as a threat because he is a foreigner with values that are incompatible and harmful to English society. The Count’s intentions of subverting Victorian gender roles are another reason his invasion of England must be prevented; his infection would also result in males and females taking alternatively dominant and submissive roles. The inversions of gender dynamics in the sexual metaphor of vampirism are another reason why Dracula is such a threat to English society

In this blog entry, I will be further exploring the themes of racial/ethnic anxieties that are present in Dracula. In addition to Dracula’s quest for English blood, a traditional symbol of ethnic identity, the factors of his aristocratic status, homeland, and his vivacity all contribute to a narrative of the Count as a distinct representation of a foreign invader. I will be using Stephen D. Arata’s article “The Occidental Tourist: Dracula and the Anxiety of Reverse Colonization” to analyze the novel.

When Count Dracula is telling his Transylvanian history to Jonathan Harker, he proudly recalls the warriors of his race: “’Is it a wonder that we were a conquering race; that we were proud; that when the Magyar, the Lombard, the Avar, the Bulgar, or the Turk poured his thousands on our frontiers, we drove them back?’” (Stoker, 36). The Count believes in his people as conquerors who defended their land against foreign invaders with honor, never sacrificing their racial integrity. As Arata points out, Transylvania is known as a nation with a detailed history of ethnic combat, with a variety of peoples, such as the Huns, the Turks, the Slavs, and Germans, all having fought for ownership of the land. Dracula describes himself and his people as Szekely, a race descended from the Huns that laid claim to Transylvania against the Ottoman Empire in the Middle Ages. Despite the collapse of the Szekely empire, Dracula is still proud and convicted in his belief of the superiority of his race over all the other races that have fought over Transylvania.

Arata also notes Dracula’s aristocracy; he is a wealthy figure, and his wealth is derived entirely from his heritage. He is powerful because of his ancestry. This further reinforces the importance of his heritage to his character as a proudly nationalistic nobleman, and adds to the dimension of his power being a product of his history. Dracula is proud of his generational wealth because it is is directly tied to the history of his race, and is a product of the height of his people’s power.

Dracula’s animalistic physiognomy and healthy appearance as he draws more blood are also important to the narrative of Dracula as a foreign invader. Both of these characteristics make Dracula a domineering, aggressive personality. It suggests that he defends his homeland because he believes in his right to it, and believes he and his people should have control over it. He is a vicious aggressor who gains strength from the expansion of his domain. His thirst for blood is a representation of his need for control.

Arata notes the importance of his bloodlust as being directed to London, as “Dracula’s move to London indicates that Great Britain, rather than the Carpathians, is now the scene of these connected struggles” (Arata, 465), these struggles being the wars for racial domination that compose the history of the Transylvanian region. London was a major economic force, seen as the center of the powerful British empire, and would be a worthy domain for Dracula to rule over and expand with his race of vampires.

This leads me to another important symbol in the novel, which is soil. Dracula brings boxes full of “common earth” to England, which I find puzzling outside of the context of the symbolism of soil. Soil, like blood, had become a nationalistic element of identity in the 19^th century. While blood represents a person’s heritage, soil represents the place where their people belong and have a right to. The symbols of blood and soil were adopted by the Nazis in the 1930’s, and are still used in Neo-Nazi rhetoric today. Dracula’s mission in England seems to be to convert English people to vampires by taking away what makes them English, which is their blood. He also wants to bring soil from his homeland to England, to further solidify his ownership of the nation. The connection between blood and soil in Dracula’s objectives strongly suggest that he is a character embodiment of nationalist ideology, whose inherently aggressive tendencies and generational wealth would allow him to expand his race to England and erase their heritage.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula features representations of many late 19^th century anxieties in England. One of the most prominent themes is the nationalistic fear of foreign encroachment to the nation. Using a cultural lens, as well as with knowledge of historical circumstances like the rising economic status of Germany mentioned in the introduction to The Fin de Siècle, the overarching theme of fear of foreign dominance in the novel becomes evident.

Johnathan Harker goes to visit the Count in his home in Transylvania to discuss property that the Count wishes to purchase. Harker is immediately struck by the Count’s animalistic physical qualities. The distinctive physical attributes of the Count indicate the prevalence of racial pseudoscience in the fin de siècle, which posited that the common physical characteristics found in different ethnicities are tied to universal intellectual traits in that race as well. The Count, with his sharp fangs, pointy ears, and hairy palms, is described in animalistic terms, specifically a predatory animal.

This predatory characterization is manifested not just in his literal thirst for blood, but in the fact that his primary goal to spread his domain to England by buying property in London. The Count is a wealthy aristocrat of an Eastern European nation, proud of his heritage and customs. He hungers for the blood of English people, masked by an interest in English culture. The Count’s nature as a vampire is to literally consume blood. Blood is traditionally a nationalistic marker of identity, indicating the shared heritage of a people that is in their genes. Dracula’s thirst for the blood of English people solidifies him as a symbol for foreign races that will erase English heritage, “sucking the blood” from England.

Count Dracula as a metaphor for foreign domination is also supported by his intense aversion to Christianity. The pronounced division between Catholics and Protestants in England that is mentioned in The Longman Anthology of British Literature on page 1056 is acknowledged in this novel. Johnathan Harker is given a Catholic crucifix from villagers outside of Dracula’s castle to defend him against the Count. Despite Harker being an Anglican who regards crucifixes as idolatrous, he begins to take comfort in the symbol of Christianity despite its conflict with his beliefs. Stoker, who was an Irish Catholic, may have been trying to bridge the divide between Catholics and Protestants. If both groups united in their belief in the Christian God, they would have greater power to defend themselves against the heretical beliefs of foreigners.

In The Island of Dr. Moreau, the three fully human characters exercise their control over Dr. Moreau’s creations with weapons. This control manifests as blind obedience to the Law that Moreau instilled in them. The creatures are made to recite the Law to prove that they understand their subservience to Moreau, and understand how he wishes for them to behave. But neither Moreau nor Montgomery ever attempts to communicate with the creatures without a weapon. When the three men gather the creatures together to find who has broken the Law, Moreau uses a weapon and a commanding tone to enforce the Law: as he makes them recite the Law, he stops them at the point that forbids the consumption of flesh to tell them he knows that this Law has been broken. “’Who is he?’ cried Moreau, and looked round at their faces, cracking his whip” (69). Moreau does not ask the creatures why they let the Law be broken, but instead intimidates them into obeying the Law in the future. The Law is never enforced without the context of a weapon, which makes the obedience of the Law something done out of fear. Even when Moreau is not there, the creatures recite the Law fearfully, “glancing furtively” (45) at one another as they blindly repeat the Law in the presence of Prendick.

After Moreau and Montgomery die, Prendick begins to fear that this will set off a chain reaction: “They know now that we of the Whips could be killed, even as they themselves were killed…” (91). The capitalization of “Whip” demonstrates Prendick’s recognition of the power of that object. The whip is what gives him power over these creatures, not the Law. Moreau and Montgomery feared the breaking of the Law against eating flesh because this was a challenge of the Law that gave the creatures the power of violence. Once this Law is broken, the creatures know that violence can be achieved without punishment, and they can even begin to challenge the punisher with this power.

While Prendick tries to assert the same authority that Moreau and Montgomery did, he cannot instill fear of the Law in the creatures after that the enforcers of the Law are gone. The creatures begin to lose their humanity after Moreau and Montgomery die, slowly gaining back their animal instincts and mannerisms. The Law is forgotten after the fear of punishment is gone.

This dynamic can be seen as an allegory for control over human beings. If a group of people is taught obedience through fear of punishment, they will only obey for as long as that fear is legitimate. As soon as they don’t feel threatened, they will disregard the pretense that they hold any reverence for the law. In order to maintain control, the people must have a real belief in the value of law.

H.G. Wells could have meant for this allegory to represent the work of Christian missionaries to convert natives of colonized lands in the 18^th and 19^th centuries. The methods of these missionaries often involved the use of forceful indoctrination, threatening natives with punishment if they did not participate in Christian rituals. But the natives continued to practice their own beliefs in secret, demonstrating that, at the very least, they didn’t view Christian law as the sole true law. Wells wanted to show that these methods were futile; any “uncivilized” people will only follow a new law out of fear. But the beliefs behind these laws hold no value to them, and once freed from fear of consequence, they will revert to their old ways.