Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
KATHRYN PRATT
early woes she bade her votary dream” (lines 5–6). The speaker
finishes the poem by a conventional recourse to a storytelling
kindred spirit similar to that in Gray’s “Elegy” and Pope’s Eloisa,
but in this case, the kindred spirit is a female speaker. The speaker
portrays a tragic chorus of kindred spirits, who “pitying, shall
relate / Thy Otway’s sorrows, and lament his fate!” (lines 13–4),
but in fact, the speaker herself is the lamenter of Otway’s fate. As
a kindred spirit, the speaker carries on the tragic tradition of
Otway while reversing the historical Otway’s gendered roles of
subject and object—Otway’s most famous play in Smith’s day
was Venice Preserv’d (1681), popularized by the performance of
Sarah Siddons as the tragic Belvidera, systematically reduced in
the play to a mad, and then dead, object of pity.23 In this sonnet,
the speaker establishes Otway’s status as pathetic object, but
the theatrical speaker has yet to foreground Otway in Elegiac
Sonnets.
Otway’s presence in sonnet 32, “To Melancholy. Written on
the Banks of the Arun, October 1785,” serves to reveal Smith’s
superior theatrical powers. I include the entire sonnet here in
order to show how from the sonnet’s beginning Smith sets up her
speaker as a theatrical spectator.
Although dropping over the scene rather than rising to reveal it,
the autumnal veil suggests a theatrical commencement. Yet the
stage seems to lose its borders, as if the space of action has ex-
panded and the spectator no longer has a clear position on the
opposite side of the curtain.24 The speaker nevertheless aligns
herself with the theatrical spectator when she describes herself
572 Charlotte Smith’s Melancholia
The Fisher becomes the actor’s pitiable object, which shares with
him the same watery scene but serves to reflect the actor’s greater
woe. In the actor/speaker, Smith creates a character whose mel-
ancholia mirrors that of her lyric speaker, precisely because the
theatrical and real experience of the professional actor puts him
or her in a lived relation to art that resembles that of Smith’s lyric
speaker. Smith’s representation of the relationship between ac-
tor and private person reveals that melancholia is that excess in
literary production that suggests “real” experience, but also in-
corporates any notion of real experience into its theatrical per-
formance.
Smith may represent the actor as a melancholic artist like
her speaker, but she does not equate dramatic performance with
superior literary production as a general aesthetic principle.
Smith’s privileging of the theatrical mode extends only to drama-
tizations of melancholia. The speaker allies her poetry with the
tragic stage in sonnet 29, “To Miss C— on Being Desired to At-
tempt Writing a Comedy.” She questions:
ing of forms, and its illegitimate forms of verse. In the 1780s and
1790s, the theatrical reviewers anticipated Leigh Hunt and Will-
iam Hazlitt in deploring the gothic drama as an inferior style,
lacking the “manly majesty” of legitimate tragedy.40 As Jeffrey
Cox notes, many writers of gothic drama, including M. G. Lewis,
sought to “elevate” the form into tragedy by assigning heroic vir-
tues to villains.41 Smith’s collection outdoes the gothic drama by
forcefully claiming legitimacy for itself in its very illegitimacy,
rather than by trying to alter the attributes of its characters to fit
the requirements of legitimate drama. Without assigning to her
speaker a classical hero’s virtues accompanied by a tragic flaw,
Smith portrays the melancholic condition of the speaker as a
source of tragic grandeur.42 Melancholia, an “illegitimate” type of
tragic merit by traditional poetic or dramatic standards, makes
the artist into a tragic hero by conferring upon her the “heroic”
ability to produce from suffering a powerful representation of ex-
perience rather than an “inadequate” generic one. This continu-
ing rejection of generic limits stands in opposition to What Is
She?’s conformity to generic expectations.
What Is She? was presented at Covent Garden as the work of
a female author who wished to remain anonymous. Contempo-
rary scholarship has accepted the attribution of What Is She? to
Smith based on strong stylistic, thematic, and circumstantial
evidence.43 Smith’s biographer Florence May Anna Hilbish thinks
What Is She? is not Smith’s play, in part because she never claimed
it, and also because the author of the play is not, as Hilbish puts
it, a “true romanticist.”44 Hilbish’s placement of her discussion of
the play under the heading “Decline” offers sufficient evidence of
the aesthetic standards that lead her to disclaim the play for
Smith. In my exploration of Smith’s theatricality, however, I have
offered ample reason for Smith to conceal her authorship of What
Is She? In the comedy’s mockery of writers of sensibility sounds
an authorial voice antagonistic to theatrical sensibility, one that
would interrupt the melancholic speech of Smith’s authorial per-
sona. The epistemological status of melancholia in the comedy
also controverts the powerfully mysterious melancholia of Smith’s
poems. When the spectator of What Is She? understands the “rea-
sons” for Mrs. Derville’s melancholia, both her melancholia and
the play are ended, for, in Smith’s literary productions, melan-
cholia depends on the theatricality of human experience, on the
inability to know another’s sorrow. What could be less surprising
than Smith’s failure to claim a play that happily ended in perfect
accord with generic expectations and that placed theatrical suf-
Kathryn Pratt 579
fering within the limits that her poetic persona still resolutely
refuses? Smith’s alternative to traditional theater is the “stage”
in sonnet 32 upon which Otway appears to the lyric speaker.
Failing neatly to separate spectator from spectacle, this lyric
“stage’s” uncertain boundaries suggest how Smith’s poetry re-
jects the dividing line between art and experience, and embraces
a theatrical melancholia that distinguishes the “genuine” aes-
thete.
NOTES
to Abelard, Poetry and Prose of Alexander Pope, ed. Aubrey Williams [Boston:
Houghton Mifflin/Riverside, 1969], pp. 104–13, 113, lines 359–66).
14
Raymond Klibansky, Erwin Panofsky, and Fritz Saxl, Saturn and Mel-
ancholy: Studies in the History of Natural Philosophy, Religion, and Art (New
York: Basic Books, 1964), pp. 123–6.
15
Eleanor M. Sickels, The Gloomy Egoist: Moods and Themes of Melan-
choly from Gray to Keats (New York: Columbia Univ. Press, 1932), pp. 13–6.
16
Todd, p. 53.
17
Thomas Gray, “Elegy Written in a Country Church Yard,” in The Com-
plete Poems: English, Latin and Greek, ed. H. W. Starr and J. R. Hendrickson
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966), pp. 37–43, line 120.
18
Gray, line 128.
19
Smith, “Sonnet 70,” in The Poems of Charlotte Smith, p. 61, lines 1–4.
All subsequent citations from Smith’s poems will be from this edition and
will appear parenthetically within the text by title and line number.
20
Pinch, p. 63.
21
David Marshall, The Surprising Effects of Sympathy: Marivaux, Diderot,
Rousseau, and Mary Shelley (Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 5.
Zimmerman also discusses Marshall’s argument in relation to Elegiac Son-
nets, but she chooses to emphasize the theatrical dynamic only and not
Adam Smith’s recognition of the inevitable failure of transcendent identifica-
tion (p. 49).
22
Smith, Poems, p. 21, n. 1.
23
Thomas Otway, Venice Preserv’d, in The Works of Thomas Otway: Plays,
Poems, and Love-Letters, ed. J. C. Ghosh, 2 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1932, rprt. 1968), 2:197–289.
24
David Garrick ended the practice of seating spectators onstage in 1763;
see Frederick Marker and Lise-Lone Marker, “Actors and Their Repertory,”
in The Revels History of Drama in English, ed. Michael R. Booth, Richard
Southern, Marker, Marker, and Robertson Davies, 10 vols. (London: Methuen,
1975), 6:95–143, 104.
25
Paul Ranger, “Terror and Pity Reign in every Breast”: Gothic Drama in
the London Patent Theatres, 1750–1820 (London: Society for Theatre Research,
1991), pp. 30–1. See also Sybil Rosenfeld, A Short History of Scene Design in
Great Britain (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1973), p. 90.
26
For information on gothic drama’s mixing of theatrical, musical, and
spectacular genres, see Jeffrey N. Cox, “Introduction,” in Seven Gothic Dra-
mas, ed. Cox (Athens: Ohio Univ. Press, 1992), pp. 1–77, 10; Paula R.
Backscheider, Spectacular Politics: Theatrical Power and Mass Culture in Early
Modern England (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1993), p. 167; and
Ranger, p. 1.
27
Southern, “Theatres and Stages,” in The Revels History of Drama in
English, 6:61–94, 80.
28
Smith, What Is She?, I.i, p.1.
29
See Ranger’s discussion of the popularity of sublime natural and reli-
gious scenery in gothic dramas (chaps. 2 and 3).
30
Smith, What Is She?, V.iii–iv, pp. 82–3.
31
Pascoe, p. 17.
32
Smith, Poems, p. 5.
Kathryn Pratt 581
33
Pascoe discusses the antitheatrical writings of William Hazlitt, Will-
iam Wordsworth, and Leigh Hunt (pp. 92–4).
34
Smith, Poems, p. 11.
35
See Catherine B. Burroughs, Closet Stages: Joanna Baillie and the
Theater Theory of British Romantic Women Writers (Philadelphia: Univ. of
Pennsylvania Press, 1997), pp. 8–12.
36
Pinch, p. 70.
37
Hilbish, p. 238.
38
Smith, Poems, p. 3.
39
Pascoe argues that the sonnet, while seemingly an antitheatrical form,
actually furthered the performance of passionate feeling because it “served
to tether women poets safely to a known and respected verse form and tradi-
tion” (p. 27).
40
Charles Harold Gray, Theatrical Criticism in London to 1795 (New York:
Columbia Univ. Press, 1931), p. 263. The entire chapter, “1780–1795,” is
filled with the negative sentiments of critics concerning the late-eighteenth-
century gothic dramas they characterize as inferior “tragedy.”
41
Cox, In the Shadows of Romance: Romantic Tragic Drama in Germany,
England, and France (Athens: Ohio Univ. Press, 1987), pp. 115–7.
42
I am using Backscheider’s helpful analysis of the philosophical differ-
ences among tragedy, gothic drama, and melodrama. In gothic plays, she
argues, “the laws of causality are suspended or made arbitrary and the rea-
sons for the evil impulses—the ‘demons’ within—left tantalizingly mysteri-
ous” (p. 201).
43
Hilbish documents the ascriptions of the play to Smith (p. 199).
44
Hilbish, p. 201.