Prospectus of a Seminar Paper

The tentative title for my seminar paper is “Evelina: Becoming a Self-Reliant Author (or Writer).” I am interested in Evelina’s act of signing. In her first letter, Evelina questions how to sign her name, writing “Your / Evelina — —- / I cannot to you sign Anville, and what other name may I claim?” (Burney 26). But in the last letter, she is finally able to sign her name as “Evelina” (Burney 406) without doubt.

Before this, she signs her name as “your Evelina,” “I am Evelina,” and “Evelina Anville.” These are conventional ways to make signatures at the end of letters at that time but Samuel Choi argues that “her [Evelina’s] signatures conform to standard closings, yet I believe close readings of the closings and the conditions around them reveal that Evelina skillfully manipulates these conventions for her own purposes” (265). He analyzes that Evelina’s thirteen signatures are not only the act of ending letters but also act of a declaration of herself. On top of this, I want to show that her act of signing is connected to her perception as a writer, authorizing that this is her writings (I think this would be connected to Burney’s strategy of not revealing her name as the author).

At the beginning of coming out to the London society, she was a country girl and a mere “nobody.” Before writing letters and signing Evelina’s name, as Choi points, her name has never been revealed in the preceding seven letters even though the topic of those are Evelina. By signing her name, she finally discovers her name to readers. Because Evelina’s letters are initiated by going to London, I want to talk about her experiences as the starting point of her becoming a writer.

Moreover, Choi argues that Mr. Macartney is a threat to Evelina. Letter XX in volume II ends with Mr. Macartney’s signature by Evelina’s act of copying his letter and this effaces Evelina’s existence in the letter. I see their relationship as competitors. As Choi points, Macartney is the same name bearer with Evelina (Belmont) and this causes the situation that “[h]istory chooses to honor a particular individual by recording his story” (270), as the relationship between Frances Burney and Charles Burney, the author’s famous father. As for “familial constraints,” Francesca Saggini explains that “Charles Burney’s approval or opposition affected his daughter’s writing directly, and he seems to have evaluated each of her works in light of its potential effect on his own public image” (50). I want to discuss this kind of relationship, operating as obstacles to become a writer: Fanny Burney’s struggle under the pressure of her father and Evelina’s challenge to Macartney as a sibling and a male writer (he is already a writer for he is referred to a “poet”).

As for a helper to Evelina, I want to discuss the relationship between Evelina and Mr. Villars. As Charles Burney acts as Fanny’s “main interlocutor” (Saggini 49), Mr. Villars is the main pillar for Evelina to follow. As I wrote the former blog post, Mr. Villars is a kind of demanding reader who makes Evelina write letters. Not only that, but Evelina completely relies on his advice and strictly follows his words, saying “Decide for me” (Burney 25). To become an independent writer, Evelina should stand alone without Mr. Villar’s help. I will discuss the process of Evelina’s independence with her retrieving legitimate name, father, and inheritance. By signing her name as “Evelina Belmont,” she removes “Anville” which is given by Mr. Villars so their relationship as father-daughter figure ends. Also, at the end of the last letter, Evelina’s signature does not show “your Evelina” but just “Evelina” and I think this is Evelina’s self-affirmation that who she is.     

Bibliography

Burney, Frances. Evelina. Ed. Edward A. Bloom. New York: Oxford UP. 2008. Print.

Choi, Samuel. “Signing Evelina: Female Self-Inscription in the Discourse of Letters.” Studies in the Novel 31.3 (Fall, 1999): 259-78.

Cutting-Gray, Joanne. Woman as ‘Nobody’ and the Novels of Fanny Burney. Gainesville: UP of Florida, 1992. Print.

Doody, Margaret Anne. “Introduction.” Evelina or the History of a Young Lady’s Entrance into the World. Frances Burney. London: Penguin Books, 1994. vii-xxxvii. Print.

Epstein, Julia. The Iron Pen: Frances Burney and the Politics of Women’s Writing. Wisconsin: U of Wisconsin P, 1989. Print.

Pawl, Amy J. “‘And What Other Name May I Claim?’: Names and Their Owners in Frances Burney’s Evelina.” Eighteenth-Century Fiction 3.4 (July 1991): 283-300. Print.

Saggini, Francesca. Backstage in the Novel: Frances Burney and the Theater Arts. Trans. Laura Kopp. Charlottesville: U of Virginia P, 2012. Print.

Straub, Kristina. Divided Fictions: Fanny Burney and Feminine Strategy. Kentucky: UP of Kentucky, 1987. Print.

Tucker, Irene. “Writing Home: ‘Evelina,’ the Epistolary Novel and the Paradox of Property.” ELH 60.2 (Summer 1993): 419+. Literature Resource Center. Web. 9 Nov. 2013.

Putting Evelina-Mr. Villars in a Writer-Reader Relationship

In this response, I want to talk about the relationship between Evelina and Mr. Villars. To Evelina, Mr. Villars is a father figure who raises her and a guide and an authority who advises and decides what she has to do. In addition to this, I am interested in the relationship between Evelina and Mr. Villars as a writer and a reader. Among 84 letters, Evelina writes 59 letters and among them, 54 letters are sent to Mr. Villars so it is not an exaggeration to say that Evelina is a writer and Mr. Villars is a reader of her writings.

In particular, I want to point out the scene when Mr. Villars compares Evelina to a book. Upon Evelina’s question that “if he had been reading,” Mr. Villars answers that he is reading “a book that both afflicts and perplexes [him]” (264). And Mr. Villars asks more if Evelina would help him to “clear its obscurity” (264). Upon this, Evelina understands what he means by a book which refers to Evelina herself and their conversation begin.

In a very short time I thought that if Mr. Villars were objectifying or mystifying Evelina as a material to read or interpret. But I clear that thought and rather start to think that Mr. Villars treats Evelina as a writer and himself as a reader of her writings. In this sense, Mr. Villars is a demanding reader by requesting the author to write in detail to remove a reader’s obscurity. In this scene, Evelina does not actually do the act of writing but her story telling should be considered as another form of writing because Mr. Villars’s act of listening to her story corresponds to reading Evelina as a book.   

Not only that, but Mr. Villars actually makes Evelina write in the end because their conversation transforms into a written letter. In the beginning of this letter containing this conversation, Evelina explains to Miss Mirvan that “[y]ou complain of my silence, my dear Miss Mirvan, –but what have I to write? Narrative does not offer, nor does a lively imagination supply the deficiency. I have, however, at present, sufficient matter for a letter, in relating a conversation I had yesterday with Mr. Villars” (262). The interval between this and the former letters is eleven days and the reason Evelina does not write is that, as her explanation indicates, there have been no matters to write until having conversation with Mr. Villars. In this respect, Mr. Villars again does his role as a demanding reader by stimulating Evelina, as a writer, to write a letter, breaking her long silence of not writing for eleven days.

 

Works Cited

Burney, Frances. Evelina. Ed. Edward A. Bloom. New York: Oxford UP. 2008. Print.

People in Good Taste Know How to Appreciate Opera

In Frances Burney’s Evelina, our heroine, Evelina, is in love with opera among many forms of entertainments. This is easily observed from her description about opera, writing “the music and the singing were charming; they soothed me into a pleasure the most grateful, the best suited to my present disposition in the world. . . . It is, of all entertainments, the sweetest, and most delightful.” (38) Opera not only gives Evelina enjoyment but also alleviates her anxiety.

Evelina experiences opera for the first time in her life because she is an inexperienced country girl. Then, is opera enjoyable to whomever, even to innocent rural residents like Evelina? This is not true because Evelina has sensibility through her education which has been “the best [Mr. Villars] could bestow” (21). Again this is proven by Lady Howard that Evelina’s understanding is just as perfect as her beauty. So it is not surprising if Evelina has a good taste in things. As Vivien Jones explains, “[o]pera acts here as a touchstone of ‘true’ taste” (xx). She also adds that there is “a clear hierarchy of taste within the world of London entertainments” (Jones xx) and suggests Italian opera as one of examples.

In the episode when Evelina should view opera with the Branghtons and Madame Duval, differences in tastes between them clearly appear. First of all, Evelina wears her dress “in so high a style” (40) because there is a certain acquiescent requirement in clothes in the pit or the box seat. Because her company does not aware of this rule, Evelina’s good dress becomes “very improper for [her] company” (90).

On top of this, opera is an expensive entertainment compared to others: From my calculation, this company of six needs 3 guineas (62 shillings) to be in the most expensive seat whereas theater would provide the same seat with 30 shillings; for gallery seat, they need 30 shillings for opera but 12 shillings for theater. Another problem with the price comes from Mr. Branghton’s attitude to the opera: He just does not want to pay that much money to this mere one-time show.[1]

Moreover it is Italian opera, indicating that they could not understand the meaning of songs. About not using English, Mr. Branghton vehemently says that “[w]hat a jabbering they make! . . . there’s not knowing a word they say” (93) but Miss Polly “think[s] it’s very pretty, only I don’t know what it means” (93). Either way, however, it is certain that they are unable to appreciate the opera fully because of language barrier.

The only person who pleases the opera is Evelina and this is possible because she knows how to and what to do in watching the opera. By contrasting that Evelina possesses good understanding from the best education, but the Branghtons is foolish, ignorant, and rude, Evelina’s good taste for opera sits on higher position than the Branghtons.   

 

Works Cited

Burney, Frances. Evelina. Ed. Edward A. Bloom. New York: Oxford UP. 2008. Print.

Jones, Vivien. “Introduction.” Evelina. Ed. Edward A. Bloom. New York: Oxford UP. 2008. ix-xxxiv. Print.

---

[1]He seems to be affordable to pay the pit price for six since he has his own business and his will to buy tickets for six with one guinea, I think, is because of his “love of money” (69). Also, if they really wanted to be in the expensive seat without commotion, Madame Duval could handle this since she claims she is “as rich” (53) as Lady Howard.

Two Different Descriptions of Pekuah’s Inclination on Astronomy

When Pekuah wants to meet an astronomer, her reason is that “for she would solicite permission to continue under him the studies in which she had been initiated by the Arab” (127). This astronomer has a quality of little bit of madness, but he is “one of the most learned astronomers in the world, who has spent forty years in unwearied attention to the motions and appearances of the celestial bodies” (118), referred to as “a man of learning” (118) or as a “philosopher” (127). His qualification for imparting knowledge to Pekuah and others is quite good since we have some objective information about him on his learning, and so I admit that Pekuah’s wish to learn more about astronomy from the astronomer is not groundless. But I am a bit curious why Pekuah wants to improve her knowledge about astronomy, because I remember that she does not have interest in astronomy with the Arab.

As captivity by the Arabs, all Pekuah has hoped is to be released from them. Not only at the moment was she caught, but after she found out that her life would be safe thanks to the power of gold, many parts of her thoughts are to be with Nekayah, her master. I am not blaming Pekuah’s thoughts because anybody would think like her under the unexpected abduction. What I think something is not right with Pekuah is her eagerness to learn astronomy. As she states, her inclination began during her days of captivity but I could not find such inclination with the astronomer in the description with the Arab:

AT night the Arab always attended me to a tower set apart for celestial observation, where he endeavoured to teach me the names and courses of the stars. I have no great inclination to this study, but an appearance of attention was necessary to please my instructor, who valued himself for his skill, and, in a little while, I found some employment requisite to beguile the tediousness of time, which was to be passed always amidst the same objects. .  .  . I therefore was at last willing to observe the stars rather than do nothing, but could not always compose my thoughts, and was very often thinking on Nekayah when others imagined me contemplating the sky. (115, my emphasis)

From this, I imagine Pekuah did not get knowledge about astronomy during captivity because she “could not always compose [her] thought” about sky.

As for the Arab who taught stars to Pekuah, I presume he has quite a knowledge about astronomy from Pekuah’s illustration: “The chief of the band was a man far from illiterate: he was able to travel by the stars or the compass, and had marked in his erratick expeditions such places as are most worthy the notice of a passenger” (113). Although the knowledge is not from books as the astronomer does, the Arab’s knowledge is reliable one since it comes from his real experiences. However, the dependability of the Arab’s knowledge for astronomy does not seem to be important since Pekuah is not interested in the subject at all. Likewise, considering that Pekuah laughed at the astronomer’s story before meeting him, her interest in astronomy is not from the teacher’s authority.

If Pekuah wants to show the negative feelings to the Arabs in her description, it is understandable because it was the forced abduction. However, I still could not find the source of her interest in astronomy. From the scene of conversation between Pekuah and the astronomer, I think, unlike her previous “tediousness” on this topic, she has considerable knowledge about astronomy: “Pekuah displayed what she knew: he looked upon her as a prodigy of genius, and intreated her not to desist from a study which she had so happily begun” (128). So it is hard to conclude what Pekuah’s real position between her two different attitudes: Does she intentionally omit her growing knowledge in astronomy to accuse the Arabs’ rudeness or does she simply have sudden interest in astronomy with the learned astronomer?

 

Works Cited

Johnson, Samuel. The History of Rasselas, Prince of Abissinia. Ed. Jessica Richard. Canada: Broadview Editions: 2008. Print.

The Escape of Harriet Fitzpatrick in Tom Jones

As far as I know, a general process of saving a princess who is locked up in a tower by an evil dragon is like this: a knight runs to the tower, fights against the dragon which is breathing fire and defeats the dragon any way, and finally saves the princess. The important point we should remember is that the weapon of the knight in saving the princess is a sword and a shield. But, it is not the case in Harriet Fitzpatrick’s story in Tom Jones.

Harriet tells her story of confinement and escape from it to Sophia. The reason for Harriet’s imprinsonment was that she did not comply with her husband’s demand to sell her estate to make money. Harriet was locked up in her room about two weeks and became at liberty again with unknown way. On how she regains liberty, Harriet just explained shortly that “gold, the common key to all padlocks, opened my door” (524). What does she mean by “gold”? Soon, however, the meaning of “gold” is uncovered. The fact is that a nobleman, one of Mr Fitzpatrick’s neighbors saved her by bribing the governor.

In this story, a dragon is Mr Fitzpatrick, a husband, a princess is Harriet Fitzpatrick, a wife, and a knight is a neighboring nobleman. Interestingly, the narrator directly compares this nobleman to the knight found in ancient heroic story because he actually “[have] delivered many an imprisoned nymph from durance” (529). Both a knight and the nobleman’s intention to save women in danger might be derived from similar chivalric hearts, but their weapons are quite different: a sword and a shield for a knight and money for the nobleman. Moreover in this story, the narrator criticizes marriage, asserting that

to say truth, I have often susptected that those very enchanters with which romance everywhere abounds were in reality no other than the husbands of those days; and matrimony itself was, perhaps, the enchanted castle in which the nymphs were said to be confined. (529)

In this transformation from ancient heroic story to the eighteenth century novel, I read no more magical romance but money-governing reality. In both situations of the confinement and the escape, money plays the key role. In addition, as the narrator points, I cautiously presume the reason for matrimony’s becoming to the enchanted castle is based also on money since marriage arrangement were based on exchange of one part’s property and the other part’s reputation as we saw in Hogarth’s paintings last week’s class.

In this short episode, I think Fielding clearly suggests that his work of fiction is not like old heroic and magical stories. At the earlier part of the novel, the narrator explains himself “as I am, in reality, the founder of a new province of writing” (68) so readers should follow the way as he leads. Tom Jones is a comic story obviously but this does not mean Fielding includes only the funny things in the novel, i.e., this work is the reflection of contemporary reality. Because of this, as I argue, we encounter the scene that the knight-like nobleman use gold as his weapon “in conformity with the modern art of war” (529).

Works Cited

Fielding, Henry. Tom Jones. Eds. John Bender and Simon Stern. New York: Oxford UP: 2008. Print.

A Too Much Perfect Woman: the Figure of Miss Sophia Western in Tom Jones

In Henry Fielding’s Tom Jones (1749), Miss Sophia Western is the perfect woman. Is she beautiful? Is she moderate? Is she well educated? Yes to all questions. Then what level of qualities makes Sophia different from other female characters?

At the beginning, there is another good woman, i.e., Miss Bridget Allworthy. As a sister of Mr. Allworthy, the worthiest man in the novel, she is a discreet, prudent, and respectable woman. She is commended by her good qualities. However, she does not have many beautiful qualities in appearance. Then how much beautiful Sophia’s appearance is?: Very beautiful. The description of her physical beauty takes over two pages and these qualities seem to borrow from some classical literature. That is, she has the typified beauty, for example, Sophia contains beauty of nature such as sweet breath, “rosy lips,” “sparkling eyes,” (134) etc. Moreover, she is compared to “the statue of the Venus de Medici” (134, original italics), or paintings, indicating her bodily beauty is special as many artists would desire to create.

How about Molly Seagrim then? She is “one of the handsomest girls in the whole country” (150) and the first person who wins the love of the hero, Tom Jones. Can she be the rival to Sophia? Unfortunately, Molly does not have feminine qualities much in that she is “tall and robust, so [is] that bold and forward” (150). In contrast, Sophia is “a middle-sized woman” and her shape is “delicate” (135), unlike strong Molly. By describing Sophia’s feminine feature such as white skin, black hair, long neck, high forehead, full eyebrows, she is becoming something “beyond the power of art to imitate” (135), i.e., the perfect symmetry in body. In addition, Sophia’s mind is as grace as her “beautiful frame” (136), emphasizing her perfectness comes from both in body and soul.

Likewise, Sophia is a gifted woman who has natural beauty and refined elegance. Her perfection, however, does not stop here. Sophia has been “improved and cultivated” (136) her natural beauty through good education. She has educated by her aunt, Mrs Western, who is “of great discretion, . . . [and] thoroughly acquainted with the world, having lived in her youth about the court” (136). The interesting point about Mrs Western, in contrast to Sophia, is that she does not seem to be respectable woman despite her great learning. Since Mrs Western has seen the world and had big knowledge, she is presented as “a perfect mistress of manners, custom, ceremonies, and fashion” (236). But her problem is that her learning does not stop at some point, expanding all areas of study. This great knowledge becomes the bad seeds for ruining Sophia’s love interest and bringing contentions.

Overall, Sophia is more beautiful than Miss Bridget, more feminine than Molly, and more modest than Mrs Western. All these qualities in Sophia look good and wonderful. But this is another representation of the idealized and fixed type of ‘good woman.’ While Sophia is standing as the perfect woman alone, other women have become less and less desirable figures: Miss Bridget makes the wrong choice in marriage and dies; Molly has double relationship at the same time and becomes a lewd woman; Mrs Western brags her knowledge and makes noisy disputes.

Works Cited

Fielding, Henry. Tom Jones. Eds. John Bender and Simon Stern. New York: Oxford UP: 2008. Print.

In the Name of Author: Pope’s Revenge on Curll

Why did Alexander Pope need to poison Edmund Curll, a bookseller? Robert Halsband explains that Pope’s intention of revenge on Curll is 1) to protect John Gay and 2) to express his resentment on Curll. If Gay voluntarily published Court Poems, it would not be a matter at all because that is the author’s freedom and right. In this case, however, Curll’s imprudent publication by commenting some authors’ names in the preface without considering the exact fact becomes the problem, especially to Pope. Here, Jonathan Swift’s fable of Spider and Bee would suggest proper reason for Pope’s revenge in the relationship between author and publisher.

Swift brings the fable of Spider and Bee to insinuate the relationship between the Moderns and the Ancients, i.e., the Moderns think they have magnificent works such as mathematics and architecture, but these have been developed by the foundation of the Ancients’ previous efforts. As Spider lives by sucking other insects’ lives, the Moderns live based on the Ancients’ works without noticing this. Similarly, Curll used Pope and other authors to sell his books as Spider destroys “infinite [n]umbers of Flies” (Swift, par. 10) and Pope did not tolerate Curll’s action as turning Bees into Flies. Unlike Spider’s selfishness, Bee’s action is justified:

I am come honestly by my Wings and my Voice, for then, it seems, I am obliged to Heaven alone for my Flights and my Musick; and Providence would never have bestowed on me two such Gifts, without designing them for the noblest Ends. I visit, indeed, all the Flowers and Blossoms of the Field and Garden, but whatever I collect from thence, enriches my self, without the least Injury to their Beauty, their Smell, or their Taste. (Swift, par. 12, italics original)

In “A Full and True Account of a Horrid and Barbarous Revenge,” Pope describes “Mr Pope, . . . [who has] lived many years an instance of the mild temper of the British nation” (124). Also, Curll’s publication of Court Poems seems very popular since “[e]verybody knows” (124) the case. As Halsband explans, one of Court Poems, “The Drawing-Room,” was a scandalous work because it directly satirizes Caroline, Princess of Wales and this might endanger the author (243). Curll’s publication, if he himself did not recognize this, became a kind of accusation of travestying the princess, by announcing possible authors’ names in public with “indiscreet method” (Pope 124).

Aside from Pope’s purpose to protect Gay’s possibly endangered situation, Pope’s resentment and revenge on Curll would not be different from Bee’s defense. In other words, Curll is a Spider-like person, caring of himself based on others’ sacrifices. Pope suggests his barbarous revenge “is not the only instance how persons of bright parts may be carried away by the instigations of the devil” (124-5). In addition, Halsband expresses Curll as “literary scavenger” (243). From both figures, ‘devil’ and ‘scavenger,’ we easily see that Curll was not the desirable bookseller in that period. Since Curll must have led his life sucking authors’ “[h]oney and [w]ax” and turning them into “[e]xcrement and [v]enom,” Pope’s revenge is that of the author who has “true [j]udgment, and [d]istinction of [t]hings” (Swift, par. 12).

Works Cited

Halsband, Robert. “Pope, Lady Mary, and the Court Poem.” PMLA 68.1 (Mar., 1953): 237-50. Print.

Pope, Alexander. “A Full and True Account of a Horrid and Barbarous Revenge.” The Major Works. Ed. Pat Rogers. New York: Oxford UP: 2008. 124-8. Print.

Swift, Jonathan. “The Battle of the Books.” Ed. Jack Lynch. Rutgers.edu. Rutger University, n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2013.

Response to the Master Class

In the Master Class held on September 25th, Martha Nell Smith concludes that in this technological era, new methods of editing and understanding texts should be changed in a more flexible way, i.e., the lesbian rule which makes a “pliant and accommodating” (Smith 2) principle. By setting some principle in editing and understanding literary texts different from the traditional methods, she suggests new ways in literary studies. In this response, I will pick two methods I have questioned and try to answer what leads to better ways in my current and future literary study as a young scholar.

First, Smith suggests “[a]n author’s work does not need to be normalized; diverging views of its identity should not be excised,” (14) contrast with a traditional way that “[a]n author’s work is best when presented in a single, ‘most authoritative’ scholarly edition” (13). I agree with Smith’s point of diverging views because they are necessary in understanding one text more deeply since a literary work cannot be interpreted in one way but it has as many interpretations as possible by gender, race, age, and etc. However, I still support that an authoritative text is required especially in teaching environment. For example, when I read James Joyce’s Ulysses in a reading group, we followed the authoritative text because every member could not follow many parts of the book (although we had a guide professor luckily). Of course, we took different references in other editions but the authoritative text was our primary because it offered more clear senses. In brief, to this question, I would combine both ways, i.e., an authoritative text is important in understanding a text in a clear and standardized way but we still should not ignore diverging views because they are open to another new interpretation, considering how crucial an original idea is in literary study.

Another point I have questioned in Smith’s suggestion is that “[e]ditors working on a single edition need not agree with one another. Each can report what she sees and audiences benefit from multiple viewpoints and levels of expertise, from critical dissensus” (14). My curiosity on this is quite realistic that how editors collect all dissent ideas and contain in a single edition. Although I do not know the atmosphere of editing, I think the process of analyzing and gathering ideas is quite similar to our classroom discussion. When encountering different viewpoints, I respect each point but sometimes I find there are some ideas I cannot accept. Moreover, there would be a particular angle in a book if it is not an anthology so I doubt that if editors report as many points of views in one edition, readers could get confused instead of receiving various angles. So I understand this suggestion from my heart but my brain says that more accurate and united ideas should be gathered in one edition.

When it comes to the problem between old and new, I always stand in in-between position because I think I should move forward with newly improved methods at the same time not abandon the traditional authoritative ways. As a matter of fact, however, I do not think I should follow either/or way because that would give the most narrow views in my study. As Smith emphasizes, embracing different ideas and collaborating with others would make the best results since it is all human work after all.

 

Work Cited

Smith, Martha Nell. “The Human Touch Software of the Highest Order: Revisiting Editing as Interpretation.” Textual Culture 2.1 (Spring, 2007): 1-15. Print.

Turkish Embassy Letters, based on Experience

In Turkish Embassy Letters, Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s description about things she observes is in their details and appears somewhat superficial to me. At the same time, however, I wanted to go there to see splendid and magnificent scenes of those places in which Lady Mary traveled (this is because I myself have a womanly interest in those things). As she comments that “I think I have read somewhere that women always speak in rapture when they speak of beauty, but I can’t imagine why they should not be allowed to do so” (133), the way of her writing is candid with disclosing her emotions at times. I cannot say that her opinions from travel is an objective and balanced viewpoint since she has been raised by English aristocratic education, but it still is worth being told because she, as a female writer and a married woman, stands in the different side of the ruling parties such as male writers and her husband. In other words, her feminine eyes uncover different aspects of some Oriental countries about which existing male writers lied without concrete grounds, and also her honest reactions give herself opportunities to think about her current status as an English woman.

First of all, I believe Lady Mary has never visited bagnio in her life even though she knows by words what it is. Personally, I know what a public bath is and have experiences in that kind of places, so I did not understand fully why many articles are talking about this as sensuous description, showing full of naked women. What is more shocking to me, instead, is Lady Mary’s stays illustrated as machine. She is the only person in the bagnio who puts something on her body and this is something cannot be touched by women or herself but merely by her husband. This might cause her to feel excluded although she sits with other women, i.e., she is the only person who cannot freely participate in gathering at “the woman’s coffee-house” (102).

Another example is veiling. Lady Mary thinks Ottoman women’s covering their faces except eyes and concealing their body shapes give them freedom. At this point, I was curious about her opinion because I have always been thinking that veiling is the ultimate symbol of oppressing women, not allowing them to disclose outside unlike men (this is because that long time ago in my country, women should cover themselves because they are considered to belong to the domestic realm). Lady Mary, however, explains that “[t]his perpetual masquerade gives them entire liberty of following their inclinations without danger of discovery” (115). As an English woman, she belongs to her husband and acts as she is expected to be in the society because there are always watchers when she does things, i.e., Lady Mary feels that she is under surveillance, without having clothes to cover herself.

Of course Lady Mary is not a revolutionist and keeps unchanged thoughts on such as slave problems or people with dark skins and deformity as ugly and monstrous figures. What is worth in reading this book, however, that some prejudice against Turkish people, including my ideas, known by male writers is given light to be looked in different ways: in better ways. As Lady Mary says that “I won’t talk of other countries I have not seen” (140), her description based on her experience suggests new positive eyes to see other cultures.

The Beggar’s Opera for the poor

At the end of The Beggar’s Opera, we meet an unexpected happy ending: Beggar who is the narrator of the play throws away his development of the story and accepts Player’s suggestion to follow the taste of the town’s people (III.xvi). I, at this point, thought there is a problem in reliability of the narrator because he does not have consistency and perform his role since he only appears at the first and the last scenes, opening and closing the play. On second thought, however, when considering Beggar’s justification of this sudden shift of the ending, saying that “in this kind of drama, ‘tis no matter how absurdly things are brought about” (III.xvi), I think he refers to the whole society about “this kind of drama.”

Needless to say, Gay’s The Beggar’s Opera reflects the society of London in 1720s: the extreme gap between the poor and the rich, prevailing drunkenness of have-nots, and corrupted law enforcement (Introduction 12-16). Not only the background and the setting, but the form of this is the parody of that of opera which was popular at that time and Player’s saying above is to follow the fashion of the opera. My suggestion that Beggar is pointing “this kind of drama” as the society is, however, that Beggar performs himself as a hidden accomplice, twisting Macheath’s fate from death to life. In other words, he cannot kill Macheath or any other ‘criminals’ because he is emphatic to them. If the narrator was consistent with his first intention, he should have shown many of the characters to be hanged at Tyburn tree. Instead, he changes his mind just by Player’s one-time persuasion (if I call it persuasion).

I mentioned above that Beggar is unreliable from the first impression because he is inconsistent at the end. However, I think that he, from his saying, explains how irrational the real society is as the same level of absurdity in the drama because there is no boundary of what is right or wrong. More importantly, this is all about low life. Wealthy people are watching and enjoying the poor’s ridiculous lives as if they are looking on some fighting game of animals which try to kill their own kinds for the crowd’s pleasure. If Beggar kept his intended moral by poetical justice, people with vices should be punished regardless of their classes. At this point, I find that his last words appeals to me a bit obscure: “the lower sort of people have their vices in a degree as well as the rich: and that they are punished for them” (III.xvi, my italics). It means that, on the one hand, the poor people get penalty for their wrong-doings. On the other hand, if I see “them” as “the rich,” this is saying that the poor get punished instead of the rich because wealthy people have the power to escape the law system in any way. However the interpretation should be, it is always people in poverty who are punished with their minor crimes. In this sense, I think Beggar does not execute Macheath and others to give them pleasure though it is only through the play. In brief, if I suggest Beggar as a member of this very society wanted to save people, then is it a far-fetched excuse for the poor?