Isabelle de Charrière, Jane Austen, and Post-Enlightenment Fiction: Writing the Shared Humanity of Men and Women

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 Very insightful.

Author Response

Thank you for your supportive report.

The present version of my text has been slightly amended, however, following the questions and remarks of the other reviewers.

I have clarified what I mean with the word “inventing” by appealing to Charrière’s own use of the word in Henriette and Richard (l 105) and to the historian Lynn Hunt (l 62-64, 96-103). I have also slightly modified the title.

I have explained why/how Austen and Charrière must be compared even if one cannot rely on a straightforward kind of personal “influence” between them (l 62-95)

I have added some more references to Charrière’s texts and spread them more evenly trough the article.

I have expanded a footnote about Mr Collins to explain why I use the word “stupid” to qualify him (note 27).

I have added a paragraph about Talleyrand and Wollstonecraft explaining why Rousseau’s chapter about “Sophie” was still relevant in the 1790s (l 150-174).

I have done my best to improve the style and get rid of Gallicisms.

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading the essay. It is well written, and I am sure readers will learn a lot about both writers. 

The author of this essay might think a bit more about the claim of "invention." I found myself wondering if "invent" and "invention" were the right words to describe what the two writers were doing. Is "new" also the right word to use? 

The conclusion also might be strengthened by returning to some of the main ideas presented throughout the essay. I'm not sure if the last sentence, particularly regarding the Crofts, is the best way to end the essay. Is this really the final takeaway point? That Austen could have written a novel featuring the Crofts instead of the Bertrams and Prices? I was wondering what is to be gained from leaving the reader of the essay with this last claim, which doesn't feel as compelling as a final statement about humanity and gender could be. Are the Crofts more human than the others? Just something to consider. I recommend rethinking the concluding paragraph's function.

Author Response

Thank you for your remarks and questions which have helped me improve and define the argument of my article.

As far as the word “inventing” is concerned, I have tried to explain it by referring to Lynn Hunt’s Inventing Human Rights (l 62-65 and 96-103). Hunt explains how the concept of “self-evident human rights” needed not only to be collectively but also and crucially individually internalized to become effective in the social organization. She also explains how the new concept was dependent on the imagination and the reading of fiction. I also quote from Charrière’s own use of the word in her novel Henriette and Richard (l 105), and I have slightly modified my title. I hope that I have managed to clarify what I mean: Charrière and Austen are aware that the equality between men and women is in need of being imagined/invented and they create their fictional characters accordingly.

I have added a number of modifications throughout the essay to clarify my point in answer to the other reviewers with the result that I haven’t thoroughly revamped my concluding paragraph. However, I agree that I could not simply finish my article with a remark on the Crofts. While a complete rewriting of the concluding paragraph has been made unnecessary by the previous modifications, it was nevertheless desirable, indeed, to introduce some nuances and explain better the general point made in the article. I have added a quotation about the Crofts and a few lines to conclude on the significant presence of epicene words in the rhetoric of Charrière and Austen.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have attached a document that contains my comments and suggestions for revision below.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your report, for your precious remarks and the questions and observations listed in the document attached to the report. They have helped me clarify my essay.

I have entered the stylistic revisions you have suggested. I have also carefully tried to improve the style of the essay in general in the process of revision.

I have tried to situate Austen and Charrière better in relation to the Revolution but also in relation to the philosophy of the Enlightenment, insisting on how they used fiction to include women on similar terms with men within the universalizing concepts of the time.

I have clarified the terms on which they can be read together even if they did not actually know about each other: gender prejudices were likely to trigger similar reactions in the eighteenth century from women with similar progressive expectations. Besides, Austen and Charrière actually had a common philosophical background to which I allude (l 42-61; 69-95).

I have chosen to refer to Lynn Hunt’s Inventing Human Rights to clarify the critical point of my article: the significance of individual imagining and reading in the process of establishing modern values such as human rights and equality. I situate the fictional innovations of Charrière and Austen within this progressive movement and I clarify how fiction is inscribed by them within a philosophical process. (l 62-69, 96-120).

Not being able to access Matt Grenby’s book, I have read his 1998 article about “The Anti-Jacobin Novel”. However, I prefer to avoid the words “Jacobin” and “anti-Jacobin” altogether in this paper. While I argue that Austen and Charrière were progressive thinkers and writers, my focus is on how they contributed to the issues of the time through writing. They never joined partisan lines nor wrote in the service of a party. Their intervention is that of writers and moralists having a potentially progressive impact on their readers. I refer briefly to Claudia Johnson (lines 78-79) to explain what I mean.

[But I must say that Charrière’s interest in Godwin, Inchbald and Bage and their “realist” approach to writing and to class difference is an area of research in which I am interested and which I aim to develop more extensively elsewhere].

If Rousseau’s Émile was published in 1762 in French, I argue nevertheless on its relevance to the writers and thinkers of the 1790s by mentioning Talleyrand’s report about national education (1791) and Wollstoncraft’s response to it in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman. I also indicate how Charrière was familiar with Bage and the Vindication and how one can trace a link between Wollstonecraft, Charrière, and Austen when considering some of their writing as a comparable reaction by enlightened women against conservative forms of gender prejudices (l 150-173).

I have added a number of quotations from Charrière’s texts in order to illustrate my general points.

To avoid confusion with today’s understanding of the concept “queer”, I have only maintained it when I refer to how the word was used by Charrière and Austen themselves, meaning something which is “neither nor” and generally indescribable. But in general, I now insist on how Charrière and Austen valued the “universal” potential of the philosophical and moral concepts of the Enlightenment and how they relied on epicene words as often as they could (see final sentences).

I have added some explanation about the “masculin universel”, referring to Eliane Viennot (l. 384-389).

I haven’t added a development explaining Henry Crawford. Like many contemporary critics, I consider Fanny Price less conservative than previously thought and not so unlike Austen’s other heroines (see in particular John Wiltshire’s intro to the Cambridge edition). Fanny’s material and social circumstances as well as her family attachment are well documented by the novel, explaining her difference from her Bertram cousins. Her situation in turn explains much of her apparent subservient or “meek” behaviour. But she is also a passionate heroine with positive (love) and less positive (jealousy) feelings: so not a picture of perfection. She is crucially and unlike her female cousins, a self-taught young woman who has developed her own mind and her own moral judgment. In this sense she illustrates the point generally made by Austen about women belonging to the universal categories of the Enlightenment such as the human understanding. From a feminist perspective, one can argue that she is misunderstood by Crawford because he depends himself, in his relation to women, on feminine stereotypes which Fanny (and Austen) refuse to perpetuate.

I have maintained, the word “stupid” in relation to Mr Collins (l 214) because this is an aspect of his character on which the text keeps insisting. But I have now placed the word between inverted commas and footnoted it with references from the novel.

Reviewer 4 Report

As the essay notes, a number of people have suggested resonances between Austen and Charrière. This essay takes up that interesting idea and argues that both authors are invested in challenging gender stereotypes and in reconfiguring what "human" means.  The author does make this case, mostly by moving through a range of examples without digging into their implications. But the claim that these writers challenge gender assumptions is something of a low bar, since other writers are also reconfiguring gender in this period.  I would like to see a deeper engagement with at least a couple of strong textual examples.

Moreover, some of the comparisons seem strained or aslant.  For example, the passage about the “ecstasy” of Cécile’s lover hardly seems compatible with the behavior of Edward Ferrars; I don't get the point about the feminized Abbé; and saying that these writers “express themselves from a queer position” is an unwarranted stretch.  Nor does comparing a character to an author make a case for similarity.

In short, the evidence presented here is somewhat weak and scattershot.  The essay insists on looking at similarities but would be stronger if it also considered differences between these writers—not least differences in political emphasis.  Some attention to textual practices would also be helpful:  might these writers be fruitfully compared on the level of form or style? 

Some further historicizing would be helpful as well.  To see Charrière and Austen as sharing a generation doesn’t address the fact that Charrière was born 35 years before Austen.  And their investments are certainly not identical.

Some of the material here—the authors’ respective publication histories, for example, or the focus on Montolieu, do not seem relevant or else aren’t developed enough to demonstrate their relevance. There are some other strange claims laced into this essay:  why is Austen’s choice of John Murray some sort of gender move?  What is meant by the final sentence claiming that the novels would be different “if History had turned out differently.”  And the paragraph on p. 9 (starting on line 331) leaves me mystified about what argument is at stake.

I also have a concern about the implied reader of this essay.  The essay does not even always name the texts to which it is referring, which implies a presumption that any reader will know every text by both authors.  That is very unlikely, and so greater care needs to be taken to introduce and contextualize the texts.

In I recommend a much more systematic working through of the author’s arguments, with an intensification of the payoff through deeper attention to what these texts are doing and how they are doing it.  The essay is lively and (except for a couple of confusing sentences) well written, and potentially it is a valuable addition to our understanding of both authors.  It is not yet at that point.

Author Response

I thank you for your detailed report and criticism.

I have carefully re-read my essay several times and improved its language and style to the best of my abilities.

I haven’t addressed every item of criticism addressed by you because the other peers did not find these problematic and were even encouragingly interested in them. My essay needed nevertheless to be improved and I list here the modifications I have entered in this new version.

Your point about Isabelle de Montolieu was particularly problematic for me. I hope that what I have added to clarify my essay in general now convince you that references to her are relevant to the general argument of this paper. As the exemplary successful female novelist of the time, with a literary connection to both Austen and Charrière, Montolieu is likely to illustrate the kind of “feminine” writer the latter refused to be. I find it all the more important to maintain Montolieu’s presence in the essay than she potentially illustrates what consensual gender conventions were in the field of publication around 1800. Much more needs to be known about her career, to be sure, but as a counterexample illustrating the originality of singular authors like Austen and Charrière, I think that her place in this article makes sense: we can measure what conventionality meant through her adaptations/transformations of Austen’s novels in her translations and through Charrière’s remarks on her.

I have clarified what I mean with the word “inventing” by appealing to Charrière’s own use of the word in Henriette and Richard (l 105) and to the historian Lynn Hunt (l 62-64, 96-103). I have also slightly modified the title.

I have explained why/how Austen and Charrière and Austen must be compared even if one cannot rely on a straightforward kind of personal “influence” (l 62-95)

I have added some more references to Charrière’s texts and spread them more evenly trough the article.

I have tried to situate Austen and Charrière better in relation to the Revolution but also in relation to the philosophy of the Enlightenment, insisting on how they used fiction to include women on similar terms with men within the universalizing concepts of the Enlightenment.

I have clarified the terms on which they can be read together even if they did not actually know about each other: gender prejudices were likely to trigger similar reactions in the eighteenth century from women with similar progressive expectations, and they actually had a common philosophical background to which I allude (l 42-61; 69-95).

I have chosen to refer to Lynn Hunt’s Inventing Human Rights to clarify the critical point of my article: the significance of individual imagining and reading in the process of establishing modern values such as human rights and equality. I situate the fictional innovations of Charrière and Austen within this progressive movement and I clarify how fiction is inscribed by them within a progressive philosophical tendency. (l 62-69, 96-120).

While I argue that Austen and Charrière were progressive thinkers and writers, my focus is on how they contributed to it through writing. They never joined partisan lines nor wrote in the service of a party. Their intervention is that of writers and moralists having a potentially progressive impact on their readers. I refer briefly to Claudia Johnson (lines 78-79) to explain what I mean.

If Rousseau’s Émile was published in 1762 in French, I argue on its relevance to the writers and thinkers of the 1790s by mentioning Talleyrand’s report about national education (1791) and Wollstoncraft’s reponse to it in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman. I also indicate how Charrière was familiar with Bage and the Vindication and how one can trace a link between Wollstonecraft, Charrière, and Austen when considering their common reaction as enlightened women against conservative forms of gender prejudices (l 150-173).

To avoid confusion with today’s understanding of the concept “queer”, I have only maintained it when I refer to how the word was used by Charrière and Austen themselves, meaning something which is “neither nor” and generally indescribable. But in general, I now insist on how Charrière and Austen valued the “universal” potential of the philosophical and moral concepts of the Enlightenment and how they relied on epicene words as often as they could (see final sentences).

I have added some explanation about the “masculin universel”, referring to Eliane Viennot (l. 384-389).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

At this point, I believe the article is ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your approval.

On the advice of reviewer 4, I have revised my title and made some language or stylistic corrections.

I hope the final result reads better, and I thank you again for your time and support in the elaboration of this article.

Reviewer 4 Report

I appreciate the improvements that the author has made in response to the comments of her/his readers.  I am comfortable recommending acceptance with minor changes, most of these concerning rhetoric, quality of writing, and the articulation of claims.  

The revised essay makes more persuasive and sometimes more nuanced arguments than did the original.  I would encourage the author to opt even more fully for nuance over overstatement.  I also find the revised portions of the essay to be less well written than the original text, probably due to haste.  Sentences could beneficially be pared for clarity,economy and elegance--and sometimes grammatical correctness is also wanting.  Too much passive voice and often too much verbiage.  And it is always wise to leave some room for disagreement by avoiding categorical claims.

To make my point more concrete, here are some examples from the first paragraph alone.  In the first sentence, we do not need the "vice-versa" phrase; the point is made without it.  The use of "latter" and "former" in the second sentence requires work on the part of the reader, and the point implied in "often appeared self-evident" is by no means self-evident to me.  Charrière is far from a "complete outsider" in the French canon, nor was Austen always canonical. The phrase "regardless of influence" is a misplaced modifier in addition to being unclear:  about whose/what influence does the author speak?  The long sentence that begins with "Regardless" is also overly packed and hard to follow.  What does "stands out in memory" mean?  I.e. what is gained by "in memory"?

These problems abound throughout the essay but especially in the revised segments.  They are sometimes cosmetic but sometimes also substantive.  I also wouldpay closer attention to decisions about paragraphing and to the first sentences of paragraphs that currently include an undifferentiated use of "their."

I think a new title is also worth considering; this one is quite awkward.

I appreciate the more careful claims now made around the word "queer."  I still find absolutely no logic for the argument that in choosing the publisher John Murray, Austen was making any kind of gesture related to gender.  This claim, in my view, need either to be justified or to be removed.

As someone deeply familiar with both Austen and Charrière, I will be happy to see this piece in print.  I hope the author will take the time to fine-tune the essay.

Author Response

Thank you for your further remarks, which have made me re-read my paper carefully.

I was in a better position to focus on the form, this time, the Francophone in me being always likely to make blunders in English. Most of them have been now, hopefully, removed.

I have done my best to get rid of some useless phrases and repetitions. I have also modified some of my paragraphs.

I have produced a number of titles over the last few days, not being satisfied with the second version of it either. I hope that the one with which I have finally come up now will suit you.

I have also tried to clarify my title by adding a quotation by Virginia Woolf at the end of the second paragraph: Woolf’s remark on Wollstonecraft explains well the difficulty of seeing how revolutionary Charrière and Austen – like Wollstonecraft – may have been while the claims they made in their time have come to define our present normality (hence, also, a word like “self-evident”).

I have modified my initial sentence about Charrière being an “outsider”, adding, also, an explanation to footnote 1: what I mean is that Charrière’s status was and still is, practically speaking, that of an outsider when you consider how her books were and are available or not. In this respect, her status is completely different from Austen’s overwhelming presence in the English-speaking world. This is the contrast I have in mind, and I hope I have managed now to convey it.

Re Murray, I have kept the reference, but I have clarified it by explaining how, by choosing him, Austen is practically and knowingly choosing the same publisher as her famous male contemporaries, Byron and Scott.