Introduction
DefiningSympathy
Novelshavelongbeenenjoyedforthesympatheticresponsestheyelicit.For twenty-firstcenturyaudiences,sympatheticidentificationis,asitwasfor manyofthegenre’searliestcritics,adefiningfeatureofreadingnovels. Today,reading fictionisfrequentlydiscussedasaculturalactivitywith positiveethical,social,andneurologicalconsequences.Butwhen,rather thanthesympatheticresponsesthatlivingreadershavefor fictionalcharacters,weconsiderinsteadtheexperiencesofsympathythatliterarycharacterssharewitheachother,differentconsequencescometolight.These consequences,whicharethesubjectofthisbook,lieintheintertwined historiesof fictionandsympathy.Indepictingratherthanelicitingsympatheticresponse,certainnovelsreshapesympathy ’ssharedsentimentsand mingledtearsintoanemphaticallystructuralfeatureof fiction,andthey generateanovelisticversionofsympathythataimstoaccommodatehuman differencethroughtheexperienceofnarrative.Whilesympathyis,asearly andrecentreadersofnovelsattest,ade finingfeatureofthenovel’scultural value,mycontentionisthat,intheyearsofthegenre’sdevelopmentbetween 1750and1850,keyworksofBritishandFrench fictionfundamentally rede finesympathy.
Thisrede finitionentails fiction’stransformationofphilosophicalmodels ofsympathyintoelementsofnarrativeform.Defining “sympathy,” though, hasalonginterdisciplinaryhistorythatcontinuestoday.¹Rootedinhuman neurologybycurrentscientificresearchanddifferentiatedfromempathyin earlytwentieth-centuryaestheticsandpsychology, “sympathy” most broadlyrefers,duringtheeighteenthandnineteenthcenturies,toa
¹Definingemotionisacentraltaskinthe fieldofthehistoryofemotions,whichhas identifiedtheturnofthenineteenthcenturyasacrucialperiod.SeeThomasDixon, From PassionstoEmotions:TheCreationofaSecularPsychologicalCategory (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,2003)andWilliamM.Reddy, NavigationsofFeeling:AFrameworkforthe HistoryofEmotions (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2001).
VicariousNarratives:ALiteraryHistoryofSympathy,1750–1850. JeanneM.Britton,Oxford UniversityPress(2019).©JeanneM.Britton. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198846697.001.0001
primarilyemotionalexperiencethatistosomeextentsharedbetween people.²Itswiderangeofmeaningencompassesemotional,cognitive, physiological,andmysticaltransmissionsoffeeling;self-projectionand identificationwithanotherperson;thecontagious,automaticspreadof emotionsamonggroupsofpeople;andthelaboredexchangeoffeeling betweentwoindividuals.³DistinctivewithinthisrangeisAdamSmith’ s TheTheoryofMoralSentiments (1759),whichcharacterizessympathyasa processofshiftingperspectives ofseeing,essentially,fromanotherperson ’spointofview.Atatimewhen “sympathy” morecommonlydescribes easy,inevitable,andsometimesdangerousmovementsofemotionsamong people,Smith’sabstractconceptionoffeelingsthataresharedbetweentwo individualsisunique.
Hisversionofsympathyisalsouniquelyamenabletotheformsof fiction. ThenarrativeaspectsofSmith’ s Theory itselfhavebeenhighlightedin variousways.⁴ ButnovelsalsoadaptaspectsofSmith’sdefinitionasthey rede finesympathythroughtheirformalstructures shiftingperspectivesor “storieswithinstories” inwhichonecharacterassumestheperspectiveand voiceofanother.Inthisway,keyworksof fictionfollowSmith’semphasis onimaginativeabstractionandtheshiftingperspectivesthat,forhim,
²Forapopularoverviewofneurologicalstudiesonempathy,seeMarcoIacoboni, Mirroring People:TheScienceofEmpathyandHowWeConnectwithOthers (NewYork:Picador,2009). “Empathy” isderivedfromtheGermanterm “Einfühlung,” whichapproximates “feelingwith” or,morestrictly, “feelinginto.” SeeRaeGreiner, “1909:TheIntroductionof ‘Empathy’ into English,” BRANCH:Britain,Representation,andNineteenth-CenturyHistory,ed.DinoFranco Felluga.ExtensionofRomanticismandVictorianismontheNet.AccessedJuly22,2014.While Ispecifythesignificanceof “sympathy,” IagreewithDerekAttridge’surgingthatreadersnotbe dogmaticindistinguishingamong “emotion,”“sentiment,”“feeling,” and “affect.” TheWorkof Literature (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2015),p.261.
³JonathanLambprovidesacomprehensiveviewoftheconcept’svariedpermutations. The EvolutionofSympathyintheLongEighteenthCentury (London:PickeringandChatto,2009), esp.pp.67,115.Onsympathy’smedicalmeanings,seeAnneJessievanSant, Eighteenth-Century SensibilityandtheNovel:TheSensesinSocialContext (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2004)andChristopherLawrence, “TheNervousSystemandSocietyintheScottish Enlightenment,” in NaturalOrder:HistoricalStudiesofScientificCulture,ed.BarryBarnes andStevenShapin(BeverlyHills:SagePublications,1979).Onitsmetaphysicaluses,seeSeth Lobis, TheVirtueofSympathy:Magic,Philosophy,andLiteratureinSeventeenth-Century England (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2015).
⁴ CharlesGriswold,forexample,hasnotedinhisdiscussionofSmiththat “[t]hesympathetic imaginationisnotsolelyrepresentationalorreproductive.Itisalsonarrative,alwaysseekingto flowintoand fillupanothersituationandtodrawthingstogetherintoacoherentstory.” Adam SmithandtheVirtuesofEnlightenment (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998),p.116. Morerecently,StephanieDeGooyerhasarguedthatsentimental fiction “reproducesSmith’ s triangulated,formalstructureofsympathy” throughitsrepresentationsof “distance,time,and reflection.”“‘TheEyesofOtherPeople’:AdamSmith’sTriangularSympathyandtheSentimentalNovel,” EnglishLiteraryHistory 85.3(2018),pp.685,686.
constitutesympatheticresponse.Thisformalechocoincides,though,witha significantchallengetotherolethatresemblanceplaysinphilosophical definitionsofsympathy.DespiteDavidHume’sclaimsin ATreatiseof HumanNature (1738–40)thatallhumanbeingsresembleeachother,he specifiesthat “Wesympathizemorewithpersonscontiguoustous,than withpersonsremotefromus:Withouracquaintance,thanwithstrangers: Withourcountrymen,thanwithforeigners.”⁵ Similarly,Smithexplainsthat, ifweareinastateofdistress,we “expectlesssympathyfromacommon acquaintancethanfromafriend” and “expectstilllesssympathyfroman assemblyofstrangers.”⁶ Evenastheyaspiretouniversalinclusivity,Enlightenmenttheoriesofsympathytendto flourishintheclosedcirclesofkinship andfamiliarity.
InthenovelsIdiscuss,bycontrast,characterswhoareseparatedby differencesofclass,race,orspeciesexperienceaversionofsympathythat strugglestoaccommodatepreciselysuchdifferencesbygreetingstrangersas siblingsandwelcomingforeignersasfamilymembers.Encountersbetween thesecharactersproduceshiftsinnarrativeperspectiveandcited,framed,or insettalesasonecharactersympathizeswithanotherandbeginstotellhis story.Atthesemoments, fictionredefinessympathyasthestruggleto overcomedifferencethroughtheactiveengagementwithnarrative throughhearing,retelling,andtranscribingthestoriesofothers.Iusethe phrase “vicariousnarratives” toidentifyintersectionsbetweensecond-hand emotions,orfeelinganotherperson’semotionsasiftheywereone’ sown, andsecond-handnarratives,ortellinganotherperson’sstoryasifitwere one ’sown.BritishandFrenchnovelspublishedbetween1750and1850 generateaspecificversionofsympathybymanipulatingtraditionalnarrativeforms(epistolary fiction,embeddedtales)andnewpublicationpractices (theanthology,thenovelisticextract)inresponsetoEnlightenmenttheories ofsharedfeeling.
GabrielleStarrhasnotedthecuriousabsenceofanytheorizationabout sympathy’srelationshiptonarrativeineighteenth-centuryaestheticsor philosophy,anabsencethatseemsespeciallyoddgiventhattheperiodis
⁵ DavidHume, ATreatiseofHumanNature,ed.DavidFateNortonandMaryJ.Norton (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2000),p.371.LordKames,amentorofSmith’s,offersa similarview: “Ourrelationsindistressclaimthisdutyfromus,andevenourneighbors;but distantdistress,wherethereisnoparticularconnection,scarcerousesoursympathy,andnever isanobjectofduty.” PrinciplesofEquity (London:A.Millar,1767),p.15.
⁶ AdamSmith, TheTheoryofMoralSentiments,ed.KnudHaakonssen(Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress,2002),p.28.Subsequentreferencestothiseditionwillbenoted parenthetically.
sorichinembeddedtalesthatelicitsympatheticresponse.⁷ Thisbook identifiesconnectionsbetweenworksofBritishandFrench fictionand philosophythatbeginto fillthatabsence.Therelationshipbetweenshared feelingsandsharedstorieshasaconceptualorigininthemosticonic Enlightenmentdefinitionofsympathy,theopeningsceneofSmith’ s Theory : “Thoughourbrotherisupontherack,” hebegins, “aslongasweourselves areatourease,oursenseswillneverinformusofwhathesuffers, ...anditis bytheimaginationonlythatwecanformanyconceptionofwhatarehis sensations.” Theimagination,hecontinues,grantsaccesstoanotherperson ’ssensationsonly “byrepresentingtouswhatwouldbeourown,ifwe wereinhiscase” (11).Withthis “brother,” Smithmakessympathyrely, whether figurativelyorliterally,onthebondsofkinship.Withtherack,he describestheprocessofimagininganotherperson’semotionsbyreferringto anoutdatedtorturedeviceusedtoinflictextremephysicalpaininpursuitof acriminalconfession.Hedoessoonlytospecify,however,thatitisthe representationalcapacityoftheimagination,notsensoryexperience,that tellsusaboutanotherperson’sfeelings.Tosubmitasuspectedcriminalto theagoniesoftherackistomakethephysicaldisplayofbodilypainsignal buriedtruthandconcealednarrative.Thisimplicitcorrelationbetweenthe experienceofsympathyandthepursuitofnarrativepervadesSmith’ s Theory,anditselaborationinworksof fictionclari fiestheunder-theorized relationshipbetweensympathyandnarrativeinthisperiod.⁸
Smithfurtherexplainstheroletheimaginationplaysinsympathetic responsewithhis figureofthe “impartialspectator,” animaginedthird partytoasympatheticencounterwhoseperspectivesonboththesufferer andsympathizerencouragethosetwopartiestomoderatetheirownreactions.Smithteststheperspectivallaborthatconstituteshisversionof sympathywhenheposits,insteadofafamilymemberontherack,amass ofpeoplesufferingfromanearthquakeinChina.Inthisscenario,Smith initiatesamovementbeyondhisfamilialnotionofsympathytowardsa conceptionofsympathythatmightaccommodatedifference.Healsotraces akeyfeatureofhisnotionofsympathythathasparticularramificationsfor
⁷ G.GabrielleStarr, LyricGenerations:PoetryandtheNovelintheLongEighteenthCentury (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2004),pp.190,269–70.
⁸ Ontheconnectionofcriminalconfessionsto fiction,seePeterBrooks, Troubling Confessions:SpeakingGuiltinLawandLiterature (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2000), pp.8–34;LennardJ.Davis, FactualFictions:TheOriginsoftheEnglishNovel (Philadelphia: UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1996);andPhilipRawlings, Drunks,WhoresandIdle Apprentices:CriminalBiographiesoftheEighteenthCentury (NewYork:Routledge,1992).
narrative thetransitionfromvisualperceptiontoimaginativeperspective. ForSmith,sympatheticresponsedoesnotnecessarilyrequiretheoperation ofthesenses;instead,visualperceptionmustgivewaytotheabstractionof cognitiveperspective.Unlikeotherwritersforwhomsympathyisimmediate,inevitable,andcontagious,Smithfocusesonthestrainorobstaclesthat, bychallengingandlimitingsympatheticresponse,giverisetoanimaginativeformthatisspatial,geometric,andstructural.Intheeffortorinabilityto overcometheobstacleofhumandifference indexedinthe Theory bythe distinctionbetweenthetorturedbrotherandsufferingforeigners hisconceptionofperspectiveanticipatesanovelisticversionofsympathythat strugglestoaccommodatedifferencethroughtheshiftingperspectives entailedinactsofnarrativetransmission.
Themuch-discussed “riseofthenovel” seemstostrayoffcourseatcertain stagesduringtheRomanticperiod,troubledbyoddgothicformsand category-defying “quasi-novels,” tornbetweenJaneAusten’sdomesticity andWalterScott’shistoricism.⁹ Attentiontosympathy’sformaldynamics acrossthisstudy ’sexpansivechronologyof “theRomanticcentury ” reframes someofthesequestionsofliteraryhistoryandgenericclassi fication.Sympathyismostcommonlyassociatedwithaparticularkindofrealist,psychological fiction,especiallytheworksofAustenorHenryJames,butitis bothprominentlyexperiencedandprofoundlyrede finedinsentimentaland gothic fiction,inepistolarynovelsandframetales.TheworksIdiscussby LaurenceSterne,WilliamGodwin,François-RenédeChateaubriand,BernardindeSaint-Pierre,MaryShelley,andEmilyBrontëredefinesympathy asanovelisticphenomenonbystagingscenesofsympathybetweencharacterswhoseaffinitiessuggest figurativekinshipsbutwhosedifferencesstretch thelimitsofresemblance.Theinsetorframedtalesthatfolloworprecede suchsympatheticencounterssuggestthattheexperienceofnarrativecan temporarilysuspenddifferencebyallowingonecharactertospeakandfeel foranother.Thesenovelsredefinesympathyastheintersubjectiveexperienceofnarrativethatreplaceslivedexperiencesofsympathythatremain unsustainableorimpossiblebetweencharactersseparatedbydifference. Withoutprivilegingeitherthelivedexperienceofsympathyoritsnarrative approximation,theseworkssuggestthatwhensensoryexperiencetells characterslittleabouteachother’spastsandemotions,theshiftsinperspectivebywhichonecharacternarratesanother ’sstorymorereliablyallowthe
⁹ Theterm “quasi-novel” isfromGaryKelly, EnglishFictionoftheRomanticPeriod: 1789–1830 (Harlow:Longman,1989),p.253.
imaginationtorepresentandsimulatetheemotionsandexperiencesof anotherperson.
Mostbroadly,thisredefinitionofsympathygrantscertainnovelsan activeroleinsympathy’sculturalhistory.Morespecifically,itshedsnew lightontwosub-plotsinthestoryofthenovel’srise thedeclineofthe epistolarynovelattheendoftheeighteenthcenturyandtheincreasing popularityandrevisionaryeffectsofnovelisticextractsduringtheRomantic period.Intracingthe firstofthesesub-plots,Ioffer fictionalrevisionsof sympathyastheyappearinHenryMackenzie’sbest-sellingnovelinletters JuliadeRoubigné (1777)asanewexplanationforthepersistentinfluenceof epistolarydynamicsinnineteenth-centuryframetales Chateaubriand’ s René (1802),Shelley’ s Frankenstein (1818)andBrontë’ s WutheringHeights (1847).Identifyingthenovel’srevisionofsympathyasamodeofvicarious narrativecallsforareinterpretationofretrospectiveframetalesinwhich theycanbeseentotransformfeaturesassociatedwith(butnotexclusiveto) epistolary fiction vocalmobility,emotionalimmediacy,andmultiple perspectives intotheframetale’snarrativelevelsandshiftingspeakers. Thesecondsub-plotinthehistoryofthenovelthatthisbooktracescenters onshorttalesframedbysympatheticresponse first,thesympatheticscenes thatpervadetheanthologiesthat floodedtheBritishliterarymarketafter perpetualcopyrightwasliftedin1774and,second,canonicalFrenchnovels thatoriginallyappearedasnarrativeepisodesinlonger,non-fictionalworks. Inthe firstcase,literaryanthologiesareexplicitaboutmodelingmoralityand celebratingsentiment.Lessexplicitly,theyareinstrumentalintherisesofthe novelandofcertaintypesofnovelreading.Whenrepackaged,resequenced, andretitledinthesecollections,theinset,embeddedtalesofLaurenceSterne’ s novelsreconfiguresignificantelementsofhisworks sharedandprivate feelings, figuresofradicaldifference,andthenarrativeeffectsofsympathy. Inthesecondcase,Ilooktothenarrativerolesthatkinshipmetaphorsand sympatheticresponseplayin PauletVirginie (1788)byBernardindeSaintPierreand René and Atala (1801)byChateaubriand,allofwhichoriginally appearedasepisodeswithinlongerworks.Thenarrativestructuresand publicationhistoriesofthesenovelsputforthaspecificmodelofsympathetic narrativetransmission.Intheseworks,experiencesofsympathybetween adoptivefathersandsonscrosslinesofracial,cultural,andgenerational difference,andtheyproducetheshiftingperspectivesandnarrativelevels thatconstitutethesecanonicalframetales.Alongwithgothicframetalesand epistolary fiction,narrativeextractsandepisodesframedbysympathetic responsegenerateanovelisticversionofsympathythatreshapesthemental
facultythatSmithdefinedintotheimaginativeattempttoovercomedifferencethroughtheactiveengagementwithanotherperson’sstory.
Scholarshavedrawnabroadrangeofconclusionsabouttherolesthat sympatheticexperienceplaysinculturalhistory.Inacentralparadox, sympathyhas,ononehand,beenpraisedforitscontributionstotherise ofdemocracyandhumanisticeducationwhile,ontheother,itsemotional structureshavebeenseentocolludewithinstitutionsofsocialinequalityand physicalorpsychologicaloppression.Sympathy’sethicalvalueoftenhinges ontheresponsesofnovelreaders,andtherolesympathyplaysinnovelistic formsandsubgenresspecifiesaspectsofthisfar-reachingparadox.Martha Nussbaumhasinfluentiallyclaimedthatreadingliteraturefostershabitsof mindthatfacilitatetheacceptanceofracialorculturaldifferencebymeans ofthesympatheticimagination.¹⁰ Extendingthisclaim,otherscholarshave alignedsympathy ’sethicalvalueanditsrelationshipto fictionwithmajor historicaldevelopments:Nussbaum’sassertionthattheriseofthenovel “coincidedwith,andsupported,theriseofmoderndemocracy” hasbeen echoedbyLynnHunt,whosuggests,basedonBenedictAnderson’snotion oftheimaginedcommunity,thattheriseof “imaginedempathy” contributes totheconstructionofdemocraticidealsinthemiddleoftheeighteenth century.¹¹Thenovel,accordingtothisview,promotesnewversionsof psychologicalidentification,whichinturnprovidethefoundationfor humanrightstobeconsideredself-evident.IanBaucomhasdescribedthe philosophical, financial,andliterarydiscourseswhoseconvergenceproducedan “alternateformofrepresentationallegitimacy” through “ remonstrance,expostulation,andsympathy,” enumeratingthewaysinwhichthe reproducibilityofthemelancholyfactgeneratesanewkindofaffective epistemologythatisthefoundationofmodernhumanitarianism.¹²
¹⁰ MarthaNussbaum, CultivatingHumanity:AClassicalDefenseofReforminLiberal Education (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1998),p.94.SuzanneKeen,bycontrast, arguesthatreading fiction,especiallypopular fiction,doesnotleadtoethicalbehavior. Empathy andtheNovel (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2007).SeealsoRaymondMarandKeith Oatley, “TheFunctionofFictionistheAbstractionandSimulationofSocialExperience,” PerspectivesonPsychologicalScience 3(2008),pp.173–92;BlakeyVermeule, WhyDoWe CareaboutLiteraryCharacters? (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2010);andKeith Oatley, ThePassionateMuse:ExploringEmotioninStories (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2012),pp.153–70.
¹¹Nussbaum,p.94.LynnHunt, “ParadoxicalOriginsofHumanRights,” in HumanRights andRevolutions,ed.JeffreyN.Wasserstrom,LynnHunt,andMarilynB.Young(NewYork: Rowman&Littlefield,2000),pp.3–17.
¹²IanBaucom, SpectersoftheAtlantic:FinanceCapital,Slavery,andthePhilosophyof History (Durham:DukeUniversityPress,2005),pp.208,209.
But,asthesecriticsareaware,claimsthatthegenreofthenovelfostersthe sympatheticimagination,whichthenfuelsthespreadofdemocracyand humanitarianism,riskoverlookingotherconnectionsbetweentheriseofthe novelandtheriseofotherEuropeanpoliticalandsocialinstitutions,most notablythoseofempireandslavery.Asignificantbodyofworkonsentimentandsympathythatfocusesontheincorporationoftheseconceptsin novelisticperspectivehasidentifiedinvasive,coercive,andviolentimplicationsineighteenth-centurydescriptionsofsympathy.Othercriticshave beenattentivetosentimentalism ’sdependenceoninequalitiesofclass, gender,andrace;whenliterarysentimentalism’stropesmigratetothefar reachesofempire,aEuropean’sdistressoveracolonialsubject’ssufferings canbeseentoreinforceracialandimperialhierarchies.¹³LynnFesta,noting thatsentimental fictionandthesharedfeelingsitcelebratesreachaheightin BritainandFranceatatime “whencategoriesofnational,ethnic,and culturaldifferenceseemmostimperiled,” arguesthatthesenovelsworkto “createthesemblanceoflikenesswhileupholdingformsofnational,cultural,andeconomicdifference.”¹⁴
Thisunderliningofdifferenceintandemwiththeexplorationofsimilaritydescribestheculturalworkthatcertainnovelsperformintheirvery structure.Narrativeexchangesenactedbynovelisticformsthroughwhich onecharacterspeaksandfeelsforanothersuggestthatsympatheticidentificationcantemporarilytranscenddistinctionsofclass,race,orspecies,and thatspeakingasanotherneednotsignalemotionalappropriationbut insteadmight,duringtheactofnarrativetransmission,suspendtheboundariesthatcreatehumandifference.Challengesincertainnovelstophilosophy’sapparentinsistenceonbiologicalsimilaritymeanthat,duringthe samedecadesthatwitnesstheascendancyofracismasaculturaldiscourse underwrittenbyspeculativescience,keynovelsintegrateattemptstoovercomedifferenceintheirstructuralfabric.Thesenovelsnotonlypromotethe
¹³ClassicstudiesremainG.J.Barker-Benfield, TheCultureofSensibility:SexandSocietyin Eighteenth-CenturyBritain (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1992)andR.F.Brissenden, VirtueinDistress:StudiesintheNovelofSentimentfromRichardsontoSade (NewYork:Barnes &Noble,1974).Onsympathyinimperialcontexts,seeAmitS.Rai, RuleofSympathy: Sentiment,Race,andPower,1750–1850 (NewYork:Palgrave,2002)andMarcusWood, Empathy,Slavery,andPornography (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2003).Inasimilarvein butdifferentcontext,AudreyJaffearguesthatsympathyinVictorian fictionupholdsthesocial divisionsitmightseemtoerase. ScenesofSympathy:IdentityandRepresentationinVictorian Fiction (Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress,2000).
¹
⁴ LynnFesta, SentimentalFiguresofEmpireinEighteenth-CenturyBritainandFrance (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2006),p.51.
experienceofsympatheticidentificationintheirreadersbutactuallyentail theimaginativedynamicsofthatexperienceintheirform.Bygivingmaterialshapetoboththephilosophicaltraditionofsympathyandtheemotional andethicaleffectsofnovelreading,thetraditionallymarginalsubgenresof thesentimentalnovel,gothic fiction,andthe fictionalextractassumemore prominentpositionsintheculturalandliteraryhistoriesofsympathy.
Tobesure,theframetaleandtheepistolarynovelarenottheonly novelisticformstoengagewithsympathy.Themarriageplotandthe nationaltalearealsolinkedtosympathy’sculturalcurrency.¹⁵ Genderand nationalityarenotthefocusofthisstudy,though,because,althoughtheyare frequentlymediatedbysympatheticresponses,theyalsotendtobeaccommodatedbythenovelisticformsofthemarriageplotandthenationaltale insentimentalism,sympathyfrequentlymorphsintoeroticismorromantic love,andinthenationaltale,sympathyismobilizedtoestablishnewforms ofnationalunion.Marriagecanofferanapparentresolutiontogender difference,andnaturalization,oftenjoinedwithmarriage,canseemto accommodatenationaldifference.Itisinsteadthroughamodeofvicarious narrationthatthisera’ s fictionattemptstoaccommodatedifferencesofrace andspeciesthatitssocialinstitutionsandhistoricalrealitiescannot.
In fictionalworlds,storiessharedbycharacterswhocrosslinesof difference linesthatwouldonlybereinforcedbyidentitycategoriesand institutionalstructures suggestthatimaginativeformsmightsuspend theseboundariesand,forexample,allowaEuropeanmonstertospeakon behalfofanArabianwoman,orpermitanEnglishmantospeakforacaged bird.SuchencountersacrossboundariesofdifferencesthatRomantic-era institutionscannotaccommodatechallengewhatNancyYousefhascalled sympathy’ s “demandsforintersubjectivesymmetry beittheperceptionof similarity,theimpressionofequality,ortheexpectationofreciprocity.”¹⁶ Whentheexperienceofsympathybetweendissimilarindividualsisblocked, stymied,strained,ordelusional, fictiongeneratesanewversionofsympathy thatreformulatestheimaginativeshiftsinperspectivethatcharacterize Smith’ssympathyinitsattempttoaccommodatedifference.
¹⁵ Onsympathy’srelationshiptothemarriageplot,seeespeciallyRachelAblow, The MarriageofMinds:ReadingSympathyintheVictorianMarriagePlot (Stanford:Stanford UniversityPress,2007);onitsrelationshiptothenationaltale,seeEvanGottlieb, Feeling British:SympathyandNationalIdentityinScottishandEnglishWriting,1707–1832 (Lewisburg:BucknellUniversityPress,2007).
¹⁶ NancyYousef, RomanticIntimacy (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2013),p.3.
Smith’sdefinitionofsympathyisaradicaldeparturefromitsearlierand contemporaryformulations.Anolderconceptionofsympathyasanunreflective,somaticcommunicationpersistswellintotheearlynineteenth centuryandoften,evenasitaccountsforphysicalphenomena,relieson untraceable,immaterialaffinitiesbetweenorgansoracrossbodies.Hume, EdmundBurke,andAnthonyAshleyCooper,ThirdEarlofShaftesbury, describesympathyastheinevitable flowofsentimentsfromonebodyto another.Theyemphasizethe “propensitywehavetosympathizewith others,andtoreceivebycommunicationtheirinclinationsandsentiments” (Hume)orthe flightofemotionfrom “fromfacetoface”“bycontactor sympathy” thatis “nosoonerseenthancaught” (Shaftesbury).¹⁷ Thefull duplicationofanotherperson’ssufferingposesnoproblemforBurke,asit arises,heclaims, “fromthemechanicalstructureofourbodies,orfromthe naturalframeandconstitutionofourminds.”¹⁸ AccordingtoBurke,physicalpainmovesfrompersontopersonwithbotheaseanddelightinhis aestheticsoffugitiveemotions,andforHume,emotionsdoublebetween personsthroughaseriesofechoingvibrations. “Themindsofmen, ” Hume says, “aremirrorstooneanother.”¹⁹ Differencesbetweenthesewritersand Smith forwhomthechallengeposedbyapproximatinganother’ssuffering triggerstheintricateworkingsofthemind canbestark.
Jean-JacquesRousseau’sconceptionofpityiscommonlydiscussedalongsidetheBritishdiscourseofsympathy,andinemphasizingSmith’sdistinctionsfromtheseotherwriters,Iacknowledgebutdonotprivilege distinctionsbetweenFrenchandBritishtheoriesofemotion.Accordingto thesedistinctions,Frenchmaterialistsmoreoftenlooktothephysiologyof
¹⁷ Hume, Treatise,p.206;AnthonyAshleyCooper,ThirdEarlofShaftesbury, “ALetter ConcerningEnthusiasm,” in CharacteristicsofMen,Manners,Opinions,Times,ed.Lawrence E.Klein(Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1999),p.10.Otherauthorswhopresumethis easyemotionalcommunicabilityincludel’AbbéduBos,LordKames,andDenisDiderot.Du Bosconsiderssympathytobebasedonvisualperceptionandexplicitlybeyondtherealmof reason: “Leslarmesd’uninconnunousémeuventmêmeavantquenoussçachionslesujetquile faitpleurer.Lescrisd’unhommequinetientànousqueparl’humanité,nousfontvoleràson secoursparunmouvementmachinalquiprécedetoutedéliberation.” Réflexionscritiquessurla poésieetlapeinture (Paris:P-JMariette,1733),p.39.AccordingtoLordKames, “distress paintedonthecountenance ...instantaneouslyinspiresthespectatorwithpity.” Elementsof Criticism(NewYork:Garland,1972),p.440.
¹⁸ EdmundBurke, PhilosophicalEnquiryintotheOriginofourIdeasoftheSublimeand Beautiful,ed.AdamPhillips(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1990),p.41.
¹⁹ Hume, Treatise,p.236.
feelingwhiletheirBritish,andprimarilyScottish,contemporariesoffera viewofsentimentthatdifferentiatesbodilyresponsesfromthecognitiveacts thattheyalternativelyprovokeandparallel;Frenchwritersmoreeasily presumethelureofsocietywhileBritishtheoriesofsociabilityseempressed tocoaxasolitaryindividualintoarealmofsocialaffections.²⁰ Indeed,stages ofsocialdevelopmentaretheconceptualfoundationofRousseau’ s pitié, whichsharesmanyfeaturesofSmith’ssympathy:botharearticulatedin scenesofviolencecommittedagainstfamilymembers,bothemphasizethe roleoftheimagination,and,asDavidMarshallilluminates,bothexpose and,indifferentways,resistthetheatricalityofsympathy.²¹AcrossRousseau ’sworks,themeaningof “pitié” oscillatesbetweenextremesoftheinnate andunreflectiveoperationofthesensesinthe DiscoursSecond (1754)and theprovokedandabstractexerciseoftheimaginationinthe “Essaisur l’originedeslangues” (1754;1781).AlthoughRousseau’ s pitié,likeSmith’ s sympathy,involvesalterationsofposition,place,andcase—“cen ’estpas dansnous,c’estdansluiquenoussouffrons”—itsfundamentalcontradictionshavemoretodowiththecomplextransitionfromthestateofnatureto thestateofsociety,withwhatisforhimtheinherenttheatricalityofpity’ s ostensibly “natural” experience.²²
ConflictsbetweenSmith’sconceptionofsympathyandthemoremobile sentimentsthatHumeandothersdescribegiverisetoanovelisticversionof sympathy.AdelaPinchhasillustratedthewaysthatsympathy’swandering emotions,especiallyinHume’saccount,divorcethestudyofemotionfrom thestudyoftheindividualinaperiodtraditionallyassociatedwiththe harnessingofprivatefeelingtoindividualidentity.Thesefeelingsare,in heranalysis, “autonomousentitiesthatdonotalwaysbelongtoindividuals butratherwanderextravagantlyfromonepersontoanother,” andJames
²
⁰ SeeLynnFesta, SentimentalFigures;forthemedicalcontextsofFrenchsentimentalism, seeAnneVila, EnlightenmentandPathology:SensibilityintheLiteratureandMedicineof Eighteenth-CenturyFrance (Baltimore:JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1997).
²¹OnSmith,see TheFigureofTheater:Shaftesbury,Defoe,AdamSmith,andGeorgeEliot (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,1986),andonRousseau, SurprisingEffects,pp.135–77. NotunlikeSmith’storturedbrother,Rousseauimagines “lapathétiqueimaged’unhomme enferméquiapperçoitaudehorsuneBêteféroce,arrachantunEnfantduseindesaMére, brisantsoussadentmeurtriérelesfoiblesmembres,etdéchirantdesesongleslesentrailles palpitantesdecetEnfant.” Discourssecond in Œuvrescomplètes,ed.JeanStarobinski(Paris: Gallimard,1959),vol.3,p.154.
²² “Essaisurl’originedeslangues” in Œuvrescomplètes,vol.5,p.395.Ondifferencesbetween sympathyandpity,seeLamb, TheEvolutionofSympathy,p.42.
ChandleridentifiesinSmitheansentiment “astructureofvicariousness.”²³ InthenovelsIdiscuss,scenesofsympathyemploygrammarsof vicariousness thesubjunctivemood,forexample,inwhichWilliamGodwin’sCalebWilliamsfeelsthepastandpresentsufferingsofhisimperious employerthatheispreparingtoretell “asiftheyweremyown.”²⁴ Building onChandler’sdiscussionofsentimentalism’ s “novelisticschemeofinterlockingpointsofview” andPinch’sunravelingofthetiesbindingemotional experiencetoindividualsubjectivity,Iarguethatobstaclestoemotional transferabilitygiverisetonovelisticformsofvicariousnessthatmodify Smith’sdefinitionofsympathy.²⁵
Theseforms frametales,embeddednarratives arebynomeansexclusivetothenovel.Butinepistolary,sentimental,andgothicnovels,these formsemploygrammarsofvicariousnessthat,bydestabilizingthereferentialityofthe first-personsingularpronoun,loosenthetenaciousholdofthe criticalnarrativethatintertwinesthehistoricalrisesofthenovelandthe modernindividual.²⁶ When,thatistosay,onenovelisticcharacterspeaksas “I” whenherelatesbothhisown andthen,inanembeddedtale another person ’spast, first-personspeechreferstomultipleselves.Suchshiftsin speakersthatoccuralongwithrepresentationsofsympatheticresponse oftensuggestoriginstoriesofboththeindividualnovelofwhichtheyare apartand,atleastimplicitly, “theNovel” asagenre.Thisbookchartskey momentsinthehistoryofthenovel’sgenericself-authentication,moments that,takentogether,constituteasmallbutnotablechallengetocritical accountsofthegenre’sdependenceontheindividual.Longunderstoodas fundamentaltothereaders’ experienceofthenovel,sympathyisalso,as
²³AdelaPinch, StrangeFitsofPassion:EpistemologiesofEmotion,HumetoAusten (Stanford: StanfordUniversityPress,1996),p.3;JamesChandler, AnArchaeologyofSympathy:The SentimentalModeinLiteratureandCinema (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2013), pp.11–12.ReiTeradasuggestsasimilarpointwhenshesaysthat “pathosconveystheexplicitly representational,vicarious,andsupplementarydimensionsofemotion.” FeelingAfterTheory: EmotionAfterthe “DeathoftheSubject” (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2001),p.5.
²⁴ CalebWilliams,ed.PamelaClemit(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2009),p.9.The invisibilityofthesubjunctivehereshouldnotminimizeitssignificance.Itisalsoworthnoting thatthisgrammarisdistinctfromwhatJulieEllisonhasidentifiedinAnglo-Americanculture oftheearlyeighteenthcenturyasa “cultureofvicariousness” thatlocatessympathyandpity withinsystemsofinequality. Cato’sTearsandtheMakingofAnglo-AmericanEmotion (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1999),p.7.
²⁵ AnArchaeologyofSympathy,p.xx.
²
⁶ NancyArmstrongrevivesIanWatt’sfocusonindividualismin HowNovelsThink:The LimitsofIndividualismfrom1719–1900 (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2005).Ian Watt, TheRiseoftheNovel:StudiesinDefoe,Richardson,andFielding (Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress,1957).Onnarrativesofvicariousexperience,seeMonikaFludernik, Towardsa NaturalNarratology (NewYork:Routlege,1996),pp.52–56.
theseindividualworkssuggest,instrumentalinitsformaldevelopmentand genericself-justi fication.Astheyareintroducedorconcludedbyexperiencesofsympathy,framed,embedded,andconspicuouslycitednovelistic narrativessuggestthatweriskmisunderstandingthenovelasagenre byassociatingitprimarilywiththeriseofthemodernindividualor theintertwiningofprivatefeelingsandindividualidentities.Worksof sentimentalandgothic fictionanchortheirowngenericstatusonthe embeddedtalesthatarisefromattemptstotellanotherperson’sstoryrather thanone’ sown.
Thechallengeofgainingaccesstosuchstoriesoftenunderlies fictional scenesoftorture.Smith’simageofthebrotherontherackispartofa transitionduringtheeighteenthcenturyinwhichconceptionsoftorture cometoemphasizetheviewer’simaginationandthevictim’spsychological interiorityovertheassumptionthatthetruthcanbeforcedoutofabodyin pain.Inthisway,speculativescenesoftortureconceptualizetheexperience ofimagininganotherperson’spainandpast;therack,asSmithsuggestsin thisvignetteandas fictionelaboratesthroughnarrativerepresentation, theorizesvicariousexperience.AsIanBaucomhaselaborated,theimaginativecategoryofsympathyinvolvestheabstractionnecessarytoreconstitute anotherperson’ s “ case ” or “situation,” aprocesswhichChandlerhasshown tomakehistoricism(especially “romantichistoricism”)possible.²⁷ Chandler andBaucomshowthathistoricismdependsinparticularonactsofintellectualabstractionandimaginativeexchangeabilitythatSmithspecifiestake placethroughtheshiftingpersons,ratherthanthesharedsensations,that theimaginationgeneratesthroughrepresentation.
Vicariousnarrativeexperiencemodifiestheassumptionsofasentimentalistepistemology.ForSmith,ourknowledgeofwhatthetorturedbrother feelsdoesnotderivefromthesenses,whichhesays “neverinformusofwhat hesuffers, ” butinsteadrequirestherepresentationaleffectsoftheimagination,whichallow “hisagonies” tobe “adoptedand ...made ...ourown ” beforetheycan “affectus” andcauseusto “trembleandshudder” (12).In theopeningframeof WutheringHeights,Lockwood’sclaimthathis “ sympatheticchordwithin” iswhat “tells” himaboutHeathcliff ’snatureis confoundedbyHeathcliff ’sillegibilitybeforeitisreshapedintothenovel’ s
²⁷ IanBaucom, SpectersoftheAtlantic;JamesChandler,Englandin1819:ThePoliticsof LiteraryCultureandtheCaseofRomanticHistoricism (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress, 1998).
complexnarrativestructure.²⁸ Thissceneandtheframetaleitprecedes distillafundamentalconcernofthefollowingchapters theincreasing significanceofstory-telling’srepresentationalformsovertheepistemologicalpurchaseofidentificationbasedonsensoryexperience.
Sympathy,LiteraryForm,andHistory
ToconsidernovelisticformsalongsideSmitheansympathy’ s “structureof vicariousness” istoapproach “theveryheterogeneityattheheartofform’ s conceptualhistory” thatCarolineLevinehasremarked “anattentiontoboth aestheticandsocialforms” provides.²⁹ Smith’sversionofsympathyconstitutesaparticularform,animaginative,psychologicalpattern,withwhich theformsof fictionintersect.Thisintersectioninturnconfrontssocial formsbywhich “otherness” isconstructed.Inidentifyingtheseintersections offormsthatareliterary,emotional,andsocial,thisstudyadoptsamethodologythathasaffinitieswiththepolitically-engagednewformalismthat Levinedescribes.Uncoveringtheformaldynamicsofsympathy’snovelistic incarnationultimatelysuggeststhatthenovelisticversionofsympathy embodiedinkeytextsoftheRomanticcenturyposits flexibleconceptions ofidentityandgreatereaseinidentifyingacrossboundariesofdifference.In theirformsratherthantheirplots,certainnovelsputforthamoreinclusive versionofsympathythanthatwhichhistoricalrealitiesoffer.Inthislight, fictionaladaptationsofphilosophicaltheoriesofsympathy,serve,asLevine andSusanWolfsonhavearguedofliteraryforms,to “investigateproblems ofideology,subjectivity,andsocialconditions.”³⁰
Inmyargument,literaryformsoftensuggestexperiencesofsympathetic unionandelasticcategoriesofidentitythathistoricalrealitiespreclude.The narrativeformsdiscussedinfollowingchaptersareproposed,desired,or impliedalmostasmuchastheyareenacted.Theseunrealizedforms stories thatarepromisedbutuntold,suspectedbutnotrevealed conjurestructuresofnarrativelayersthatneverappearintheplotsof TristramShandy and CalebWilliams (1794);epistolaryexchangeisasubjectofdesirerather
²⁸ EmilyBrontë, WutheringHeights,ed.IanJack(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2008), p.3.
²⁹ Chandler, ArchaeologyofSympathy,pp.11–12.CarolineLevine, Forms:Whole,Rhythm, Hierarchy,Network (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2015),p.3.
³⁰ Levine,p.12.SusanWolfson, FormalCharges:TheShapingofPoetryinBritish Romanticism (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,1997).
thanthecontentofHenryMackenzie’ s JuliadeRoubigné orChateaubriand’ s René;acollectionoflettersmight,in Frankenstein’sinternaltextualgenesis, authenticateitscentralframetale.Form,inthesesituations,becomesquite immaterial,butitisnoless,asitwere,material.
Literaryformsarenot,then,seenasforcesofconstraintorideological contortion,andtheyarenotunderstoodtodistortorsuppresshistorical reality.Instead,historicalrealityfunctionsbothtoencourageimaginative formsthatattempttoreachbeyonditslimitsandtopromptexplicitand morecarefularticulationsofsympathy’sdynamics.Inchapter1,theFrench Revolutiondoesnotradicallyalterthenovelisticformsinwhichsympathy takesshape,butitdoeslendparticularurgencytosomeofthesame novelisticformsthatappear,asfollowingchaptersshow,asearlyasthe 1760sandaslateasthe1840s.Indiscussingtherevolution,Iemphasizethe conceptual,lexical,andformalnuancewithwhichsympathymust,inits wake,bearticulated,butindiscussingtextspublishedwellbeyondits influence,Inotesimilarnovelisticpatternsthatquestiontheimpactofthe revolutionontheliteraryhistoryofsympathy.
ManyscholarsagreethattheFrenchRevolutionprofoundlycomplicates theculturalhistoryofsympathy.Thereislessagreement,though,onwhat thatcomplicationactuallyentails sympathy’seradicationasasocialideal, itsabsorptionintoaninsidiousmodeofnarrativeomniscience,oritsretreat intoarealmofprivateisolation.³¹AFrenchtranslationandcritiqueof Smith’ s Theory producedimmediatelyaftertheTerrordirectlyaddresses theseissues.SophiedeCondorcet,néedeGrouchy atranslator, salonnière, andthewifeofJeanAntoineNicolasdeCaritat,MarquisdeCondorcet completedhertranslationafterherhusbanddiedwhilein flightfrom revolutionaries.DeGrouchyradicallyaltersSmith’ s “brother ...uponthe rack” whensherendershisiconicimageasoneofour “similars ” onthe “wheel” [“undenossemblables ...surlaroue”].³²Readersofhertranslation, whichwasthestandardFrenchversionofSmith’ s Theory fornearlytwo centuries,areaskedtoimaginethesufferingsofa “similar” ora “fellow” on thebreakingwheelratherthanthepainofasiblingontherack.In1794–5,
³¹Foranoverviewofthesediscussions,seeAblow, MarriageofMinds,p.3.JanetToddhas notedthat,bytheendoftheeighteenthcentury, “sensibilitywasviewedmoreandmoreasanticommunity,aprogressingawayfrom,notinto,Humeansocialsympathy.” Sensibility:An Introduction (NewYork:Routledge,1986),p.126.
³²SophiedeCondorcet,néedeGrouchy, Théoriedessentimensmoraux,ouessaianalytique surlesprincipesdesjugemensqueportentnaturellementleshommesd’abordsurlesactionsdes autres,etensuitesurleurspropresactions,suivid’unedissertationsurl’originedeslanguespar AdamSmith (Paris:F.Buisson,1798),p.6.
