Caroline Garner
Dr. Craig White
Literature 5535
Fall 2000

The subject matter of early American women writers has been criticized in the past, but the messages these authors sent women and society cannot be denied. Susanna Rowson and Fanny Fern came from two different time periods in American history, but their impact on society is similar. In both cases, the women experienced great success as writers during their time. Their popularity shows how their messages were transferred to many people of their time. By exploring the themes of these novels, a better understanding of females in society can be gained. The themes of womanhood and the issues associated with being female in early America will be detailed through specific problems. The concerns that are revealed in Charlotte: A Tale of Truth and Ruth Hall will deal with some universal issues like control, reason, emotion, reality, and the individual’s role in those areas.

Womanhood is defined in different ways in Charlotte and Ruth Hall. Charlotte Temple and Ruth Hall were both vulnerable women in their respective ages. What is interesting is how each woman deals with her circumstances. Charlotte depends on the help of those around her; Ruth realizes those closest to her will not help. Ruth must fin for herself in order to survive; Charlotte does not survive! Does she not know how? With Charlotte, this question is relevant. She was young and accustomed to the care of others. Being alone in a new world was overwhelming to Charlotte morally. Yet, she ultimately chooses passion over principle, which is her ultimate flaw as a woman. This leads to a series of events ending in her death. Womanhood, especially in Susanna Rowson’s historical era, was something virtuous. However, Charlotte’s choices, despite her agonizing guilt, are anything but virtuous. She chooses Montraville over parents who are loyal and caring. The very man she entrusts her safety to abandons her, thus leaving the heroine penniless in an unknown land of strangers, unable to care for herself. For Charlotte, this transition from child to woman was her downfall, and this shift occurs when she runs away with her young, uniformed officer. She becomes a "fallen woman"(787), according to Cathy N. Davidson, in the sense that she engages in intimacies intended only for marriage in the 18^th Century respectable women. Montraville, on the other hand, prevails; he goes on to marry well. For him, manhood has to do with being financially responsible, but he could have a fling along the way. The consequences were unimportant when he pursued Charlotte. When he sees with his own eyes what comes of Charlotte during her funeral procession, he then realize

that his perception was wrong. Though Charlotte had no fortune, her previous commitment to virtue is rich. Womanhood was miserable for this young woman. She faces tough decisions, and she does not make the best choices when forced to do so on her own.

In a sense, womanhood can also represent inferiority in Charlotte and Ruth. Consider that Rowson’s work was considered a sentimental novel, and this title has not been given to any male counterpart’s writing. Davidson notes that sentimental writing is associated with "popularity", "emotionality", "religiosity", and "domesticity", all of which defined female literature as possessing a certain "womanly inferiority"(787). Perhaps that inferiority should be reevaluated. Both Rowson and Fern were best selling authors in their day; these women did not have to wait until their lives were over to enjoy the fruits of their hard work like so many male classic writers. It is true, however, that women’s literature contained different themes than those of the traditional canon men were comfortable with. While the topics of Ruth Hall and Charlotte Temple may not be as deep in meaning as male’s subject matter during the times when Fanny Fern and Susanna Rowson wrote, today these topics can be seen as revolutionary. Both authors were brave; they took steps other women may have been afraid to take; they wrote despite the criticism they received; and they were successful at it!

Womanhood also has to do with the conflict between accepting the traditional domestic sphere or venturing into another realm of possibility. Charlotte wants to experience the same life her mother shared with her father, and she feels Montraville can provide such a life. Little does she know that such a life is impossible with the rogue who only wants her until someone better comes along. Davidson further explains that the separate spheres of male and female society had rigid gender distinctions (787). Once Charlotte and Montraville have sex, Charlotte, no matter how innocent her heart remains, will still be regarded in the same category as the evilly depicted Mademoiselle La Rue. By the time that Ruth Hall is written, society seems to have relaxed, at least a bit. Fanny Fern may have received some criticism for her taboo subjects, but they sold, as Joyce W. Warren notes (317). People read her work, and they wanted more of it. She was, after all, the highest paid journalist of her time. Unlike Charlotte, Ruth was able to be financially stable on her own. This was certainly not the status quo, but the possibility that a woman could succeed is commendable. That the actual authors of both texts were able to support themselves also shows how the barriers of the domestic spheres could be broken now and then. Their characters, moreover, warn that dependence and bad choices can be ruinous. When Charlotte leaves the domestic realm of her family and loved ones, she faces the cruelty of an uncaring world that is not made to protect her, as her family does. Ruth finds a niche in that uncaring world that could very well have led to the same end as Charlotte’s, but she overcomes the evil forces around her, namely, her in-laws and family. It is interesting to contrast these families, too. Charlotte’s family, while they had little, would do anything to keep their precious daughter safe. Ruth’s family, while they had ample resources, would let Ruth starve so they could hold on to what they had, thus spitefully attempting to teach Ruth a hard lesson about the cruelties of life. Therefore, Ruth learns to trust no one but herself.

The concerns, problems, and behavior patterns introduced in these texts are also notable to the societies in which they were written. Charlotte: A Tale of Truth is the story of a young woman manipulated, seduced, and betrayed by those she entrusted her life to. Rowson warns young readers not to be like Charlotte; they must be careful in a world with rogues like Montraville walking the streets on Sunday afternoons. Ruth Hall, similarly, is a story of betrayal in that Ruth’s family also sends her out on the street after her husband Harry dies. Furthermore, Charlotte and Ruth are on the streets in different time periods. Charlotte is forced to poverty, while Ruth overcomes it. Their situations parallel each other in that they are both on their own, with children that will need to be cared for. The Temples will care for Lucy as if she were an extension of the dear daughter they so loved. The Halls and Ellets, by contrast, saw Katy and Nettie as mouths they did not want to feed, instead of darling grandchildren deserving of love and affection.

Concerns are also brought up in regards to the supporting characters in these novels. For instance, Madame DuPont’s assistants often had pasts that the woman feared might resurface. Mademoiselle La Rue, in particular, was a bad influence on Charlotte, for she "possessed too much of the spirit of intrigue to remain long without adventures"(Rowson 374). La Rue wanted her freedom; she despised the honest life provided by teaching school. Ruth’s freedom and adventure was different. When she and Harry move away from the Halls to the country, she experiences a freedom of life through nature. She walks, picks flowers, and kisses her husband without worrying about the disapproving eye of Mrs. Hall. While Mrs. Hall criticized her behavior, Ruth’s new freedom showed her innocence as opposed to corruption, as La Rue’s rendezvous shows. Ruth leaves her troubles behind when she leaves the city; when LaRue leaves her city, she only causes more trouble with her manipulative devices on Charlotte. La Rue tries to overcome her past behaviors, but her lies cannot be kept from her new husband, Mr. Crayton. He throws La Rue out in the street just as she abandoned Charlotte.

What can be said in regards to Charlotte’s habitual betrayal of her own conscience? She continues to see Montraville despite her guilt. Out of filial duty, she feels pain at her actions, and even though it hurts, she does not want to be without Montraville (Rowson 383). Is she naïve in believing that this relationship will end in marriage? Once Charlotte begins her journey across the ocean, she realizes, too, that this courtship is "productive of no good." She finally starts to understand that her naivete, also, has been no good. This is heightened when La Rue takes another love interest and marries him. Charlotte thought the only reason La Rue crossed the seas was to be with the man she loved, and Charlotte thought that man was Belcour. When La Rue marries Crayton instead of Belcour, Montraville acts as if there is nothing wrong with this behavior. At this point, Charlotte realizes the man she fell in love with was only a façade. He knew how to act to win the affections of a woman he would never be able to spend his life with. Perhaps by being with Charlotte, he was rebelling against his own family. He could associate with a woman of Charlotte’s socioeconomic status, but he could not marry her. Ultimately, his own economic stability depends on the woman he would marry, and that would not be Charlotte.

Another concern deals with dependency issues. Charlotte relies on people other than herself throughout her story. First, her parents care for her. Then, Montraville, Belcour, and finally Mrs. Beaucamp care for the lost and incapable Charlotte. Charlotte never has anything for herself, and thus, she never gains a sense of herself that might make life worth living. She even sees Lucy as something foreign. Ruth’s story is different. Neither story ends in a traditional saving wedding, as Ruth can already take care of herself when she weds again. In order to complete her story, Fern makes Ruth a bank stockholder (Fern 209). She is an independently wealthy woman. How refreshing! She does not have to manipulate like so many women, including La Rue, in order to survive. Furthermore, Ruth only had to be herself and express her feelings in words to be successful.

Childhood, adulthood, and evil personalities collide in these texts as well. Children, according to Rowson, need to be taught life lessons before they have the chance to make mistakes. Charlotte was perhaps too protected from the world. For example, her mother did not want her to read any letters from men without having first read them herself. Did Mrs. Temple explain why she needed to read the notes first? By giving an account of a Charlotte-Montraville story, Mrs. Temple might have given her daughter the information she needed to avoid her own destruction. It seems as though the Temples wanted the best for Charlotte, so they protected her from reality. They did not plan on an uncaring world creeping into their daughter’s life; that reality is represented through Montraville and the bad choices Charlotte made in regards to the man she thought loved her. Charlotte cares for so many, and she is pulled in opposing directions. When she is about to leave with the man she loves, Charlotte proclaims "but I cannot break my mother’s heart"(Rowson 384). She knows eloping with this man is something society and her family will shun, and she fears the unknown. Montraville asks her to forget her past and make a new life with him. Little does she know she will end up alone and deserted without him.

Later, Charlotte’s own experiences with motherhood are very sad. She is delirious and describes Lucy as the "offspring of disobedience" (Rowson 404). Her own father comes to her rescue, but it is too late. He sees the proof of her sins, and she cannot take the pain and dies. However, true love is shown through the Temples understanding and forgiveness of their daughter. This may be too late for Charlotte’s own good, but it showed young girls that making a few mistakes would not warrant the loss of parental love. On the other hand, they should be very careful and not "sacrifice love to duty" (386) as Charlotte does.

The evil forces of Mademoiselle La Rue, Montraville, and Belcour serve as destructive devices in Rowson’s plot. Take, for instance, their roles in letter writing. When Montraville first writes Charlotte, La Rue encourages the "prude" to read the letter. If Montraville had had good intentions, would he not have called upon Mr. Temple for his approval of his interest in Charlotte? Also, if La Rue truly felt the letter was innocent, would she not have maliciously smiled when she sees the innocent girl’s emotional awakening? As for Belcour, well, he represents a blatantly loose moralist. He scarcely waits until Montraville loses interest in Charlotte to begin his own quest for her attentions. These characters seem to be telling young ladies to avoid men because they are all bad! Maybe those were Rowson’s own experiences shining through. Fanny Fern takes a different approach. She does not ask women to avoid men; she merely asks them to be more selective. By being able to take care of herself first, Ruth will be able to enter a relationship on a more equal basis. Then, she will not be subjected to the disappointments of feeling inferior because she has to depend on a husband. Ruth knows she is stable enough to depend on herself.

These novels make significant statements about a variety of topics, including society, government, control, power, evil, and goodness. Through the literary lives of Charlotte and Ruth, a glimpse of so many things is revealed. Both novels show how society resists passion and freedom. In Charlotte, passion is forbidden and dangerous; it ultimately leads to the heroine’s death. In Ruth Hall, passion is seen as romantic. When Ruth and Daisy spend their days in the woods, a higher sense of being is felt. By being in nature, the mother and daughter become a part of it. Daisy, for instance, has a natural and wild name. Daisies grow in the wild, and they are appreciated when seen for those fleeting moments in Spring that do not last long enough, just as Daisy’s own life was sorrowfully short lived. Charlotte’s taste of wildness through her tryst with Montraville was also fleeting. Today, such a relationship would be viewed as nothing out of the ordinary. There might be a few whispers, but this society would easily get over a young girl’s romantic attempts at love. But, Rowson’s audience was not today’s women. She wrote "for the perusal of the young and thoughtless of the fair sex, this Tale of Truth …[to] consider it as not merely the effusion of Fancy, but as a reality" (372). Recognizing that young girls needed to learn this lesson somewhere, Rowson thought literature would be a good venue. This also makes a statement about religion and society. New forms of reading material were available. Previously, only the Bible and religious writings were acceptable forms of reading. These earlier forms of literature limited women in certain ways. For many, they were boring and difficult to read. A novel like Charlotte or Ruth Hall, on the other hand, kept women readers turning pages. Also, reading these novels feels less like work. Even though their entertaining value can be a lesser form than deeply psychological writings, the impact of these novels was great. Maybe these works did not address the most intellectual theories, but consider that women’s education did not stress intellect as it does today. Women were supposed to marry and tend homes. Charlotte, especially, serves as a "cautionary tale" (Davidson 787) with suggestions on how to avoid the wrong decisions in order to be able to find a husband and have the home. Loraine Fergenson also notes that Rowson’s novel was written in the hopes of helping to prevent social rejection; thus Charlotte’s pain would not have to be endured firsthand by other young ladies. Rather, through a vicarious reading of her tale, a great enough sense of the hurt could be experienced (Fergenson). Ruth Hall also stresses creating a home, but Fern twists this concept by paying for her homes herself. Nevertheless, the home is important.

Fanny Fern’s novel tells society to look at what women are capable of; if women think logically, they can realistically gain the freedom of their own thoughts. From there, women begin to openly question the injustices of being oppressed as the fairer sex. And what becomes of Charlotte? Had Montraville not had to deal with the government’s imposition of primogenitor, could he and Charlotte have prevailed? He was genuinely interested in her. It seems obvious that primogenitor prevented certain people from falling in love. Money was so important in these societies. Ruth’s mother constantly nags about Harry spending too much money on Ruth, and she even says, when a nurse is hired after Daisy’s birth, "You ought to have sense enough to check him, when he goes into such extravagances for you…"(27). How odd that one generation saw this gesture as excessive, and the following generation viewed it as loving and caring that Harry did not want to burden Ruth with too much work.

Control issues can also be questioned through these works. Mrs. Hall takes great pleasure in criticizing Ruth when she does something different than herself. Her comment about the maid, for instance, makes is clear that she disapproves of their lifestyle. Montraville is more manipulative in his control. He fails to explain his realistic and cruel intentions to Charlotte before they set sail. He further controls his fate and hers when he takes another woman for his wife. La Rue also attempts to control her situation with Crayton by denying her acquaintance with Charlotte when she is in desperate need of help. Charlotte lacks control over her fate, though it can be argued that she is responsible for the actions that bring forth the consequences she regrets in her life. Ruth, by contrast, gains power through financial freedom; thus, she possesses a certain identity of her own through her wealth ("Fanny Fern"). She suggested other women do the same as well.

Good and evil play important roles in Charlotte and Ruth Hall. The statements the authors are clear on are that evil lurks around in the world, but goodness can prevail. For Charlotte, evil enters her innocent schoolyard through Mademoiselle La Rue. Her parents think their daughter is safe. Instead, evil seduces their daughter in the form of Montraville, aided by La Rue and Belcour. La Rue convinces Charlotte that she is too far involved with Montraville after a few meetings to turn back; it is all or nothing. Charlotte chooses to let everything go in her pre-existing life by loving Montraville. Charlotte continues to be the victim of evil when Belcour decides to pursue her, after Montraville has bored of her. Belcour goes so far as to inform Charlotte that Montraville has married another woman. He reasons that by bringing Charlotte further down, his chances with her are much greater (Rowson 396). In the end, goodness does prevail in both Charlotte and Ruth Hall. Mrs. Beaucamp comes to Charlotte’s aid when no one else will. Finally, Charlotte has someone to care for her other than the reader. Everyone seems to repent for his or her sins against Charlotte as well. For instance, Montraville has a nervous breakdown in the street when he sees the "poor murdered Charlotte!"(406). La Rue is also found years later in a state of poverty and despair. She describes herself as "the viper that stung your peace"(407) to the Temples. Also, the Temples raise Lucy as if she were Charlotte. They love the young girl and want her life to be good. As for Ruth, she and her children finally get to move on to someplace better. They visit Harry’s grave before they "leave this part of the country" (Fern 210). Katy murmurs "Yes!"(210), and we sense that happiness will rule their lives.

Reason and emotion serve as two conflicting themes. For the innocent "pre-fallen" Charlotte, passion is much stronger than logic. She tries to convince herself to stay away from Montraville, but her feelings are too intense to betray. Charlotte is drawn to her love despite the danger implicit in their union. This brings up the question of differences in male and female. Ruth and Harry, for instance, lead separate lives by day. She is playful, and he is all business. When they are together, however different they pass their days, they share another part of their lives. In the "Tale of Truth," however, passion leads Charlotte astray, while Montraville is able to take the affair for what it is worth. He returns to a more logical way of thinking eventually, partly because he realizes his financial status depends on marrying well. La Rue also settles for stability over her adventure with Belcour. Crayton can provide the kind of excitement and monetary pleasure that appeals to the lifestyle La Rue wishes to have. According to Harvey O’Higgins, "Romantic love in a man is a phenomenon that accompanies courtship, but tends to disappear with the satisfaction of the sex instinct"(O’Higgins 237). Such seems to be the case with both Montraville and Belcour. Once their sexual quest is complete, they have no use for Charlotte and La Rue anymore. They must move on to other quests. In keeping with American Romanticism, that moment when everything was perfect is a very short lived. Charlotte’s character is romantic in that she desires the lost romantic life with her family after she leaves them. She longs for their love. After experiencing romantic love with Montraville, she is disappointed. The courtship was fun, and she longed for him all the time. When they finally have one another on their trip across the ocean, things are not so great as she expected.

Other contrasts are evident through character analysis. Appearance and reality, for example, have unclear boundaries in the first look at some characters. In Ruth Hall, Mrs. Hall is a respected woman, but she is so ugly to Ruth. It would seem that since she so adores her son Harry, she would also adore his choice in a wife. Instead, Ruth and her children appear as boundaries, taking away her own time from Harry. In Charlotte, the uniforms of Montraville and Belcour can be associated with honor from their appearance. The characters that wear the uniforms, however, are out for adventure, not honor. That adventure comes in courtship with innocent young women. The soldiers may look nice in their fineries, but that does not mean their intentions are nice. Obviously, Montraville does not have Charlotte’s virtue in mind when he convinces her to run away with him. Gracious and spiteful characters also contrast each other. Ruth, Charlotte, Mrs. Beaucamp, and the Temples represent the antithesis of Mr. and Mrs. Hall, the Ellets, Mademoiselle La Rue, Montraville, and Belcour. The gracious characters care about the world around them. Ruth loves Harry and their children dearly; she tries to give them the life the Temples attempt to provide for Charlotte. The spiteful characters seem to stand in the way of happiness, but they do what is necessary to keep themselves happy, often at the expense of the gracious characters. Montraville and the Halls and Ellets fail to provide for children that they should morally see as their responsibility. Thus, Ruth and Charlotte have to suffer for actions that are out of their control, at least to a certain extent.

These female authors are also able to show the inner conflicts their heroines face. They touch on some very personal issues. Conflicts of the individual versus the self are particularly interesting. When Charlotte goes out with Mademoiselle La Rue in the beginning of Charlotte, she lets La Rue know she is uncomfortable with their actions. In fact, the "freedom of their conversation disgusted her" (Rowson 375). Charlotte was new to the conversations shared between morally loose men and women. La Rue acts as if nothing is wrong with the subject matter of their conversation. Charlotte trusts La Rue’s judgement, likely not knowing of La Rue’s past and the rumors that she eloped with a young officer. Rowson vividly shows how the individual is not always true to itself. Charlotte should have trusted her own feelings; instead, she allows others to influence her. She does not like the things she does, and her guilt is an attempt to reconcile her actions. Her guilt will not allow her to adjust to the lifestyle she will endure by running away with a young officer, however. She sees the life of a mistress as something vile and base, yet she becomes the very thing she despises. Charlotte cannot handle the changes she must make in order to survive in her fallen world. Thus, it is only right that she must die to be saved from the sins against herself.

Though Charlotte dies, Ruth goes on to live a successful life. Therefore, being a woman did not have to mean being controlled by a man. Through Ruth, goodness and reason seem to rule. She will go on to make decisions like a man would have because she has the wealth that society so respects. As an individual in a predominantly male environment, Ruth knows things will not be easy. Someone, however, has to cross the line and enter that realm for the rest of womankind. Perhaps Ruth’s and Charlotte’s societies were quick to dismiss feminine strength, but the power of their written words cannot be denied.