Washington Street, penned by Henry James, is a work of realist fiction, which takes on the cliché plot line of a traditional romance. In essence, a plain, naive, and inherently good young woman is pursued by an older man with ulterior motives. From within this traditional plot structure, James explores the nature of relationships, with a particular interest in marriage. Overall, he presents marriage as a troupe established for social purposes and essentially forming a simplistic social contract, with romance removed, or ruined by the interplay of social demands and questionable motives. This can be directly contrasted with the romantic view of love, and concept of marriage, which is less social, and more emotional in nature. In other words, the historical view of marriage is represented significantly different by James, in his attempt at realism, than it is in Hope Leslie, which takes a softer approach.
It is, perhaps, first useful to explore how the realist world view directly contrasts with the romantic view of marriage, overall. Realists place “a strong emphasis on the truthful representation of the actual” (Holman 415). Similarly, in the words of Henry James, fiction must “It must take itself seriously for the public to take it so.” (1). This often makes their approach more pragmatic, in that the real is often considered average, or even poor or plain.
In contrast, however, the romantic approach generally focuses on emotion, and so places greater emphasis on what is felt, instead of what is seen, and so offers a more subjective, and resulting more hopeful, view of relationship. This directly impacts the way that James presented Marriage, and male-female attraction, as it contrasts with Sedgwick’s approach in Hope Leslie.
The contrast between the two author’s approaches is first seen in their description of primary female characters, and male response to them. The primary female characters in Hope Leslie, are first Alice, and later her daughter Hope. Both are described as beautiful. More specifically, Hope is described as looking like her mother, and more specifically, as “delicately formed, the high health and uniform habits of a country life had endowed her with the beauty in which poetry has invested in Hebe; while her love for exploring hill and dale, ravine and precipice, had given her that elastic step and ductile grace which belongs to all agile animals" (Sedgwick 122). The use of nature to describe her characteristics is also rooted in the romantic, or sentimentality, of the authors approach.
In contrast, Catherine, as the protagonist of Washington Square, is described as plain, and shy “The most that had ever been said for her was that she had a ‘nice” face’, also “a dull, plain girl she was called by rigorous critics—a quiet, ladylike girl, by those of the more imaginative sortshe was shy, uncomfortable, painfully shy.” (James 19). Her father, thus, holds out no hope that she will ever be loved by anyone.
It is interesting to consider that these two women are equal, in terms of terms femininity, and quite possibly in terms of their attractiveness. The difference, however is how they are viewed through the lese of literary theory, and how this alters both the author and the audience’s perception of her. More specifically, we believe that Hope is beautiful, because the sentimental view of her, as presented by Sedgewick is emotionally impactful, and leads us to the reader to invest in her beauty, while in contrast, the realistic view of the shy Catherine do nothing to influence us toward the same level of admiration or even compassion for that character.
However, it is interesting to note that many other characters in the text have striking similarity. For example, the fathers in both tales are controlling, ultimately working to direct their daughter’s choices when it comes to love and marriage. In Washington Square, the primary father character, Dr. Sloper, makes a series of decisions designed to control his daughter and prevent what he views as a disadvantageous marriage to Morris. More specifically, he threatens to cut her off, thereby limiting her inheritance, takes her on a grand tour of Europe to physically separate the lovers, and attempts to force a death-bed promise from his daughter, as he lays dying. Alice’s father forbids her to marry Fletcher, because or concern over religious differences, and forces her to marry Charles Leslie instead.
It is significant, when considering the way that the Alice character, and her daughter Hope, are both romanticized within the text, while Catherine is not, and is instead depicted as plain, that the absolutely power of the father over his daughter remains consistent in both texts. Romantic texts did not, therefore, question the sanctity of the Paternalistic society that dominated Western culture at that time.
The daughters, in both stories live under their father’s roofs, and so are under their control. This is visible, at greater length, in Washington Square. The home is a mini-society, in which Dr. Sloper is the patriarch. Dr. Sloper tells Catherine she does not need to “believe” he is right, but rather to “take it on trust.” (James 135). This indicates that he does not feel that his deicisons should be questioned, but rather that she should accept his judgement, as the patriarch, even in matters that directly relate to her own life. As such, in both stories the father becomes the major impediment to the main characters’ love, or the source of conflict, which drives the primary turning points in the novel.
However, the different approaches result in very different total outcomes, almost completely separated by the sentimental, versus real contrast in the two works. In other words, the romantic work looks for a way for love to win, or to right the wrong created by the father character, while the realistic text does not look for a cosmic solution to Catherine’s loneliness.
More specifically, Hope Leslie seeks to right the cosmic wrong of separating the two lovers by, in true romantic fashion, allowing their children to grow up, find one another through multiple tragedies, and despite separation by multiple continents. However, Catherine chooses never to marry, remaining alone after being jilted, and truly hurt, by her former companion, in Morris.
As a result of these very different endings, however, the two authors ultimately seem to make very different conclusions about marriage and its significance, and it is inverse to what one might presume to be the outcome. The romantic text supports a woman’s right to choose, and stands against the convention of marriage as a social absolute. It offers the alternative, and generally unromantic viewpoint that “Marriage is not essential to the contentment, the dignity, or the happiness of woman” (Sedgewick 349). While this seems less romantic, it does certainly adhere to the romantic principle that one should marry for love, and not purely because of the social convention requiring that people grow up, and pair off.
In contrast, however, it seems that Washington Square strongly insinuates that, from a realistic perspective, life is less fulfilled, or has less meaning, in the absence of marriage. Of the primary characters in the text, most are either unmarried, or windowed, and none of them are better, as stated by Sedgewick, happier or more content, in the absence of a partner. Examining the impact of their partnerlessness on each character provides a meaningful dialogue regarding the importance of marriage.
More specifically, it is revealed that Dr. Sloper is “cold” and “unfeeling” as a direct result of his wife’s death. He considered his wife both beautiful and dynamic, and can see none of her qualities in his daughter. This is perhaps because he resents his daughter living, in his wife’s absence. As a result, he treats his daughter badly, ultimately leading to much of the conflict in the novel. Similarly, his sister, Mrs Penniman, is windowed, and childless, which leaves her completely unoccupied. In order to create occupation for herself, she manufactures drama that leads to the budding romance between Catherine and Morris, which ultimately undermines the happiness of most of the characters in the novel. Finally, Catherine, because she does not find love, or marriage, more specifically, is doomed to a life focused on trivial things like knitting. James writes, that she was left “picking up her morsel of fancywork, [she] had seated herself with it again - for life, as it were." (266). Marriage is thereby presented as fundamental to happiness, and to having a life, beyond youth within the text. All those who enter middle-age without a partner are, from a very realistic perspective, miserable.
James and Sedgewick both explored the significance of love and marriage from two very different perspectives. The first, wrote from ma realistic perspective, working to show the world, and relationship dynamics as they actually are, while the later focused on the sentimental, and explored the emotional basis upon which relationships are built. However, it is interesting that ultimately, James presents marriage as fundamental to life, while Sedgewick presents marriage as the ultimately act of love, but unessential to survival. In other words, the historical view of marriage is represented significantly different by James, in his attempt at realism, than it is in Hope Leslie, which takes a softer approach, based in the same traditions but supporting two very different conclusions.
Works Cited:
Holman, William. A Handbook to Literature. New York, Pearson. 2011. Print.
James, Henry. Washington Square. Oxford: Oxford U Press, 2008. Web.
James, Henry. “The Art of Fiction” 1884. Web.
Sedgwick, Catharine Maria. Hope Leslie. Pp. 296. George Routledge & Co.: London, 1850. Web.
