In Geraldine's letter to Fanny in letter XXIII Smith continues the negative connotations towards the aristocracy and their associates. The further south Geraldine travels the worse the conditions of France become with even the landscape itself appearing "more dreary than the wildest heath in England" and having "hardly any traces of civilization." While the company in which Geraldine finds herself appear "wild and savage," "hideous figures," and in Geraldine's own words she "fancied [herself] surrounded by daemons." Smith's choice of language forces readers to perceive a negative view of the aristocracy in an attempt to further promote pro-revolutionary thought.
Upon Geraldine's rescue by Desmond and their arrival at the castle of Count d'Hauteville Desmond begins questioning a banditti about the whereabouts of the Count and the other noblemen. The banditti relays that both the Count and the nobleman have fled from the municipal guard despite vowing that they were "determined never to submit." Here Smith cleverly calls out the aristocracy as cowards not able to defend their own homes and property or to risk their wellbeing to attain what they believe is right. This lack of conviction is starkly contrasted by the revolutionist movement exemplified by Montfleuri when he states in letter XXV that in order to destroy despotism and obtain liberty for France he would "sacrifice..life itself."
This was really starting to show to me when reading volume three that the characters represented parts of the revolution in Smith's novel. This lead me to--before reaching the ending--thinking that Desmond would indirectly lead to Geraldine's death as like the repressed citizens of the revolution are so caught up in the spirit of revolt that they take things too far leading to the Reign of Terror. But maybe it still does? Now that Geraldine is now practically considered Desmond's in the last paragraph, her fate is now with him and if he is tied to the revolution then the peace may not last long with these two.
ReplyDeleteSmith is clearly biased in regards to the Revolution. It's interesting that, while the Revolution does play a role in the novel, it ultimately had nothing to do with the underlying narrative. It could have just as easily taken place exclusively in England. In a way, she seems to have had two objectives in writing Desmond: to write a compelling story concerning love and marriage in eighteenth century England and to sway her readers towards backing the Revolutionary cause. I do like novels that have an underlying message, but something about her novel almost reads like propaganda, which I'm not much of a fan of, even if I agree with the writer's view. Going off of that, I wonder how her characters would have reacted to the subsequent Terror?
ReplyDeleteI agree, I think that Smith was passively condemning the aristocrats and implying their cowardice in arming the banditti and then fleeing. I also thought it was telling that Smith had Verney be apart of the aristocrats "army", which led to his death. I think that adds to the idea of the novel being allegorical to the Revolution, having the villain oppressing Geraldine also be involved with the aristocrats that were completely against freedom and reform.
ReplyDelete