- The very first thing that appeared to me when beginning to read The Monk was the complete title. The Monk – A Romance. Although this novel is widely studied as possibly the best Gothic novel ever written, the author made a point to "name" it directly as a Romance in the title. Do you think the title is to be taken literally or is some form of diversion from what the text ultimately delivers?
- I find if difficult not to reflect on Vathek and our discussion of a bastardized Romanticism when reading this text. This text, unlike the prior, weaves an intricate web of love associations from the very beginning. The Gothic element is not overtly present. From the playful seduction in the church between Antonia and Lorenzo, to Antonia's lust for Ambrosio during his sermon, to the cloaked love of Matilda and Ambrosio's impious lusts (even for the Virgin Mary), this novel reads as many romances do. However, it is set in and around a church. Thus, the struggle between religion and sin is made present again, but not nearly as distinctly as in Vathek. Does the strength of the intricate web of love associations in this section of the novel pull it closer to Romanticism? Does it still seem to fall into the classification of a twisted Romanticism, or does it read more easily as a Romance, as the title might suggest?
(Note: My questions to begin the novel are somewhat general in nature, but you may supply specific examples from the text. As we proceed, we will go deeper into character and plot.)
8 comments:
The idea of adding "Romance" to the title of "The Monk" seems to be a fitting addition to the work. Romance in the sense of the Romantic era focused somewhat on the ideas of the soul and the sublime as well as natural elements connected to a superior being. In another sense, Ambrosio will begin to be courted court temptation after the death of the young woman who hides her gender in the monastery. In the beginning of the work, he denies himself the chance to avoid temptation, a very real and natural idea. he trues to be more than human in his purity and desires, which backfires horribly. The idea of 'Romance' in the work is not the modern ideal found in Harlequin romance novels, but it fits as it is a mans attempt and failure at placing himself in the romantic ideal of the spiritual and above human impulses.
It would be useful here to nail down the definition of a "Romance" as of 1795. Although characters in _The Monk_ obviously have love interests, a "Romance" was different then from the current definition. Any takers?
Taking from what I recall in English Literature II, Romanticism focuses on the emotions as a valid aesthetic source, unlike the Enlightenment before which relied on the intellect. I think The Monk, and the novels we've read so far, explores a part of Romanticism not yet explored by other poets and writers: terror. There's also a feeling of isolation in Romantic works--that is what I get from "Mont Blanc" and Percy Shelley's description of it and the awe he feels from it. Romanticism in 1795 is less about love between people, but the relationship between people and their own emotions and how they react to the failures of others and the sublimity of Nature.
Leigh said, that "The Monk" seems to be a romance novel type. Each chapter seems to have all the element in place for a good romance. Even though the first one the Monk refrained himself which backfired. It was full of surprise like when he found out that his friend Rosario was not a man, but a woman who loved him dearly. This book so far seems like a traditional love story.
1. The addition of “Romance” to the title of The Monk is a fitting addition because although the novel is an obvious Gothic classic, it also contains several Romantic elements. The vast array of characters bring about a vast array of emotions within the readers. The most obvious example is the heroic Ambrosio. Although he is far from the traditional hero due to his downfall, raping of Antonia and her subsequent murder, he possesses heroic characteristics such has his struggle to remain virtuous. While his purpose of virtue seems to be a selfish act, he nonetheless struggles against the acceptance of sin. His heroic demise his a perfect example of the novel’s Romantic elements.
2. I have to disagree and say that I believe that the distinction between religion and sin are more evident in The Monk than in Vathek. While Vathek presented obvious sin, Ambrosio represents the struggle between his virtue and his sin. It is more of a decision of which path to take, while Vathek’s path seemingly had no other choice. From the very beginning, Vathek’s hunger for power and gluttony sealed his fate as a sinner. Ambrosio, however, seems to have a choice. He may have been manipulated by Matilda, but even after her unveiling he knows better. On his own accord, he chooses to take a turn towards damnation. In the same light, the love attractions make The Monk seem like more of a Romance because it adds to the inner struggle present within the characters. The passion and compassion level is raised within the novel, hence it reads much easier as a Romance.
Thank you Amanda, Antonio and Dr. Gerard. Although love is part of the Romance, mainly because of its associations with the sublime and with feelings rather than intellect, I think that it does nothing to pull this novel closer to the definition of Romanticism.
When we consider that Romanticism embraced the individual, his thoughts, desires, and individual destiny, Romanticism becomes much more about the freedom to "be" than a feeling of affection or adoration of another person. However, I do think that many Romantic novels did reflect superfluously on romantic love, thus my questions. Some scholars have suggested that the love associations and the attention that is played to constructing a large part of the plot around them even distracts for the heart of the story. They at times seem melodramatic.
I do note that Romanticism is just as complexly defined as the humans who created it, so I do give some validity to the presence of the "passions of love."
However, no, again, I do not believe that the twisted love associations pull the novel more toward Romanticism. I myself do believe that it reads "more easily" as a Romance because of the predominance of the themes of desire and unnatural adoration, all human emotions that are not of the intellect. I also have an easier time seeing a "truthful," more honest exploration of the inner workings of the complexities of life and heart. Possibly this is because the setting is one that I feel comfortable in and the characters are more dynamic, fully developed. Thus, I can relate or identify with them better. I do not know. I am still exploring the possibilities as I read.
The Gothic elements in this novel seem more believable to me than Vathek of The Castle, also, and I am also still exploring why they seem more believable.
(Sometimes it is hard to answer a question, "No," and feel like you are on the right track. Dr. Gerard pointed you in the correct direction. Now, I proceed in reading and thinking more fully about the text to present questions about how "dreams" affect the Gothic quality of the novel. Thanks for responding.)
While adding "A Romance" to The Monk seems ill-fitting, I think that it adds not only to the smattering of satire throughout but also to the allusion to something deeper. The struggles the characters undergo in the book seems fitting of a Romance--indeed, many pursue something that seems unattainable, like the idea of perfect virtue.
I am more inclined to see The Monk as a twisted Romanticism. The very idea of lusting after a holy man is in and of itself in direct contrast with the church in which so much of this novel takes place. The church was, at times, set up to be a sanctuary from the "evils" of this world--love and lust included! To breed such loving temptations and thoughts in a church is very amusing to read but also damning to the monks and nuns souls! (at least, according the their thoughts of the day) In addition, some of us while reading this may be necessarily amused by the speed in which characters fall in "love."
thought I had posted this already... guess not.
1. I think that Matthew Lewis intentionally named his novel a Romance because it did fit many ideals of Romanticism. It focuses on characters’ feelings and emotions, and several of the characters reject religion as superstition and naivety. There are supernatural elements that bring justice and punishment, similar to works of Coleridge. I think perhaps the idea of Romanticism was developed enough for Lewis to see the correlation, while the concept of Gothic literature may not have been as solid at the time.
2. I honestly do not believe that the love affairs land the novel more solidly in either Romanticism or “twisted” Romanticism. Rather, it is the actions, motivations, and morals of the characters that would lead me to place it in an “other than Romanticism” category. The characters act on depraved desires, but the punishments vary in severity. There are some heroic individuals, but they have flaws as well. The love affairs do exhibit depth of feeling and emotion, but love itself does not always seem to be the driving force; rather, lust fuels the fires of most of the interactions.
Post a Comment