The Necessity of Change:
Gentility in Faulkner’s The Sound and the Fury, Absalom, Absalom! and The Unvanquished
Sanne Kuipers, S1619721 Masterscriptie Engelse Taal en Cultuur
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen Supervisor: dr. I. Visser
22 Januari 2011 Word Count: 15. 723
Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Chapter One: The Changing South: History and Ideology 12
1.1 Family, Mythmaking, and Identification 12
1.2 The Myth of the Old South 17
1.3 Competing Ideologies: Paternalism and Liberalism 19 1.4 Social Structure in the Antebellum and Post-Civil War South 22
Chapter Two: Gender and Class in The Sound and the Fury 29
2.1 The Noble House of Compson 29
2.2 Quentin 33
2.3 Caroline 36
2.4 Jason 38
Chapter Three: Race and Class in Absalom, Absalom! 42
3.1 Miscegenation Fears 43
3.2 Thomas Sutpen and Charles Bon 45
Chapter Four: War and Gender in The Unvanquished 52 4.1 Deviant Females: Rosa Millard and Drusilla 53 4.2 Revenge and Renewal: John and Bayard Sartoris 59
Conclusion 66
Works Cited 70
Introduction
‘‘Then you shan’t go,’’ I said. ‘‘I’m stronger than you are; I’ll hold you.’’ I held her; her arm
felt little and light and dry as a stick. But it wasn’t that; her size and appearance had no
more to do with it than it had in her dealings with the Yankees; she just turned and looked at me, and I began to cry. (…) ‘It’s for all of us,’ she said. ‘For John and you and
Ringo and Joby and Louvinia. So we will have something when John comes back home.
You never cried when you knew he was going into battle, did you? And now I am taking
no risk; I am a woman. Even Yankees do not harm old women. You and Ringo stay here
until I call you.’’
(The Unvanquished 173-4)
‘‘The old lady settled herself comfortably, removing her white cotton gloves and putting
them up with her purse on the shelf in front of the back window. The children's mother still had on slacks and still had her head tied up in a green kerchief, but the grandmother
had on a navy blue straw sailor hat with a bunch of white violets on the brim and a navy
blue dress with a small white dot in the print. Her collars and cuffs were white organdy
trimmed with lace and at her neckline she had pinned a purple spray of cloth violets
containing a sachet. In case of an accident, anyone seeing her dead on the highway would know at once that she was a lady.’’
(‘‘A Good Man is Hard to Find’’ 118)
These two passages, from Faulkner’s novel The Unvanquished and Flannery O’Connor’s short story ‘‘A Good Man is Hard to Find’’ show us a glimpse of the myth of the Old South. In The Unvanquished the leading character of the scene is Rosa Millard, the narrator’s grandmother, who decides to deliver a stolen
property note to Grumby, the leader of a local robbing band, and ends up murdered. Rosa understands that Grumby and his men are not ‘gentlemen,’ but decides that they are at least Southern men and that they therefore will have a sense of honor preventing them from ever hurting a vulnerable woman (Young 33). So far, her expectation of genteel behavior has been fulfilled, something that makes her oblivious to the possibility of someone having actual harmful
intentions. She believes her identity as a white female, superficially behaving according to the proper decorum, will ensure her safety. In the second passage another grandmother is the leading character. She is also aware of the ideal of the Southern gentle lady and tries to conform to this ideal. She wants to be identified with ladyhood not just for the sake of appearances, but, just like Rosa Millard, because she believes this identification will earn her respect. In her view of the world no bad can happen to her because she is protected by this mythical
identity. When she encounters the Misfit, a notorious criminal, she expects him to treat her as a lady and tries every possible way to demand this behavior from him. Though he speaks to her in polite manner, he has no problem with shooting
‘a lady’ when she tries to touch him. This contrast of meaningless violence with the women’s expectation of civility is a harsh one. It emphasizes how much the
genteel ideal can differ from reality and that in the end appearances and rigid social and moral codes cannot prevent change. This theme is also present in many of William Faulkner’s novels, set in the fictional county of Yoknapatawpha, a microcosm of the South.
Gentility is a difficult concept to define because it can apply to a wide range of contexts. In this case gentility is a set of values and behavioral patterns that are used by people to establish themselves as Southern ladies or gentleman and reap the benefits of this identification. Goldfield describes gentility as an implementation of old forms of grace and civility into the New South through ‘‘an elaborate etiquette that differed according to race, class, and gender’’ (24) and that ‘‘reinforced traditional relationships of white male dominance and overall white supremacy (25). Traditionally gentility referred to someone of ‘‘gentle birth’’ (OED) who had ‘‘very good manners and behavior’’ (OALD 647) which made it apparent this person belonged to a ‘‘high social class’’ (OALD 647). Both the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary link gentility to a sense of social superiority and pretense, noting that the word is often used for people ‘‘quiet and polite, often in an exaggerated way’’ (OALD 646) in order to assert their social station. In other words, people take up ‘genteel’
manners and behavioral codes to appear what they desired to be in the hope of receiving the accompanying respect and social rank in the community.
In the post-Civil War South the former planter class clung to the remnants of what constituted gentility in the Antebellum Period. They believed gentility could restore order as there were established patterns of behavior that were either acceptable or unacceptable. However, the label of ‘genteel’ was not just associated with the upper class, but also to the heroic past. So, gentility became a part of paternalist ideology and the myth of the Old South. The term would from then on be a concept with which the proud, dignified Southerner, honoring his or her ancestors that fought in the Lost Cause, would want to be associated.
‘Genteel’ manners signified good origin, and a sense of respectability. In other words, compliance with the imagined social codes of the Antebellum Period would afford one the safety of respect in the community. Gentility is a central theme in many of Faulkner’s novels, as he explores different guises of ‘genteel’
behavior and many of his characters compare themselves to the genteel ideal.
William Faulkner (1897 – 1962), a giant of Southern literature, lived for the greatest part of his life in the South and almost all his stories are set in his fictional representation of the region. In many of his novels he describes the downfall of the planter class, a downfall caused by moral corruption and the abandonment of paternalist values. Faulkner confronted issues of race, gender, and class in his novels and questioned the system of paternalism, and the new modern liberalist way of life. He did this in a modernist fashion, using the stream of consciousness technique and a multiplicity of voices in many of his novels (Moonsu, par. 4).
In this thesis I will explore the concept of Southern gentility in three of Faulkner’s novels, namely The Sound and the Fury (1929), Absalom, Absalom!
(1936), and The Unvanquished (1938). Each of these novels explores
paternalism, the predominant ideology of the post-Civil War South. Paternalism was based on beliefs of white supremacy, gyneolatry, and the importance of a natural hierarchy in society. After the social upheaval of the Civil War, the former planter class looked for ways to cope with the changes that came with defeat and turned their past into a utopia. They imagined the Antebellum South to be a kind of paradise lost in which everyone knew their place and where gentility, good manners, and decorum shaped everyday life (Goldfield 30). This superior
lifestyle, the collective fantasy of a region, was upheld in order to restore dignity to the defeated South and provide its people with a sense of place. The cause they fought for became more than a fight for the maintenance of slavery (Railey 17); it became a fight for a glorified way of life, a ‘Lost Cause’ (Goldfield 20).
The three novels analyzed in this dissertation shed a light on different aspects of the concept of gentility and the inevitable transgressions of this ideal.
White males dominated Southern society before, during, and after the Civil War.
The transgressions and ensuing repercussions that become apparent in the novels are those of the subdued groups in society: women and blacks.
Paternalists desperately tried to maintain their position of power and most gender and race transgressions would be condemned immediately. As a punishment these ‘deviant’ individuals would be shunned from polite society,
forced into self-inflicted exile (Goldfield 31), or they would be rehabilitated through conformation. The genteel ideal was deemed untouchable because it ensured stability and a traditional social structure; hence, the interest in its maintenance was deeply-rooted in the South. Moreover, gentility and the myth of the Old South helped to mask the exploitative nature and inequality on which Southern society was based (Goldfield 25).
The Sound and the Fury, Absalom, Absalom! and The Unvanquished engage
with the dominant ideology of paternalism and the genteel ideal. The novels depict the interrelated nature of problems resulting from race, gender, and class divisions in Southern society. In The Sound and the Fury gender divisions are important in regards to class. One of its narrators is Quentin Compson, a young aristocrat obsessed with his sister’s honor. Quentin exhibits many gentlemanly and genteel qualities, but is caught between the Old and the New South. His brother Jason symbolizes the new liberalist, materialistic man of the New South.
Their mother, Mrs. Caroline Compson, chooses ladyhood above motherhood (Tredell 150-51), thereby revealing the artificial and superficial sense of gentility of the upper class in contrast to Quentin’s heartfelt, but misdirected gentility. All three characters have a rigid perception of class and gender positions as their ideas of right and wrong are based on a long tradition of male and female codes of behavior. Men were seen as the protectors and providers of the family, while women idealistically stood at the center of domestic life, serving their husband
and raising their children. The Sound and the Fury displays the importance of social codes and ideals of the post-Civil-War generation.
Absalom, Absalom! addresses the Southern obsession with racial purity in
relation to social mobility. Thomas Sutpen, a newcomer in Jefferson, is committed to his design of becoming a wealthy planter and starting a racially pure dynasty.
To achieve this plan Sutpen is willing to take what he can, setting aside all common decency. He does try to conform to the genteel ideal, believing gentility can be achieved by becoming rich, building a grand mansion, and marrying a respectable wife. Sutpen abandons his first wife Eulalia and their son Charles after he finds out she has some black blood, which collides with his design of becoming a wealthy patriarch (Railey 131). His son, having established himself as a gentleman in society, is nevertheless excluded from it when his ancestry is revealed. In chapter three I discuss the significance of racial ideology in the paternalist system and examine how this relates to the fate of Charles Bon.
Charles Bon and Henry Sutpen, both pose a threat to genteel society by the changes they could set in motion.
The Unvanquished, a set of short stories elaborated into a novel, highlights
the period of great upheaval that set in motion the desire for renewed dignity and gentility, namely the Civil War. In this book two female characters, Rosa Millard and Drusilla Hawk take up active, ‘masculine’ behavior as a response to the problems they are faced with in the war. I explore these gender
transgressions, and the reaction of the townspeople, who maintain paternalistic social order and enforcing correction. In all three novels, hierarchy and
domination enforce the memory of the Old South, safeguarding an imagined ideal which reassured the conservative white upper class and ignored the omnipresent societal changes brought about by the war. The transgressions to this ideal play an important role in the aforesaid novels as they identify the paralyzing effect of a ‘‘decapitated Antebellum ideology’’ (Weinstein 345) in the South.
In this dissertation I will argue that the ideology of gentility related to notions of the Old South and influenced and shaped William Faulkner’s novels The Sound and the Fury, Absalom, Absalom!, and The Unvanquished in important
ways, in particular their crucial engagement with race, class, and gender divisions.
As important references for my analysis I use the works of five
contemporary Faulkner critics and Southern historians that have published in the last twenty years, namely Goldfield, Matthews, Railey, Robinson, and Williamson. In his book Natural Aristocracy: History, Ideology, and the Production of William Faulkner Railey argues that Faulkner believed in an ideology called natural aristocracy, the belief in a social hierarchy which would not be based on
wealth (capitalism) or bloodline (paternalism), but on moral character and well- earned superiority (Railey 43). Railey’s notion is useful for establishing some footing in regards to the structure and ideologies of the South both before and after the Civil War. Goldfield’s book Still Fighting the Civil War is of interest to my
topic as it elaborates on the relevance and immanence of the Civil War period for Southerners of Faulkner’s generation and their purpose of creating ‘the lost cause’ (26). Matthews, Robinson, and Williamson are useful in their exploration of different facets of paternalism, liberalism, and controversial topics in Southern literature and culture.
Chapter One - The Changing South: History and Ideology
1.1 Family, Mythmaking, and Identification
‘‘Southerners tend to live in multiple time zones. Past, present, and future are conflated,
and the past is the most important of all’’ (Goldfield 15).
Social codes and values change with the times and the opinions about what constitutes gentility and what its role should be in society. Gentility, a set of manners and values highly esteemed in polite society, can indicate a lot about the core value system of a society. In the Old South ‘genteel’ behavior was associated with upper-class people functioning within the paternalist system. After the Civil War white Southerners tried to regain this old ideal, but liberalism and
increasing Northern influence urged on changes that eventually led to its decline.
Faulkner was interested in the friction between paternalism and liberalism and how class, race, and gender transgressions were understood and treated in both ideologies.
William Faulkner, deeply interested in the Southern mythical past, was significantly influenced by the position of his forebears in it. The positions his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father took up in society served as inspiration for some of his characters. One example is John Sartoris in The Unvanquished, who shares a more than coincidental similarity to Colonel William Clark Falkner (Rio-Jelliffe 33). When society moved from a paternalist to a more liberalist ethos, there was a loss of certain values as the focus moved from the community to the individual. In this chapter I discuss paternalism and liberalism, the two competing ideologies of the South. In addition, I explore the development of the myth of the Old South, the structure of Southern society before and after the Civil War, and most importantly, the influence of ideology and social structure on Faulkner.
In 1897, Faulkner, now one of the best known American writers and a giant of the South, was born as William Cuthbert Falkner in New Albany, Mississippi. His parents, Maud and Murry Falkner, named him after his great- grandfather Colonel William Clark Falkner (Blotner 3). The Colonel (1825 – 1889) had worked his way up in society by marrying a planter’s daughter called Holland Pearce, operating a successful law business, and setting up a railroad company after the Civil War. Holland died of consumption in 1849 after bearing him a son, Faulkner’s grandfather, John Wesley Thompson Falkner (1848 – 1922). As William Cuthbert Falkner could not take care of the small infant himself, he left him in the care of his sister, Justianna and her husband John Wesley Thompson. The Colonel remarried after two years and had several more children with his second wife Elizabeth Vance. In 1886 he took over the Ripley Railroad Company that would connect Ripley to Middleton, Tennessee, to
Charleston, South Carolina, and to Memphis. This enterprise made him a wealthy man, though one with many enemies (Blotner 4-5). During his career the Colonel was involved in multiple shootings and fights with rivals. He was charged with murders of Robert Hindman in 1849 and Erasmus Morris in 1851, before being shot himself by his former business partner and rival Richard Thurmond in 1889.
Joseph Blotner, Faulkner’s best-known biographer, states: ‘‘The Old Colonel did many things in his life which left its mark. Lawyer, planter, soldier, politician,
railroad builder, and writer1[1]-he truly excelled at none of them, but there was a dynamism in him which made him a legend (28).’’
The Old Colonel’s son, J.W.T, went to college at the University of
Mississippi in Oxford, and married a local girl called Sallie Murry with whom he had three children: Murry Cuthbert, Mary Holland, and John W.T Junior. In contrast to his father John was more of a family man, taking care of his extended family -taking them in, financing their education, helping careers progress- and setting up public works when in office in order to stimulate ‘‘social stability and improvement (cornerstones of paternalist ideology)’’ (Railey 34). Murry,
Faulkner’s father, also went to university, but his main interest lay at his grandfather’s railroad, where he worked himself up from ‘‘from fireman to
brakeman, to engineer, and conductor’’ (Williamson 75). Just like his grandfather, Murry was a passionate and sometimes violent man, he enjoyed hunting and camping and was nearly killed in a shooting when protecting his love-interests honor against a local man (Williamson 76). He and his brother John were both fervent believers in the liberal-minded New South and supported both the elections of Vardaman and Bilbo2[2], men generally detested by paternalists (Railey 25).
1[1] In 1881 W. C. Falkner published The White Rose of Memphis, his best known book, a romantic mystery novel dealing with a murder on a steamboat. He wrote several other works, including a travel journal and another novel called The Little Brick Church. (Blotner 23)
2[2] James K. Vardaman (1861 - 1930) and Theodore G. Bilbo were liberal politicians and white supremacists who both served as Governors of Mississippi. Vardaman was in charge from 1904 – 1908 and Bilbo from 1916-1920 and from 1928 - 1932. Vardaman appealed to the mass vote as he promised to ‘‘improve their lot without improving the lot of blacks or drastically changing social structure’’ (Railey 23). Bilbo continued Vardaman’s policies and built on the foundations placed by the Progressive Movement. Under his rule the middle class grew and the power of the state was expanded, significantly increasing the number of civil servants (Railey 25).
Young William was greatly influenced by his friendly paternalistic
grandfather John Wesley Thompson and in a lesser degree also by his notorious great-grandfather Colonel William Clark Falkner. According to Railey, he felt alienated from the values of the New South and therefore identified more with the paternalistic past with its clear social structure and codes of behavior.
Faulkner was proud of the mark his great-grandfather left, stating in an interview:
‘‘My great-grandfather, whose name I bear, was a considerate figure in his time
and provincial milieu (…) He built the first railroad in our county, wrote a few books, made a grand European tour of his time, died in a dual and the county raised a marble
effigy which stands in Tippah County’’ (Blotner 24).
In these comments we can see that Faulkner added to the existing legend of his great-grandfather, embellishing his life story by turning his murder by a rival into an honorable duel (Blotner 24).
Faulkner knew his grandfather’s stories about the Civil War by heart and carried them with him as if they had happened yesterday. In his book Still Fighting the Civil War Goldfield describes the interesting position Southern history took up in the minds of post-Civil War generations:
‘‘White Southerners growing up in the early twentieth century noted how vivid the war and Redemption seemed to them in the stories created and recreated by their
elders, in the books they read, the tableaux they viewed. The war and Redemption3[3]
were as immanent as today and as impending as tomorrow’’ (26).
This passage illustrates the relevance of the past for Southerners of Faulkner’s generation. Goldfield argues that Southerners had a many undigested feelings after their defeat and that the only way for them to take up a worthy and satisfying position in the New America was to create an idyllic past (2), a vision that was kept alive by many generations. They envisioned the Old South as a place of peace and harmony in which everyone knew their place and was content with it. Plantations were run by the stereotypical friendly, well-mannered, and patriotic gentleman that took great care of his family and estate.
1.2 The Myth of the Old South
According to Merrill Skaggs in her book The Folk of Southern Fiction one can identify this planter gentleman as someone ‘‘sustained by an indestructible
3[3] The Redemption is a word used by white Southerners to describe the switch to conservative Democratic rule after the Reconstruction Period (1865 - 1877) that followed the Civil War. Many white Southerners did not agree with the new rights given to the freed blacks during the
Reconstruction and wanted to restore ‘‘self-respect for whites and a rationale for the sacrifice of war and their bitter defeat’’ (Goldfield 29).
pride in his honor and his good name,’’ (13) who is often surrounded by a ‘‘busy and satisfied’’ (13) wife, a ‘‘beautiful, womanly’’ (13) and innocent daughter, and a ‘‘less colorful but more idealistic’’ (13) son. These stereotypical characters served as some sort of consolation for the South’s defeat in the Civil War as they legitimized the South’s position in wanting to protect this domestic safe haven.
Southerners, especially white males, felt humiliated after the war. They had failed to live up their core expectations, being unable to safeguard their families and property, the focus of their paternalist worldview (Goldfield 2). The defeat of the Civil War was turned into a heroic Lost Cause making the war and its martyrs sacred and glorifying the old world of genteel living of the Antebellum Period (Goldfield 28-9). Visions of an idyllic Antebellum South originated and eventually brought white Southerners ‘‘a tradition, a sense of continuity in a destabilized postwar world’’ (Goldfield 20). The pillars of pre-Civil War society had been white supremacy and patriarchy (Goldfield 2) and these were maintained even though the South accepted the abolition of slavery, the innovations that came with industrialization, and prominent Northern influence that bordered on colonization (Williamson 13). African Americans were kept in their place by Jim Crow Laws4[4] that promoted segregation under the slogan ‘‘separate but equal’’
and white women, often idealized as pure and gentle ladies in paternalist ideology were kept in check by perseverant social control (Matthews 50).
4[4] Jim Crow Laws, enforced from 1876 to 1965 when the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional in 1954, served to create a separation in society between white and black citizens. The name Jim Crow refers to a black character in a nineteenth century plantation song (Oxford Reference Online Premium).
In the end, the North refused to see the South as a force to be reckoned with; they perceived the South either as backwards and undeveloped or as an idyllic, pastoral version of America (Goldfield 7). It goes without saying that this was the vision the South promoted and implemented in the North, for example, through the use of local color fiction5[5] (Goldfield 7). Local color novels set up an image of the Southern states as rural and anti-materialistic to form a sharp contrast with Northern city life and its multicultural society (Goldfield 7). This Northern escapism was fed by Southern authors in order to restore the South’s respectability and indirectly its sense of superiority (Skaggs 5). The advantage of this strategy was that the North underestimated the South in economic powers and many Southerners saw economical progress as ‘‘a blueprint for getting even:
avenge defeat and secure Redemption’’ (Goldfield 24). William Faulkner grew up against this cultural background and it influenced his authorship as he
endeavored to create a fictional reflection of the South.
1.3 Competing Ideologies: Paternalism and Liberalism
5[5] Local color fiction or Regional fiction was popular from the early 1860s up to 1900.
Midwestern Novelist Hamlin Garland described local color as fiction that ‘‘could not have been written in any other place or by someone other than a native’’ (Skaggs 1). Local color fiction was used by the defeated to restore dignity to their locality (Skaggs 4) and reflect on ‘‘allegedly happier times’’ (Reesman and Krupat 9). The Unvanquished is an example of a set of local color short stories that eventually turned into a novel.
Just like every other society, the South needed a system of rules, customs, and ideas to make sure its members functioned appropriately and order and discipline were safeguarded. This domineering train of thought, or dominant ideology, enforces a specific vision of life, Railey defines it as a ‘‘relatively organized system of values and representations that upholds and maintains a social system beneficial to the ruling class’’ (4). Over the years a dominant ideology merges with or is gradually replaced by a new ideology. An emergent ideology is characterized by its will ‘‘to define a future based on a different social vision than the one in dominance’’ (Railey 5). A dominant ideology constantly has to work in order to maintain a state of hegemony as social structure is always in a state of flux. According to Gramsci6[6], hegemony is a way for the dominant class to secure its position by making the subdued class give consent for the
exploitation they suffer through the use of ideology (Mastroianni, par.1). When a state of hegemony is achieved there is an overall acceptance of the social
hierarchy and division of power in a society (Railey 4).
In the South Faulkner grew up in there were two dominant ideologies competing for hegemony, paternalism and liberalism. Paternalism was the ideology of the Old South, of the planter elite, who believed in a clear social hierarchy and an inherent inequality of men, but also in responsibility towards the community and a code of honor (Railey 6-7). The paternalists were
6[6] Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937), an Italian Marxist theorist, adds on to Marx’s notion of false consciousness in his approach to the concept of hegemony (Oxford Reference Online). False consciousness is ‘‘a state in which individuals are ideologically blinded to the domination they suffer’’ (Mastroianni, par.1).
consciously elitist and they believed they deserved their position in society because of certain intrinsic qualities and abilities they possessed (Railey 7). The new, emergent ideology was liberalism; it was based on the belief that all men are created equal and that merit can and should afford someone the possibility of upward social mobility (Railey 7). As the focus with paternalism was on the community, the liberalist emphasis lay more on individualism and the pursuit of wealth (Railey 7-8).
Critic Kevin Railey argues that during Faulkner’s life the ideology of liberalism became dominant and the ideology of paternalism became a residual one. He emphasizes Faulkner’s identification with paternalism, in contrast to critic John T. Matthews, who is keen to point out Faulkner’s affinity with many modern values. In his book William Faulkner: Seeing Through the South Matthews argues that Faulkner is mainly occupied with depicting ‘‘how individuals process the massive upheavals associated with modernity’’ (20) and that in many of his books the characters that are ‘‘playing fast and loose’’ and ‘‘attempt to get out from under the weight of the past’s monumental decrepitude’’ are the most sympathetic ones (55). Naturally Matthews also acknowledges the significant bond between Faulkner and the ideology of paternalism, but he wants to adjust the prevailing ideas that Faulkner was merely appalled by all things modern.
Railey and Matthews mainly oppose each other when it comes to emphasis, the one focusing on Faulkner’s nostalgic side, the other on Faulkner’s more modern ideas.
According to critic Kevin Railey, the term natural aristocracy, coined by Thomas Jefferson, describes best what he considers to be Faulkner’s personal ideology. Jefferson’s notion described an ideal world that would combine the notions of equal rights and opportunities with that of a natural aristocracy, select individuals who were made to lead (Railey 112). As one can see, this ideology is constructed by both liberalist and paternalist elements, unified, yet always in some ways contradictory. This natural aristocracy would create a social hierarchy which would not be based on wealth (capitalism) or bloodline (paternalism), but on moral character and well-earned superiority (Railey 43). I believe the notion of natural aristocracy can be connected to Faulkner’s concept of gentility.
‘Genteel’ behavior can be considered part of the myth of the Old South, an imagined lifestyle which Southern whites installed to regain pride and control.
However, while Faulkner describes countless examples of less than genteel behavior by individuals transgressing class, race, and gender boundaries, there are also a few rare examples that can be considered as genuine gentility, on Faulkner’s terms, as I hope to argue in the next chapters of this dissertation.
1.4 Social Structure in the Antebellum and Post-Civil War South
In order to understand the tumultuous relationship between paternalism and liberalism one needs to take a closer look at the social structure of the South
in the antebellum years, the pre-Civil War Period, roughly dating from 1820 – 1860 and after the Civil War during the Reconstruction (1865 - 1877), the Gilded Age (1869 - 1896), and the Progressive Era (1890s – 1920s). Pre-Civil War Southern society was not as rigidly defined as it was after the Civil War. Most Southerners lived on a very local level and ‘‘their family and friends were their primary frames of reference’’ (Goldfield 17). Just as the Northern States the South thrived on agriculture, dominating the American export market from the 1820s to the 1860s through cotton production (Pessen 30).
Originally critics divided the South’s social structure into just two categories: the wealthy planters, who were seen as the largest group, and the poor whites (Pessen 10). Clearly, the social structure was much more complex and the number of actual affluent slave-owners, whom we know from myth- building tales like Gone with the Wind, was limited. The number, of course, depends on how one defines a planter. Ulrich B. Philips, a well-known and respected Southern historian, drew the line at someone owning more than twenty slaves. All in all, just twenty to twenty-five percent of the white families owned slaves and just ten percent of that number actually fell into this category (Pessen 15), amounting up to less than a quarter million (Skaggs 18). In the words of another famous Southern historian, Frank Lawrence Owsley: ‘‘the core of the social structure [in the Old South] was a massive body of plain folk who were neither rich not very poor … [a] great mass of several millions who were not part of the plantation economy’’ ( Skaggs 19).Consequently, the social
pyramid of the South started with the small group of wealthy planters,
merchants, and industrialist, followed by a middle class of professionals, small business people, and independent farmers. Next, came the industrial and agricultural workers, followed by the freed men and slaves, who were
‘‘universally relegated to the lowest levels of the social structure, scorned even by white vagrants’’ (Pessen 12). The wealthy upper class owned twenty-seven percent of the real and personal property in America just before the Civil War. It is interesting to note that in contrast to the North, the South had almost two- thirds of the nation’s rich counties that valued more than $4000 per capita wealth in 1860 (Pessen 13). However, this disproportionate division can be explained by the fact that slaves counted as part of someone’s property adding to their wealth instead of being a part of the property owning Southern population (Pessen 13-14). On the Eve of the Civil War about one third of the population of the Southern states was black and about ninety-five percent slave (Pessen 4).
Slaves formed the lowest cast in Southern society, but even between different slaves there was a social order based on pigmentation, originating from the growing class of mixed raced servants. Slave traders in New Orleans
described the lineage of their slaves according to an imagined blood quantum, such as ‘Negro,’ ‘Griffe,’ ‘Mulatto,’ or ‘Quadroon,’ indicating the degree of
whiteness (Johnson 198). For slaves with more ‘white blood’ they would receive a better price, especially for young women. These women, were urged to ‘act white’ so they would appeal to the white men’s ideal of beauty and composure
(Johnson 200), their purpose was ‘‘to love, to be beautiful, to divert’’ (97). These
‘fancy girls’ were not intended for hard work on the fields, but were seen as suitable house servants because slave owners preferred lighter-skinned people to serve them (Johnson 198). According to Walter Johnson in his article ‘‘The Slave Trader, the White Slave, and the Politics of Racial Determination in the 1850s’’ this hybrid whiteness, as he called it, made ‘‘whiteness salable by the presence of blackness’’ (198). This increasing whiteness of some slaves made it more difficult for Southern whites where to cross the line. The widely accepted belief was that of polygenesis, the idea that ‘‘blacks and whites were created separately’’ and that this division ought to be maintained (Johnson 206). This mindset allowed for the whites to reduce blacks to inferior dependents, and facilitated the practice of domination as it was believed blacks were less human.
In addition, through this dehumanization process all white people were united, keeping the system of slavery, and later the system of segregation, firmly in place (Goldfield 189). Many of Faulkner’s novels explore the issue of polygenesis, a belief that could function as a foundation for white supremacist ideology and promote racial segregation as the natural order of things. One example is Absalom, Absalom! in which the racially mixed Charles Bon is refused a place in
polite society because his white peers cannot accept a link between gentility and blackness.
When the Civil War was over the hegemony of the ideology of paternalism was destroyed as society’s structure was dramatically changed.
Though some planters were left empty handed by the War, the bulk regained their power and position in society. Now the slaves were freed a new agricultural system was necessary. At first planters tried to create a system of paid slavery as they demanded cheap laborers and investments from the government. But there was no money to pump back into the economy at this point. The former slaves, in turn, wanted to own land, and though some loaned land from planters, this was a marginal practice (Railey 8). A new agricultural system, which satisfied both parties sufficiently, was called share-cropping. Planters would lend blacks a patch of land in turn for a share of the crop (Oxford Reference Online). In essence, it mimicked the plantation system as it restored hierarchical order to the South and kept blacks in the position of dependents (Dessens 144). This arrangement allowed the blacks to organize their own family life and manage their labor as they saw fit, while the planters regained their power and sense of dignity.
Through this new balance the planters were able to hold on to a feeling of superiority while losing their sense of responsibility, thereby changing their concept of paternalism (Railey 12). Gradually this system pushed out the smaller farming families as large-scale agriculture was more profitable (Reesman and Krupat 3). Furthermore, these changes allowed for a growth of the middle class and made it possible for successful businessmen and merchants to rise to the upper class, which would no longer be made up merely of planter families. In The Sound and the Fury Jason Compson can be seen as a representation of this new
liberalist man of the South, providing for his family through his commercial and financial talent.
This new class of social climbers was known as the Redeemers; they believed in liberalism and social mobility to a degree, but identified with
paternalist planters because of their position of power (Railey 14). In addition to this shift in the social pyramid, another significant change brought about after the war was the increasing national influence on the South. Besides the growth of the transportation network via railroads, and the innovations devices like the telegraph and the telephone brought, the greatest change was the gigantic group of European immigrant that came to America in the years 1865 – 1920. The United States grew from a population of 38, 5 million in 1870 to a shocking 123 million in 1920 (Reesman and Krupat 3). In addition, many Northerners moved to the South and spread the liberal ethos (Railey 113). But, as critic David Goldfield states:
‘‘As an urban, industrial nation grew to world power by the early twentieth century, the South looked backward, embracing a culture different from the diverse,
democratic society that emerged up North. While southerners eagerly took on the latest
inventions and crowed about their economic progress, their society rested on principles
at odds with American ideals’’ (Goldfield 6).
Faulkner’s novels reflect and fictionally comment on Southern society and its development from a strictly paternalist society to a liberalist one in which certain paternalist values are maintained. In the following chapters I will discuss the relationship between the Old and the New South and its ideological
framework in relation to the concept of gentility in three of Faulkner’s novels:
The Sound and the Fury, Absalom, Absalom! and The Unvanquished. The concept of
gentility will be examined closely through the themes of class, race, and gender so as to define what constituted genteel manners in a society in state of extreme flux.
Chapter Two – Gender and Class in The Sound and the Fury
2.1 The Noble House of Compson
‘’I am don’t cry Im bad anyway you cant help it
theres a curse on us its not our fault is it our fault
hush come on and go to bed now
you cant make me theres a curse on us’’
(The Sound and the Fury, 145)
The Sound and the Fury tells the story of the downfall of the genteel and noble
house of Compson. The family prides itself on its noble past and some family members feel they have a reputation of respectability to uphold. Quentin and Jason inherited their mother’s obsession with appearances and the genteel ideal.
Mrs. Caroline Bascomb married above her station when she wed Jason Compson III (Williamson 403). She is, however, keen to point out the respectability of her maiden name of Bascomb and attributes all blemishes to her reputation to her husband’s side of the family. Quentin imagines himself to be a gentleman trying
to protect his sister’s honor, but fails miserably, and Jason goaded by his mother, becomes ‘‘ruthless in his determination to make other members of the family [especially Miss Quentin] behave in certain ways’’ (Williamson 403). It appears that the characters most obsessed with conforming to the genteel ideal and upholding its values are least in accordance with it. Their compulsive behavior to maintain a certain image of respectability in the eyes of the community blinds them from the real needs in their family.
The relation between class and gentility is significant in The Sound and the Fury as Caddy’s gender transgressions pose a great threat to the family’s
respectability and sense of self. In the novel the issue of class is largely based on paternalistic ideas of social structure and hierarchy. Traditionally, genteel qualities could only be ascribed to people of the wealthy planter class, as their lifestyle afforded them the opportunity to develop genteel qualities and values (Persons 3). In his book The Decline of American Gentility Stow Persons argues that it was the American Revolution and the rise of power of the Jacksonian Democrats7[7] that turned the gentility from class-based elite to a number of functional elite groups (vi). From then onward gentility would be based on Jefferson’s ‘‘natural aristocracy of virtue and talent’’ instead of on birthright and wealth (Persons 3).
7[7] The Jacksonian Democrats were followers of the policies of President Andrew Jackson who was in office from 1829 – 1837. His ideas dominated the political field from the 1830s to the 1850s, the period of the Second Party System. Jacksonian methods urged an elaboration of the electorate to all white males (1840), limited government interference (especially in the
economy), stimulated expansion across the American continent, and introduced the spoils system in which political supporters would be granted government offices (American National Biography Online).
Persons largely bases his study on the work of Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 – 1859), a French historian and political thinker who wrote a significant work on the democratic order and social structure of the new America, namely
Democracy in America (1835 volume I and 1840 volume II). His theories are
useful when forming a global picture of gentility and social structure in America, but do not account for the differences between Northern and Southern states, and between city and country. Toqueville saw the United States as a relatively uniform country when it came to wealth and concluded that the middle class and its values dominated society as he travelled the country in 1831. As liberalism and industrialization swept the country the upper class could be divided
between the socio-economic elite or ‘‘fashion’’ gentle class and the true gentility (Persons 43).
Though both branches of genteel people sought inspiration in the values and ideas of the European genteel aristocracy, they also wanted to provide the American gentry with a place without the artificial and unnatural qualities that made a European aristocrat a gentleman. It was in this setting that the idea of the natural gentleman developed, this man would not necessarily have to be
educated or a city-dweller, as long as he had the moral qualities of a gentleman (Persons 60). This natural gentry would come from the yeomanry, humble farmers and craftsmen (Persons 67) who could ‘‘dignify a humble occupation by a noble purpose’’ (65). Naturally, this new perception of gentility led to friction with the traditional concept of gentility, based on education and the focus on
culture and the arts. This conflict between ‘‘cultural and natural gentility’’
(Persons 64) also features in many of Faulkner’s novels and is tied in with
Faulkner’s ideas about natural aristocracy (Railey 44). The friction between these two visions is connected to the character’s sense of class and gentility. Class is a major theme in The Sound and the Fury and its relation to gentility is essential to our understanding of the characters and their fate.
The Compson children grow up in an unstable household, far from the paternalistic ideal of the balanced nuclear family. Their father, Jason Compson, is an embittered alcoholic, and their mother, Caroline Compson Bascomb, a selfish, pretentious hypochondriac who spends her time crying and lamenting her own fate. Their four children, Quentin, Candace, Jason, and Benjy all have their own way of dealing with their unhappy upbringing and depict different degrees of attachment to old glory and genteel values. Quentin and Jason represent a different, but equally stagnating, lifestyle that resulted from a disturbed family life and history. Caroline, the descendent of a prestigious family, neglects her children and values family honor and the social decorum above all else. All three characters are in a way defined by the past and represent the negative, static state of the former planter class forced to live with unwanted changes in social structure and values. Their fate ties in with their rigid perception of what
constitutes proper and improper behavior for both men and women, inspired by paternalism and idealization of what constitutes a Southern lady or gentleman.
This discussion is interrelated with the concept of social class, as gentility and its specific set of behavior and values, traditionally defined one’s place in the South.
2.2 Quentin
Quentin tries to be genteel in the traditional sense, expecting a reward for his protective behavior of Caddy in the form of status and respect. Quentin has many qualities that give him the potential of becoming the perfect paternalistic gentleman; he is intelligent, educated and well-mannered. In addition, he subscribes to the essential paternalist principles of white supremacy and male dominance. Quentin has a feeling of superiority which makes him believe in a natural order of society, in which both black people and women are subordinate to the male head of the family. Through the interactions with his nihilist father we can see the confusion and annoyance that is evoked in Quentin as Mr.
Compson does not demand his own place as the head of the family and refuses to take responsibility. Quentin fights, in his limited way, the dominance of new values, but realizes all is in vain after his encounter with the little Italian girl.
Quentin is accused of kidnapping her, and concludes that in a genteel society, his good intentions would not be questioned (Railey 59). Railey summarizes: ‘‘By killing of his [Quentin’s] voice, so to speak, Faulkner revealed that he, unlike
Quentin, was willing to confront history, to engage it, and challenge it if need be’’
(60).
Quentin identifies with paternalistic values, and has a larger than life sense of honor, refusing to accept the lack of morals exhibited by his sister. He becomes more and more desperate as he realizes his own inability to put these unwanted changes to a halt. A major reason for Quentin’s sense of powerlessness and inability to cope is the lack of a stable parental figure to put things into perspective. Without a vent for his frustrations or a trustworthy companion, his depression deteriorates. Near the end of his first year at Harvard his sense of disillusionment eventually leads him to commit suicide by drowning himself in the Charles River. Railey believes that Quentin’s death could symbolize the downfall of the ideology of paternalism as the dominant ideology (59). I partially agree with Railey on this point, as I believe Quentin’s death signifies mainly the failure of many of the former planter class to find a place in the changed South.
Naturally the withdrawal of the ideology of paternalism played an important role in this change, but just as Mrs. Compson’s endless lamentations on her own fate or Jason’s extreme meanness signify, the real issue is the sense of alienation which causes all sorts of disturbing behavioral patterns. In the emotional distress which follows a family once marked by its grandeur and gentility loses direction and falls apart.
Quentin’s obsession with his sister’s honor can be explained through his paternalistic and genteel worldview. One of the pillars of paternalism was gyneolatry, the business of creating a vision of the ideal woman and then dominating her by condemning every form of behavior that deviates from this vision (Railey 56 and Persons 88). White males used the ideal of the Southern genteel lady to keep women in place, to pin them down to the position of
domestic angel which they had occupied before the Civil War. As Goldfield states:
‘‘The surface civility, the gracious manners, and the oral traditions handed down
from the Civil War and Reconstruction generation provided a comforting and confining refuge for southern whites, a throwback to the fondly remembered past and the racial,
social, and gender divisions that such visionary history and its application generated’’
(30-1).
The ideal of the Southern lady was a woman that was ‘‘pious and pure, domestic and submissive’’ (Williamson 365), while the ideal of the Southern gentleman was a man that would protect women physically and would also be a
‘‘material protector’’ who would ‘‘‘bring home the bacon’ day by day for the comfortable support of their families’’ (Williamson 365). If women did not fit this pattern of behavior of the contented homemaker they could be excluded from
polite society and shunned. But not just the men kept women in check; women were also policing and condemning each other.
2.3 Caroline
Mrs. Caroline Compson is the character that embodies best the old notions of gentility. Similarly to Quentin she tries to conform to a rigid set of rules
affirming her identity as a gentle lady. She comes from an honorable family, and has the feminine qualities appraised by paternalists, as we can see from her reverence for her brother Maury and son Jason. Unlike in Quentin’s case, there is no genuine care behind her worries about Caddy and Miss Quentin. Caroline is obsessed with appearances, the image of gentility and respectability in the society at large is her main concern. Everything that deviates from the ideal must be masked or cut off for the sake of family honor. Though the main task of a Southern lady was to take care of her family and put their needs over her own, she shows no intent on creating loving relationships within the home, between herself and Mr. Compson or between her and the children.
Caroline Compson is a hypocrite, putting her faith in a residual ideology and thereby only aggravating the problems of the family. Just like Quentin she is immobilized to do something about Caddy and Miss Quentin’s behavior. When she spots Caddy kissing a boy she ‘‘went around the house in a black dress and a
veil and even Father couldn't get her to say a word except crying and saying her little daughter was dead’’ (205). In regards to Miss Quentin she nags Jason about her irresponsibility and disobedience, but leaves it up to him to express dismay and force confrontation. Caroline is static, commenting and lamenting on life as it passes her by, and only turning to action when her own pride and honor are in danger. She can be seen as a symbol of the inertness of the former planter class, revealing its artificial and superficial sense of gentility, triggered by social upheaval.
When Caddy needs a place of refuge after her failed marriage with Herbert Head Caroline Compson refuses her entry back into the house, as she values ladyhood above motherhood (Tredell 150-51). In her feminist study Robbing the Mother: Women in Faulkner (1994) Deborah Clarke emphasizes the
importance of motherhood in The Sound and the Fury and the indirect
domination of the female characters over the male protagonists (Tredell 150).
She argues that Caroline Compson ‘‘having thoroughly internalized the cult of Southern gentility’’ (qtd. in Tredell 151) has no other option than to shun her daughter by refusing the mention of her name and so clearing the name of Bascomb from any stain of impropriety. When they take Caddy’s daughter into the house, Caroline gives the family an ultimatum: ‘‘She must never learn that name (…) We must decide this now, tonight. Either that name is never to be spoken in her hearing, or she must go, or I will go. Take your choice’’ (179/180).
Similarly to her abandonment of Caddy, Caroline defends her good name by
renaming her youngest son from Maury to Benjy when he turns out to be
mentally retarded. She does this in order to prevent any association between her brother, whom she is devoted to, and her son (Tredell 151). Mrs. Compson’s obsession with labeling people in their socially determined roles indicates how influential paternalist ideology and its notion of gentility were. Moreover, conservative ideology in general turns out to be disruptive for family life as the strict compliance with social codes cannot prevent change.
2.4 Jason
Jason is the pragmatic modern man with the liberal ethos. Just like his mother Jason is mainly occupied with appearances, he desires a sense of authority and is urged by his mother to demand this authority as head of the family. Though Jason does not really care about his family members, he does subscribe to rigid ideas about male and female identities and black and white identities. Jason is an outspoken racist: ‘‘Let these damn trifling niggers starve for a couple of years, then they’d see what a soft thing they have.’’ (172) and sexist ‘‘I never promise a woman anything nor let her know what I’m going to give her.
That’s the only way to manage them. Always keep them guessing. If you can’t think of any other way to surprise them, give them a bust in the jaw” (174), underlining his sense of superiority as a white supremacist and firm believer in
male dominance. Railey makes a connection between Jason and the Progressive Movement8[8], lead by men like Vardaman and Bilbo, who, according to Railey’s interpretation of the book, ‘‘did not have the wisdom, vision, or character to lead effectively’’ (Railey 65). I agree with Railey that Jason could be seen as a
character not belonging in the genteel class according to his words and deeds.
Jason does not aspire to be a traditional gentleman, he wants to be a man of the New South, but his locale makes it impossible for him to step out of the shadows of patriarchy. In brief, the Compson family’s life shows that the balance between New and Old values is missing and the tendency of the white ruling class to self- destruct, ‘’to tear their people, their families, and themselves apart’’ because of the prevalent sense of alienation, loss, and powerlessness persisted (Williamson 362).
Although Jason does not identify himself with paternalism and gentility, he does appreciate some paternalist values. After Quentin’s tuition is paid by selling a part of the family’s former plantation land, there is not enough left to give Jason a university education. Jason feels slighted (164) and brings this misfortune up on a number of occasions when he wants to attract the pity of his mother. In order to support the family Jason works in a local shop and prides himself on keeping ‘‘the flour barrel full’’ (177). He believes that as the man of
8[8] The Progressive Movement or Era refers to a period of social reform lasting from the 1890s to the 1920s. In this period many changes were made to reform the government, in addition, women were given the right to vote, alcoholic beverages were prohibited, and the proliferation of
monopolies (of e.g. natural gas and electricity) was put to a halt. But one of the most significant and long-lasting changes was the introduction of the Federal Reserve System, including the income tax which paid for ‘‘important welfare measures and the fighting of World War II.’’
(Crunden)
the house, providing for his family after the death of his father, he is entitled to a position of authority, both in society and in the household. Jason’s lack of
paternalist mentality is clear through his indifference for anyone else’s well- being. He is constantly annoyed by Benjy’s cries and suggests to send the ‘‘damn oversize mothball’’ (169) to an institution in Jackson. So, though Jason wants the authority and perks that come with the position of pater familias, he refuses the responsibilities that come with the territory (Railey 62). It is Caddy who reminds Jason of what would be the traditional, and genteel way to handle the situation, she states ‘‘promise to take care of her, to - She’s kin to you; your own flesh and blood. Promise, Jason. You have Father’s name: do you think I’d have to ask him twice? Once, even?’’ (188). For a second Jason is reminded of his legacy, and realizes that his father did leave him a good name (188). But this realization is not enough to make Jason alter his ways, he even prides himself on his practical and egotistical mindset, stating: ‘‘I’m glad I haven’t got the sort of conscience I’ve got to nurse like a sick puppy all the time’’ (204).
It is evident that class consciousness plays a pivotal role in the lives of the Compson family. Their traditional view on gentility and respectability shapes their behavior towards gender transgression and urges Jason and Caroline Compson to use the ‘deviant’ Caddy and Miss Quentin as a vent for their frustrations and disappointments in life. On this point the Compson family is representative for several generations that take the values of the Old South too strictly and thereby destroy the lives of their fellows. The ideological framework
of paternalism and gentility was meant to heal the painful defeat; instead it triggered an alarming obsession that set in motion a process of self-destruction.
Chapter Three – Race and Class in Absalom, Absalom!
‘’It’s because she wants it told, he thought, so that people whom she will never see and whose names she will never hear and who have never heard her name nor seen her face will read it and know at last why God let us lose the War: that only through the blood of our men and the tears of our women could He stay this demon and efface his name of lineage from the earth.’’
(Absalom, Absalom! 8)
The ideal of gentility in the Old South was traditionally believed to be present just in the upper class, where paternalistic white men and their wives would set an example of civility for the rest of society. In this chapter I explore the
relationship between race and class in Absalom, Absalom! by analyzing the character of Charles Bon, Sutpen’s firstborn, who is defined by his black blood.
Just as in The Sound and the Fury the issues of class, race, and gender are important themes in Absalom, Absalom! Race and gender were determining factors when it came to social mobility, as the upper class prided itself on its racial purity and genteel values. In order to investigate Bon’s relationship to society, I compare him to his father Thomas Sutpen, with whom he shares some tragic flaws. Charles Bon has a design of his own, mimicking the one of his father, which caused his downfall. The comparison between father and son serves to emphasize the dominance of prevalent ideologies in the lives of several post- Civil-War generations.
3.1 Miscegenation Fears
In Absalom, Absalom! Faulkner confronts the paternalistic doctrine by introducing a genteel man unable to claim his birthright as he is tragically doomed by the fact that he is one-sixteenth black. It is important to note, however, that Charles Bon is a difficult case as he was never a slave. He was raised ‘white’ and grew up with the morals and values of the planter class. His mother, Eulalia, believed he therefore deserved nothing less than to claim his birthright and take up his position as the heir of the Sutpen estate. Charles sets himself up as a respectable student at Oxford University and therefore makes it impossible to be dismissed from polite society on the basis of manners. He also makes sure he looks the part by dressing up as a dandy; the only thing eventually holding him back is the secret of his lineage. Charles believes that by being acknowledged by Sutpen or marrying Judith he will secure for himself a place within the genteel class. It was considered unthinkable by this same polite society to have someone of mixed blood take up such a respected position as gentility implies superiority. The gentry was there to serve as an example of refined living, something to look up to, and the last thing these planters would want is confusion about social structure in the top of the pyramid.
By creating the character Charles Bon Faulkner confronts several
Southern fears and controversial topics, namely those of miscegenation, incest, bigamy, and homosexuality. John Duvall argues that in Absalom, Absalom!
‘‘prohibition in one sphere serves to displace another perhaps more disruptive prohibition’’ (33). This is evident from the way in which these issues are
addressed by the main characters. When Henry finds out that Charles is his half- brother he raises no objections to him marrying his half-sister Judith and thereby committing incest and bigamy. Henry even abandons his father and forsakes his birthright in order to be with Charles. But when he learns about Charles’ black ancestry, he sees no other option than to murder him when posed with the scenario of his sister continuing the Sutpen family line with black blood.
Miscegenation, apparently, was a greater threat to the traditional values than incest.
It must be noted here, however, that although Charles is represented as a noble gentleman, he refuses to see a fault in his marriage to Judith. Their father, Thomas Sutpen, does see a problem and tries to prevent the union by telling Henry that Charles is his half-brother, in the assumption this will be enough to stop further proceedings. When this does not work, he turns to his last resort;
telling Henry the truth about Charles’ lineage. Sutpen is, in this case, not
concerned about the wrongfulness of a brother marrying a sister, but about his own design to start a wealthy and racially pure dynasty. He refuses to tolerate miscegenation in his official family line (Robinson 64), it is the reason why he abandons his first wife Eulalia and son Charles, and why he feels the need to seal his firstborn’s fate.
3.2 Thomas Sutpen and Charles Bon
Thomas Sutpen and Charles Bon are both judged according to the
ideology of gentility, as their manners and values form an important part of their social station. These two characters, though clearly different in origin,
appearance, and manners, share a similar fate. Just like Charles Bon, Thomas Sutpen appears in society out of thin air according to the constantly watching and gossiping townspeople. He is a self-made man who does what he can in order to achieve his design, namely becoming a wealthy planter and setting up a dynasty. To achieve this plan Sutpen is willing to take what he can, setting aside all common decency and good manners, in short, as Rosa Coldfield constantly reminds us ‘‘He wasn’t a gentleman’’ (11). She characterizes him as ‘‘underbred,’’
explaining that when it came to well-manners and genteel behavior, he ‘‘taught himself painfully and tediously to do the schottische, having drilled himself and drilled himself in secret until he now believed it no longer necessary to count the music’s beat’’ (38).
Sutpen is a man who is able to rise in society by conforming to the
paternalist ideal, but renouncing many facets of gentility. One example is his lack of concern for family and good manners. As soon as he achieves respectability in the town by marrying Ellen, he considers it useless to visit her father and pay his respects. As Rosa puts it: ‘‘sheer gratitude, let alone appearances, could force him to forego his own pleasure to the extent of taking a family meal with his wife’s
people’’ (22-3). Another example is his boorish offer to Miss Rosa to breed with the promise of marriage if she succeeds in giving birth to a son and heir. On the whole he is clearly unfit and undeserving of the social position he occupies when we consider Faulkner’s ideal of natural aristocracy, as described by Railey.
According to Railey, Sutpen is a ‘‘white savage’’ (120) lacking the traditional paternalist values of respect for women, care for the (extended) family, and focus on balance and welfare within the greater community (123). Sutpen is murdered by a man of low social standing, Wash Jones, a man who expected superior behavior from someone of Sutpen’s social standing. When Sutpen seduces Wash’s fifteen-year-old granddaughter Milly, impregnates her and leaves her as soon as he realizes she is pregnant with a baby girl, it is evident Sutpen is not a paragon of the genteel ideal. Railey concludes that Sutpen was born unworthy of his position (124), as he forsakes his sense of responsibility and lacks a moral nature. But most of all, Sutpen poses a threat to the planter class because he is indiscreet and brings controversial topics and painful contradictions to the surface, he ‘‘does and says openly the things everyone else has had to do or say behind the scenes’’ (Matthews 195).
As well as through his position towards family life and his obsession with lineage, Sutpen is unnatural as a planter through his attitude towards race. He is not a typical planter through his liberalist views that also make him discard certain elements of white supremacist ideology in his daily encounters with blacks. For instance, Sutpen wrestles with his ‘‘band of wild niggers’’ (6) in order
to establish his mastery in fair fight, something most planters would consider vulgar, as Ellen does, but knowing the unruly nature of her husband states that she ‘‘will try to understand it’’ (24). Faulkner hereby associates Sutpen with his black subjects, emphasizing his class displacement. Another example is his behavior towards his daughters Judith and Clytemnestra, or Clytie, which is nearly identical. When he comes home during the war, maybe in his confusion, maybe because he really did not see a difference, he ‘‘kisses Judith on the forehead and said ‘‘Well, Clytie’’ (156). He treats Clytie as he does any woman, without respect and as a mere commodity, which is in some ways in line with paternalist ideology.
Paternalists prided themselves on their admiration of the Southern lady, but it was a suffocating kind of adoration, characterized by social control. Clytie having ‘‘never once called herself a slave’’ (129) is there to serve her father in the same way as Judith and both women are similarly dependent on him. Rosa
Coldfield describes this kind of equal dependency between herself, Judith, and Clytie: ‘‘I waited for him exactly as Judith and Clytie waited for him: because he was all we had, all that gave us any reason for continuing to exist, to eat food and sleep and wake and rise again’’ (127). As we can see from this example, Sutpen’s treatment of women is based on his paternalist position as head of the family, but becomes more disrespectful and uncontrolled through his abusive, selfish
character and obsession with his life design. Charles Bon, ‘‘a young man of a worldly elegance and assurance beyond his years, handsome, apparently
