Anna Cora Mowatt's “fashion”: theatrical refashioning of the female self in antebellum American drama

Rt·1•is/a de fatudios Nortea111eric1111os, n.º 7 (2000). pp. 27 · 41 ANNA CORA MOWATT'S FASHION: THEATRICAL REFASHIONING OF THE FEMALE SELF IN ANTEBELLUM AMERICAN DRAMA CARME MANUEL Universitat de Valencia The spirit of party has ente red i11to ali our D ep artme11ts ... Some Deify the plza11tom Fashion ... while others Worship only at tlze shrine (d Pllltus. M ery Otis Waffen, Letter to John Adams, 29 Ju ly 1779 Studies on American thcater history rcpeatedly tell the hackeneyed story of the difficulties drama had to face in this country. The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries wcre bad times and thc situation was made worse by a number of factors. Traditionally critics ha ve focused on the slrong Puritan and Quaker opposition to the stage since it was consi dered a nes t of immoral it y and frivolily, the cultural <lependence on Britain, thc scarcity of theaters and native actors, and the priority of building a nation before a national literature. Hence, when t he Continental Congress passed lcgislation calling for the suppression of «shews, plays and o th er expensive diversions and entertainments» on 20 October 1774, it was the result of pent-up antith ea trical sentiment in the colonies. Yet, revisionist research on the period has come up with new evidence that justifies this state on n ew grounds . P eter A. Davis convincingly argues th at it was ncither the Purit an moral victory nor the prudent act of propricty in the face of a coming war which critics such as Howard Taubman and Arthur Hobson Quinn contended 1, but that the act was the result of «a long-standing 1. Sce Tauhman 41 and Quinn J2. 28 Carme Manuel legal tradition. the product of a Puritan mer ca ntile culture that saw theatre as both an economic threat anda symbol of colonial suppression». The 1774 statute as well as it s legislative predecessors reflect tben «the colonies' awkward relationship with the Bo ard of Tradc and Americans ' increasing desire to break their debt-ridden dependen ce u pon Briti sh manufactured goo ds» (18 ). This implies a change in understanding theatrical develo pment in the American co lonies fr om shifting imp ortance on relígious fervor or war-time zeal to politically driven economic motivations. TI1ca tre, identified as a British manufactured product express ly suited to royali st lastes, became politicized and carne to represent all that the rebelli ous colonists despised -«a política! and social symbol of English oppression» (Davis 25). Drama continued to develop in the new-bom republic during the nineteenth century and there seerns to be unanirnous agrcement among the critics to highlight the decades of the 1840s and 1850s as probably the most th ea tri ca lly significant in the centur y.2 Among the rnilestones of the drama of the period stands Fashion: or Lije in New Y<wk (1845), the nineleenth-century first and most successful nacional comedy of manners which imrnediately encouraged a group of less well executed social satires.3 Anna Cora Mowatt. according to most his tori ans. had the greatest impact on antebellum American drama and theatre. lnd eed her comedy is the most frequently anthologized of a ll pla ys not only of nineteenth-century playwrights but also of American women playwrights pr evious to the twentieth century. As Doris Abramson states, there is no doubt that even if there were other plays by women of Mowatt 's time worth of critica! attention, «On ly Fashi<m is securely in the canon of Amer ican dramatic literature» (39). If we agree that women writing in United States are the hcirs of a tradition that has bcen recovered challenging what Sacvan Bcrcovitch labels as «unduly pervasive habits of mind» (423), wc ca n well imagine that the same applics to 2. Claudia Johnson sums up the situation as thc politicaJ cvents of the period seem to have been \'Ítal tn whaL was happcning in drama: «in the background was thc Whig victory of 1840. fotlowing in the wake . of the 1837 financia! crash and widesprcad unemployment. Growing urban areas and an immense increase in immigration lcd to the nativist movemcnt and labor agitation for better wagcs and working conditions. Between 1830 and 1840 railroads opened much of the fron ti cr to setllemen t. What would be thc two most energe ti c arcas of Englishla nguagc theater outside New York City were hcginning to be settlcd: California in 1849 and Salt Lake City in 1847. Morcover. the 1830s and 1840s wcrc the ye ars of «thc Bcnevolent Empire» when rc ligious soeicties a tt empted to effeet moral a nd social change in cducation, wornen's ri ghts, temperauce. prisons. and asylurns, aiming to reform the poor in America as we ll as savages abroad. [ ... ] Likc the masterpieces of the American Renaissance, milestones in American drama also cluster in t he 1840s and l 850s» (1988. 324-325). 3. Many plays with ~ imila r intent appcared in the period after Fashion, though «none of them represented the times so vigorousl y, accuratcly, aud ga il y, or achieved comparable stage success. S elf by Mr s. Sidney F. Batcrnan, first performed at Burton's New Theatrc on October 27,1856.most nearly approached Fashion in themc and tr ca tmen t. Self was most rcalistic in its rcpresenta ti on of immediate local details, but it was dccidedly inf erior to Fashion in thc quality of its characterizations and dialogue. Thc domestic social satires that appcarcd lat er in th c ce ntury wcre. on the whole, superior: Howard's The Henriella. Fitch's The Climhers, and Mitchetrs T71e New York Idea. In a way Fashion was the forcrunner. even of such twentieth-ccntury society and family comedies as Lije With Fathe 1"» (Moody 315). Most cr itics agree on the inferior quality of Self when eompared to Fashirm. See Mcse rv e 84-85 und Morddcn 16. A11na Cora Mmvau 's Fashio11: Theatricul Refashioni11¡: of lile F euuile Self 29 women writing for the stage. With the exception of Merey Ot is Warren and Anna Cora Mowatt, standard drama histories do not include discussion, rarely any mention, of womeu playwrights before the t we nti et h century. It is likely that this absence is due to the fa ct adduced by Judith E. Barlow on thc morality and propriety of playwriting since «women were pa rticularly affected by the Pu rit an-Quaker attitude toward the theater», since, «as the supposed moral guardians of soc iety, women could scarcely be allowed to participate -on any leve!- in so unacceptable an act ivi ty» (x). Yet Cl au di a John son explains that this fa ilure of American women to write plays for th e early theater, if it is to be believed, wo uld be especially mystifying for severa) reasons: «women were extremely prolific novelists. plays abo ut women and domestic dram as we re popular, playwriting was the least censurable theatrical aclivity for a woman, and the stage gave many women lives of indepe nd ence and fu l fi llment, as did no oth er segment of nineteenth-century life» (1988, 325). Moreover, these were years of what has been derisively called «petticoat management». the heyday of female stars and formidab le managers who commissioned vehicles for the di sp lay of their talents. Notable among them were Charlotte Cushman, Laura Keene. Catherine Sinclair, Adah Menken, Mrs. John Drew, Lotta Crabtree. and Clara Morris. Their theatrical activity refutes any suggestion that li terary contributions by women were nonexistent. and recorc.ls of professionally produced plays in America before 1900 belie st andard hist or ie s.4 These women are only the most prolific writers, selected to illustratc the defeat of that alledgedly dramatic silence. Claudia D. Johnson writes about «supreme iro ny» of America's early drama: «that while its theater, recognized for its liveliness a nd artistic merit, constitutes one of the most ac ti ve chapters of national cultural hi story, only the modest claims can be made for the litcmry excellence of it~ drama» ( 1988, 324). Accordingl y, I have no intention of legitimizing new claims for the in trinsic aesthetic interest of Fashion, but to ana l yse it in the light of t he main cultural id eas of the period: the cult of domesticity, because as one of the most popular plays of the nineteenth centur y, it lends itself to valuable contextual and ideologi ca l stud y, si nce it is my attempt to «desacrilize the archetypes by examining them as cultural artifacls, in terms of their specific forms and functions» (Bercovit ch 423). Taking in to account the historical situation of the American theatre at the time it is my co ntention that Fnshion stands as a theatri ca l r efash i on ing of Mowa tt 's self as we ll as a masculiniza tion of the motherhood ethi cs that dominated American culture at the time in her attempt to pander to the middle-class male audience 's anxieties. From this point of view, Fashion 4. Jo hn son provides lhc fo ll owing informati on : Susan na Rowson, au t hor of Clwrlott e Temple. wro le 7 plays produced betwecn 1793 and 1810: Louisa Medina, 21 plays between 1829 and 1849; Mrs. Si dney Batman. 5 plays in thc 1850s: Laura Kcenc, 6 in thc 1850s and t 860s; Fanny H crr ing, 8 in thc 1860s and 1870s; Olive Ln gan. 9 in the 1870s: Margucritc Mcrington; Madeline Lucctte-Ryley; Charlotte Blair Parkcr whose Way Down East (1898) ran for two decad es ; Frances Hudgson Burneu. See also Roberts' article on women who managcd major th ca tr es in nineteenthcentury America. 30 Carme Manu el is not just a lively social comedy but a pungent portrayal of the femal e's anxiety of dramatic authorship. Anna Cora Mowatt 's life and professional career as both actress and playwright rejcct the traditional catcgorization into the Sa b ara of th e female theatrical Bo zar t of ninetcenth-century America. She was bo rn in Bordeaux, Francc, in 1819 a nd di ed in London in 18 70. A precocious child. she helonged to a large well-to-do New York family. Her first perfonnance to ok place at the age of six when she played a part in a parla r theatrical to ce l ebrate her father's birthda y. Before ten she had read ali of Shakespcarc's plays. Her ma rria gc at fiftcen to James Mowatt, a NewYo rk lawyer an d a man twice her agc, gave her ample op ponunit y to conti nuc cul tivating her aitis tic skills. In 184 1, aftcr her husband lost his wealth, she turned to writing in eame~a . giving public poetry readings and writing arlicles for the popul ar ma gazin es . Bul when she appeared at a puhlic reading in the Stuyvesant Institute on Novernber 18, 1841 , she wa s ba<lly c.: ritic ised sinc e ma ny con d emned th ese ac.:tiv ities whcn umle11akcn by ladies. Ye t. sorne of h er friends carne to her <lefense. Mrs. Frances Osgood wrote a long poem praising her couragc and <l aring.s Th e first stanza re ad: «N e'cr hccd them. Cora. <l e ar.ffh e carping tew who sayffhou leavest woman 's holier sphere/For lig ht s and vain display,, (qtd. in Moody 311). As Mary Kelley puts it in her study on wum en writers in the nincteenthcentury, Mowa tt -like ma ny other of her li terary cn mpanions-was cast around for mcans of support afler he r husband Joss of fortunc and she was thrown in to th e litera1y arena by sevcre econom ic necessi t y, thus havi ng a justi lic.:ation to b ecome a playw ri ght and later an actress. The year 18 45 was the turn in gpoint in her lif e. Encouragcd by Epes Sargenl - th e editor who had published her first published play in T he New World in J 840. Gul::.am. or The Persian Slaveshe wrote Fashion. «the first American co medy to ha ve a long life on the stage» -according to Hewitt (1 34) -. and ma de a succcss fu l debut as an actress. motivatcd by h er pr evio us succ.:ess as pub lic rc ader. in spite of lack of training and the slark opposition of her family a n<l friends. In fai.: t, M oo dy suggests that during her lifctime Mowatt «was mor e widely known for her acting than for her wrilin g» (313)." She w as not only an adul ate<l ai.:lress and farnous playwr ig ht, b ut also a prolific novelist. Sh e published articles in magazin es such as Tite C olumbian. The Dem nc ratic R<'l·iew. Godey's Lady 's B ook . and Grahwn "s Maga;:.ine under th e na me of Helen Be1i<e ley. sorne of which were co pi ed into London periodicals. ami even translated into Germ an. such as h er prize-winning novel. Tite 5. Frances Osgood ( 1811-1850) was born in Ma!.sachu !.c tts. Shc was a poe t w hn sc T he Caske1 ofFa re ( 1840) and Poetry of F/ owt'rs ( 1840) and The F/ 011-ers of Po er n (1841) are typical of sentimental fcminine verse of thc Vidorian era. Aflcr shc m cwcd l \> Ncw York.shc was a fricnd of Pu e. who praiscd h er work in «TI1e Litcrnlc». 6. T he New York Hera/d wrotc uftcr her debut: «Wh cn thc curtain fcll. the applausc was tn :mcn dou s. A ge ntleman in t hc pit callcd oul "t hrce ch ear,· and th re c lo ud cheers wc rc given accordingl y. Mrs. Mo wall soon appcarcd. lcd un by Mr. Cr isp Thc cheers -shu u ts-,crecmsplaudits burst forth afr esh. wh ils1 a whirlwind of po cke t handkercl1icf, swc pl ovcr thc bu xes. and five anú six hundrcd bo ots thundcrcd in lh c gallcries. Mr s. Mo w alt cou rt cs icd. and a sho wcr uf bouqucts fcll at her fcct» (J'vloo dy 313). A1111a Cora Mmnm '.' Fashio11: Theatrirnl Refashio11i11g of the fl'llltdt• Self 31 Fo rt1me H1mter. Sh e al so wrote a se ri es of romantic nov cls such as Evelyn. or A H ean U 11 11wsked, T ir e T wi 11 Roses and /talian lije and Legends. In addition to Faslr ion. she wrote t he plays Gul::.ara; m; The Persian St ar ( 1841) und A rmwzd ( 184 7) and, in 1854, her Autobiography of mi Actress, or Eight Years 011 the Stage. a book which provides pcnctrating ins igh ts in to nineteenth-century theatcr.7 This was followed a yea r Jater by semi -au to biograp hical stories of the stage, Mi mi c Lije: or, B efo re and Behind the C11r rai11 ( J 8 56) . David Grimsted explai ns how h er senti me ntal fi ction as we ll as Lh at penned by othcr actrcsscs. such as Char lotte Cushman. stressed the hardships. t ria ls and tragcdies of lile on stage in an attempt to over come thc publie prejudices against their professions. In 1851 Ja m es Mowatt died and she married Wi ll iam F. Ri tchie in 1854 and retired f rom the stage. Edgar Allan Poe rev iewed the op ening pe r formance of Fashio11 in the Bmadway Journal. on March 29. 1845. though basing his cri ti cism on the rea di ng of the original manuscript: «Fashion is thcatrical but not dramatic. h is a prelly well arranged se lection from t he usual routine of stage characters. and stage manocuvres, but there is not onc pa11icle of any nature beyond green-room nature, abo ut it [ ... [ Our fa ult-finding is on the sco re of dcficiency in vcrisimilitudc -in natural ar tthat is to say. in art based in the natural laws of ma n's heart and unde rsta nd ing». Poe l'i nd s fault in the crossings ami n:crossings of thc actors on the stage: thc reading of piivate lelters in a loud rhctorical tone. the preposterous solilot¡uising and asides. among others. Yet he remarks that this is not specific of Mowat t's comc<ly. but of the modern drama in general. si nce for the cr itic «it has. in especial. the very high rnerit of simplicity in plot». On the whole. be co ncludes: «compared with the generalily of modern dramas. ic is a good play -compa r ed with most American dramas it is a very good onecstimated by the na t ura l princi pies of dramatic art. it is al togcther unworthy of notice». Yct. it secms that Poe must have felt that his dcsire for a new and original drama ha d l ed him ro be too harsh . ami a week later, on Ap ril 5. he was more generous. He lament cd to havc done Mowall unintcntional injustice and states th at her entire thesis is an or iginal onc as «We can call to mind no d ra ma. just now, in wh ich Lhc desi gn can be propcrly stated as thc satirizi ng of foshioning as fashion» (Hcwitt 1.\9). Later litcrary historians have undcrstood Fashio11 as a devastating social satire that exprcssed Lhe growing feeling in the United Statcs against emula tion of European manncrs. They ha ve cons idcr cd t he play as an oucstanding comedy of manners, the form of which is «t horough ly Eu ropean, in the modc of the eighteent h-cent ur y bourgcois play» (Johnson 331 ). No twithstanding. for them. Mowatfs importance Iies preeminently on the fact that he r carec r as a playwright and an actress can be he ld r espo n sib lc for lif ting t he soc ial rcp uta l io n of the American ni ne t ee n th-ccntu ry theater. Accord in g to Quinn. «real as h er co ntribution to ou r drama was. he r in t1u ence 7. Natha ni el Hawthorne m ake~ it part of a li ~t of a half-dozen goo<l Amcrii.:an books he rccommcn<lcd to Richard Monckton Milac>.along wilh Thorcau·s Walde11 and .4 Week 1111 lh<' Conrnnl wrd M<'n-imac Ri1·ers. Caroline Ticlmor. H1Mllrome ami His P11h/islrer ( 1913; r cp rint cd .. Port Washington. N. Y. : Kcnnikat Prcss. 1969). 1 35 . Qtd. in Ahramson 39. 32 Carme Manuel upon out theatre was probably ev en greater. Coming into ali fe which. notwithstand ing the many sterling men and women who pursued it, s ti ll suffered from the traditions of loose standards and of the disapproval of the Puritan element in our society, she proved triumphantly that an American gentlewoman could succeed in it with out the alteration of her own standard of life. She took in to the profession her high heart, her utter refinement. her keen sense of social values, and her infinite capacity fo r effort, and her effect was a real and a great one» (3 19). For Hew itt, «she was no t only America's fírst important woman playwright; sbe was also the first Am erican actress to start at the top. Without having gone through even a bri ef apprenticeshíp as l eading lady in a resident company, she became at once a traveling star. A sign of the times. Moreover, she lived the dubious life of the theatre for níne ycars without suffering a blemish to her reputation [ ... j She had proved that a lady could be an actress and by infercnce that an actress could be a lady. The status of the pro fession was materially improved» ( 141 ). Albert Auster sums up her worth in Amer ican theatrical history when he stresses that, «althou gh Cushman and Mowatt did not totally erase American prejudi ce against the stage, their careers and personal examples did raise íts professional and artistic standards. More importantly. they providcd models for a career that women, and not only meo. could pursue» ( 18 ). Tubman al so states that Mowatt's «credentials of respectahilíty helped the theat re on its path to acceptance as a tolerable, even h onorable profession» (7 6) . Thu s she helped mod i fy cultural attitudes toward actresses and «even improvctl the quality of audiences by attracting people who had formerly scorned the theatre» (Barlow xi). The tru th is that when Mowatt approached theatrical writing and acting. she was forced to face both family and social prejudices. The ambíguity with whi ch theater was seen by the respectable American middle-class American is evínced by Louisa May Alcott in her novel Work: A Story of Experience ( 1873). Hcre she tells the story of a woman 's quest for independence and itlentity. Her struggle for life 's significance takes her into the different paid occupations available to a young woman in a cíty such as Boston. Among thcsc. that of actress is described in chapter three. Based on the author's own autobiographical data, Christie Devon, after sorne time tlevotetl to a successful career, realizes that she is becomíng too hard-hcarted and gives up the stage forever. Yet, she is aware of the fact that her brief but passionate engagement with the theatre will always lurk in her life as a disreputable past to be , íf not, hidden. at Jeast, well protected. In fact, as Johnson explains, lhe theatrical profession was paradoxical for nineteenth-century women. On the one hand. it offered a good salary, the possibility of competition with men on an equal basis oí talent and public appeal. and a secure position of management. On the other, th ese ad van tages were tainted by a dark side since the actress had, «by vi rtue of her association with a professi on blemish ed in the eyes of the public. to relinquish important valuables of Victorian woma nh ood -a special, even reverent esteem afforded the ideal motherwife, as well as the sympathetic support of her nineteenth-century sisters». Moreover, une of t he institutíons which encouraged the ostracism of the actress from good society was the church and, «although the atttitude of the re ligious pu bl ic toward actresses was based on ignorance and gross distortions. it was, in·efutably, a strongly held and widely held view, a reality to be dealt wíth» («En ter t he Harlot» 66). Anna Cara Mo11•at1 's foshion: Theatrical Refashioning of the Fema/e S elf 33 As critics have att est ed drawing the infonnation from Mowatt 's autobiographical account, the playwright to alleviate her family 's pecuniary distress «suppressed the prejudice against public theatrical performances which had been instilled in her by the sermons of the Reverend Manton Eastburn at Grace Church» (Moody 311). Barlow also underscores this evidence and explains that for years Mowatt had refused to attend the professional theater because a minister convinced her that the stage was the home of the devil (x). Her decision was bo ld as it has to be understood on the idea actors and actresses were held at the time. They were social outcasts. drawn either from t he lowest classes or from the sons and daughters of those already in thc prof ession, as in the case of Susana Rowson, Fanny Kemble, or Charlotte Cushman. Theater for Mowatt had meant home thealricals and family enjoyment and it only became a vocation when she was faced with economic trouble. As she writes in her autobiography: I pondered long and seriously upon the consequ ence s of my entering the profession [ ... ] I reviewed my whole past life, and saw, that, from earlicst childhood, my tastcs. studies, pursuits had ali combi ned to fit me for this end. I had exhibited a passion for dramatic performances when I was little more tban an infant. I had played plays before 1 had ever entered a theatre. I bad written plays from the time that I first witnessed a performance. My love for the drama was genuine, for it was developed at a period when the theatre was an unknown place, and actors a species of mylhical creatures. I determined to fu lfill tbe destiny which seemed visibly pointed out by the unening finger of Providence [ ... ] I would become an actress.8 It is interesting to notice the way Mowatt traces back her dramatic vocation and how she tries to dodge the climate of hostility. Firstly, she is careful enough to justify her immediate success as an actress basing it on her life- Jon g sincere attraction and devotion to drama. And secondly and most importan!, that attachment is described as having bcen bom outside the place of performance, in the borne and long before she had set eyes on,l et alone stepped into, a real theatre. Thus she exculpates herself from all possible co ndemnations that the morality of playwrigh ts and of audiences attending the theatre in antebellum America po ssessed. Rosemarie K. Bank explains that many historical accounts co uple prostitution with theatrical activity in antebellum New York. Yel, «unlike earlier characterizations, wherein critics of theatre assume corruption of audiences by plays or by actors,anti-theatre arguments in the Jacksonian decades focus upon co rruption throu gh co ntact of audience members witb other audience members» (50). What is relevan! here is that against th e charges of moral 8. Anna Coca Mowalt, Aidobiof?raphy of a11 Actress: or Eight Yrnrs on the Staf?e ( Bo sto n: Ticknor. Reed, an<l Fiel<ls, 1854), 216. Qtd. in Abramson 39-40. 34 Cunne Manue l corruption and social depravi ty that nineteenth-century thcatre implied, literary historians have manipulated Mowatt -as she sha pe s herse lf - to Iegitimize dramatic art as a respectable undertaking which was rapidly losing influence during the middle deca<les of the century as audiences became cross-cultural a nd marginal Iayers of socicties appropriated new non-elite forros of entcrtainment. With Fashion the arbiters of cultural divcrsity managed to redirect their cultural p ower by arguing that the theatre was a place for those with aspiralions toward respectabilit y. Mowatt's genteel origins al so were ma de to counteract the ch arges of im morality of actors and managers that threatened the profession. The playwright. on the other hand. was never blind to what Johnson calls «the lonely gulf» which existed between actresses and society and which c ould be extended to women playwrights and audiences. She was so deeply aware of the prejudices against the profcssion as a body that she introduced justifications uf selfassertion in her play. In the edition of W. Newberry published in London in 1850, she prescnts a prcface in which she justifies the edificating nature of her «good-natured satire» an<l using feminized language thanks the public for the reception uf her play and for «the pro ve rbial gallantry of Americans .»9 The prologue, written by the editor Epes Sargen t. ad vanees severa[ criticisms. Firstly, che American origin of the play which discredits any attempt ac qualit y. And seco ndl y. the tradicional indictment against woman authorship, specifically Mowatt's appropriation of a patriarchal genre: Entera Gentleman -M r. Crispreading a newspaper 1 .. . ] For Plays, we lack the manners and the men!» Thu s spcaks <me critic. Hear u11othe1 "s creed :- «' Fashion! '» -What's herc? [Reads] It never can succeed! What! from a womwz 's pen? It takes a man To write a comed y - no woman can (317). Obviously she was also concerned with the moral value of what she wrote. This made her turn to a topic that was sure to meet the public's approval. The prologue cn <l s celebrating the didaclicism chat the play encloses: « A11 's fair fab1ic rise from woman 's toil/While we exhibit but to reprehendffhe social vices. 'tis for you to mend!» (318). In this way Mowatt's cloaks social transformations taking place in the America of her day with a moral reading suitable to a respectable middle-class audicncc. Moreover, when she wrote Fashion, she made hersclf the heroine of the play in the character of Gertrude, which s he Iat er perlormed. IO In fact, it seems that Mowatt 9. Anna Cora Mowatt ,« Preface» to Fashion. Drama.1'fmm rlle AmericanThearre 1762-N09, E<l. Richard Moody (Boston:Houghton Mifflin Com pan y. 1969) , 317. Ali furthcr 4uo1ations from this edition of th c play will a ppea r parenthelically in the 1ex1. 10. In 1845 Fashion «was rcpeatcd in theatr cs througho ut thc co untry: Charlcston. Mobilc. Ncw Orleans. frequcntly with Mrs. Mowatt in thc part of Gcrtru<lc. Ncw York and Philadclphia saw it repcatedly during thc summer of 1845. In January. 1850.it h ad i1 s lirst performnnccs in London with a two-week cngagemcnt at the Royal Olympic» (Moody 2 1 5). A111w Cora M ow att 's Fa.thion: Theattic al R efas hioníng of the Fema/e Self 35 shaped most of her writing on this principle. George C. D. Odell complains that in her two autobiographical novels, Mimi c L!fe (1855) and Twin Roses ( 1857) she was «always making herse lf the heroine of a novel, which was her idea of her own lif e.» 11 The playwright was following a pattern of se lf-reconstitution iniciated in Fashion that me ans much mor e than what Abramson as sumes when she says that these books when «taken with the u sual grains of salt [ ... ] are cl ear ly informative» (39). Th is refashioning is clearly more than ju st informative. It is evidence of the pressures against which Mowatt was writing drama and pur suing a theatrical career. In Act IV, Scene 2, Gertrude stages a primitive play-within-the play, whicb is rapidly aborted by the rest of the characters, in her attempt to prevent further dama ge by the Count Jolimaitr e. She intend s to imper sonate Millinette to save th e reputation of Mrs. Tiffany 's daughtcr, though she is wrongly intcrpreted. In a sense, she co nstructs a metaphor of herself which intends to break the distance between th e playw ri ght and the audienc e. The fact that s he perform ed Gertrud e makes this scene even more susceptible of intcrpretation. Playing the heroin e's character, Mowatt exposes and, at the s am e time, sanctions her devotion to drama on an ethical ba sis. As Johnson explains, sorne of the accu sa tions levelled by the clergy on actresses delved on th e fact Lhat « no woman could remain on the stage and k eep thc purit y of a sai n tlike femininity»: Th e effect of the kind of life led by play er s is pecul iarly pemicious to female character. It strips it of all ils l oftier attributes, its softer a nd more delicate charms. Sensibility, modesty, and refinement ar e gra dually extinguished by the unfeminine and indelicate business of the stage , and nothing is l ef t bu t the hackneyed a nd haggard form of in jured humanily, cove red and bedecked perhaps, by false and tawdry ornaments. A fe w f ema le actors may have preserved the ir virtue, b ut , alas! how many have lost it forever by their connec ti on with the stage. And if others have not been entirely ruined by this means, ho .,v gre - atly must their characters have s uff ered in purily and elevation, by the d ar k fonns of ev il with which they come into such close and co ntinua! co ntacl (qtd. in Johnson, «E nter the Harl ot» 70). Compare this to the reaction of Adam Trueman when he discovers the secret meeting between Gertrude and the Count who was conceal ed in a closet. Trueman is unable to transcend lhe representation Ge1trude h as staged for h erse lf in order to expose the impost or , the Count. Gertrude's beha viour -an actress now, impersonating Millinette's roleis imm e di ately associated with depravity. She is cast aside even by her most affectionale friends who silen ce h er right to defend hersel f: 1 1. Georgc C. D. Odcll, Amwls of the New York St a¡: e, 15 vol. (Ncw York: Columbia Un iversi ty Press, 19 27 -1 949), 99. Qtd. in Ab ra mson 39.