Analysis of Egenolf’s “Maria Edgeworth in Blackface”- MORE CONFUSION??

So here's my analysis of this literary critique. Once again there is soooo much information in this piece, yet I'm almost just as confused as I was when I started. Interesting...

Marie Brick
English 263
17 February 2010

Analysis of Egenolf’s “Maria Edgeworth in Blackface”

The book, Castle Rackrent, written by Maria Edgeworth has clearly demonstrated that it is steeped in political undertones; however, fully understanding those undertones has proven to be an incredibly arduous task for many. The ambiguous nature of the writing and the frequent contradictory statements leads the reader through a tangled and torturous story when read with the full context of the footnotes, notes, and glossary.

The first time reading through this book, I thought it seemed that Edgeworth was speaking highly of the native Irish and looking down upon those of the ascendancy. After reading the critique, “Disowning to own: Maria Edgeworth and the illegitimacy of national ownership - Irish nationalism in the works of Maria Edgeworth - Critical Essay” written by Sara L. Maurer, I realized that some of my initial ideas were likely incorrect or at least not as in depth as the book really warranted. In Maurer’s critique I discovered a greater underlying political voice regarding property ownership rights between, native Irish, Anglo-Irish, and English.

From Maurer’s perspective, I had assumed that Edgeworth’s view was that the property’s true ownership would always be up for debate and that in writing about this, Edgeworth was subtly trying to convey the instability in Ireland at the time. This was further supported by Maurer’s comment, “The paradox of inheritance in Ireland, then, is that it can not be owned by its Anglo-Irish holders, since they illegitimately seized it from the Irish children to whom it was owed. On the other hand, Ireland cannot be given up by its Anglo-Irish holders, who already owe the land to their children”.

At the end of my readings of Castle Rackrent and “Disowning to own: Maria Edgeworth and the illegitimacy of national ownership - Irish nationalism in the works of Maria Edgeworth - Critical Essay”, I was still left confused about Edgeworth’s ambiguous tone and purpose in her writing, but thought perhaps she was attempting to distance herself from her Anglo-Irish heritage in favor of the Irish. This idea has been thrown into utter disarray after reading the critique, “Maria Edgeworth in Blackface: Castle Rackrent and the Irish Rebellion of 1798” written by Susan B. Egenolf.

Perhaps I should have guessed at what Egenolf thought of Edgeworth based on the title; however, as I was not completely familiar with the idea of “blackface”; I needed to take a closer look at this term and its implications. After researching the term, I found an interview statement on PBS.org from Mel Watkins regarding blackface minstrelsy and racism, “To that extent, it affected all of society because those people who didn't know blacks, and there were many places where there were very few blacks, assumed that those characterizations, those depictions, those foolish characters on stage, were real black people. And so it had an immense effect on the way mainstream society thought about blacks”. This gave me a much better understanding that in doing blackface, one was essentially making light, belittling, and negatively stereotyping a group of people. A comment I found very interesting was, “Despite the fictional Editor’s claims of authenticity, Maria Edgeworth in fact appropriates the voice of the native Irish Thady, and thus performs linguistic blackface for her English and Anglo-Irish readers” (Egenolf 846).

I think that the reasoning for Edgeworth’s use of a “linguistic blackface” was likely due to the inability to fully distinguish herself or others of the ascendancy in any other way. This was further evidenced by Egenolf in her quotation from Claire Willis, “…because the usual “visual marker of skin colour difference” used to “legitimate domination in other colonized societies” is absent, in Ireland difference is marked primarily through “language.” Wills notes, “Whether it is a patronizing approval of lyrical celticism, or horrified revulsion from the degenerate Irish accent, Irish men and women are marked by their voices, their (mis)use of the English language” (Egenolf 849). This idea further expands on the use of linguistic blackface not only as a means to stereotype a group of people, but it also shows that this “marker” was used as a justification for considering native Irish as inferior and therefore legitimizing their need to be colonized.

In the final paragraphs of Castle Rackrent, the Editor states, “It is a problem of difficult solution to determine, whether an Union will hasten or retard the melioration of this country. The few gentlemen of education, who now reside in this country, will resort to England: they are few, but they are in nothing inferior to men of the same rank in Great Britain. The best that can happen will be the introduction of British manufacturers in their places” (Edgeworth 122). Initially, I overlooked this paragraph and didn’t ascribe much meaning to it; however, after reading Egenolf’s critique and re-reading the aforementioned paragraph, perhaps this was a glimpse at Edgeworth’s true political feelings in writing this novel. Edgeworth uses the word “melioration” when discussing “this” country; possibly implying that she felt the country needed improvement as though the native state of the country was not “proper” enough. In addition she states that the educated gentlemen will resort to England and that they are not inferior to the men in England. It is assumed that she must be discussing Anglo-Irish as compared to the men of England. Her comment as to the “best” solution for Ireland was that British manufacturers should be established in Ireland. Again this may reflect a bias towards her political feelings that the Anglo-Irish and the British were truly in the right regarding the current situation in Ireland.

This glimpse into Edgeworth’s political stance, bias, and fears is further evidenced in Egenolf’s commentary on Edgeworth’s writings in her father’s memoir, “a rumor of a French invasion spread through the country, raising the hopes of the disaffected, and creating terror in all, who had any thing to lose” (Egenolf 849). Edgeworth goes on further in a letter to her aunt stating, “that whilst our terrified neighbors see nightly visions of massacres, we sleep with our doors and windows unbarred.’ I must observe, though, that it is only those doors and windows which have neither bolts nor bars that we leave unbarred, and these are more at present than we wish, even for the reputation of our valor” (Egenolf 849). Edgeworth and her family were eventually forced to retreat from there home and Egenolf discusses this event in the following paragraph, “Later in 1798, Maria penned a lovely description of their journey to a nearby British camp where the French army and the Irish rebels had just been put down by the English at the battle of Ballinamuck. In her discussion of the pastoral scene and the soldiers “gathering blackberries,” Edgeworth elides the 2000 Irish prisoners held there who would be executed within a couple of weeks; however, her idealized description’s final line, previously suppressed, is telling: “Don’t imagine that I am camp mad—I was only glad to see anything like order & civility after the horrors of Longford” (Egenolf 850). Again, this paragraph further comments on Edgeworth’s sense of belonging more to the English than the native Irish. Despite her attempt to downplay her bias towards the “camp”, her complete omission of the true situation regarding the Irish prisoners and her obvious comment about “order and civility”; points towards her potential view of the native Irish as inferior and “uncivilized”.

Egenolf’s critique was quite interesting and contained far more topics I would have liked to discuss, but in the interest of time and space; it will have to wait until another day. When I compared Egenolf’s critique with Maurer’s critique, there seemed to be very few similarities. Perhaps one common theme was that Edgeworth’s writing was indeed politically charged even if it was done in disguise. Another common issue surrounded the fact that Castle Rackrent definitely addressed the instability that was all around Edgeworth at the time. And property and class were indeed both talking points between the critiques read; however, this is where the similarities end. The two give completely different views on Edgeworth’s political stance and purpose in writing. In the end, I think I may agree more with Egenolf than Maurer. Egenolf provided a lot of additional letters, stories, and writings, as previously discussed, regarding Edgeworth that seemed to help the reader better understand her from Egenolf’s perspective. However, only Edgeworth would know her true intentions in her writings.

So, as readers we are still left wondering; “Whose side was Edgeworth on?”, “Why did she seem to contradict herself in so many areas of Castle Rackrent?” and “How many different variations and interpretations of her writings can there really be?” As for the last question, I’m not sure how many more I can read since my current level of confusion is already quite overwhelming.


Works Cited

Edgeworth, Maria. Castle Rackrent. London: Penguin, 1992. Print.

Egenolf, Susan B. “Maria Edgeworth in Blackface: Castle Rackrent and the Irish Rebellion of
1798.” English Literary History, Winter 2005. Project MUSE. Web. 15 Feb. 2010.

Maurer, Sara L. “Disowning to Own: Maria Edgeworth and the Illegitimacy of National
Ownership - Irish Nationalism in the Works of Maria Edgeworth - Critical Essay.” Criticism.
22 Nov. 2002. FindArticles.com. Web. 9 Feb. 2010.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2220/is_4_44/ai_102981644/?tag=content;col1

Watkins, Mel. “Blackface Minstrelsy: How were the minstrel shows racist?” PBS.org.
American Experience, n.d. Web. 16 Feb. 2010.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/foster/sfeature/sf_minstrelsy_5.html