qqz.

Editedby

CHRIS

BALDICK

OxfordNetv

YorkOXFORDUNIVERSIT

YPRESS

1992

jfheOxford

Bookof

GOTHIC

TALES

z“-3

0

Cn-3

0z

IntroductionIntroduction

orsomesuch

nomenclature

justasunsatisfactory.Butbefore

wecan

seeour way

throughsuch

furthertangles,we

willneedtolook

backinto

thecom

monsource

ofthesedivergentsenses

of‘Gothic’.Initsearliest

sense,the

word

issim

plythe

adjectivedenoting

thelanguage

andethnic

identityofthe

Goths:

theGerm

anicpeoples,

firstheardofupon

theshores

oftheBaltic,w

hoselater

maraudings

andmigrations

fromthe

thirdtothe

fifthcentury

ADtook

themacross

southernEurope

fromthe

BlackSea

tothe

Iberianpeninsula,

fatallyweakening

theRom

anempire

inthe

faceoffurther‘barbarian’

incursions.Long

afterthey

disappearedinto

theethnic

melting

potsofthe

northernMediterranean,

theirfearful

namewas

takenand

usedtoprop

upone

sideofthat

setofcultural

oppositionsbywhich

theRenaissance

anditsheirs

definedand

claimedposses

sionofEuropean

civilization:Northern

versusSouthern,

Gothic

versusGraeco-Rom

an,Dark

Agesversus

theAge

ofEnlightenment,

medievalversus

modern,

barbarityversus

civility,superstitionversus

Reason.Asrevised

bynorthern

Protestantnationalisms,the

‘map’

ofthese

contrarieswould

beturned

aboutsothatthe

southernCatholic

culturescould

berepresented

asthe

barbarouslysuperstitious

antagonist;

butthe

essentialshape

ofthe

polaritywould

persistasthe

foundingmythology

ofmodern

Europeand

itsinternal

tensions.In

thedrastic

simplifications

ofsuch

aschem

e,atelescoping

ofhis

toricalperiods

thatmerged

the‘Dark

Ages’ofRom

e’sdecline

withthe

more

flourishingcondition

ofthe

laterMiddle

Ages,lum

pingtogether

theOstrogothic

warriorofthe

thirdcentury

withthe

learnedParisian

monk

ofthethirteenth,was

notconsideredananachronism

somuch

asanecessary

verdicton

centuriesofunproductive

prehistory.So

althoughthe

Goths

themselves

neverconstructed

asingle

Gothic

cathedral,norcomposed

anyGothic

fiction,theselatersenses

ofGothic

stillhave

arecognizable

meaning

byvirtue

oftheirpolar

oppositionto

the‘Classical’

architecturaland

literarytraditions

derivedfrom

Greece

andRom

e.Accordingly,

bythe

lateeighteenth

century‘Gothic’

wascom

monly

usedtomean

‘medieval,

thereforebarbarous’,

inalargely

unquestionedequation

ofcivilization

withclassical

standards.The

earlyliterary

senseofGothic

isfounded

uponthis

usage,denoting,asinthe

subtitleofH

oraceWalpole’s

TheC’astle

ofOtranto:AGothic

Story(1764),

atale

concernedwith

thebrutality,cruelty,and

superstitionof the

Middle

Ages.Theassum

edsuperiority

ofspecificallyclassical

culturethen

tendstobeeroded

bythe

challengeofthe

Romantic

Movem

ent,but

thererem

ainother

termsofopposition—

themodern,

theenlightened,

therational—

whichserve

tohold

thepejorative

senseofG

othicinitsplace.U

nlikexl’

‘Romantic’,

then,‘Gothic’

inits

literaryusage

neverbecom

esa

positiveterm

ofculturalrevaluation,

butcarries

vithit (even

among

antiquarianenthusiasts

formedieval

art,such

asWalpole,

theAikins,and

theirfollowers)

anidentification

ofthemedieval with

thebarbaric.A

Gothic

novelortale

will almostcertainly

offendclassical

tastesand

rationalprinciples,

butitwill

notdo

soby

urgingany

positiveview

ofthe

Middle

Ages.Inthis

important

respectliterary

Gothicism

differscrucially

fromserious

medieval

revivalismofthe

kindfound

inthe

mature

phaseofthe

Gothic

Revivalinarchitecture:

here,the

viewsofthe

Catholicconvert

Augustus

Welby

Puginand

ofJohn

Rusldneffected

inthe

nineteenthcentury

arehabilita

tionofthe

Middle

Agesasthe

greatage

ofFaith

andofsocial

responsibility, radicallyrevising

theterm

‘Gothic’tomean

‘Christian’incontradistinction

tothe

corruptlypagan

traditionof the

Renaissance.The

term‘Neo-G

othic’used

forthe

Victorian

architecturalstyle

soendorsed

would

beentirely

unsuitablefor

theliterary

Gothickry

ofPugin’s

orRuskin’s

contemporaries,

becausethe

implied

valuationsof m

edievallifeare

sodifferent in

eithercase.Such

acontrasthelps

toclarif

thefact

thatthe

most

troublesomeaspect

ofthe

term‘Gothic’

is,indeed,that literaryGothic

isreally

anti-Gothic.

Theanti-G

othicismofGothic,

bywhich

Imean

itsingrained

distrustofmedieval

civilizationand

itsrepresentation

ofthe

pastprim

arilyinterm

softyranny

andsuperstition,

hastaken

severalform

s, fromthe

vigilant Protestantxenophobiasostrongly

evidentinthe

firsthalf-centuryofG

othicwriting, to

therationalist fem

inismof

AngelaCarter’s

fiction.Inwhatever

form, ithas

persistedas

amajor

elementofthe

tradition,eventhough

itssignificance

hastended

tobe

disguisedby

theapparent

indulgenceofarchaic

superstitionsand

barbarousenergies. Atfirst sight, G

othicfiction

mayappear,as

itdidtomany

anxiousreaders

inthe

lateeighteenth

century,assom

esort

ofirresponsible

relapseinto

theold

delusionsof

abenighted

age,nostalgically

glamorizing

theworstfeatures

ofapast

fromwhich

wehave

thankfullyescaped.

Someattraction

tothe

imagined

vitalityof

pastages

isindeed

alwaysthere

inGothic,

butthis

appealconsists

principallyinthe

imaginative

freedomsand

symbolic

possibilitiesof

discardedfolk

beliefs,not

inany

faithactually

attachedtothem

.When

Gothic

fictionhas

employed

theghostly

apparitionsand

omens

ofarchaiclore

(andithas

notalwaysneeded

theiraid

atall),ithas

atthe

sametimeplaced

themunderstrong

suspicionaspart ofa

cruellyrepressive

anddeluded

past.There

isoften

akind

ofhom

eopathicprinciple

at workhere, in

theway

that Gothic

writers

haveborrow

edthe

fablesand

nightmares

ofapast

ageinorder

torepudiate

their

xlii

introductionIntroduction

authority:just

asthe

consciouslyProtestant

pioneersofthe

Gothic

novelraisethe

oldghosts

ofCatholicEurope

onlytoexorcize

them,

soinalater

agethe

fictionofA

ngelaCarter

hasexploited

thepow

erof

apatriarchal

folklore,allthe

bettertoexpose

anddispel

itsgrip

uponus.

Inthe

earlydays

ofGothic

writing,the

stronganxieW

among

bothcritics

andpractitioners

ofGothic

fictionabout

therisks

ofdabbling

inbygone

superstition,and

especiallyabout

theperm

issibleuse

of supernaturalincidentswas

animated

byawatchful

Protestantfearofpopery

anditsimaginative

snares.Itis

noaccident

atallthat

Gothic

fictionfirst

emerged

andestablished

itselfwithin

theBritish

andAnglo-Irish

middle

class,in

asociety

whichhad

throughgenerations

ofwarfare,

politicalscares,

andpopular

mar

tvrologvpersuaded

itselfthat

itshard-w

onliberties

couldatany

moment

besnatched

fromitby

papal tyrannyand

theruthless

wilesofthe

SpanishInquisition.

Atthe

foundationofGothic

literature’santi-G

othicsentim

entlies

thisnightm

areofbeing

draggedback

tothe

persecutionsofthe

Counter-Reformation;

andsothe

novelsand

talesofthe

earlyGothic

writers

arepeopled

byschem

ingFranciscan

poisoners,depraved

abbesses,fearsom

eInquisitors,

anddiabolical

murderers

fromevery

monastic

order,plotting

againsthelpless

maidens

whohave

beenforced

against theirwillsinto

thehypocrisies

ofaconventual

regime.Sym

ptomatic

ofthisnightm

areworld

isthe

familiar

contortionbywhich

theGothic

writer

hastoprovide

forthe

heroand

heroineofthe

talesom

ereassuring

Protestantcredentials

bymaking

them,although

Roman

Catholic,secretly

immune

fromthe

impostures

oftheir

ownfaith.

Thedifferences

oftenobserved

between

competing

schoolsofearly

Gothic

fictiononthe

groundsof

theirdeploym

entofexplicable

orinexplicable

supernaturaleffects

disappearinto

unanimity

onthe

matter

ofCatholic

superstition,which

isrelentlessly

satirizedand

condemned.

Thedistrust

which

Gothicism

showstow

ardsthe

bugbearsof

adiscarded

mythology

may

behighlighted

helpfullybycontrast

withthe

principlesofthe

orthodoxghost

story.In

spiteoftheir

consanguinity

andtheir

many

mutualborrow

ings,thetwo

traditionscan

beseen

asmutually

opposedonthis

point.There

isavery

familiar

model

followedby

many

ghoststories

inEnglish

fromthe

earlytwentieth

century:this

usuallybegins

withanassem

blyofgentlem

engathered

atadinner-table

orinaLondon

club,debating

theexist

enceofspirits.

Thenanervous-looking

member

ofthe

company

pipesup

withhis

first-handaccount

of theinexplicable

occurrencesatacountry

househehas

rentedfor

aweekend,

where

thespooky

goings-onhave

reachedthe

pointatwhich

theservants

havegiven

xiv

notice.At

theclose

ofhis

narrative,the

materialist

doubtersare

silenced,and

somemoralizing

ismade

tothe

effectthat

thereare

more

thingsinheaven

andearth,

Horatio,

thanare

dreamtofin

thenarrotv

secular philosophiesof bolshevists,suffragettes,and

theother

democratic

do-goodersofthis

rationalistage.Mylittle

travestydoes

nojustice

tomany

more

sophisticatedwriters

whohave

worked

inthis

genre,but

readerstvho

havebrow

sedatany

lengthinghost-

lorewill

immediately

recognizethe

typeand

itsconventions.

Theostensible

pointofthe

ghoststory

(evenwhen

theauthor

maypri

vatelybe

anunbeliever)

istoconvince

thesceptical

readerofthe

palpableexistence

of phantoms.The

conservativetendency

ofsuch

taleslies

intheir

dedicationtoovercom

ingmodern

scepticismon

behalfofanolder belief w

hichhas

beenfoolishly

abandoned.Gothic

fiction,on

theother

hand,usually

showsno

suchrespect

forthe

wisdom

ofthe

past,and

indeedtends

toportray

former

agesas

prisonsofdelusion.

Thissurvey

ofthe

difficultiesinvolved

inthe

term‘Gothic’

inliterature

hassofarconsidered

thetwo

problemsof its

anachronisticorigins

andits

possibleconfusion

withmore

positivemedievalist

sensestowhich

itisinfact

hostile.There

remains

afurther

warn

ingtobe

made

againstany

inflexibleidentification

ofGothic

withspecifically

medievalsettings.

Asthis

traditionof fiction

hasevolved,

ithasadapted

thearchaic

atmosphere

ofearlyGothic

fiction, withits

usualtimeofaction

inthe

lateMiddle

Agesorthe

earlymodern

period,tolater

periods,even

insom

ecases

tothe

writer’s

owntime.

fthas

donethis

byabstracting

certainleading

featuresofthese

originalGothic

settings,retaining

especiallythe

enclosedspaces

ofthe

oldbuilding,

withfurther

associationsofthe

past’sdestructive

cruelty.The

modern

timeofw

ritingwhich

isset againstthe

Gothic

past eventuallycom

esround

tobeing

thepastof succeeding

generations

ofreaders

andwriters;

andso

bythe

1930Swe

findF.M.

Mayor

andIsak

Dinesen

bothsetting

theirstories

inthe

earlynine

teenthcentury,

nowbecom

ea‘Gothic’

perioditself,

itscustom

scruelly

repressiveintwentieth-century

eyes.In

principleand

inpractice

itisperfectly

possibletohave

aGothic

storyset

inthe

author’sown

time,provided

thatthe

talefocuses

uponarelatively

enclosedspace

inwhich

someantiquated

barbariccode

still prevails.For

instance,Conan

Doyle’sstory

‘TheAdventure

oftheSpeckled

Band’isset ata

timewithin

theliving

memory

ofallitsfirst readers,

butwithin

anancestral

mansion

lockedinto

anarchaic

formof

domestic

tyranny.Dislodged

fromthe

specificassociation

withthe

Middle

Ageswhich

gaveitits

name,the

Gothic

hasbecom

einsuch

Ixv

I

—

II

iiiI

IIii I

Introduction

thatGothic

fictionischaracteristically

obsessedwith

oldbuildings

assites

ofhum

andecay.

TheGothic

castleorhouse

isnot

justan

oldand

sinisterbuilding;

itis

ahouse

ofdegeneration,

evenof

decomposition,

itsliving-space

darkeningand

contractinginto

thedying-space

of themortuary

andthe

tomb.Although

Gothic

fictioncan

workwith

otherkinds

ofenclosedspace,

iftheseare

sufficientlyisolated

andintroverted—

convents,prisons,

schools,madhouses,

evensmall

villages—itisstill

thedark

mansion

thatoccupies

itscentral

ground.Doubling

asboth

fictionalsetting

andasdom

inantsym

bol,the

housereverberates

foruswith

associationswhich

aresim

ultaneouslypsychological

andhistorical.

Asakind

offolk-

psychologyset

instone,

theGothic

houseisreadily

legibletoour

post-Freudianculture,so

wecan

recognizeinitsstructure

thecrvpts

andcellars

ofrepresseddesire,the

atticsand

belfriesofneurosis,just

aswe

acceptPoe’simitation

toread

thehaunted

palaceofthe

poeminhis

taleasthe

allegoryofa

madm

an’shead.

Lessoften

remarked,

however,despiteallthe

signsthrow

noutby

Gothic

fiction—from

thestatus

ofits

characterstothe

verydecor

ofits

settings—isthe

mansion’s

historicalresonance.

Somefurther

commentary

mayhelp

tobring

outthisrather

neglecteddim

ensionofthe

Gothic.

Itiscustom

arytoaccount

forthe

appealofGothic

fictionby

referenceto

aset ofuniversaland

timeless

dreadsusually

referredto

as‘our

deepestfears’.

Andsom

esuch

commonrepertoire

ofsharedanxieties,including

thefearofdeath,ofdecay,and

ofconfinement,is

almostcertainty

involvedinboth

thecreation

ofGothic

worksand

thereader’s

responsetothem

.Thedifficulty

withthis

generalizingclaim

,though,

isthat

Gothic

writing

summons

upthese

fearsonly

within

itsown

peculiarfram

ework

ofconventions,

tvhosespecial

featurescannot

beexplained

directlybyany

nameless

dreadthat

Gothic

hasincom

mon

withvery

differentfictional

formslike

thefolk-tale,

theancient

myth,

ormost

modern

horrorstories.

Unlike

thefear

ofdeath,

Gothic

fictionisneither

immemorial

norglobal,

butbelongs

specificallytothe

modern

ageofEurope

andthe

Americas

sincethe

endof

theeighteenth

century;and

itismarked

bythis

limited

locationand

historyinways

thathelpdifferentiate

itfurtherfrom

thegenerality

offearfulnarratives.

Prominentam

ongitsspecial

featuresis

apreoccupation

withthe

inheritedpow

ersand

corruptionsof

feudalaristocracy,

andwith

similar

lineagesand

agenciesofarchaic

authority,which

caninclude

thepseudo-aristocracies

oftheAmerican

Southand

themonastic

hierarchiesofthe

RomanCatholic

Church.Sowhile

itwouldbepossible

toconcocta

passablehorrorstory

aboutthe

misdeeds

ofsay,a

dangerouslysadistic

bankmanageror

dentist,xx

Introduction

onewould

notbewriting

aGothic

talcunless

onelinked

thesubject-

matter

insom

eway

tothe

antiquatedtyrannies

anddynastic

corruptions

ofanaristocratic

poweroratleast

ofaproud

oldprovincial

family.

Moulding

ourcom

mon

existentialdread

intothe

morepar

ticularshapes

ofGothic

fiction,then,

isaset

of‘historical

fears’focusing

uponthe

memory

ofanage-old

regimeofoppression

andpersecution

which

threatensstill to

fixitsdead

handupon

us.Asthe

briefaccount of earlyGothic

fictiongiven

aboveshould

alreadyhave

suggested,these

fearsfirst

tookthe

formofnervous

Protestantfascination

with

Catholicaristocrats

andmonks;

but asthis

sectarianalarm

subsided,the

Gothic

traditioncontinued

tofeed

uponthe

sinisterallure

of nobledynasties

orlesser

familyautocracies.

Itisa

middle-class

tradition,anditsanxiety

maybecharacterized

brieflyas

afear of historical reversion;thatis,of the

naggingpossibility

thatthedespofism

sburied

bythe

modem

agemayprove

tobeyet undead.

Inthis

contextitmaybeworth

speculatingthat

thefigure

ofthevam

pire(which

hashardly

anyprom

inenceinearly

Gothic

writing)

probablycarries

agreater

importance

intwentieth-century

mythology

thanit ever

didforTransylvanian

villagersincenturies

past, andthat

thisisbecause

itencapsulates

foramore

democratic

ageafantasy

model of decadentaristocratic

crueltywhich

weneed

tosacrifice

overand

overagain. Thosemillions

of uswho

descend, howeverrem

otely,from

peasantstock

ratherthan

fromthe

bloodofprinces

must,

itseem

s,derive

somenecessary

reassurancefrom

thesefictional

ritesof

exorcism.The

mainstream

non-vampiric

traditionsof

Gothic

fictiongive

ussom

ethingsim

ilar,tothe

extentthat theyre-enactand

implicitly

celebratethe

extinctionof their

fearsomedynastic

houses.Justw

hywe

shouldfeel

am’need

toreassure

ourselvesmayseem

tobethe

realmystery

here:after

all,the

flastillefell long

ago,and,

asJane

Austen

reminded

thereaders

ofGothic

novelsinNorthanger

Ahh’,itis not so

easythese

daystobekidnapped

andassassinated

byanItalian

count.One

kindof answ

ertothis

riddlemaybeindicated

byconsidering

thenoticeable

prominence

ofwomen

inthe

Gothic

tradition,as

popularand

influentialauthors,

ascentral

fictionalcharacters,

andasdevoted

readers.Gothic

fictionhas

longbeen

presidedover by

AnnRadcliffe

andher

female

successors,commonly

employing

theRadcliffean

model

ofthe

heroineenclosed

inthe

master’s

house:aform

ulapersistently

re-worked

inthe

popularvariety

ofwomen’s

fictionstill known

asthe

‘Gothic

romance’,w

hosedescent

canbe

tracedback

throughDaphne

duMaurier’s

Rebeccaand

CharlotteBrontë’s

Janefj’re.

Itismore

thanlikely

thatthis

enduringadoption

ofGothic

fictionbywomen

hastodo

withthe

Lxxi

II:III

Sb

I

I

—I

I