Aphra Behn and Ecofeminism

One example of why I feel Aphra Behn’s work is conducive to ecocritical studies and worthy of ecocritical attention, comes from her poem The Disappointment. In fact, I believe it fits admirably into a specific area of Ecocriticism known as Ecofeminism. In this related genre, the same male dominance that has lead to the suppression of women is seen to pose destruction, or at least, repression to nature. In an interesting book called Introducing Ecofeminist Theologies, Heather Eaton, explains how “Ecofeminism claims that there is a historical and contemporary connection between women and the natural world, that is both empirical and cultural-symbolic.” She goes on to claim “this women-nature link is one of the causes of the pervasive domination of woman and the destruction of the earth, and their mutual oppressions are interlocked” (37). Again, she is saying that women and nature are akin, and the treatment of one often reflects the cultural treatment of the other.


Returning to The Disappointment, I feel Aphra Behn’s pertinence to Ecofeminism can be aptly seen, in an examination of her poem. This piece describes a near rape situation that takes place on a mossy bed, in a lonely thicket. While this poem is focused a great deal on desires, both of the male Lysander, and the female Cloris, I would argue that in the poem, the body of “fair Cloris” could be also read as a metaphor for the earth. She loves Lysander, and gives him affection and care. At first, she even wants to yield to his desires. “She do's her softest Sweets dispence,/ Offring her Virgin-Innocence” (66-67). This is consistent with the way the earth yields up bounty for humans, as the earth provides for its living inhabitants, and gives them the means of life with such features as water and oxygen. Yet though she loves him and cares for him, and begins to feel helpless against his persuasion, a change comes over her, when she realizes the full situation. Then she pleads with him not to take her “dearer honour,” even as those who speak for the protection of the earth remind us not to soil, waste, or degrade her pure and natural commodities. In the last two lines of stanza four, we hear “All her unguarded beauties lie—the spoils and trophies of the enemy.” To me, this represents the idea of nature, in all its pristine unharmed beauty, balanced in a way to preserve and promote the well-being of its inhabitants, made victim by those who would mine, drill, and chop, those the unguarded beauties and resources she possesses. This idea of laying hold of the earth and its treasures is further expanded in stanza five, which describes him about to ravage Cloris:

And now without respect or fear,

He seeks the object of his vows,

(His love no modesty allows)

By swift degrees advancing where

His daring hand that altar seized,

Where gods of love do sacrifice:

That awful throne, that paradise

Where rage is calmed, and anger pleased,

That fountain where delight still flows,

And gives the universal world repose.

Cloris is the alter—indeed, nature is the alter—and he seizes it with daring hand. In doing so, he messes with paradise, and I would read that dually, as also pertaining to earthly paradise. At the beginning, it shows him without respect or fear, which can reflect the way modern consumerism leads to intense and thoughtless reaping of Nature’s bounty. An example might be mountain top removal mining, which destroys mountains, ecosystems, rivers, and various species’ habitat, all to obtain modern conveniences for humans. Additionally, Cloris, as a woman, is capable of producing and nurturing life. So is the earth, though on a much larger scale. Thus linking them together seems quite reasonable.

Near the end of the poem, a line reads “nature’s support…itself now wants the art to live.” At the poems conclusion, we are left without ravishment. Lisander is unable to follow through with his intentions. This seems to indicate hope. If humans will stop their assault upon the earth, we can preserve it and keep it pure. I see this poem as possessing a tone that is very protective of the earth. Truly, in its topic, and approach, The Disappointment displays how Aphra Behn’s work fits nicely into the Ecofeminist niche.

References

Behn, Aphra. The Disappointment.

Eaton, Heather. Introducing Ecofeminist Theologies. New York: T&T Clark International, 2005.

Introducing Aphra Behn, with potential pertinance to the field of Ecocriticism.

"All women together ought to let flowers fall upon the tomb of Aphra Behn…for it was she who earned them the right to speak their minds. It is she—shady and amorous as she was—who makes it not quite fantastic for me to say to you tonight: Earn five hundred a year by your wits" (Greenblatt 2126).

~*~*~*~

These words were spoken in 1929 by renowned author Virginia Wolf, in her famous essay entitled “A Room of One's Own.” Who is the woman who warranted such praise? The shady and amorous author she spoke of was a female Renaissance poet, playwright, and novelist. This remarkable woman lived from 1640 to 1689. Her biographical information is not concretely known. It appears that she initially followed the traditional pattern for a woman’s life, and she married at a young age. That traditional existence was short-lived. Around the age of twenty-five she was widowed, and from that point Aphra Behn’s life took a significant departure from the realm of tradition. She started to write plays, and began to earn her living as an author. Because of this remarkable accomplishment, during a time when the role of women did not incorporate such a life-style, she is seen by many as the first professional woman writer. Though out-of-ordinary, Aphra Behn did attain some fame during her lifetime, and the various genres of her work were popular with audiences in her day.

In the proceeding eras, however, her work suffered a decline in popularity. It contained explicit sexuality that would warrant an R rating in today’s standards if it was shown on screen. So it was far too scandalous for the conventional morality of the parlor setting. Standard middle class people did not sit around drinking tea, while discussing naked bodies twining around each other. In these subsequent years, while Aphra Behn was not erased from literary tradition, her works were left neglected in the darkest, dustiest corner of the canon. Wonderfully, though, an awareness of women authors has been on the ascent in recent decades. One of my favorite English teachers said that when she began teaching thirty years ago, only a few well-known women, such as Emily Dickinson, were included in textbooks—and perhaps only two women for every twenty-five male authors. Now, lesser known works have been finding their ways into literature textbooks. Aphra Behn has been removed from her dusty corner, and the accumulated cobwebs brushed away. In fact, nerdy English majors, like me, can even find Aphra Behn t-shirts on the internet!

Despite the improved enthusiasm, I still feel that her writing deserves even more solid and widespread recognition. The reemerging acknowledgment of Aphra Behn’s literary contribution should be refreshed! I believe it should be linked to current, up-to-date, and interesting areas of literary appreciation. One such area where her work could be appreciated and included is the recently introduced and ever-expanding field of Ecocriticism. I feel her work makes her an eligible candidate to be viewed and studied through an ecocritical lens.

First though, to understand how her work could be included in Ecocritiscim, it important to know what is meant by Ecocriticism. The Association for the Study of Literature and the Environment defines it as “the study of the relationship between literary and cultural artifacts and the natural environment” (Raber 151). Of course, literature has incorporated nature and the environment, and its effects on, or treatment by humans, since the days of oral epics. However, this specific field geared towards the study of their relationship is fairly new, at least as a formalized viewpoint. Ecocriticism really took off in the early 90s, under the active promotion of critics, such as Lawrence Buell. I have realized that it is a little trickier than other types of criticism—Marxist or Psychoanalytical for example—which have very clearly defined stances. Ecocriticism is slightly more flexible. Sometimes it involves activism, while in other instances it seems to require only commentary or discussion.

No matter what the initial purpose of Ecocriticism was, scholars soon noticed that there were certain elements lacking. The authors whose writings were being analyzed, as well as the critics conducting the studies, were, for the most part, white and middle class. This narrow spectrum severely limited potential contributions to the field. In an article called The Shoulders We Stand on: an Introduction to Ethnicity and Ecocriticism, Joni Adamson and Scott Slovic call for the inclusion of ethnic and gender vantages in this current trend of criticism. They quote a fellow scholar, Gladys Glotfelty, as saying: “Ecocriticism has been predominantly a white movement. It will become a multi-ethnic movement when stronger connections are made between the environment and issues of social justice, and when a diversity of voices are encouraged to contribute to the discussion” (6). Adamson and Slovic encouraged a wave of Ecocriticism that delved into “all facets of human experience from an environmental viewpoint” (7). All facets mean all facets! So expanding in the inclusion of a variety in class and ethnicity, would naturally lead to the inclusion of another minority—women authors. With this awareness, Ecocriticism grew, and began to include extensive amounts of worthy texts.

After expanding in ethnic and gender realms, Ecocriticism began to cover a huge historical range. First, Ecocriticism was more concerned with works that were written with a purpose to promote current environmental thinking, but scholars began looking at past works that spoke on the relationship of humans and the environment. Karen Raber explains that “as a recently constructed field of study, Ecocriticism often retrospectively embraces critical work not originally or intentionally designed as such” (151). In this retrospect inclusion, Renaissance authors have not been ignored. Raber, in an in-depth bibliographical essay, discusses the enormous amounts of ecocritical studies now surrounding prominent Renaissance figures, such as Shakespeare, Spencer, Milton, and Donne. All the well-known authors are covered. While these prestigious authors provide rich material, and much to work with, it is still not a comprehensive list. There is a glaring omission of woman writers. Raber herself invokes scholars to push the inclusion further, and analyze such authors as Mary Wroth, and Aemelia Lanyer. So this is still a blank slate, requiring further exploration. This—the unexplored Renaissance ecocritical territory—is precisely where a discussion of Aphra Behn’s work would be appropriate. All these other voices of literary prestige are being included.

So I pose my question: why not her?

References

Adamson, Joni, and Scott Slovic. “The Shoulders We Stand On: An Introduction to Ethnicity

and Ecocriticism.” Melus 34.2 (2009): 5-24.

Raber, Karen. Recent Ecocritical Studies of English Renaissance Literature. English Literary

Renaissance 37.1 (Feb. 2007): 151-171.

Wolf, Virginia. “A Room of One’ Own.” The Norton Anthology of English Literature. Ed.

Stephen Greenblatt. New York: Norton & Company, 2006.

Aphra Behn (1640-1689)