2.2. Englishness and Britishness: Communal and Individual Identities in “The French Lieutenant’s Woman”

Fowles’s idea of “Englishness” and “Britishness”, first expressed in his essay “On Being English, not British”, is illustrated and embodied in his novel “The French Lieutenant’s Woman”, the characters of which can be divided into “British” and “English”.

Charles Smithson is a bright example of the “Englishness” conception. He possessed all characteristics of a real gentleman. The meaning of the word “gentleman” is the following “a man of noble origin”. In the Victorian era, that word without changing its essence began to denote a man, perfect in every concern. Gentleman is a man capable to behave adequately under all circumstances, able to find a way out of any predicament, and capable to sacrifice his dignity in the name of saving the others in a hopeless situation. One of the main features of conventional gentleman was his origin. In his essay “On Being English, not British”, John Fowles wrote, “to be English, it is necessary that at least two of your four grandparents were English” [31, p. 3]. In this sense, Charles was a real gentleman. From the novel, we learn that his grandfather was a baronet, very fond of fox hunting and collecting books. His father had almost the same interests, thought he changed foxes and books for cards and ladies.

Another fundamental feature for being English was “to study in England” [31, p. 3]. Charles not only studied in England, he graduated from Cambridge. He inherited from his father a small fortune, had a sufficient independent income, therefore, he had no need to work. Mr. Smithson devoted his free time to science, palaeontology. He even considered himself a scientist (“And you forget that I’m a scientist. I have written a monograph, so I must be” [30, p. 4]), and as a real gentleman, he could not even admit the thought to work. A gentleman can not earn his living, he must possess a certain income [3, p. 158]. The taboo on manual labour was saved in Victorian society. Dealing with commerce was not welcome and possible only when necessary. Thence, when Mr. Freeman offered Charles to be engaged in trade, “fear and amazement” [30, p. 113] appeared at the face of the main hero.

One more feature that made Charles a real Englishman was his endurance. Patience and confidence were main trades of character of a gentleman. A gentleman would never present his thought directly, especially if they were caused by some feelings. Fowles names this “hiding in the woods”. Previously, almost all the territory of England was covered with woods, and English people could hide in the woods in literal sense, but as time passed and there left not many woods in England, English people “moved England into their thoughts” [31, p. 3] and began to hide their thoughts from other people. That is why English people possess such traits of character as the tendency to hide their emotions and the ability to hide the real face behind the mask. A perfect example of such a trait is the episode with Sir Robert, when Charles found out about his marriage, and as a result Charles was deprived of the heritage. Charles endured the news courageously, although it changed his plans for life greatly. He said no word of reproach and behaved himself gently, even though he “felt whipped and humiliated; a world less” [30, p. 91]. However, Charles never put his mask off his own face, and came to the only decent gentleman decision – “to take it calmly, to show the stoic and hide the raging boy” [30, p. 91].

One of the important features of English gentleman was his love for justice. In general the main feature of all English people is “maniacal aspiration for justice” [31, p. 3]. According to Z. Zinatulinna, every Englishman “has always dreamed to live in the most justify country” [3, p. 6]. Since the gentleman often occupied the highest posts, the law did not allow punishing him in the humiliating way in court, he was freed from the oath, because the truthfulness was perceived as his natural property. The Englishman, especially the gentleman, trusted people and inspired confidence himself. Mandatory fulfilments of its responsibilities, readiness to help were relevant features of a gentleman. Charles, as a real gentleman, followed these rules. His very first desire to assist Sarah was motivated by the aspiration to achieve justice. The words of dairyman hurt him: “And she been’t no lady. She be the French Loot’n’nt’s Hoer” [30, p. 37], and “He seemed to Charles to incarnate all the hypocritical gossip – and gossips – of Lyme” [30, p. 37].

One more fundamental feature of the gentleman was his attitude towards the lady. In his work Z. Zinatulina states: “He directs the attention to lady only when he needs to get married and to make a good couple” [3, p. 159]. Charles also behoved like that. While he was young, he did not even think about getting married, only when he was 32 he realized that soon he would become the same as Sir Robert, and “his feeling that he was growing like his uncle at Winsyatt, that life was passing him by, that he was being, as in so many other things, overfastidious, lazy, selfish ...and worse” [30, p. 35]. Charles met Ernestina in London, at the very moment when he had decided to get married. He believed that she was not stupid, beautiful, and wealthy and possessed all the characteristics suitable for the role of the wife of a gentleman.

Nevertheless, when Charles decided to break up with Ernestine, he still followed the rules of “fair play”. For example, he could break up with Ernestina without clarification, he went to her and admitted: “That I have, after many hours of the deepest, the most painful consideration, come to the conclusion that I am not worthy of you” [30, p. 160]. Even more, he signed a document entitled “statement of guilt”, proposed by Mr. Freeman, that could spoil the reputation of Charles. Perfect reputation for a gentleman was one of the most important values.

The behaviour of a gentleman out of his social obligations was also regulated. He passed his leisure time in the club. Expulsion from the club was the greatest shame for the Englishman. Charles also went to his own club “He walked with no very clear purpose, in the general direction of his club in St. James” [30, p. 123].

Opposite to the notion of “Englishness”, including the notion “gentleman” stands “Britishness”. “Britishness” in the novel is represented by members of the Victorian society who carried all the negative features in terms of morals of that era. In the novel, Mrs. Poultney was presented as a typical image that embodied all the prejudices of time, thought she considered herself to be a fighter for morals. The author depicted “Britishness” of Mrs. Poulteney directly: “In her fashion she was an epitome of all the most crassly arrogant traits of the ascendant British Empire. Her only notion of justice was that she must be right; and her only notion of government was an angry bombardment of the impertinent populace” [30, p. 26]. Mrs. Poulteney embodied the hypocrisy of the Victorian era. She was highly religious but at the same time she did not comply with one of the most important Christian commandments – “Love one another”. She was very prudent: even the heavens seemed to her the Accounting Chamber. Mrs. Poulteney’s alienation from nature was an integral part of “Britishness”, being opposite to Charles attitude towards nature. Throughout the novel, Mrs. Poulteney never left her own house. For example, when describing her house the author called it “Marlborough House” to emphasize her aristocratic claims, her goal to have power, and a desire to have a leading position in the established society of Lyme Regis. She perfectly embodied Fowles’s idea of the British desire to show its strength. The author gave the diagnosis for Britain: the desire to be the strongest and the best. He argues that every British man believes that, “Britain is and should be the strongest country in the world” [31, p. 3].

Another representative of “Britishness” in the novel was Ernestina Freeman. The main goal of her life was to become a “lady”. Ernestina was very ambitious, prudent, wished to become an aristocrat, and willing to do anything to achieve this goal, in short, she behaved like an ordinary bourgeois. She was the daughter of the usual “draper”, who with the help of his own “entrepreneurial spirit” was able to get rich. Despite her “bourgeois” origin Ernestina struggled for becoming an aristocrat, and for violating “the law of the noble origin”. The origin of Ernestina and the environment of education determined her behaviour, she tried to calculate everything and immediately after the engagement began to think how to manage the house, a servant and “she liked every luxury, and to be waited on, hand if not foot; but she had a very sound bourgeois sense of proportion” [30, p. 107]. The slogan of the British ladies of the 19^th century was “Be able to control yourself”. However, Ernestina was anything but restrained. For example, her reaction to the news of Sir Robert’s marriage was awful: she cried, increased her voice, although the real lady should never do so. Later, she realized her mistake (“I am shameful, I have behaved like a draper’s daughter” [30, p. 108]), but in fact she behaved naturally for her own class. One of the reasons that she wanted to marry Charles, was his status of a baronet. Even the process to conquer Charles’s heart was a good algorithm of actions: “Now Ernestina had seen the mistake of her rivals” [30, p. 34] and began to act: negotiated with parents, performed certain manipulations, and did everything to achieve her goal. As a true representative of the British Empire, Ernestina was a hypocrite. Even Charles stated that, “Bigotry was only too prevalent in the country; and he would not tolerate it in the girl he was to marry” [30, p. 45]. Fowles showed her hypocrisy through indicating the addressee of her diary: “She wrote there, but for herself and not for God. She wrote partly for his eyes – as, like every other Victorian woman, she wrote partly for His eyes” [30, p. 108], in other words for Charles.

The conclusion of the novel is a failure of “Britishness”, which confirmed the fiasco of Ernestina who could not realize her own noble ambitions. On the other hand, Charles Smithson argues the merits of “Englishness”. At the same time, both characters show the limitations of Victorian society, which constrain the development of the individual. So the characters of “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” are all stereotypes. Fowles has consciously created characters that at once are alive as well as comply with certain standard rules for the Victorian character. The focus of the book is on characters and their development, in contrast to a plot-driven novel. The book takes off in mediocre, and much of the traditional plot has already taken place, making room for a development of characters and narrative technique.