Wieland, The Transformation: An American Tale
Charles Brockden Brown: Wieland; or, the Transformation: An American Tale
I. The influences on Brown 's philosophy of life:
John Locke 's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1689/90 laid the foundations for Rationalism, a typical characteristic of the age of Enlightenment in Europe and in America. In this essay Locke called for the human mind as the decisive means of judging the truth content of a notion, even in a religious context However, his intent was not to argue against the Bible as the word of God, or the theoretical possibility of direct revelations by a deity, he rather insisted that every statement be recognized by the rational mind as true through irrefutable evidence , or, in case someone pleaded that …show more content…
he received that information through a divine revelation, that evidence for the divine source of the revelation be brought.
This attitude evoked considerable attention, especially in the United States. The Reverend Charles Chauncy, one of the leading critics of the so-called "Great Awakening", adopted these Lockeian teachings for his critique of what he considered to be one of the greatest dangers that revivalist movement - religious fervor or what he called "enthusiasm":
Sometimes [enthusiasm] appears in their imaginary peculiar intimacy with heaven. They are, in their own opinion, the special favourites of God . . . and receive immediate, extraordinary communications from him. The tho 'ts, which suddenly rise up in their minds, they take for suggestions of the SPIRIT; their very fancies are divine illuminations; nor are they strong inclin 'd to any thing, but 'tis an impulse from GOD, a plain revelation of his will. And what extravagances, in this temper of mind, are they not capable of, and under specious pretext too of paying obediences to the authority of GOD? Many have fancied themselves acting by immediate warrant from heaven, while they have been committing the most undoubted wickedness.1 That may sound familiar. Indeed, it is almost a detailed description of the way Theodore Wieland (and his historical model, James Yates) acted. It may seem uncommon that Charles Brockden Brown, whose parents both were Quakers, would know and even employ enlightened concepts like those of Locke in his novels, but if we take a short look at the way he was brought up and educated, we understand. Brown was, according to Steven Watts, treated to "a classical and literary education usually reserved for the offspring of wealthy Philadelphia merchant 'Grandees '."2 He was "infatuated with books"2 and buried "himself in texts of history, geography, and literature"2. Furthermore Watts describes Brown 's parents as " 'Quaker modernists ': Friends who melded traditional moral and religious values with an impulse toward modest wordly success, social reform, technological innovation, and 'useful ' personal enterprise"2. His father corresponded with friends and relatives from England and "read widely in the contemporary literature of politics, science, and philosophy"2 as well as more radical texts. It is quite likely that a 'bookworm ' like Charles found and read some if not most of these of these. By the end of the eighteenth century Brown 's stance toward established Christianity can be described as deistic, a claim that can be reinforced by a letter he wrote to his friend Joseph Bringhurst in October 1795:
. . . If the moral precepts of Christ are good they are mine, because they are true, if bad nothing can induce me to esteem them good, and there can be no question about the propriety of endeavoring to exterminate pernicious and erronoius [sic] doctrines, but that which, in truth, denominates any system of belief religious, and which probably makes a part of your end, relates to the authority of the law-maker and the sanction of the law. If Christ was no more than Pythagoras or Socrates, the acceptance of his doctrines, moral or metaphysical, must depend on their intrinsic evidence, nor according to the common acceptation of that term, can his system be termed a Religion: but if he was of nearer kin than other men to the deity, and the effect of that relationship be, a readier submission to his injunctions, and if our compliance or non compliance with his instructions be rewarded or punished hereafter, the case is materially altered . . .1
Brown states here, that whether he is willing to follow the guidelines of a religion depends on their content, whether his mind tells him they are valid or not. This reminds of Locke 's reasoning on the topic of enthusiasm: Either a statement is sound because of interior reasons, then one 's behavior can be guided by it without reservations, because its content is proven by its rationality without an assumed divine revelation. If such is not the case, the question of the credibility of the one making the statement (in this case Jesus) arises, because only divine backing can guarantee the truth content of the statement. Brown even takes this one step further:
. . . it is not the rational business of men to settle what is the creed of Moses, of Christ, of Mahomet, of Confucius, of Pythagoras or Solon. . . . the chief business is to ascertain the dictates of moral duty, by consulting his Understanding; and measuring the opinions of others, whatever may be their pretensions, by the standard of his own judgments . . . I deny that religious sanctions are friendly to morality, I deny the superhuman Authority of any teacher . . .The truth is the same independently of any ones assertion or authority...3
Brown 's views on religion seem to correspond with Paine 's "Age of Reason," in fact they take it one step further. Although accused of being an atheist Paine never denied the existence of a Supreme Being, opposing only organized religion. Brown sees Christ as one in a series of wise men, thus excluding divine sanction, making the human mind the only possible authority in judging the truth content of a statement. Brown assumes a radically deistic stance here, denying any heavenly involvement, making the human mind the champion of judgment of moral issues.
II. Wieland as a critique of the society of post-Revolutionary America :
We have seen that Brown 's philosophy of life has been influenced by the writings of Charles Chauncy1 and John Locke, regarding enthusiasm. The Wieland family has a long tradition of enthusiastic tendencies. Theodore 's and Clara 's father has been influenced by the teachings of the Camisards. The Camisards were a French Protestant sect which had caused some unrest in eighteenth century England, there to be known as "French Prophets." Forced to emigrate after the revoking of the Edict of Nantes their ritual practices of shaking, shouting, and dancing were later adopted by the American Shaker sect. Interestingly also the Quaker sect was connected with a form of shaking during service (hence the name, a derisive). This sect had been brought in connection with enthusiastic behavior by English and American critics of religious fanaticism, such as Shaftesbury or Chauncy.1 It is significant that Brown selects that specific sect as the source of the older Wieland 's religious teachings, paving the way for enthusiastic behavior. Father Wieland believes to have received divine instructions to go and convert the American Indians, for which cause he leaves wife and children behind and obeys his orders. Not only is father Wieland associated with religious fervor, but even his wife, to whose description Brown devotes not too many lines, is included into the enthusiastic family tradition: She is a follower of the teachings of Zinzendorf. Zinzendorf, a count from the German region of Saxony, was the founder of a pietist branch of the German Protestant church whose aim it was to attain a joyous fellowship with Jesus. Its members came mostly from the ethnic group of the Moravians. Banished from his estate by the Saxon Government, Zinzendorf founded Moravian settlements in the Netherlands, the Baltic, and America, notably in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. In the 1740s the anti rational, emotional, and sensuous elements inherent in Zinzendorfian theology were greatly intensified, providing reason for critique. Zinzendorf 's disciples, interestingly enough, were associated with enthusiastic tendencies, to a degree, that Gilbert Tennent, a very active preacher during the 'Great Awakening and himself frequently accused of enthusiasm, tried to get rid of that label by differentiating himself from the 'real ' enthusiasts, the followers of Zinzendorf.1 As if that were not enough, the reader is later informed that the mother 's grandfather committed suicide after hearing the voice of his dead brother beckoning him to walk into an abyss. If it was his intent to hint at the obvious disposition of the Wieland family for religious enthusiasm, Brown makes his point clear right at the start of the novel. As we will see Brown 's novel is intended to warn from the dangers of this enthusiasm, although he also criticizes the pure rational thought. Let us return to the novel. The two orphans are raised by their aunt, whose style of education Clara describes as "Our education had been modeled by no religious standard. We were left to the guidance of our own understanding and the casual impressions which society might make upon us."2 Although this education is modeled on the principles of a natural religion, that is, a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason (a notion which Brown should have been fond of, after all his deistic beliefs are indicated by the letter cited from before), Theodore Wieland 's heritage makes him continue his religious education by himself - "he deemed it indispensable to examine the ground of his belief"(23) - an undertaking that had proven disastrous for his father as it will for him. "Moral necessity, and Calvinistic inspiration, were the props on which my brother thought proper to repose."(25) It becomes clear that it is not only the inherited disposition for enthusiasm that leads Wieland on the wrong path, the fact that he tries to further his education in such a sensitive area as religion by himself, without owning the necessary knowledge provided by a formal education, makes him an easy target for the disturbing events, a fact that proves to be fatal. Shirley Samuels asserts that Wieland was meant as a "tutelary tract . . . to prepare the way for the notion that institutions are a necessary supplement to the family."1 She earlier suggests that Wieland 's unguided self-education ultimately leads to his destruction of his family. "Without the formal institutions of education, religion, . . ., orphanages, or prisons, the new republic would be susceptible to the chaos unleashed within the Wieland family."8 The exact opposite in this microcosm is presented by the character of Pleyel, who, although attached to Wieland by their mutual interest for the writers of Classical Rome, is "a champion of intellectual liberty"(25), he "rejected all guidance but that of his reason"(25). In contrast to Wieland Pleyel received a thorough education, he even studied abroad and almost certainly got into contact with the European enlightenment. Their oppositeness gets even more clear, when Clara tells us that "Where one discovered only confirmations of his faith, the other could find nothing but reasons for doubt"(25). Pleyel is beyond "The Age of Reason", that is, where Paine still detects a god, Pleyel is on his way to atheism. What Brown describes here, are the two big oppositions in belief, which presented themselves to the American people of that era. On the one hand is the Calvinist, the Puritan, who believes in divine providence, a direction of thought that was finding a new peak in the Second Great Awakening. On the other hand there is the stout rationalist, who is not even convinced that a god exists, in other words, who is on his way to atheism. For Brown, who, as I have earlier shown, was a believer in the radically deistic approach the latter seems to be more desirable. In his opinion a lapse into extremes is dangerous, especially in times like these, when the young United States is put to its first test of strength, a quasi-war with France, foreign influences deemed contaminating, a new liberal sentiment sweeping through the nation. But, and this is the important part, the religious extremist threatens and takes the life of innocents, whereas the extreme rationalist is only briefly irritated, he survives the test of his beliefs. With the introduction of Carwin, the foreigner, Brown wants to show us how susceptible the American society, caught between those extremes, is for any alien intrusions, how these influences can lead to catastrophic results. Shirley Samuels sees in Wieland a kind of xenophobic propaganda script: "Published while the fear of contagion by the alien was at its height, the novel foments and yet tries to explain away the threat by both blaming Carwin for introducing sexuality, disorder, and violence into the Wieland family, and explaining that introduction as nothing more than an enhancement of sexual and familial tensions already present."8 Rather than Samuels, though, I hold the opinion that Brown intended to show his readers how dangerous and devastating alien influences in times like these could be, that only a nation free of religious extremes could be stable enough to withstand the tests of time. The Calvinist or Puritan belief has a tendency to be prone to deceptions. When Carwin makes use of his ventriloquist talent the first time the nature of Wieland 's religion gives him no device with which to counter the deception, he lacks, or rather fails to use the Lockeian rationality to try and discover a natural source for the voices, but he takes their supernatural origin for given. Wieland doesn 't even try to find a natural source; for him the voices are of divine origin. That conviction and the repeated occurrence of mysterious voices (which even his rationalist friend Pleyel hears and can not explain) create an atmosphere of mystery, in which Wieland starts to hear his 'own ' voices, without Carwin 's interference. Unfortunately the content of these imagined messages is not harmless like the ventriloquist 's. Wieland is convinced that god demands his family as a sacrifice, and so he does. He tries to argue, he pleads the imagined voice to give him another command, but, and that is very important, he never questions the divinity or the moral value of the order itself. By executing the order he breaks another divine commandment: You shall not kill! In Brown 's eyes this lack of rational thinking presents Wieland 's biggest mistake. Let 's go back to Brown 's deistic philosophy: "If the moral precepts of Christ are good they are mine, . . ., if bad nothing can induce me to esteem them good", that is what he says in his letter to his friend. Wieland should have judged the credibility of the voices according to their underlying moral value. Instead of letting his emotions govern his senses he should have let his mind take over. But he consciously blocks any rational thought - "It was the scope of my efforts not to think"(169) - even though his "natural pity"1 takes possession of him after the murder of his wife, he fights against these feelings (imagine the irony!) and continues with his gruesome task. This kind of behavior represents the exact opposite of everything Brown believes in, it is an extreme, the kind of extreme Brown wants to present as dangerous to the safety of the United States. The similarity between Wieland and the Puritans he is modeled on becomes even more striking when we examine his defensive speech in court closer. It resembles the revelation stories that were demanded to be taken into the Puritan congregation, although his narrative has quite the opposite result in that he is considered to be a lunatic. Consequently he becomes not a respected member of a select society, but an outcast, as he is cast into a dungeon. Shirley Samuels 's claim that Wieland was meant as a kind of "tutelary tract" (I agree that this was at least partially so) is reinforced by the way Clara Wieland is described and the way she acts. She, too, shows signs of an underlying enthusiasm and irrationality. Although she describes herself as a calm and rational thinking person, this estimate only results from a lack of trials. She herself corrects this self-description ". . . was I now tried and found to be cowardly and rash"(222). Although she theoretically holds with the notion that reason should be in control, she is unable to behave according to that theory. This is a result of her lack of a formal religious education. Although familiar with the concept of rationalism she is unable to shake off her family heritage. We just need to have a look at how she reacts to her first encounter with Carwin. Although she only hears his voice, her ". . . eyes ... overflowed with unbidden tears."(52), her mind is in turmoil (mirrored in the storm raging outside) while she keeps looking at the portrait she made of him. This irrational behavior continues. Later, when she has to decide whether to kill her attacker or to escape her dishonoring by suicide, she focuses her mind on the latter option, although in theory she always considered the former to be the most rational (pp. 97-98). Throughout the novel we get the distinct feeling that Clara is more like her brother than she is aware of. Her actions are "...dictated by phrenzy"(88) and she is "...tormented by phantoms of [her] own creation"(88). While Wieland hears imagined voices and thinks they are real, Clara believes all too readily that supernatural powers are the source of at least one of the voices (she doesn 't realize that all the voices originate in Carwin), but not only when Carwin talks to her about his "eternal foe"(90), earlier on. When Pleyel is witness to the voices she talks about "means unquestionably super-human"(45), although she deems the spirit to be benign. But, as Bernard Rosenthal states, "The man who will follow a 'good ' voice of God rather than his own moral senses will be capable of following any voice."1, thus reducing the gap between Clara and her brother. Brown 's description of Clara is clearly an attack on the lack of an organized educational system. The United States had been a safe-haven for all kinds of religious currents from the time of the first English settlements, thus producing a unique variety of different, often radical lines of religious thought. A citizen lacking the background of a solid education, both along the lines of Locke 's teachings and religion (for Brown religion is more a collection of moral values than a set of beliefs), would have been susceptible to the insinuations of all kinds of religious fanatics. The Puritan belief, although weaker than in the first years of colonization, as well as other radical religions, had been a common heritage of the American people. Thus almost every American had an "older Wieland" in his family tree, figuratively speaking. Pleyel represents the true rationalist, the product of the age of Enlightenment. His devotion to reason puts him in one line with Locke and Paine. His description makes one involuntarily think of atheism, of which Thomas Paine was accused after the publishing of "The Age of Reason." But although, as I have earlier pointed out, Brown characterizes Pleyel as the pinnacle of rationalism, he is severely shaken by the occurrence of the mysterious voices. Nonetheless he is associated with calm, enlightened thinking throughout the novel. A good example for that assertion is the scene in which Clara is in the small house on the riverside, lost in the darkness and frightened by the renewed hearing of threatening voices. Suddenly she perceives a ray of light, a little while later Pleyel appears, a lantern in his hand: "I perceived a ray flit across the gloom . . .Presently a new and stronger illumination burst through the lattice on the right hand, . . . It was Pleyel."(64) Eventually his insecurity becomes so strong that, against better knowledge, he is tricked into believing that Clara is a dishonorable woman. However, his rationalist mind is strong enough to prevent him from hastily leaving the city. In the later parts of the novel he is reduced to a character of one of the lesser subplots. What is interesting about Pleyel is, that, although all of the characters have a more or less strong connection to the Old World, he represents the most European figure in this novel: He keeps traveling to Germany and he is in love with a German countess. In the end he returns to Europe, his direction of thought stood the test. The characters in this novel represent philosophical attitudes, options which presented themselves to the American public in the late eighteenth century.
There is father Wieland, who stands for Old World religious fanatism that came to the New World and spread. Wieland represents the product of the Great Awakening and the Lockeian school of thought. On the one hand he is a rational man, he is fascinated by Cicero, discusses new and enlightened ideas with his friend and "he deemed it indispensable to examine the ground of his belief", an almost deist attitude. On the other hand he is of a dark disposition -"his deportment was grave, considerate, and thoughtful"(22) - one feels somehow reminded of the Puritans Hawthorne describes later in his "Scarlet Letter". Then there is Clara, who sees herself as a rationalist, until this rationalism is put to the test and she reveals herself as infected with an enthusiastic mind, nonetheless she is capable of reason. Pleyel is Wieland 's opposite, "his gaiety was almost boisterous"(23), he is the true rationalist, the product of the age of Enlightenment, whose spirit he took in in Europe, where he spent part of his youth. The greater part of the American population (Catherine Wieland and her children) have no distinct beliefs, but they are threatened by extremism. These different attitudes clash, but they keep themselves in check, until a foreign influence in the form of Carwin is added. He causes the carefully maintained balance to veer out of control, to become a chaos. The result is mayhem, destruction, death - war? In my opinion Brown 's novel is meant as a critique of the American society of that period. Brown, as the deist he is, views every form of extremism with suspicion, but his main point of attack is the religious extremism, enthusiasm, in whose unpredictable outbursts he detects a grave threat to the young nation. America is threatened not only by exterior forces, which a healthy and strong nation could shake off
without major problems, its weakness is its enthusiastic heritage, the product of all the religious fringe groups who had come to the colonies in search of religious freedom. The United States are represented by the tranquil life of the Wieland 's and their friends before the arrival of Carwin. The temple, built for the worship of a dark god, has been transformed into a place of liberal discourse, a summer-house (There is a striking similarity between the architecture of the temple, with its Tuscan columns, and the architecture of the young republic). The problem of that tranquil place is that the religious sentiment of one of its members has been formed without formal education. In my mind Brown here criticizes the situation of the educational system of the USA, as I have earlier stated. Had Wieland been brought up with a clear understanding of religious values, instead of self-educating himself unguidedly, he would possess the necessary control mechanisms to counter the alien influences. The result of him lacking those mechanisms is the ease with which Carwin, the symbol for the Alien in the novel, can destroy this precarious balance, even if he does it without a bad intention. Whereas it may seem that Brown argues against extremes (even the extreme rationalist Pleyel is not immune to the voices of Carwin), I believe that he wants to propagate the rationalist way of thinking. In my opinion Pleyel is a kind of "alter ego" of Brown. When we compare his description of this character with what Brown writes in his letter to his friend and with his own biography, we can detect striking similarities. Both have doubts about religion, both let themselves being led by their minds rather than their feelings. Both had contact with European thoughts on enlightenment, both are rationalists. Although Pleyel the rationalist is tricked by the "foreign" influences produced by Carwin, he nevertheless keeps his control to an extent that he even listens to Clara 's defense, he investigates the matter, whereas Wieland never asks, he takes the divine origin of the voices for granted. Pleyel survives the incident (although the religious fanatic Wieland tries to destroy the "champion of reason" - an allusion to the attacks of orthodox Christians on Paine?), in my opinion a statement of support for his line of thought. Brown 's message seems to be: An America that is dominated by religious enthusiasm does not stand a chance to survive, the smallest damaging influence, foreign (Carwin) or internal (Wieland 's father is destroyed without any foreign influence), would have devastating results. The only possible way to save America from falling victim to alien predators and its own religious heritage is to educate Americans along the lines of enlightenment.
Bibliography:
Brown, Charles Brockden, Wieland & Memoirs of Carwin, (Kent State UP, 1985)
Samuels, Shirley, "Wieland, Alien And Infidel" in: Early American Literature, v.25 n.1, 1990, pp.46-66
Rombes, Nicholas, " 'All Was Lonely, Darksome, And Waste ': Wieland And The Construction Of The New Republic" in: Studies in American Fiction, v.22 n1, Spring 1994, pp.37-46
Weckermann, Hans-Juergen, Die Figur des Enthusiasten in der amerikanischen Erzaehlliteratur , (Walter de Gruyter, 1988)
Axelrod, Alan, Charles Brockden Brown, an American Tale , (University of Texas Press, 1983)
Rosenthal, Bernard (ed.), Critical Essays on Charles Brockden Brown , (G.K. Hall, 1981)
May, Henry F., The Enlightenment in America , (Oxford UP, 1976)
Watts, Steven, The Romance of Real Life: Charles Brockden Brown and the Origins of American Culture , (Johns Hopkins UP, 1994)
Notes
I. The influences on Brown 's philosophy of life:
John Locke 's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, published in 1689/90 laid the foundations for Rationalism, a typical characteristic of the age of Enlightenment in Europe and in America. In this essay Locke called for the human mind as the decisive means of judging the truth content of a notion, even in a religious context However, his intent was not to argue against the Bible as the word of God, or the theoretical possibility of direct revelations by a deity, he rather insisted that every statement be recognized by the rational mind as true through irrefutable evidence , or, in case someone pleaded that …show more content…
he received that information through a divine revelation, that evidence for the divine source of the revelation be brought.
This attitude evoked considerable attention, especially in the United States. The Reverend Charles Chauncy, one of the leading critics of the so-called "Great Awakening", adopted these Lockeian teachings for his critique of what he considered to be one of the greatest dangers that revivalist movement - religious fervor or what he called "enthusiasm":
Sometimes [enthusiasm] appears in their imaginary peculiar intimacy with heaven. They are, in their own opinion, the special favourites of God . . . and receive immediate, extraordinary communications from him. The tho 'ts, which suddenly rise up in their minds, they take for suggestions of the SPIRIT; their very fancies are divine illuminations; nor are they strong inclin 'd to any thing, but 'tis an impulse from GOD, a plain revelation of his will. And what extravagances, in this temper of mind, are they not capable of, and under specious pretext too of paying obediences to the authority of GOD? Many have fancied themselves acting by immediate warrant from heaven, while they have been committing the most undoubted wickedness.1 That may sound familiar. Indeed, it is almost a detailed description of the way Theodore Wieland (and his historical model, James Yates) acted. It may seem uncommon that Charles Brockden Brown, whose parents both were Quakers, would know and even employ enlightened concepts like those of Locke in his novels, but if we take a short look at the way he was brought up and educated, we understand. Brown was, according to Steven Watts, treated to "a classical and literary education usually reserved for the offspring of wealthy Philadelphia merchant 'Grandees '."2 He was "infatuated with books"2 and buried "himself in texts of history, geography, and literature"2. Furthermore Watts describes Brown 's parents as " 'Quaker modernists ': Friends who melded traditional moral and religious values with an impulse toward modest wordly success, social reform, technological innovation, and 'useful ' personal enterprise"2. His father corresponded with friends and relatives from England and "read widely in the contemporary literature of politics, science, and philosophy"2 as well as more radical texts. It is quite likely that a 'bookworm ' like Charles found and read some if not most of these of these. By the end of the eighteenth century Brown 's stance toward established Christianity can be described as deistic, a claim that can be reinforced by a letter he wrote to his friend Joseph Bringhurst in October 1795:
. . . If the moral precepts of Christ are good they are mine, because they are true, if bad nothing can induce me to esteem them good, and there can be no question about the propriety of endeavoring to exterminate pernicious and erronoius [sic] doctrines, but that which, in truth, denominates any system of belief religious, and which probably makes a part of your end, relates to the authority of the law-maker and the sanction of the law. If Christ was no more than Pythagoras or Socrates, the acceptance of his doctrines, moral or metaphysical, must depend on their intrinsic evidence, nor according to the common acceptation of that term, can his system be termed a Religion: but if he was of nearer kin than other men to the deity, and the effect of that relationship be, a readier submission to his injunctions, and if our compliance or non compliance with his instructions be rewarded or punished hereafter, the case is materially altered . . .1
Brown states here, that whether he is willing to follow the guidelines of a religion depends on their content, whether his mind tells him they are valid or not. This reminds of Locke 's reasoning on the topic of enthusiasm: Either a statement is sound because of interior reasons, then one 's behavior can be guided by it without reservations, because its content is proven by its rationality without an assumed divine revelation. If such is not the case, the question of the credibility of the one making the statement (in this case Jesus) arises, because only divine backing can guarantee the truth content of the statement. Brown even takes this one step further:
. . . it is not the rational business of men to settle what is the creed of Moses, of Christ, of Mahomet, of Confucius, of Pythagoras or Solon. . . . the chief business is to ascertain the dictates of moral duty, by consulting his Understanding; and measuring the opinions of others, whatever may be their pretensions, by the standard of his own judgments . . . I deny that religious sanctions are friendly to morality, I deny the superhuman Authority of any teacher . . .The truth is the same independently of any ones assertion or authority...3
Brown 's views on religion seem to correspond with Paine 's "Age of Reason," in fact they take it one step further. Although accused of being an atheist Paine never denied the existence of a Supreme Being, opposing only organized religion. Brown sees Christ as one in a series of wise men, thus excluding divine sanction, making the human mind the only possible authority in judging the truth content of a statement. Brown assumes a radically deistic stance here, denying any heavenly involvement, making the human mind the champion of judgment of moral issues.
II. Wieland as a critique of the society of post-Revolutionary America :
We have seen that Brown 's philosophy of life has been influenced by the writings of Charles Chauncy1 and John Locke, regarding enthusiasm. The Wieland family has a long tradition of enthusiastic tendencies. Theodore 's and Clara 's father has been influenced by the teachings of the Camisards. The Camisards were a French Protestant sect which had caused some unrest in eighteenth century England, there to be known as "French Prophets." Forced to emigrate after the revoking of the Edict of Nantes their ritual practices of shaking, shouting, and dancing were later adopted by the American Shaker sect. Interestingly also the Quaker sect was connected with a form of shaking during service (hence the name, a derisive). This sect had been brought in connection with enthusiastic behavior by English and American critics of religious fanaticism, such as Shaftesbury or Chauncy.1 It is significant that Brown selects that specific sect as the source of the older Wieland 's religious teachings, paving the way for enthusiastic behavior. Father Wieland believes to have received divine instructions to go and convert the American Indians, for which cause he leaves wife and children behind and obeys his orders. Not only is father Wieland associated with religious fervor, but even his wife, to whose description Brown devotes not too many lines, is included into the enthusiastic family tradition: She is a follower of the teachings of Zinzendorf. Zinzendorf, a count from the German region of Saxony, was the founder of a pietist branch of the German Protestant church whose aim it was to attain a joyous fellowship with Jesus. Its members came mostly from the ethnic group of the Moravians. Banished from his estate by the Saxon Government, Zinzendorf founded Moravian settlements in the Netherlands, the Baltic, and America, notably in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. In the 1740s the anti rational, emotional, and sensuous elements inherent in Zinzendorfian theology were greatly intensified, providing reason for critique. Zinzendorf 's disciples, interestingly enough, were associated with enthusiastic tendencies, to a degree, that Gilbert Tennent, a very active preacher during the 'Great Awakening and himself frequently accused of enthusiasm, tried to get rid of that label by differentiating himself from the 'real ' enthusiasts, the followers of Zinzendorf.1 As if that were not enough, the reader is later informed that the mother 's grandfather committed suicide after hearing the voice of his dead brother beckoning him to walk into an abyss. If it was his intent to hint at the obvious disposition of the Wieland family for religious enthusiasm, Brown makes his point clear right at the start of the novel. As we will see Brown 's novel is intended to warn from the dangers of this enthusiasm, although he also criticizes the pure rational thought. Let us return to the novel. The two orphans are raised by their aunt, whose style of education Clara describes as "Our education had been modeled by no religious standard. We were left to the guidance of our own understanding and the casual impressions which society might make upon us."2 Although this education is modeled on the principles of a natural religion, that is, a certain body of religious knowledge that is inborn in every person or that can be acquired by the use of reason (a notion which Brown should have been fond of, after all his deistic beliefs are indicated by the letter cited from before), Theodore Wieland 's heritage makes him continue his religious education by himself - "he deemed it indispensable to examine the ground of his belief"(23) - an undertaking that had proven disastrous for his father as it will for him. "Moral necessity, and Calvinistic inspiration, were the props on which my brother thought proper to repose."(25) It becomes clear that it is not only the inherited disposition for enthusiasm that leads Wieland on the wrong path, the fact that he tries to further his education in such a sensitive area as religion by himself, without owning the necessary knowledge provided by a formal education, makes him an easy target for the disturbing events, a fact that proves to be fatal. Shirley Samuels asserts that Wieland was meant as a "tutelary tract . . . to prepare the way for the notion that institutions are a necessary supplement to the family."1 She earlier suggests that Wieland 's unguided self-education ultimately leads to his destruction of his family. "Without the formal institutions of education, religion, . . ., orphanages, or prisons, the new republic would be susceptible to the chaos unleashed within the Wieland family."8 The exact opposite in this microcosm is presented by the character of Pleyel, who, although attached to Wieland by their mutual interest for the writers of Classical Rome, is "a champion of intellectual liberty"(25), he "rejected all guidance but that of his reason"(25). In contrast to Wieland Pleyel received a thorough education, he even studied abroad and almost certainly got into contact with the European enlightenment. Their oppositeness gets even more clear, when Clara tells us that "Where one discovered only confirmations of his faith, the other could find nothing but reasons for doubt"(25). Pleyel is beyond "The Age of Reason", that is, where Paine still detects a god, Pleyel is on his way to atheism. What Brown describes here, are the two big oppositions in belief, which presented themselves to the American people of that era. On the one hand is the Calvinist, the Puritan, who believes in divine providence, a direction of thought that was finding a new peak in the Second Great Awakening. On the other hand there is the stout rationalist, who is not even convinced that a god exists, in other words, who is on his way to atheism. For Brown, who, as I have earlier shown, was a believer in the radically deistic approach the latter seems to be more desirable. In his opinion a lapse into extremes is dangerous, especially in times like these, when the young United States is put to its first test of strength, a quasi-war with France, foreign influences deemed contaminating, a new liberal sentiment sweeping through the nation. But, and this is the important part, the religious extremist threatens and takes the life of innocents, whereas the extreme rationalist is only briefly irritated, he survives the test of his beliefs. With the introduction of Carwin, the foreigner, Brown wants to show us how susceptible the American society, caught between those extremes, is for any alien intrusions, how these influences can lead to catastrophic results. Shirley Samuels sees in Wieland a kind of xenophobic propaganda script: "Published while the fear of contagion by the alien was at its height, the novel foments and yet tries to explain away the threat by both blaming Carwin for introducing sexuality, disorder, and violence into the Wieland family, and explaining that introduction as nothing more than an enhancement of sexual and familial tensions already present."8 Rather than Samuels, though, I hold the opinion that Brown intended to show his readers how dangerous and devastating alien influences in times like these could be, that only a nation free of religious extremes could be stable enough to withstand the tests of time. The Calvinist or Puritan belief has a tendency to be prone to deceptions. When Carwin makes use of his ventriloquist talent the first time the nature of Wieland 's religion gives him no device with which to counter the deception, he lacks, or rather fails to use the Lockeian rationality to try and discover a natural source for the voices, but he takes their supernatural origin for given. Wieland doesn 't even try to find a natural source; for him the voices are of divine origin. That conviction and the repeated occurrence of mysterious voices (which even his rationalist friend Pleyel hears and can not explain) create an atmosphere of mystery, in which Wieland starts to hear his 'own ' voices, without Carwin 's interference. Unfortunately the content of these imagined messages is not harmless like the ventriloquist 's. Wieland is convinced that god demands his family as a sacrifice, and so he does. He tries to argue, he pleads the imagined voice to give him another command, but, and that is very important, he never questions the divinity or the moral value of the order itself. By executing the order he breaks another divine commandment: You shall not kill! In Brown 's eyes this lack of rational thinking presents Wieland 's biggest mistake. Let 's go back to Brown 's deistic philosophy: "If the moral precepts of Christ are good they are mine, . . ., if bad nothing can induce me to esteem them good", that is what he says in his letter to his friend. Wieland should have judged the credibility of the voices according to their underlying moral value. Instead of letting his emotions govern his senses he should have let his mind take over. But he consciously blocks any rational thought - "It was the scope of my efforts not to think"(169) - even though his "natural pity"1 takes possession of him after the murder of his wife, he fights against these feelings (imagine the irony!) and continues with his gruesome task. This kind of behavior represents the exact opposite of everything Brown believes in, it is an extreme, the kind of extreme Brown wants to present as dangerous to the safety of the United States. The similarity between Wieland and the Puritans he is modeled on becomes even more striking when we examine his defensive speech in court closer. It resembles the revelation stories that were demanded to be taken into the Puritan congregation, although his narrative has quite the opposite result in that he is considered to be a lunatic. Consequently he becomes not a respected member of a select society, but an outcast, as he is cast into a dungeon. Shirley Samuels 's claim that Wieland was meant as a kind of "tutelary tract" (I agree that this was at least partially so) is reinforced by the way Clara Wieland is described and the way she acts. She, too, shows signs of an underlying enthusiasm and irrationality. Although she describes herself as a calm and rational thinking person, this estimate only results from a lack of trials. She herself corrects this self-description ". . . was I now tried and found to be cowardly and rash"(222). Although she theoretically holds with the notion that reason should be in control, she is unable to behave according to that theory. This is a result of her lack of a formal religious education. Although familiar with the concept of rationalism she is unable to shake off her family heritage. We just need to have a look at how she reacts to her first encounter with Carwin. Although she only hears his voice, her ". . . eyes ... overflowed with unbidden tears."(52), her mind is in turmoil (mirrored in the storm raging outside) while she keeps looking at the portrait she made of him. This irrational behavior continues. Later, when she has to decide whether to kill her attacker or to escape her dishonoring by suicide, she focuses her mind on the latter option, although in theory she always considered the former to be the most rational (pp. 97-98). Throughout the novel we get the distinct feeling that Clara is more like her brother than she is aware of. Her actions are "...dictated by phrenzy"(88) and she is "...tormented by phantoms of [her] own creation"(88). While Wieland hears imagined voices and thinks they are real, Clara believes all too readily that supernatural powers are the source of at least one of the voices (she doesn 't realize that all the voices originate in Carwin), but not only when Carwin talks to her about his "eternal foe"(90), earlier on. When Pleyel is witness to the voices she talks about "means unquestionably super-human"(45), although she deems the spirit to be benign. But, as Bernard Rosenthal states, "The man who will follow a 'good ' voice of God rather than his own moral senses will be capable of following any voice."1, thus reducing the gap between Clara and her brother. Brown 's description of Clara is clearly an attack on the lack of an organized educational system. The United States had been a safe-haven for all kinds of religious currents from the time of the first English settlements, thus producing a unique variety of different, often radical lines of religious thought. A citizen lacking the background of a solid education, both along the lines of Locke 's teachings and religion (for Brown religion is more a collection of moral values than a set of beliefs), would have been susceptible to the insinuations of all kinds of religious fanatics. The Puritan belief, although weaker than in the first years of colonization, as well as other radical religions, had been a common heritage of the American people. Thus almost every American had an "older Wieland" in his family tree, figuratively speaking. Pleyel represents the true rationalist, the product of the age of Enlightenment. His devotion to reason puts him in one line with Locke and Paine. His description makes one involuntarily think of atheism, of which Thomas Paine was accused after the publishing of "The Age of Reason." But although, as I have earlier pointed out, Brown characterizes Pleyel as the pinnacle of rationalism, he is severely shaken by the occurrence of the mysterious voices. Nonetheless he is associated with calm, enlightened thinking throughout the novel. A good example for that assertion is the scene in which Clara is in the small house on the riverside, lost in the darkness and frightened by the renewed hearing of threatening voices. Suddenly she perceives a ray of light, a little while later Pleyel appears, a lantern in his hand: "I perceived a ray flit across the gloom . . .Presently a new and stronger illumination burst through the lattice on the right hand, . . . It was Pleyel."(64) Eventually his insecurity becomes so strong that, against better knowledge, he is tricked into believing that Clara is a dishonorable woman. However, his rationalist mind is strong enough to prevent him from hastily leaving the city. In the later parts of the novel he is reduced to a character of one of the lesser subplots. What is interesting about Pleyel is, that, although all of the characters have a more or less strong connection to the Old World, he represents the most European figure in this novel: He keeps traveling to Germany and he is in love with a German countess. In the end he returns to Europe, his direction of thought stood the test. The characters in this novel represent philosophical attitudes, options which presented themselves to the American public in the late eighteenth century.
There is father Wieland, who stands for Old World religious fanatism that came to the New World and spread. Wieland represents the product of the Great Awakening and the Lockeian school of thought. On the one hand he is a rational man, he is fascinated by Cicero, discusses new and enlightened ideas with his friend and "he deemed it indispensable to examine the ground of his belief", an almost deist attitude. On the other hand he is of a dark disposition -"his deportment was grave, considerate, and thoughtful"(22) - one feels somehow reminded of the Puritans Hawthorne describes later in his "Scarlet Letter". Then there is Clara, who sees herself as a rationalist, until this rationalism is put to the test and she reveals herself as infected with an enthusiastic mind, nonetheless she is capable of reason. Pleyel is Wieland 's opposite, "his gaiety was almost boisterous"(23), he is the true rationalist, the product of the age of Enlightenment, whose spirit he took in in Europe, where he spent part of his youth. The greater part of the American population (Catherine Wieland and her children) have no distinct beliefs, but they are threatened by extremism. These different attitudes clash, but they keep themselves in check, until a foreign influence in the form of Carwin is added. He causes the carefully maintained balance to veer out of control, to become a chaos. The result is mayhem, destruction, death - war? In my opinion Brown 's novel is meant as a critique of the American society of that period. Brown, as the deist he is, views every form of extremism with suspicion, but his main point of attack is the religious extremism, enthusiasm, in whose unpredictable outbursts he detects a grave threat to the young nation. America is threatened not only by exterior forces, which a healthy and strong nation could shake off
without major problems, its weakness is its enthusiastic heritage, the product of all the religious fringe groups who had come to the colonies in search of religious freedom. The United States are represented by the tranquil life of the Wieland 's and their friends before the arrival of Carwin. The temple, built for the worship of a dark god, has been transformed into a place of liberal discourse, a summer-house (There is a striking similarity between the architecture of the temple, with its Tuscan columns, and the architecture of the young republic). The problem of that tranquil place is that the religious sentiment of one of its members has been formed without formal education. In my mind Brown here criticizes the situation of the educational system of the USA, as I have earlier stated. Had Wieland been brought up with a clear understanding of religious values, instead of self-educating himself unguidedly, he would possess the necessary control mechanisms to counter the alien influences. The result of him lacking those mechanisms is the ease with which Carwin, the symbol for the Alien in the novel, can destroy this precarious balance, even if he does it without a bad intention. Whereas it may seem that Brown argues against extremes (even the extreme rationalist Pleyel is not immune to the voices of Carwin), I believe that he wants to propagate the rationalist way of thinking. In my opinion Pleyel is a kind of "alter ego" of Brown. When we compare his description of this character with what Brown writes in his letter to his friend and with his own biography, we can detect striking similarities. Both have doubts about religion, both let themselves being led by their minds rather than their feelings. Both had contact with European thoughts on enlightenment, both are rationalists. Although Pleyel the rationalist is tricked by the "foreign" influences produced by Carwin, he nevertheless keeps his control to an extent that he even listens to Clara 's defense, he investigates the matter, whereas Wieland never asks, he takes the divine origin of the voices for granted. Pleyel survives the incident (although the religious fanatic Wieland tries to destroy the "champion of reason" - an allusion to the attacks of orthodox Christians on Paine?), in my opinion a statement of support for his line of thought. Brown 's message seems to be: An America that is dominated by religious enthusiasm does not stand a chance to survive, the smallest damaging influence, foreign (Carwin) or internal (Wieland 's father is destroyed without any foreign influence), would have devastating results. The only possible way to save America from falling victim to alien predators and its own religious heritage is to educate Americans along the lines of enlightenment.
Bibliography:
Brown, Charles Brockden, Wieland & Memoirs of Carwin, (Kent State UP, 1985)
Samuels, Shirley, "Wieland, Alien And Infidel" in: Early American Literature, v.25 n.1, 1990, pp.46-66
Rombes, Nicholas, " 'All Was Lonely, Darksome, And Waste ': Wieland And The Construction Of The New Republic" in: Studies in American Fiction, v.22 n1, Spring 1994, pp.37-46
Weckermann, Hans-Juergen, Die Figur des Enthusiasten in der amerikanischen Erzaehlliteratur , (Walter de Gruyter, 1988)
Axelrod, Alan, Charles Brockden Brown, an American Tale , (University of Texas Press, 1983)
Rosenthal, Bernard (ed.), Critical Essays on Charles Brockden Brown , (G.K. Hall, 1981)
May, Henry F., The Enlightenment in America , (Oxford UP, 1976)
Watts, Steven, The Romance of Real Life: Charles Brockden Brown and the Origins of American Culture , (Johns Hopkins UP, 1994)
Notes