Gender Politics And Role Reversal In Eliza Haywood’s Fantonima, Or Love In A Maze (1725)

Fantonima, Or Love In A Maze (1725) is interpreted as a story of “a young Lady of distinguished Birth, Beauty, Wit, and Spirit” (Haywood 227) trying to fulfil her curiosity of the male-gaze by transforming her notion of love as a female into that of a male. In other words, the narrative is an attempt at understanding a man’s behaviour towards a woman by putting into performance the stereotypes that woman think of men. The stereotypes include hiding identity, looking for lust over love, putting on a show (flirting) to impress. There are hints of this role reversal throughout the narrative, most significantly the namelessness of the central character who comes to be known as her first disguise--Fantonima, and then her other disguise names, Celia, Widow Bloomer and Incognita for short periods. Each name suggests Fantonima’s intent before she puts on her the act. The non-existence (ghost-like figure) of Fantonima, sexual connotations in Celia and Widow Bloomer (i.e. Celia means “heaven” in Latin), and disguised or incognito in Incognita. The names are a pun in showing the Lady’s attempt at understanding a man through her disguises. Nonetheless, a role reversal goes two ways; therefore, while The Lady takes on masculine ideals, Bauplaisir becomes more submissive and womanly. This reversal is the most certain at the Lady’s last attempt at taking over the male identity--As Incognita.

The Hour drawing near in which he was to come, she dress'd herself in as magnificent a Manner, as if she were to be that Night at a Ball at Court, endeavouring to repair the want of those Beauties which the Vizard should conceal, by setting forth the others with the greatest Care and Exactness. Her fine Shape, and Air, and Neck, appear'd to great Advantage; and by that which was to be seen of her, one might believe the rest to be perfectly agreeable. Beauplaisir was prodigiously charm'd, as well with her Appearance, as with the Manner she entertain'd him: But though he was wild with Impatience for the Sight of a Face which belong'd to so exquisite a Body, yet he would not immediately press for it, believing before he left her he should easily obtain that Satisfaction. – A noble Collation being over, he began to sue for the Performance of her Promise of granting every Thing he could ask, excepting the Sight of her Face, and Knowledge of her Name. It would have been a ridiculous Piece of Affection in her to have seem'd coy in complying with what she herself had been the first in desiring: She yielded without even a Shew of Reluctance: And if there be any true Felicity in an Armour such as theirs, both here enjoy'd it to the full. But not in the Height of all their mutual Raptures, could he prevail on her to satisfy his Curiosity with the Sight of her Face: She told him that she hop'd he knew so much of her, as might serve to convince him, she was not unworthy of his tenderest Regard; and if he cou'd not content himself with that which she was willing to reveal, and which was the Conditions of their meeting, dear as he was to her, she would rather part with him for ever, than consent to gratify an Inquisitiveness, which, in her Opinion, had no Business with his Love. It was in vain that he endeavour'd to make her sensible of her Mistake; and that this Restraint was the greatest Enemy imaginable to the Happiness of them both: She was not to be perswaded, and he was oblig'd to desist his Solicitations, though determin'd in his Mind to compass what he so ardently desir'd, before he left the House. He then turned the Discourse wholly on the Violence of the Passion he had for her; and express'd the greatest Discontent in the World at the Apprehensions of being separated; – swore he could dwell for ever in her Arms, and with such an undeniable Earnestness pressed to be permitted to tarry with her the whole Night, that had she been less charm'd with his renew'd Eagerness of Desire, she scarce would have had the Power of refusing him; but in granting this Request, she was not without a Thought that he had another Reason for making it besides the Extremity of his Passion, and had it immediately in her Head how to disappoint him.

(Haywood 244)

Here created is a gender role reversal in Bauplaisir’s curiosity and The Lady’s confident, take-charge behaviour. The Lady has created a stage like an ambience, where she has dressed up in incognito just like an actor putting on a show. She has chosen the name Incognita to show herself finding her identity. This loss of identity stems from putting on an act because actors do not have identities. Just as actors play multiple roles, The Lady has played multiple roles. In order to put The Lady’s lack of identity and curiosity about the male-gaze into further context, the paper draws attention to her amusement at seeing “several gentlemen [being] extremely pleased” with the “woman who sat at the corner of the Pit” (Haywood 227). Therefore, in search of her identity, she is interpreted as identifying with maleness because she follows the same gaze as the men from the playhouse. After observing the woman in the Pit, she puts on her first act as Fantonima, who dresses like a prostitute. Thus, The Lady is an actor playing a part who is trying to find her identity, while identifying most with the male-gaze.

The last act, as directed by the passage above, entails a costume of concealing the face and only revealing “her shape, and air, and neck,” in a manner that anybody would be charmed by seeing her appearance-- this appearance is flirtatious. The Lady is taking charge of the situation and being manly by not being diffident. Incognita has, therefore, created a gender role reversal through her outlook and behaviour towards Bauplaisir at the very beginning of this scene. The leading Lady builds further into identifying with a male as she does not “shew [any] reluctance” in “complying with what she herself had been the first in desiring.” By stating so, the narrator suggests the upfront nature of The Lady in wanting to have sex with Bauplaisir. These blatantly stated expressions are very unladylike for an unmarried, young Lady in the 17th Century. Therefore, taking into consideration the unfeminist period, The Lady is assumed to be mimicking a man’s behaviour towards a woman, consequently taking-on the male identity.

Furthermore, The Lady’s ulterior motif as Incognita was to disappoint Beauplaisir, which she had learned from his interactions with her previous disguises. Beauplaisir disappointed Fantomina by not taking her on his “business” trip and led Calia to believe that a gentleman could love a maid. He even allowed Lady Bloomer to hope for love after she had lost her husband. Even though these stories were fictitious (within the narrative as well), Bauplaisir was unaware of the act being staged, which makes his reaction to The Lady’s set-up his true nature. Generalizing Bauplaisir’s nature as all men’s nature, Incognita is trying to keep her love interest interested in her for longer than her other disguises. When Incognita says that “she would rather part with him for ever, than consent to gratify an Inquisitiveness, which, in her opinion, had no Business with his Love,” it is because she understands that once a man’s curiosity is satisfied that he will forget about her. Because no sooner did Bauplaisir “[sware] he could dwell for ever in her Arms,” than she “had it immediately in her Head how to disappoint him,” because it was the only way she understood to keep Bauplaisir around her longer.

Conversely, Bauplaisir assumes the feminine role as he succumbs to The Lady’s confident nature. A comparison has been created through the use of “curiosity” between the two main characters. The Lady, before beginning to disguise herself was defined to have been “excited [by] curiosity” by the depraved taste of men who were attracted to the prostitutes in the Pit (Haywood 227). The narrator further emphasizes the lead characters relation to curiosity as she explains the narrative as a result of having “no other aim than the gratification for an innocent curiosity” (Haywood 227). Not only has the narrator created a relation between curiosity and the unnamed protagonist but also attached curiosity to the innocence of a young woman. Therefore, the passage uses curiosity to indicate Bauplaisir's adoption of the same innocent curiosity as The Lady before her begun her disguising trend. The Gentleman looks at his Lady, “to satisfy his Curiosity with the Sight of her Face,” who has charmed him by depriving him of what he desires the most (which is to see her face and discover who she is), causing him to become the submissive female-like figure in the scene. Nevertheless, unfathomed by the situation, Bauplaisir waits until morning to unveil the identity of his mistress, not realizing he is losing his own in the process.

She came, but came in the Dark; which being no more than he expected by the former Part of her Proceedings, he said nothing of; but as much Satisfaction as he found in her Embraces, nothing ever long'd for the Approach of Day with more Impatience than he did. At last it came; but how great was his Disappointment, when by the Noises he heard in the Street, the hurry of the Coaches, and the Cries of Penny-Merchants, he was convinc'd it was Night no where but with him? He was still in the same Darkness as before; for she had taken care to blind the Windows in such a manner, that not the least Chink was left to let in the Day. – He complain'd of her Behaviour in Terms that she would not have been able to resist yielding to, if she had not been certain it would have been the Ruin of her Passion: – She, therefore, answered him only as she had done before; and getting out of the Bed from him, flew out of the Room with too much Swiftness for him to have overtaken her, if he had attempted it.

(Haywood 245)

Bauplaisir’s disappointment is a small example of the enormous disappointment Fantomina received through Bauplaisir’s letter which stated that if Fantonima was “half so sensible as [she] ought of [her] own power of charming, [she] would be assured, that to be unfaithful or unkind to [her], would be among the things that are in their very natures impossible” (Haywood 239). The Lady was well aware at the time, as the readers know, that Bauplaisir was lying about his faithfulness; therefore, lying about his identity (and nature). Thus, The Lady had made the metaphor, of Fantomina being in darkness, literal by keeping Bauplaisir in the constant night (darkness), unable to perceive the real face of the one he desires. Moreover, by flying out of the room quickly, The Lady manoeuvre her motif of disguise upon Bauplaisir that she wanted lust and not love as Incognita, which enrages the gentleman who complained of her behaviour just as a woman would have, had the roles reversed. Bauplaisir’s infuriation is a mirror of The Lady’s frustration as she cried “Traitor!” (Haywood 239) after receiving replies (to Mrs Bloomer and Fantonima) to her letters from her love interest.

He was so much out of Humour, however, at the Disappointment of his Curiosity, that he resolv'd never to make a second Visit. – Finding her in an outer Room, he made no Scruples of expressing the Sense he had of the little Trust she reposed in him, and at last plainly told her, he could not submit to receive Obligations from a Lady, who thought him uncapable of keeping a Secret, which she made no Difficulty of letting her Servants into. – He resented, – he once more entreated, – he said all that Man could do, to prevail on her to unfold the Mystery; but all his Adjurations were fruitless; and he went out of the House determin'd never to re-enter it, till she should pay the Price of his Company with the Discovery of her Face and Circumstances. – She suffer'd him to go with this Resolution, and doubted not but he would recede from it, when he reflected on the happy Moments they had pass'd together; but if he did not, she comforted herself with the Design of forming some other Stratagem, with which to impose on him a fourth Time.

(Haywood 245)

The Lady puts Bauplaisir in a position of not knowing the motifs of the significant other by entrusting “her servants” but not trusting Beauplaisir with information about her identity. The situation is similar to Bauplaisir not trusting Fantomina, Celia or Widow Bloomer with his identity. The notion triggered here is that of which woman like to gossip and do not know how to keep a secret. The Lady has made Bauplaisir believe that he is incapable of keeping her secret, attaching him to the social interpretation of woman of the 17th Century. Furthermore, because of the position that The Lady has made Bauplaisir be in, the narrator interprets that the Gentleman would not re-enter the house “till [Inconginta] should pay the price of his company with the discovery of her Face and circumstances.” The phrasing of the sentence indicates to a prostitute like behaviour from Bauplaisir’s part. Beauplaisir is asking for Incognita’s validation in exchange for sex. The Gentleman did meet The Lady, for the first time in the Pit where other prostitutes sat. Therefore there is a re-introduction of the theme of prostitution in reversing the roles. Furthermore, it is ironical that Bauplaisir is unhappy by his treatment in the scene, for the treats woman (as seen by the serval disguises) similarly to the way he was treated.

The role reversal comes from the curiosity of The Lady and taking on a position of power, which makes her male interest seem inferior. In staging an act, she tries to identify with the male-gaze, mimicking or identifying as a man through which she gains abundant perspective on the male psyche, causing her to create the role of Incognita. Beauplaisir loses control over his identity is succumbing to The Lady’s approaches, automatically putting him in a position that is more identifiable to a woman. Lastly, the narrative as a whole never reveals the name of the leading Lady but does reveal the name of the Gentleman (Beauplaisir), suggesting that woman have interchangeable identities but also that a man and woman’s identity is based on their relationship and not entirely accurate to societal role.

---

Works Cited

“Eliza Haywood, Fantonima.” Popular Fiction by Women 1660-1730: an Anthology, by Paula R. Backscheider et al., Oxford University Press, 1997, pp. 227–248.