De Monfort

Insanity Portrayed Through the Noble "It is too much: by heaven it is too much! He haunts me, stings me, like a devil haunts hell make a raving maniack of me villain!"(313). De Monfort's feud with Rezenvelt is so strong that it drives him toward insanity. The feud began when they were younger, but to no avail it seems to continue. The language used to describe Rezenvelt is very interesting; he compares him to the devil. In De Monfort's mind he is no man, but more of a demonic figure. This is actually very significant considering insanity and the devil always go hand in hand. The notion that someone has a mental illness is sometimes thought to be caused be demons or the devil himself. In De Monfort's mind he was no man but something of a evil figure. He says it in the quote above Rezenvelt turns me into a villain. He basically blames his insanity on Rezenvelet. One major question is why Rezenvelt cause De Monfort to act in this manner? It seems his obsession stems all the way back to when they were children. De Monfort says, "It will not part. Ive lodged it here too long; with my first cares I felt its rankling touch, I loath'd him when a boy."(332) De Monfort has serious angry and resentment toward Rezenvelt. In the play it is clear they are from different classes and this is part of what causes their feud. In the quote De Monfort expresses how it began from an early age. This is important because it shows that he is somewhat immature. By the author stating the feud began at such a young age, one would imagine De Monfort would eventually get over it. The quote above also shows that he has trouble letting go, he lodged the problem into his life instead of moving on. The fact that he had a problem with someone when he was younger and cannot let it go shows he has some problems mentally. Especially considering it does not seem as if it was a traumatic event, but more likely a problem with class. De Monfort's mental problems stem all the way back to his childhood. De Monfort ends up letting his insanity get the better of him. It fills him with rage and leads him to do a heinous act. Jane describes how this act leads to his downfall and eventually death. Jane says, "He died that death which best becomes a man who is with keenest sense of conscious ill and deep remorse assail'd, a wounded spirit. A death that kills the noble and the brave, and only them. He has no other wound"(386). De Monforts death is interesting because it seems that he regrets what he has done. By Jane's word he is deeply remorseful for his actions and cannot bear to live with them. Although he is remorseful he also has an ill conscious which is what got him into this situation. The way the author describes his death is interesting because she describes him as being remorseful, yet does not have a conscious. She is basically saying he is not as insane as we are lead to believe, yet is very far from being sane. De Monfort is seen clearly as a mentally unstable person. Now that we have seen that De Monfort is most definitely crazy, let's delve deeper into what causes him to act this way. It is clear that Baillie makes De Monfort act this way for a certain reason. Based upon the time period which takes place in the eighteenth century the message Baillie is trying to send is how people with mental illness are seen in this time period. Especially someone of higher class, class is a big theme when it comes to describing how De Monfort changes. Throughout the play Baillie shows through class how De Monfort slides down toward mental instability. She talks of how he is such a nice guy and thoughtful guy in the beginning and then describes as he falls from this position. Also De Monfort is not physically seen as what a mentally unstable person looks like. Although Baillie comments on his physically appearance it is not the way most people with mental illness is seen. She describes it more as being pale and seeming to be sick. With all this in mind some people agree with baillie's depection of mental illness. Linda Brigham describes De Monfort as portraying Aristocratic monstrosity and sublime femininity. She feels that both of those are major themes throughout the entire play. Brigham also ties this in to class and how class and rank were portrayed in this time period. Brigham claims that, "De Monfort criticizes the supposed immediacy of the beauty of rank illustrating the disaster its exemption from examination wreaks in the aristocratic personality itself, as demonstrated by the title character."(702-703) Brigham feels that Baillie's play criticizes class and rank of the time period; by showing mental instability and its outcome through the lens of De Monfort. The play is an attempt at showing and criticizing rank in this time period and showing how mental illness is something that was very possible. Brigham describes how De Monfort and his sister are very noble and prideful people; showing that they are of very high class. Baillie describes and shows that De Monfort is only noble because of his name. Not of the fact that he acts nobly. Brigham describes how this can lead to his eventually downfall. The reason being is he always tries to act the noble part, but cannot seem to as well as Rezenvelt. Rezenvelt seems to be so called poster boy for nobility at least that one way Baillie shows him. This causes issues for De Monfort, who was born into nobility while Rezenvelt was not. This is one of the reasons for their feud. Brigham also describes Rezenvelt as being more of the feminine type then De Monfort. Brigham describes the scene where Rezenvelt does not want to shake hands, but instead wants to hug. Showing more femininity then De Monfort who does not want to. This is important because it shows that the main character lacks a feminine side. Baillie intentionally tries to show that De Monfort who eventually loses his mind lacks a feminine side. She shows that the more masculine character is the one who ends up going mad. In this time period is a very interesting concept. Overall Brigham's points on De Monfort are very interesting, she draws conclusions around Baillie's use of femininity, as well, as class and how these things relate to the eventually downfall of De Monfort himself. Other critics feel that Baillie's portraying De Monfort as a noble character is the problem. Julie Murray critique the play by saying that Baillie portrays De Monfort as being extremely noble yet the crime he has committed is far from noble. Murray goes on to critique how Baillie tries to portray De Monfort as a nobleman who just committed a crime of passion but in reality just committed an extremely jealous crime. De Monfort is simply the villain of the play and does not really have any redeeming qualities although Baillie plays it off as he does. (1056) Murray feels that Baillie almost makes viewer want to feel bad for De Monfort, when in reality he is not a good or nobleman he killed this person out of pure jealousy. Another issue Murray finds is that De Monfort is not really punished for his crimes. Murray says, "Instead of incurring the punishment of his crime, and being made an example to society, he is relieved from ignominy, dies of a broken heart, and is pompously lamented, instead of being execrated and despised."(1057) Basically Murray is saying he is never truly punished for his crimes instead his allowed to die of a broken heart with almost sympathy. Overall Murray's criticisms lie in the fact that De Monfort is seen and treated with as a nobleman yet he is not a nobleman. The two critics above show the issues with De Monfort and the themes of the play. Nobility is a very main theme in this play. Throughout the entire thing De Monfort is seen through his noble background. The two critics overlap in their opinions about how rank or nobility is seen in this play. They point out that nobility is definitely a major contribution of his downfall. Baillie portrays De Monfort of someone with a noble background; the issue is that this background is what eventually leads to De Monfort's downfall. Looking at both opinions it is clear Baillie was attempting to show what mental instability looked like in the eighteenth century. She did this by showing a person who is supposed to be extremely noble and his fall down a very dark path. Overall it is clear that Baillie is trying to point out the issues with class in the time period and lack of femininity. She does this by showing a De Monfort who is of high rank, but lacks femininity and ends up going crazy. Works cited
Brigham, Linda. "Monstrosity and Sublime Femininity in "De Monfort"" Studies in English Literature, 1500-1900 43.3 (2003): 701-18. JSTOR [JSTOR]. Web. 25 Apr. 2015.
Murray, Julia. "Governing Economic Man: Joanna Baillie's Theatre of Utility." ELH 70.4 (2003): 1056-1057. Http://www.jstor.org/stable/30029912. The John Hopkins University Press. Web. 28 Apr. 2015.