Month: March 2023

Quote: “It will be obvious, as the learned Attorney-General has said, that the whole case really lies between two points. Is the document on the back of Augusta Smithers a sufficient will to carry the property? and, if so, is the unsupported story of that lady as to the execution of the document to be believed? Now, what does the law understand by the term ‘Will’? Surly it understands some writing that expresses the wish or will of a person as to the disposition of his property after his decease? This writing must be excited with certain formalities, but if it is so executed by a person not laboring under any mental or other disability, is it indefeasible, except by the subsequent execution of a fresh testamentary document, or by its destruction or attempted destruction…or by marriage”. 

Comment: This quote and the courtroom scenes made me think of the concept we worked with in ENG 206 of legal narratology and what this class has been working on with reading case law versus statutes and noticing the stylistic differences. In this Haggard story, especially, I found myself thinking about how he weaved in legal commentary and phrases to this dramatic courtroom finale, where we read through all the questions of the case, the story of how it came to be, and the evidence from other statutes. Augusta being a novelist is what stuck out to me in the sense of narratology because the whole series of events that lead to the tattoo of the will is an adventure/romance story – that also relies on the sole testimony of Augusta, who acts as witness and document. The choices here of how to relay her story, full of seeking justice, sacrifice, and bravery, all add to the arguments surrounding both her character as the center of this case and the permissibility of the will. 

Question: I found the section regarding the romance or affections between Augusta and Eustace interesting in why the opponents felt so strongly about it blurring the motive of Augusta’s action of self-sacrifice to tattoo the will. Is there any deeper meaning besides looking for any other possible angle to question the will’s legitimacy? I also thought the feelings of the public aligning with what the Judge deemed heroic behavior interesting; I might have anticipated some views that she is just looking for money or status, perhaps questions regarding her character since she would have allowed a tattoo, with all the connotations it brings, unless there was something in it for her. I think that is representative of the other side’s questions since there is such a large inheritance at stake, and they are recently engaged. 

Quote: “And do you mean to tell me,” said Eustace, astounded, “that you allowed him to have his confounded will tattooed upon your neck?” “Yes,” answered Augusta, “I did; and what is more, Mr. Meeson, I think that you ought to be very much obliged to me; for I dare say that I shall often be sorry for it.” “I am very much obliged,” answered Eustace, “I had no right to expect such a thing, and, in short, I do not know what to say. I should never have thought that any woman was capable of such a sacrifice for – for a comparative stranger” (chapter 14)

Comment: I thought this passage, especially the end, raised some interesting insights into the idea of the will being physically marked on Augusta’s body and how Eustace identifies it as a sacrifice that a woman would not usually make. I would think that anyone who consents to get a tattoo they don’t really want will feel some sense of regret — but the fact that it is a wealthy man, who didn’t treat her well before faced death, now has his life physically inflicted upon her forever makes this situation tricky for me to decide how to feel about it. On the one hand, I thought of her actions as the unattached heroine who chooses her own life, can maintain agency even on a deserted island, and turn her actions into something good and life-altering for Eustance. However, remembering the tone of this story and the intent of the audiences of its time, a woman’s body, her literal flesh, has become a canvas on which men can run their lives. A will is an incredibly permanent document, and the permanence of a tattoo correlating with this legal document could be taken as a permanent place of a woman. 

Question: We spoke in class about the legal audience that Haggard would have considered while writing this work and that many of the characters and disputes would have been familiar to that profession – some of his exaggerated situations and subtle humor, therefore, would be recognized. Is Augusta herself supposed to be satirical as the author who becomes famous and well-respected among higher society, refuses marriage proposals, and sets off alone to a new place? Would her character perhaps represent an exaggeration of what that society would typically expect? 

Quote: “The old idea, once a harlot always a harlot, possesses the public mind. Proceeding from this premiss, people argue that every woman taken from the streets through the agency of penitentiaries, is a woman snatched from an otherwise interminable life of sin, whereas I have shown that the prostitute class is constantly changing and shifting, that in the natural course of events, and by the mere efflux of time the women composing it become reabsorbed into the great mass of our population…how to render the prostitute less depraved in mind and body, to cause her return as soon as possible to a decent mode of living, to teach her by degrees, and as occasion offers, self-restraint and self-denial, to build her up, in short…is the problem to be solved”.

Comment: This way of thinking strikes me as very progressive and in the same line as Mr. Benson’s thought process when grappling with how to deal with Ruth’s situation when she first came into their care – with more of a religious sentiment to it, but similar. In the Lock piece, it references the Contagious Disease Act would require women to undergo examinations for venereal diseases or be placed through legal custody in a “Certified Hospital” for 1-3 months and, if they didn’t comply, faced imprisonment for upwards of 3 months with possible hard labor. I feel this highlights the element of those disjoined laws, made in the abstract, facing public scrutiny as they do not effectively deal with the realities. Acton mentions many of the same issues Ruth faced, though not in the same manner as prostitution, but at this time, not far off. She had engaged in premarital relations, had an illegitimate son, and was dealing with the same kind of issues this piece mentions when attempting to be a member of society.

Question: The Act itself seems to offer an interesting interpretation of women and the law as it allows for women to appeal to the legal system if they feel their detainment is illegitimate based on their circumstances, such as not having a disease any longer, yet at the same time, allows them zero bodily autonomy. Their body becomes an interest of the law, and refusal to be taken results in prison. Again, the question of what behaviors deemed women criminals arise in both the novels we have read seems to apply here as well. I wondered if we could speak more on this idea of prostitution versus the ‘common prostitute’ as we had started to discuss this in class and how varying levels of actions labeled prostitution could influence Acts like this one. As for “The Lock Asylum” piece, I wondered if we could also unpack this statement, “After my visit to the Lock Asylum, I ventured to suggest…a doubt whether this and kindred institutions were adapting themselves to the wants of the day…” – would this really have encapsulated the wants of society or the wants of the idealistic rendition of society.