Susanna Rowson tells the story of Charlotte: A Tale of Truth – better known as Charlotte Temple – in the novel Charlotte: A Tale of Truth. Rowson presents her purpose in the opening words of the work: “and might I be of assistance to some unfortunate people who have no friends to counsel them or understand their situation, by exposing the unexpected evils and dangers that confront young women on their first day of life” (Rowson). It is possible that Rowson did not anticipate the enormous success of her masterpiece in the coming centuries. Charlotte Temple’s first edition was published in England back in 1791. Since then, it has been translated into over 200 languages and continues to be described as both entertaining and readable (Parker 59) today. Numerous factors may have led to the success of a guide originally designed to educate girls in the 18th century. This essay will focus on three of many aspects that made Charlotte Temple so popular. The success of this book is attributed to the way in which Rowson chose to write her novel, the author’s interjections within the story, and the verisimilitude.

This essay will first focus on the choice of form Rowson made to tell Charlotte’s tale. The story has been written in a particular way, which is through a large number of letters. It does not fall under the epistolary novel category. Rowson has been able to select only the positive aspects of epistolary form and avoid any negative consequences. We will first look at the four positive aspects of Charlotte Temple’s epistolary format. Professor Donna Campbell points out three: “[to present] feelings and reaction without authorial interjection, [to provide] a heightened sense of reality because the letter is written in the midst of the action” (Campbell). Fourthly, I think that the epistolary structure allows readers to be more deeply involved in a story. Susanna rowson’s novel has been a success because it combines both Campbell’s advantages and the implication. According to the benefits outlined by Campbell, Rowson does indeed allow her characters to express themselves by writing letters. For example, in a letter from Mrs. Temple to Charlotte, she states that “Tomorrow marks the anniversary that my beloved child was born to the maternal wishes of an anxious heart.” (Rowson72). Charlotte expresses this sentiment towards her mom later on in the book, when she mentions that “my blood bled just thinking about what you’d suffer” (132). In the letter she wrote “Oh!” She also expressed her pain. never, never! The agony will not be forgotten as long as I am here. She finally mentions her helplessness by asking, “But what shall I do?” (133). The readers will be able to better understand the characters by gaining direct access to their feelings.

Rowson uses not only the freedom of expression that Campbell says epistolary fictions should have, but also the “sense immediacy” Campbell values in his novels. Charlotte Temple’s author has a character who writes a letter on the spur of the moment. Charlotte’s mother is shown to be feeling the burning blush as she writes the letter. Montraville writes to Charlotte: “Tomorrow… but no, i cannot tell what tomorrow’s going to bring.” (158). These comments create the illusion that the characters actually wrote the letter, giving the story more verisimilitude. Readers will become more engaged if they believe the story is plausible and even realistic. Rowson, finally, has taken advantage of Campbell’s last benefit, that the epistolary story can allow for several perspectives within the same narrative (Campbell). Lucy Temple’s, Montraville’s and Charlotte’s letters allow them to share and express their inner feelings. Rowson creates characters who are fully developed, able to think, feel and write. They also have the ability to communicate through their letters. The reader is given the opportunity to become involved in the story through the expression of character feelings, “senses of immediacy”, or the multiple points of views. Janet Gurkin Altman states that the epistolary style is unique, as it allows the reader to be as much of an agent as the author (narrator). Altman says this form is a result of the union of writer (narrator) and reader (88). Blythe Forcey also describes it as an “interaction between writers and readers within the novel” (Forcey 229). Both explanations share the same idea: by including letters in a novel, the author creates a bond with the readers. This bond and Campell’s list on the benefits of epistolary writing makes Rowson’s reader feel more involved in the plot, which in turn leads to a greater appreciation for the story.

Rowson’s choice of epistolary structure has many benefits. Blythe forces identifies one issue with this form that could help Rowson justify her choice. In order to properly interpret the author’s message, it is important to think of the letter exchange as a reciprocal interaction between the writer and reader. Rowson, however, was not able to use this style because of the time in which she wrote Charlotte Temple. Her intention, too, to write for girls who were young and innocent, also did not fit with it. Rowson was writing for a diverse audience, and it is impossible to guarantee that everyone will understand what the author intended to say. Forcey, who also follows this concept, points out that all characters, even villains, have an opportunity for the reader to identify with them through the inclusions of their letters. Rowson was written to be a guide to good behavior for girls. Therefore, it would not have been safe to let the girls interpret the story on their own. In other words, without the protective boundary of a controlling story, the epistolary book leaves the protagonist, who is a woman, exposed, vulnerable and invisible (230).

Rowson’s involvement in Charlotte Temple as a “guardian” narrator is the second factor that contributed towards its success as a behavior manual. Forcey’s description of the author’s voice as a “warm and motherly presence,” is, in his words, “an editor, guide, moralizer, and translator” for her young reader (Forcey 231). Forcey has explained that Rowson is a “guardian-narrator”, and that her voice serves three purposes that contribute to the popularity. It is a way to counteract the negatives of the epistolary style. Rowson’s direct voice is used to draw the reader in by highlighting important elements of the story. Charlotte Temple might not be a epistolary story, but it still has the potential to seduce nave girls with the letters from “the villains” (as Forcey refers to them in 229). Rowson chose to exclude some letters whose contents might appeal to young, innocent minds. For instance, she replaces Montraville’s original letter by this explanation:

It is not surprising that a woman who was open to all gentle and generous sentiments would feel warm by the gratitude of a man who claimed to care so much about her. Nor is it unlikely that she might think of Montraville’s pleasant persona and martial appearance. (Rowson, 39)

Rowson’s voice as a “guardian” narrator has another function: to insist on certain passages in order for the readers to understand her message. Rowson, in her role as “guardian”, insists on certain passages so that readers can understand what she is saying. Charlotte Temple is a good example of this phenomenon. As an example, Charlotte Temple explains in her account of the early days of Mr. Temple that “Temple listened with emotion to the bad news. He’d lost the favour of his father by avowing Luca. Now he knew there was little hope for regaining this favor” (34). Rowson’s first summary of events may seem to be ineffective at first. It is possible that the dialogue between Mr. Temple’s father and him could have been misunderstood by young readers. In fact, the author was right in her comment. It is easy to notice this focus on particular aspects of a story when the author introduces new characters. Rowson remarks, “[s]uch a Miss Weatherby” when she introduces her for the first, with a description, an illustration poem and insertions of the preliminary description. This same method is used to describe Montraville (57), another character that the reader has already become familiar with at this stage of the story. Rowson is known for his insistence on certain things. . ” (92) and “Let’s not let the reader think that Belcour was honourable in his designs” (95). Even though she knows that at this point in the story, the audience has a good understanding of Charlotte Temple’s characters, the author continues to emphasize certain aspects that readers should focus on so that they are not confused with them or their intentions later. Rowson is able to draw the attention of her audience by using direct address. Charlotte addresses her audience directly in Charlotte’s tale. She uses phrases like “Oh! My dear girl” (41), the “thoughtless, folly-filled daughters” (51), or “Oh! My friends”(85). She interrupts her story several times. This happens when she devotes an entire section to the reader’s hypothetical response to her story. Rowson predicts in the 28th chapter that the readers are tired of Charlotte and her misfortune. . . . I pray that you pursue it until the end; perhaps you can find there something to compensate you for the effort” (169). In the same Chapter, she answers any questions posed by the readers. This interruption to the story brings the reader back into order and grabs their attention. Rowson has the ability to grab her audience’s interest in short passages. This passage is an example of Rowson’s short intrusion into Charlotte’s story:

You must not listen to the voice that is urging you on, unless you have the approval of your father. It’s no longer the time for romance. A woman cannot be led away against her will. So, every morning, kneel and pray to kind heaven for protection from temptation. (41)

This excerpt does not only grab the attention of readers, but also gives them an impression of personalization. Two main factors contribute to this feeling. Rowson starts her sentences with the words “Oh my dear daughter”. Then, she is dictating a specific behavior with imperatives that include “don’t listen”, “be confident”, “kneel”, etc. These instructions have a lot in common with the advice given by an older relative or mother. How could she ignore an older relative who cares for her? Rowson plays a motherly part when she acts in the role of a big sister to show the pain of Mrs. Temple over Charlotte’s disappearance. Rowson’s tone is used to draw the attention of readers and perhaps even to create a sense that Charlotte Temple was an individual.

The third factor to explain Rowson’s novel’s success is its verisimilitude. The Oxford Dictionnary defines this phenomenon as “[the] illusion of truth or reality” and Charlotte Temple’s author makes sure to conform her plot with this idea. From the beginning, Charlotte Temple tells her readers that Charlotte Temple is not just an effusion of Fancy but a real person. . . Charlotte personally” (3). Charlotte Temple has been praised by critics including Elias Nason for being “a faithful reproduction of real-life in 1774. Criticize it as much as you want, the people are going to read it. They’ll weep, they’ll love it. The plot is realistic because of several factors. As I have already stated in this article, Charlotte’s narrative is made more plausible by the letters because of their composition, their diversity and content. Recurrent shifts in the point of view give the story a more realistic feel. It reminds the readers that life continues even after Charlotte has left for the New World. Rowson gives a chapter to Charlotte’s English parents (Rowson 151-44). Montraville’s argument with his father has the same impact (61-64). A conduct manual’s credibility is a key factor. The author must make the story plausible for young girls in order to have them learn from Charlotte.

Charlotte Temple’s success has been unrivaled for many years. The reasons behind this are likely to be countless. This essay was written to examine three of them. One way to explain this success was to look at the novel’s structure. Rowson was able to create a perfect guide for conduct by choosing to include letters in the novel, without completely relying on epistolary style. In fact, this structure allows readers to become more engaged in the plot by allowing them to connect with characters’ emotions, experience a feeling of urgency, discover the tale from multiple perspectives, and to gain an understanding of their motivations. Rowson chose not to rely only on epistolary forms despite their strengths. The second part is dedicated to Rowson’s unique voice. Her voice plays an important role in her work. In its third section, this essay argues that verisimilitude was crucial to the success and popularity of the novel. Charlotte Temple’s popularity was likely also influenced by other factors, including the morals that were woven throughout the novel, universal themes, and the social context of the late eighteenth-century. The three main aspects of Charlotte Temple’s popularity can therefore be assumed by the end this paper.

Works Cited

Altman and Janet Gurkin. Epistolarity: A Formal Approach. Ohio State UP published a book in 1982. Campbell, Donna. Charlotte : A Tale of Truth (Also known as Charlotte Temple) Brief Background Notes from Lecture on Rowson, public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/amlit/rowson2.html. Forcey, Blythe. Charlotte Temple and Epistolarity: American Literature, vol. 63, no. 2, 1991, pp. 225-241. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/2927163. Nason, Elias. Memoirs and Extracts from the Writings of Susanna. M.A. Joel Munsel published a book in Albany in 1870. Parker, Patricia L. Charlotte Temple: Susanna Rowson. The English Journal. Vol. 65, no. 1, 1976, pp. 59-60. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/814701. Rowson, Susanna. Charlotte Temple. A Tale of Truth. Stephen C. Ustick’s Third American Edition (1797). Verisimilitude Definition in English. “Oxford Dictionaries” | English, Oxford Dictionaries, en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/verisimilitude.

michaellang

Michael Lang is a 33-year-old professor and blogger who is passionate about writing. He has been blogging for over 7 years and has written for various online publications. Michael is also a seasoned professor who has taught at the college level for over a decade. He is currently a professor of English at a community college in the Midwest.