Essay
 
 

Gina Rho

Dr. Lawrence

English 500

17 December 2001

Aminadab, Aylmer, and Georgiana: The Undesirable Threesome

     Like many buddy films ranging from the classic Bing Crosby and Bob Hope excursions to the more contemporary John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson pairing in Pulp Fiction, Hawthorne’s Aylmer and Aminadab also share a close male homo-social bond that is disrupted by a femme fatale in “The Birthmark.” However, critics tend to mask a clear reading of the tale with an altogether feminist gauze.  And while a feminist reading addresses such complex issues as a woman’s lack of sovereignty in marriage and her consequent lack of power in a patriarchal society, most scholars fail to mention the often ambiguous or exaggerated gender performances of Aylmer, Georgiana, and Aminadab. These gender roles, however, reveal the greatest tension in the tale. Thus, Hawthorne unties the corset strings that confine nineteenth-century gender constructions in order to examine the close male bonds that exist between Aylmer and Aminadab. Moreover, such character depictions ultimately uncover the deeper crux of gender anxieties that occur whenever a female disrupts masculine bonds as seen through Eve Sedgewick’s theory of erotic triangles. And in the case of “The Birthmark,” the reader gains a deeper understanding of male and female relations through the hybrid of both feminist and queer theorist perspectives.

                                                            Rho 2

     Prior to Georgiana’s arrival in the tale, Hawthorne depicts an already existent flaw in Aylmer and Aminadab’s masculine bond, for the narrator describes Aylmer as having had “left his laboratory to the care of an assistant” in order to pursue his beloved. Aylmer attempts to extract Aminadab’s identity by confining him to the “assistant” role rather than to acknowledge a mutual partnership. Moreover, Hawthorne calls attention to the altogether sterile and repressed laboratory in which this male bond exists. With Aminadab as his aide, Aylmer fails to succeed in his scientific ventures as Hawthorne makes it quite clear that, “his splendid successes were almost invariably failures, if compared with the ideal at which he aimed” (Hawthorne 214). Such failures reflect upon the Aylmer and Aminadab male bond as if their relationship is also barren of any artistic or scientific life. Because from a biological perspective, the two men are incapable of creating life, whereas, Aylmer can take on the role of the creator with Georgiana in both a contraceptive and artistic sense. Thus, the reader gains insight as to why Aylmer seeks an alternative to male homo-social bonds in his pursuit for Georgiana to usurp Aminadab’s power as scientific muse.

     Although Georgiana acts as the dramatic irritant that sparks conflict in the Aylmer and Aminadab bond, Hawthorne depicts her role as unnatural and forced. For instance, Georgiana makes a rather telling remark when she cries to Aylmer, “Then why did you take me from my mother’s side? You cannot love what shocks you!” (Hawthorne 204). It is interesting that Georgiana had used the

                                                            Rho 3

word, “take” for this reveals that Aylmer had used an element of force to persuade Georgiana to marry him, or that he had resorted

to artificial means such as manipulative rhetoric. Either way, Aylmer “takes” Georgiana with the same kind of zealous energy he possesses when conducting his experiments. And this establishes a  link between Georgiana and Aminadab: both are used by Aylmer in order to overcome his role as the futile scientist. Furthermore, Aylmer’s role as the scientist illustrates his ongoing attempts to define and perfect his masculinity. He uses Georgiana’s birthmark and Aminadab’s subordinate buddy role as a Viagra of sorts in constructing his male identity. Bryce Traister adds to this application of gender theory when he writes:

          Nathaniel Hawthorne [among other American

          writers such as Poe and Melville]

          is no longer an elitist, misogynistic,

          curmudgeonly custodian of all things

          authoritative [...] he has become

          the focus of renewed attention as an

          example of masculine gender (mal)formation

          [...] these former bastions of masculinist

          canonicity [...] are now monumental

          anxieties, queer, non-normative, tentative,

          unsure, and very interesting as men.

                                         (Traister 10)

                                                            Rho 4

And while Traister applies an altogether modern application of gender theory to early American writers in general, the reader can also use his viewpoint in order to examine Aylmer’s

character in more detail. For instance, Aylmer also exhibits gender anxiety as he shifts roles from that of  a feminine artist (if science is also seen as an art), to masculine husband, to Sedgwick’s feminine “beloved.” And like Hawthorne, Aylmer partakes in “masculine gender (mal)formation” as well by attempting to meld male and female characteristics in a very “unsure” manner in order to bolster his own manliness. Hawthorne provides an example of such a clashing attempt when he describes Aylmer’s altogether androgynous appearance with his “slender figure, and pale, intellectual face” (Hawthorne 209) coupled with his actions when he “rushe[s] towards her [Georgiana] and seize[s] her arm with a grip that left the print of his fingers upon it (Hawthorne 215). At this point, Aylmer places more emphasis on his performative actions as if they may better construct his gender identity than through his mere physical appearance alone. In essence, he perpetuates  such stereotypical notions of masculinity by playing the forceful and dominant husband to Georgiana and the superior to Aminadab’s lowly “servant and under-worker” status (Bromell 552). And he relies on such performances in order to define his manliness. Judith Butler writes of such performative gender in more detail:

          Hence, within the inherited discourse of

          the substance, gender proves to be perfor-

                                                           Rho 5      mative--that is, constituting the identity

          it is purported to be. In this sense, gender

          is always a doing, though not a doing by a

          subject who might be said to preexist the deed.

                                             (Butler 24)

Butler’s interpretation of gender works to explain the strange gender incongruities that exist not only in Aylmer but in Georgiana and Aminadab as well. All of these characters either exaggerate their expected gender roles or subvert their identity by taking on characteristics of the other gender in an effort to better define their own sense of identity.

     However, such gender performances are only natural given the characters’ isolation in the laboratory, for their clustered living arrangement represents a microcosm of society--the need to need to carve out an individual identity only increases in such a tightly-wound cluster of individuals. As a result, Aylmer, Aminadab, and Georgiana play with gender in an attempt to establish a concrete position in a society that is altogether grey and ambiguous. Hawthorne reveals yet another tension in his tale by mirroring the characters’ frantic attempts to construct their own gender identities to that of the futile laboratory. For example, Aylmer is only able to create “airy figures, absolutely bodiless ideas, and forms of insubstantial beauty” (Hawthorne 210). In essence, he turns such gender performance into nothing more than a superficial spectacle much like any modern-day

                                                            Rho 6

Britney Spears concert that also lacks “absolutely bodiless ideas.” Consequently, Aylmer’s superficial “doing” reflects upon his identity to show that he lacks substance, for his masculine identity takes the shape of an “airy figure” as well.

     Aylmer’s masculine construct takes on a bit more dimension once Sedgwick’s theory of erotic triangulation factors into the tale. Eve Sedgwick describes the power dynamics in erotic threesomes by stating:

          What is most interesting for our purposes

          in his study is its insistence that, in any

          erotic rivalry, the bond that links the two

          rivals is as intense and potent as the bond

          that links either of the rivals to the beloved:

          that the bonds of “rivalry” and “love,”

          differently as they are experienced, are  

          equally powerful and in many senses equivalent.                                                   (Sedgewick 21)

Although Sedgewick applies her theory of erotic triangulation to mainly eighteenth and nineteenth-century British works, it is important to tweak the theory a bit by using such an interpretation to better understand early American literature as well with a particular emphasis to Hawthorne. The reader must also expand Sedgewick’s interpretation by including male-male and male-female bonds, especially if one of the male rivals becomes the “beloved.”

                                                           Rho 7

     Rather than taking the tired scenario in which two male buddies compete against one another for the affections of the desired female, Aylmer becomes the much sought-after “beloved,” while Aminadab and Georgiana become his rivaling suitors. This new spin on Sedgwick’s theory of erotic threesomes expands upon her rather insightful, yet confining study of male-male relations to encompass the study of both genders. Georgiana and Aminadab share an unlikely bond in that each seek power and identity through Aylmer. And while Georgiana and Aminadab share a rivalry over the affections of Aylmer, they also share a bond that rests upon a mutual desire to create, using Aylmer as their scientific putty. For instance, Georgiana aims to create the ideal husband and not “a man of science,” (Hawthorne 203) whereas, Aminadab seeks to reconstruct their severed masculine bond and create an altogether new portrait in which he can play the more established and powerful role of Batman to Aylmer’s Robin.

     Georgiana’s success in monopolizing Aylmer’s affections away from Aminadab can be largely attributed to the alluring powers of her birthmark, for the mark wrangles itself into Aylmer’s unconscious by appearing in his dreams. The birthmark serves as a constant reminder to Aylmer that his identity lacks substance and depth and is again, a mere “airy figure” compared to Georgiana’s unshakable identity that lies deep within her. And this creates a great anxiety on Aylmer’s part for Georgiana possesses the upper-hand in the relationship causing a brief re-alliance of the

                                                            Rho 8

Aylmer and Aminadab bond with the sole goal of extracting her identity. Hawthorne describes the dream scene in more detail:

          Aylmer had now remembered his dream. He had

          fancied himself with his servant Aminadab,

          attempting an operation for the removal of the

          birthmark; but the deeper went the knife, the

          deeper sank the hand, until at length its tiny

          grasp appeared to have caught hold of Georgiana’s

          heart: whence, however, her husband was inexorably

          resolved to cut or wrench it away.    (Hawthorne 206)

This particular passage calls attention to male anxieties concerning feminine identity. Again, it’s important to mention that Aylmer and Aminadab rejoin forces only because they wish to remove Georgiana’s power-laden birthmark that is inseparable from her. However, upon closer inspection, such words as “fancied” and “attempting” bring about a hesitant tone to this passage as if Aylmer lacks the power to marginalize Georgiana by removing her essence. Furthermore, this passage also illustrates Aylmer’s dependence on Aminadab despite the fact that he had seeked an alternative to his male-male bond with his assistant. Aminadab makes an appearance in this passage which suggests that he and Aylmer are also linked much in the same way that Georgiana and her birthmark are one. This passage further cements the strength of male homo-social bonds to suggest that it is nearly impossible to sever the connection between males except through drastic and violent means.

                                                            Rho 9

     Sedgewick’s theory of erotic triangulation and the consequent rearrangement of “rival” and “beloved” positioning further illustrates the strange gender incongruities that often surface in “The Birthmark.” Aylmer, Georgiana, and Aminadab all exhibit unusual gender performances which includes subverted identities. And Judith Fetterly offers an altogether feminist interpretation of the tale by stating, “Hawthorne is writing a story about the sickness of men, not a story about the flawed and imperfect nature of women” (Fetterley 167). However, she fails to analyze “The Birthmark” beyond feminist constructs--she interprets the tale through a restrictive funnel that allows such strange gender performances to filter through unsorted amongst the brighter and more flashy feminist gems that tend to overshadow the more queer-theorist flecks. These seemingly insignificant flecks, however, add a layer of depth to the tale that goes beyond accusatory feminist readings.

     Aylmer’s role as the feminized “beloved” in the Hawthorne triangle ultimately diminishes his power, for he becomes nothing more than a pawn caught between Aminadab and Georgiana’s power struggle. Moreover, Aylmer takes on the characteristics of a marginalized female by being entangled in such an undesirable threesome. He does not even possess any fertile properties as the feminine “beloved,” for he can only conceal, not create new life. This serves as an even greater detriment to Aylmer’s character, for even with such feminine qualities, he still lacks the ability to create anything fruitful. For example, Hawthorne describes him

                                                           Rho 10

as having “converted those smoky, singy, somber rooms, where he had spent his brightest years in recondite pursuits, into a series of beautiful apartments not unfit to be the secluded abode of a lovely woman” (Hawthorne 209). And while the reader may give Aylmer credit for having created something altogether beautiful from materials that were previously “singy” and “smoky,” he or she cannot ignore the fact that such a conversion rests upon concealment. He uses “gorgeous curtains” to cover the rooms which “conceal all angles and straight lines” (209) and such descriptions only reveal the shallow nature of Aylmer’s power as the “beloved” for he shares an altogether selfish sisterhood with Georgiana by obscuring her from the view of any lecherous men such as Aminadab.

     Although Aylmer’s role as the “beloved” illustrate his strange gender quirks and lack of power, his rivals provide an even deeper insight in examining preconceived masculine and feminine constructions. For instance, Georgiana puts on a gender performance as well; however, she does so by perpetuating and exaggerating the submissive wife role. She appeals to Aylmer, “Cannot you remove this little mark, which I cover with the tips of two small fingers? Is this beyond your power, for the sake of your own peace, and to save your poor wife from madness?” (Hawthorne 207). This passage showcases Georgiana’s function as the corrective force, for in removing the birthmark and the original source of marital tension, Aylmer will be able to save

                                                           Rho 11

himself from madness as well.  And while Georgiana refers to her own madness, this also reflects upon her husband. Because the two share a marital bond, the reader can see Georgiana and Aylmer joined as one rather than as two separate selves. The reader witnesses additional mirroring when Georgiana adopts Aylmer’s own attitude towards her birthmark when she begins to refer to it as “odious,” “fatal,” and “hateful” as well. She cements her union with Aylmer when the narrator remarks that “Not even Aylmer now hated it so much as she” (Hawthorne 213). And despite Georgiana’s bond with Aylmer, there lies a fissure in their union in that their relationship is also barren of any creativity as well. Consequently, Georgiana sacrifices herself in order to renew and rejuvenate her husband’s scientific identity. She attempts to shed Aylmer of his old male-female skin in order to reveal a newer and more hopeful covering below.  Hawthorne documents her totemic-sacrifice like state when he writes:

          I might wish to put off this birthmark of

          mortality by relinquishing mortality itself in

          preference to any other mode. Life is but a sad

          possession to those who have attained precisely

          the degree of moral advancement at which I stand.

          Were I weaker and blinder, it might be happiness.

          Were I stronger, it might be endured hopefully.

          But being what I find myself, methinks I am of

          all mortals the most fit to die. (Hawthorne 217)

                                                           Rho 12

From a queer theorist perspective, the passage above further illustrates Georgiana’s role as the victimized wife which she embraces in order to shed light upon the failure of her bond with Aylmer. The last line plays a particularly significant role when she states, “But being what I find myself, methinks I am of all mortals most fit to die.” This acknowledgment paves the way for a new revolution to begin, for Aylmer’s quest to determine his identity comes in an altogether cyclic fashion. Georgiana leaves Aylmer as her parting gift, the opportunity to keep re-doing or reconstructing his gender whether he chooses to attempt another male-female bond or if he decides to perfect his masculine bond with Aminadab. And the fact that Aylmer refers to Georgiana as his “young wife,” “beautiful wife, and “noble wife” reveal a universality in Georgiana, as if such generic and trite labels can be applied to any female who wishes to aide Aylmer in perfecting his gender construction. Leland S. Person goes on to depict Georgiana as “an art object, an ivory carving or mud replica, an icon or doll, but she is not the sculptor” (Person 4). Person’s interpretation provides additional support to the notion of Georgiana as a canvas with endless interpretations and opportunities for Aylmer to erase, rework, and perfect his image.

     Of both Aylmer and Georgiana, Aminadab provides the most intriguing case of gender subversion in the tale, for he dons  the feminine trait of passivity as a weapon against the powers of Georgiana’s alluring birthmark. Aminadab’s manipulative performance as voyeur during Aylmer’s doomed experiment

                                                           Rho 13

illustrates the paradoxical portrayal of  feminine submissiveness. Furthermore, Aminadab’s resentment in his severed male-homosocial bond with Aylmer festers in the form of silence. Yet Aminadab takes a bit of stab at Aylmer’s masculinity by muttering a remark about Georgiana, “If she were my wife, I’d never part with that birthmark” (Hawthorne 209). He taunts Aylmer’s manliness by establishing an “us versus them” stance that places his master outside the societal norm. Consequently, Aylmer is unlike most other men and this lack of alignment reflects poorly upon his identity, for he cannot measure himself against a safe and conformist norm.

     As Aylmer’s assistant, Aminadab would have certainly been privy to his master’s failures and successes as a scientist. And given the fact that most of his “splendid successes were almost invariably failures,” the reader questions Aminadab’s lack of initiative in warning Georgiana (Hawthorne 214). However, by making the choice to remain silent, Aminadab bears the responsibility for Georgiana’s death. However, the reader gains insight behind Aminadab’s motivations in regards to such issues as gender, class, and labor. Nicholas Bromell provides a rather interesting spin on Aminadab’s character when he writes of Aminadab and middle-class anxieties. Bromell describes him as the “archetypal working man” who ultimately becomes nothing more than a “mere extension of that machinery and settles every more deeply into a merely animal, or brutish existence” (Bromell 552). And

                                                           Rho 14

while this particular analysis serves to explain Aminadab’s resentment in his frustrating attempts to rise above his mere “assistant” position, one may also see Georgiana as yet another hurdle in Aminadab’s path to economic security. Moreover, Aylmer becomes the nepotistic boss who rewards his children with promotions while other employees remain stagnant in the same occupation year to year. And the reader recognizes Aminadab in this similar type of situation. He will remain marginalized and powerless unless his competition (Georgiana) is disposed of and the old male-homosocial bond resumes.

     Given the fact that Bromell has assigned Aminadab very machine-like qualities, the reader cannot ignore the fact that his role shifts from that of the helper to that of a mere tool. And Hawthorne adds further evidence to this particular claim when he describes Aminadab as a “man of clay” (Hawthorne 215) as if Aylmer slowly sculpts him into a scientific implement. However, his role as the subservient assistant changes once the Georgiana and Aylmer role is severed by death. Now, Aminadab possesses the freedom to reclaim his masculine bond with Aylmer and also take the opportunity to shift the power dynamics in the relationship. For instance, Aminadab’s laugh provides a good indication of the reformed Aylmer/Aminadab bond, for he gives a rather “gross, hoarse chuckle which [Aylmer] had long known as his servant’s expression of delight” (Hawthorne 219). Such a laugh establishes Aminadab’s new position of power--he is no longer the assistant

                                                           Rho 15

but the superior to Aylmer. Such a reversal of power roles occurs only through Aylmer’s diminished manliness--he had lost both a wife and a monumental scientific experiment that may have bolstered his career and masculinity if he had succeeded. This shifting roles provide an interesting framing device to “The Birthmark” for the story begins and ends with male homo-social bonds, although, the difference lies in the switching of power between the two men. Hawthorne uses such a device in order to showcase the rather complex and ambiguous power struggles that occur between men whether they take place in confined quarters or a large society. In addition, Aylmer, Georgiana, and Aminadab all possess feminine characteristics either subverted or exaggerated, and such a threesome forms an altogether distorted sisterhood in which unnatural gender incongruities surface.

     In closing, “The Birthmark” provides a seemingly Pulp Fiction-esque frame in which two male buddies are disrupted by the presence of a femme fatale, however, Hawthorne plays with gender incongruities that pop up in Aylmer, Aminadab, and Georgiana to create a fluidity in gender constructions. Moreover, the feminization of Aylmer in his “beloved” role causes even more gender quirks to arise in that his two rivals exhibit uncharacteristic modes of behavior. And this erotic triangle ultimately brings a better understanding of male/female relationships through the aide of both feminist and gender theorist interpretations.

Return to Gina Rho's Home Page