Abstract: "Law, Seduction, and the Sentimental Heroine: The Case of Amelia Norman"

Hibbard, Andrea L., and John T. Parry. “Law, Seduction, and the Sentimental Heroine: The Case of Amelia Norman.” American Literature: A Journal of Literary History, Criticism, and Bibliography 78.2 (2006): 325-355. MLA International Bibliography. EBSCO. Web. 1 Sept. 2010.

In “Law, Seduction, and the Sentimental Heroine: The Case of Amelia Norman,” Andrea L. Hibbard and John T. Parry seek to prove that literature informs legal reform. They connect seduction novels of the antebellum era, Charlotte Temple and The Coquette, with the sentimental public response to Amelia Norman’s case. The sympathy for and acquittal of Norman, Hibbard et al argue, resulted in a call to amend seduction laws. These seduction laws provided the first steps toward recognizing the fallen woman as an agent capable of sexual consent. They ultimately conclude that while Amelia Norman’s trial gave precedence to female agency, it did not and could not remove female sexuality from patriarchal dominance.

Hibbard and Parry begin with a brief historical overview: the details of the Amelia Norman case, the popularity of seduction tales, and the theoretical antecedents for the literary influence on law. Hibbard et al extend Wai Chee Dimock’s “limited arena” of law into a discussion of the “law in books” and the “law in action” (326). They also touch on Mary Umphrey’s trial as an example ofthe discourse between formal rules and social code. Hibbard and Parry combine those legal theories to analyze Amelia Norman’s case as the catalyst for social and legal reform. The authors structure the remainder of their article into four parts: an account of the sentimental defense mounted at Norman’s trial, the literary influence on seduction reform, an analysis of Child’s “Rosenglory,” and how patriarchy re-established dominance through unwritten law. This approach, while thorough, questions the success of sentimental reform without a concrete answer. Hibbard and Parry finally conclude, as did Lydia Maria Child, that lasting social reform cannot be achieved with one sensational case; change ultimately requires the work of generations.     

I was initially drawn to this article because it provided a succinct summary of the true story behind Child’s “Rosenglory”: Amelia Norman’s trial. Because most of the articles about Lydia Maria Child focus on her abolitionist activities, I found the information on her proto-feminist reform most illuminating. Hibbard and Parry’s characterization of Child allowed me to view the narrator of “Rosenglory” as a model of moral-middle-class motherhood. Hibbard et al successfully argue the important role of sentimentality in social reform, but they fail to explore the implications of patriarchal re-appropriation. This article gave me insight into the fate of the fallen woman and literary morality. This link between literary sentimentality and cultural reform gives credence to my initial reading of “Rosenglory” as a nineteenth-century fairy tale. I do not know the significance of this reading but it provides a solid jumping off point. “Rosenglory” is one of the later texts; so, I am not sure how pertinent this article would be to my classmates. I do think, however, that Hibbard and Parry’s ideas about literature and law could be useful for Zach’s project on crime narratives.