Disembodiment in Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland

In Charles Brockden Brown's Wieland, the character of Carwin is used to bring out the idea of disembodiment. During his lengthy confession to Clara, Carwin tries to disassociate his intentions from his conduct. Carwin explains that it was never his intention to cause any of the misfortunes that have occurred to the Wieland family. The misfortunes were the unfortunate consequences of his actions. Thus Carwin's ventriloquism not only explains the physical separation of him and his voice, it also represents the disembodiment of his actions from his intentions.

Carwin's objective in seeking Clara out is to exonerate himself from Clara's perception of his wrongdoings and to show her the truth. He says, "If I have memory, if I have being, I am innocent. I intended no ill; but my folly, indirectly and remotely, may have caused it."[1] The repetition of "I" along with the assertion of "I am innocent", pounds in the fact that Carwin, as an individual, would not have driven Wieland to kill his family.

Carwin immediately follows his proclamation of innocence with an explanation of his innocence, in which he said he "intended" no ill despite his "folly". If Carwin is "innocent" and yet his "folly" is guilty, then he cannot be held responsible because Carwin cannot be guilty and innocent at the same time. Therefore, "my folly", or his conduct, is a separate entity that is capable of causing catastrophes while Carwin is not.

'Carwin is not only adamant in the proclamation of his innocence, he also makes it abundantly clear that his conduct does not represent who he is. He says,

I am not this villain; I have slain no one; I have prompted none to slay; I have handled a tool of wonderful efficacy without malignant intentions, but without caution; ample will be the punishment of my temerity, if my conduct has contributed to this evil (Brown 226).'

This is reminiscent of the first quote, in which "I" is also repeated several times in succession. Each exclamation of "I" serves to clarify what he is and what he intends to do. Then Carwin associates his ability as a ventriloquist to "a tool", which is detachable and, more importantly, has an identity of its own. Using these few sentences, Carwin is saying that he knows himself and this "tool" is not a part of who he is. Carwin also mentions possessives such as "my temerity" and "my conduct" and they are associated with "punishment" and "evil" whereas "I" is disassociated with words of negative connotations such as "villain" and "slay". Thus he feels that his intentions, represented by "I", are the very opposite of his conduct. As Carwin continues his confession, this disjunction between intention and conduct intensifies.

There are other instances in Carwin's confession in which his conduct takes on a life of its own. In a later piece of the conversation, Clara asks, "What was the voice which called upon me…. What face was that which I saw…." Carwin answers, "Perhaps I have but faint conceptions of the evils which my infatuation has produced; but what remains I will perform. It was my voice that you hear! It was my face that you saw!" (Brown 224). Not only does Carwin remove himself from "his infatuation" by personifying it with the word "produced", his direct response to Clara's accusation does not contain "I" or "me". Instead he uses "my voice" and "my face", indicating that the villain at fault is not himself, but the possessives.

They are shown to Clara, and they are the cause of her fears and theories. It is the action of showing his voice and his face to Clara that causes her to suspect him. Through his speech, it can be seen that Carwin not only acknowledges the fact that there are parts of him that he cannot control, but he uses this fact to prove his innocence.

'The deliberate separation of Carwin from his conduct can be seen even more clearly in Carwin and his voice. Carwin explains to Clara,

You are not apprized of the existence of a power which I possess. I know not by what name to call it. It enables me to mimic exactly the voice of another, and to modify the sound so that it shall appear to come from what quarter, and be uttered at what distance I please (Brown 226).'

The mechanics of ventriloquism, such as mentions of "mimic", "modify", and "distance", are listed here as if Carwin positioned himself away from his power to examine "it" like a specimen and record his observations. Carwin continues, "Would to God I had died unknowing of the secret! It has produced nothing but degradation and calamity" (Brown 226). His plea to God is an excellent indication of his helplessness and lack of control in the matter of his unusual power. Furthermore, Carwin again uses "it" and gives it an ability to "appear", so that "it" becomes completely separate from who he is.

Carwin's lack of control over his faculties is an extremely important element in the overall idea disembodiment. He recalls, "A thousand times had I vowed never again to employ the dangerous talent which I possessed; but such was the force of habit and the influence of present convenience…" (Brown 228). Carwin's own conviction, as represented by "a thousand times" sways under the pressure of "force of habit" and "influence". Thus it is the pressure of two against a thousand, and yet Carwin succumbs. This just shows the lack of control Carwin has over himself and his power.

Indeed, Carwin's convictions were tested twice. He says, "In a exigency so abrupt and so little foreseen, I was again subjected to the empire of mechanical and habitual impulses" (Brown 244). The words "habit" and "impulse" are associated with the absence of restraint. When Carwin gives into "habit" and "impulse", that is already an indication of his inability to manage the extent of his skill. Thus this inability allows and creates many opportunities for his voice to take on a force of its own, despite the intentions of Carwin.

'Though Carwin asserts his innocence, he comes to admit his lack of control and attempts stop to the casualties it has caused.'

Catherine was dead by violence. Surely my malignant stars had not made me the cause of her death; yet had I not rashly set in motion a machine, over whose progress I had no controul, and which experience had shown me was infinite in power? Every day might add to the catalogs of horror of which this was the source, and a seasonable disclosure of the truth might prevent numberless ills (Brown 246).

In this stage of his confession, he all but says the voice has a life of its own, as indicated with "whose progress", and it is up to him to stop "this" voice from causing further horros. The separation is complete in that the voice has an identity that is not his. It is a "machine" while Carwin is human, and it is "infinite in power" while Carwin lacks the power to control his faculties. In a sense, Carwin no longer embodies the skill of ventriloquism because it has escaped Carwin's control.

Carwin's ability to separate himself from his voice is not only essential to the plot of the story, but it also represents the disembodiment of Carwin's conduct from Carwin's intentions. He was given this power, and yet he is unable to control it. In this instance, the content, or Carwin's intention is lost in the form of a disembodied voice. It is the form of this voice which creates a disparity between the voice itself and the content it is suppose to represent.

Carwin points this out to Catherine in his confession because he believes he is innocent. It becomes necessary for him to separate his intentions from his actions because his conduct was responsible in creating an atmosphere which contributed to the calamities of the Wieland family. He essentially says that he is not directly responsible for his conduct. Yet, Carwin's conduct comes from Carwin, so can he truly shed all responsibility? Can anyone just say that he are not responsible for his behavior, simply because of his unique dispositions? Carwin seems to think so.

[1] Brown, Charles Brockden. Wield and Memoirs of Carwin the Biloquist. Penguin Books, New York 1991. p. 223