Schneller

Zachary Schneller

Professor Castellano

410 Final Paper

Low Points of Authority: An Examination of Power in Caleb Williams

The politics of power and their facets of influence are some of the most arresting themes

in William Godwin’s Caleb Williams. Many features of the novel have to do with the distribution

of power in some form or another, and their various dimensions deserve to be dissected. A

spectrum can be drawn to illustrate the ends of dominance not just in Caleb Williams, but also

items pertaining to the struggle of power in general thus lending importance to the topic at hand.

Usually there is a person or entity wielding some form of control on one end: the master, the

tyrant, or the dominator. On the receiving end are the oppressed, the slaves, and the submissive.

This spectrum is relevant in Caleb Williams because these opposing ends are binaries in the

novel exerted by two members of the aristocratic gentry, and received by unfortunate

individuals. Other binaries exist that are not opposing ends of the give/receive binary, but rather

a new spectrum. Specifically, a method of power used by one member of the tyrants is contrasted

with another method utilized by the other member. One of them, Tyrrel, is tyrannical towards all

of the people he has control. The other, Falkland, tries to control one: Caleb Williams. The

relationship itself is a binary: the control of one versus the control of many, and this relationship

will be explored to determine which form of power is more effective.

Before launching into comparing the tyrannical aristocrats, it is prudent to know how

they deal with power and examine what types they fit into. I think there is a certain psychology

to people in power, and it is interesting to keep this in mind before comparing both of them.

1

1

Schneller

Certain stereotypes exist about aristocrats: that they are power hungry, tyrannical, and

oppressive. Godwin models the aristocrats to these stereotypes to emphasize their cruelty. “Thus

vast is his expenditure, and the purchase slavery. He is dependent on a thousand accidents for

tranquility and health, and his body and soul are at the devotion of whoever will satisfy his

imperious cravings” (Godwin 273). Whatever type of craving the aristocracy has will

accordingly place them into the “power hungry” stereotypes. Godwin sees power here as a

matter of chance and circumstance. People in power are dependent on a system of many events

working in their favor. An amount of luck I think is certainly involved. A chain or a series of

events working to the benefit of the aristocrat needs to work successively and consistently in

order for the aristocratic post to be filled. Once someone, according to Godwin, possesses power,

that person is subjected to the temptation of exerting that power over others thus the lust is a

result of “his imperious cravings.” These cravings can be the source of how the aristocrat wants

to exert his power. The specific craving, whether it would be tyrannical or otherwise, depends on

the mentality of the aristocrat.

There is a relationship between the tyrant, his possessions, and the people he subjugates.

The various lusts of power can sometimes depend on material gain: “Palaces are built for his

reception… and the whole world traversed to supply him with apparel and furniture” (Godwin

273). With these material benefits at hand, the tyrant can hide behind his possessions as he exerts

his influence from the guise of wealth. What is a little disturbing is how the common people act

when selecting whom to follow or obey. They seem to actively provide the tyrant with the means

through which he can exert his influence. This willingness comes from the traditional notion of

following people in power rather than obeying their own volition. Godwin here is questioning

the system in place: why should we obey people in power? To him this is a problem that should

2

2

Schneller

be cast off and dissolve into anarchy, as was his personal belief. A strong will can firmly shape

the followers and bend them to the resolve of the person in power. When the rules of a reign

have been dictated that same person has easier control over whatever destiny he wants to have

wrought for himself. The destiny is where Falkland and Tyrrel come into play, because each of

their respective “imperious cravings” are different and most tyrannical.

Falkland and Tyrrel’s power comes from the same collective origin even though their

methods of execution differ. This kind of power has the nasty tendency to be particularly

sustainable throughout the years as a tradition. As a result of the aristocratic system that has been

in place, insurrection is not much of an issue in Caleb Williams because of the lack of resistance

to change. Traditionally, the aristocracy has a dominion over men and women that binds the

oppressed and allows the gentry to commit monstrous crimes: “Tyrrel’s and Falkland’s angst is

not explainable simply by their murders; for there is an insidious fatalism in Caleb Williams

which renders the crimes not only a cause for the aristocrats’ suffering but equally a

manifestation of the neurotic civilization of ‘Things As They Are’” (Rodden 137). This neurotic

civilization is emphasized by the unwillingness to adjust to circumstances allowing Tyrrel and

Falkland to exert their respective versions of control. This insecurity stems from the oppressor’s

willingness not to change their powerful and desirable situations. This accounts for their constant

want to keep things as they are: they are the ultimate conservatives in this respect. They want to

stay in power and to keep doing what they do without any new repercussions that may arise.

At the other end of the oppressor’s yoke lies the oppressed themselves. They are the

people Tyrell and Falkland try to control. The “stressful” part of the job for the aristocrats is to

keep them controlled like flocks of sheep. Caleb is disturbed at the oppressed people’s

compliance to aristocratic dominance: “Strange, that men, from age to age, should consent to

3

3

Schneller

hold their lives at the breath of another, merely that each in his turn may have a power of acting

the tyrant according to law!” (Godwin 300). Caleb marvels at the tendencies of history. He

cannot explain why people are the way they are and are so easy to be controlled. He is also, I

think, suggesting at a deeper level that people should live free and not “at the breath of another.”

Not only are people bound by the will of the gentry, as Caleb explains, but also by extension the

government as well. Perhaps Caleb is also suggesting that in order to be truly free, one must

usurp the role of the government as well as the aristocracy, thus leading to anarchy. “He

[Godwin] intends…to highlight how the aristocracy’s and the government’s disregard for the

rights of the common people is symptomized by the discursive denationalization of those in

authority” (Bondhus 167). This relates to Caleb’s disgust of authority and government because

he, like Godwin, wants to denationalize those in power and give it to the common people. The

result would be anarchy, which is the main thing the aristocratic Tyrrel and Falkland are

desperately trying to prevent. The nature of the oppressed in Caleb Williams changes depending

on which tyrant is exerting control over whom.

Tyrrel’s brutishness lies in his will to oppress the people he has dominion over. Power

hungry does not even to begin to describe his voracious appetite: “He foamed with indignation

against the laws of the universe, that did not permit him to crush such reptiles at a blow, as we

would crush so many noxious insects” (Godwin 157). This is Tyrrel’s will at its fullest. His act

of attempted oppression towards his rival, Falkland, is explained through the personification of

humans as animals. This animalistic categorization of people relates to Tyrrel’s self-formulated

idea of superiority as a human having absolute power over the “animals” he perceives to be

lower than him. His hunger for power cannot even be satiated within the confines of the

universe, so his powerlust transcends the bounds of normal tyranny by being tyrannical in his

4

4

Schneller

fullest and most extreme sense, which cannot be contained by any boundaries. Tyrrel tries to

appeal to his inferiors by showing off, which adds an arrogant edge to his tyranny. Apparently

his prowess included: “Felling an ox with his fist, and devouring him at a meal” (Godwin 75).

Here Tyrrel tries to appeal to his crowd of inferiors and somehow justify whatever he did to

them. This is one of his ways to stay in power. Who would dare oppose such a virile and

thoroughly powerful man?

Through bragging in this manner, Tyrrel issues a challenge to all who can outclass him

through feats of strength, and to him at least no one can. The reasons Tyrrel subscribes to this

exuberance is: ”To appease the crowd, to ward off riots, and to sustain their hegemony” (Daffron

214). Tyrrel’s largesse, as it were, is conveyed via his theatric feats of strength. His reasoning is

that no one would dare oppose someone of his strength and in this way he would be able to

maintain his gross dominance. It is a particularly arrogant, insolent, and self-centered way to win

the trust of another. He wants people to trust him because of hyperbolic myths, which speak

volumes as to how he thinks of the people he watches over. In his exaggerated way, Tyrrel’s

taste for power is extremely obvious.

Falkland’s oppression of Caleb may be less obvious and perhaps even more tyrannical

than Tyrrel’s modes of power. Oddly enough it is Caleb who initiates Falkland’s intense

scrutiny: “Caleb’s sympathy with Falkland creates a power relation, overdetermined by…gentry-

crowd relations, which threatens Falkland’s political power, social station, and manhood

(Daffron 214). This power relationship is a result of Caleb knowing the damning secret of

Falkland’s murder, and the crowd or common folk are not to know the secrets of their masters or

superiors. It is the knowing of something of value that may overthrow a person in power that

threatens Falkland the most. A member of the common folk would undo him; one he deems that

5

5

Schneller

he can control. This loss of control does irreparable harm to Falkland. His pristine reputation

now has the potential to be sullied with the onset of the accusation of a brutal murder. Rather

than retreating before such damning evidence, Falkland goes on the offensive for the rest of the

book. Once Caleb upsets Falkland, he reveals his vicious side: “’I shall crush you in the end with

the same indifference, that I would any other little insect that disturbed my serenity’” (Godwin

235). Here Falkland displays a Tyrrel-like tendency to crush who he feels is beneath him. He

equates Caleb to an insect, which is redolent of a superior talking down to someone vastly

inferior. He does this out of anger and he throws aside what would become the subtle tactics of

manipulation he would later employ against Caleb.

Caleb catches Falkland at a venerable moment, and Falkland is insulted, angered, and

galvanized to immediately control Caleb. This is the well from the tyranny of Falkland emerges,

and it is vast. Caleb soon catches wind of Falkland’s wrath and is pursued relentlessly: “The first

determination of my mind was to escape from the lynx-eyed jealousy and despotism of Mr.

Falkland” (Godwin 227). A measure or degree of Falkland’s influence can be gauged to Caleb’s

first thought of removing himself from his master’s presence. It consumes his thinking. Falkland

is that bad. His tyranny is compared to a lynx, which is beyond human. His despotism surpasses

that of humans and is assessed with an animalistic tendency. It is interesting that Caleb also

ascribes jealousy to tyranny. I think Caleb is implying Falkland is jealous of Caleb leaving his

presence, which can be read in a queer way. Caleb is aware of the powerful magnetism he had

over Falkland, and he makes it clear with his thought of escape.

Falkland and Tyrrel utilize themselves as masters in an aristocratic world bent on

tyrannizing their supposed inferiors or servants. The system of romantic inequality corrupts and

ruins both the master and the servant. This system is the aristocracy itself, an institution built on

6

6

Schneller

legal and social domination to the point where the inferiors are reduced to the state of servants.

“It forces the master to exercise his power to the hilt, giving the machine one more fatal turn; and

it forces the oppressed to become artful in their legitimately defense, thereby corrupting their

(supposedly) native innocence and truthfulness” (Fludernik, qtd. in Bondhus 169). The Hawkins

family trying to circumvent Tyrrel’s tyranny by diverting their resources elsewhere when one

becomes compromised is an example of the servants becoming artful in their defense.

Specifically the Hawkins boy removing the obstructions such as the padlocks to his gate is an

event symbolic of breaking oppression in its defiance, which aligns with Fludernik’s statement

because the servant is forced to act against the master, which is redolent not of innocence, but of

corruption. Caleb is forced to act in a more elaborate fashion in an attempt to dissuade his

pursuer, Falkland. Caleb flees in a variety of disguises, and in its elaborateness and sincerity, it

surpasses the craftiness of the Hawkins family. This means Caleb is more heavily oppressed

because he is forced to become more “artful” than the Hawkins boy in his response to the master.

Following this line of logic, it may be possible to say Falkland is more oppressive than Tyrrel

because the scarring he inflicts upon Caleb outweighs the collective tyranny Tyrrel inflicts upon

his underlings.

Caleb is also more corrupted and some of this corruption can be arguably be interpreted

as psychological. Some of this psychological scarring is evident during his initial experiences

with Falkland: “Caleb also ‘attaches’ himself to Falkland with the fullness of his antipathy,

however, and Falkland stands as the ‘extremely bad’ object whose ‘insurmountable power’

sadistically inflicts infinite torment upon Caleb” (Rodden 125). It is clear the psychological

impact Falkland has on Caleb is why he flees from him in the first place. The mental scarring is

evident because Caleb’s “torment” is indeed “insurmountable.” Another indicator of the torment

7

7

Schneller

is that it is “infinite” and this word perhaps more than any other adjective is evident of Falkland

harming Caleb psychologically because of its endlessness.

A new method of power, Falkland’s, can be contrasted with an older method of power,

Tyrrel’s, and these differences form a binary that deserves to be discussed. This binary does not

explain a relationship between giver and receiver, but rather a type of power with another type of

power. Tyrrel’s form of tyranny is a part of an established tradition while Falkland’s brand of

power relies on more modern conventions. Tyrrel’s role as an aristocrat is firmly established

before Falkland enters the picture: “Tyrrel follows the law of the ancient regime, which demands

that men of power fulfill their own will even by brutal and unjust means” (Garofalo 238). He is a

classic tyrant, one whose largesse is for himself (hence the mythmaking) and is exemplified by

his brutality such as his hold over Emily and the Hawkins family. This ancient regime method of

power is rooted in the traditional, conservative use of brute force. Brute force and unjust policies

have thus far conquered all other forms of power he has encountered before meeting Falkland.

He fears his power may be usurped by Falkland’s cunning, which is a natural opponent of his

strength: “The arrival of Mr. Falkland gave an alarming shock to the authority of Mr. Tyrrel…

The advantages Mr. Falkland possessed in the comparison are palpable” (Godwin 77). The new

addition of Falkland to the mix of Tyrrel and his underlings is obviously sufficient enough to

cause quite a stir in Tyrrel. His bewilderment is a result to his perceived threat of Falkland’s

presence. The “advantages” Falkland possesses make him even more of a threat. The fact that

Falkland has advantages in the relationship between himself and Tyrrel puts this comparison into

language to that of a power struggle. It is as if Falkland has a leg up in this struggle due to the

advantages. And where does this place Tyrrel? Obviously he feels threatened, and because

Falkland has advantages this makes Tyrrel a sort of loser.

8

8

Schneller

Falkland’s advantages come as a result of a more modern form of power that he

embodie.. This modern form of power comes as a result of the need to see justice done to wrongs

among other things: “Falkland subscribes to the law of chivalry that demands fidelity to

universal justice and to carefully codified and public forms of violence often in the service of

benevolent ends” (Garofalo 238). This new mode of power, much like the French Revolution, is

based on justice through violence. The form of justice enacted by Falkland is by killing Tyrrel

and the Hawkins family. However, this new form of power cannot simply be explained by its

results and consequences. Some of the causes must be outlined as well. It is interesting that the

violence is based on benevolence rather than oppression. In this was it is quite the opposite of the

power embodied by Tyrrel. As a result of Falkland’s influence, there is a shift from violence

towards brutish ends to a more adaptable circumstance of violence meant to emphasize

benevolence. I imagine this shift may appeal more to peaceful side of people, and is easier to

comply with than Tyrrel’s power plays.

Tyrrel responds to Falkland in the only way he knows how. Naturally he becomes hot

under the collar as a result of Falkland’s presence: “Unable to compete on Falkland’s terms,

Tyrrel resorts to a violence that denies the carefully codified and gentlemanly violence of

chivalry” (Garofalo 238). This violence is exemplified when Tyrrel strikes Falkland down at the

town meeting as well as numerous other parts of the story. His oppression of the Hawkins family

is another. The point of listing these is to illustrate a higher point: the violation of a gentlemanly

code. This is the next logical step for Tyrrel in his mad scramble for power because me must

destroy Falkland in the only way he knows how, which is to become even more brutish. His

destroying of chivalry exemplifies how he feels how useless it is to him, which is another aspect

of his old regime method of power. His brutishness must destroy any available structure or

9

9

Schneller

decorum in order to surpass that of his rival. His sway of power can be equated to the Reign of

Terror, while Falkland terrorizes one rather than many.

Another dimension to the old versus new binary is the power struggle of Falkland and

Tyrrel seen through the lens of the French Revolution. The character of the Revolution can be

attributed to the two tyrants. Falkland is especially hard to read in terms of the Revolution

because he only terrorizes Caleb: “Nor is he [Falkland] legibly monstrous to anyone but Caleb,

thus making it difficult to read him against the Reign of Terror of 1793-94” (Bondhus 170). I

think the reason why Bondhus relates Falkland to the Reign of Terror is because of, well, the

terror he inflicts upon Caleb can be equated with the oppression of many. Bondhus is equating

Falkland’s terror of one to Robespierre’s terror of many. In other words the aggregate terror

Falkland inflicts matches or even surpasses that of Tyrrel. Through his rhetoric Bondhus is

indirectly referring to Tyrrel. His form of tyranny is more relevant to Robespierre because of the

harm he inflicts upon many. Therefore Robespierre equals Tyrrel.

Like Bondhus suggests, it is hard to read Falkland within the context of the Reign of

Terror, however, it is still possible to connect him with the French Revolution in a different way.

Caleb represents the revolutionary although he has none of their sophisticated motives. Despite

this Eric Daffron says: “His [Caleb’s] ‘magnetical techniques’, which have the potential to

subvert Falkland’s political authority, link his enterprise to the Revolution” (Daffron 220). Here

Caleb is equated with the revolution as a member of the oppressed society. Falkland is not really

Robespierre, but rather the type of ruler the revolutionaries despised. Here I think the power

relationship between Falkland and Tyrrel is subtly shifted. Although Falkland represents a

modern form of tyranny, nevertheless, when read in terms of the revolution, he is reminiscent of

the older ruler that becomes usurped. Tyrrel represents Robespierre who is, in fact, a more

10

10

Schneller

modern ruler than the monarchy. The revolution reverses the binary explained earlier in an

interesting fashion. In this way the binary previously expressed is undermined.

Sometimes rulers are elevated to “divine monarchs” and William Godwin goes a step

further in making Falkland the equivalent to God and Caleb the equivalent of a worshipper with

limited knowledge. Yet another power binary is formed: omniscient knowledge versus limited

knowledge. In an odd twist, Falkland is the one giving the power and Caleb receiving (and

fleeing) from it. Caleb soon knows the extent of the wrath of Falkland once he attempts to flee:

“Caleb has been uprooted with his home and forced to wander without rest as punishment for

offending a deity—in this case the sublime, seemingly omniscient, and god-like Falkland”

(Bondhus 187). Upsetting Falkland, according to Bondhus, is a crime of biblical proportions.

Caleb not only has a man snapping at his heels, but also a monstrous deity. Because Falkland is

compared to God and not Satan, Caleb has the feel of a wronged worshipper. Their relationship

was at first not parasitic, but pleasant bordering on not cordial. It developed to the point of

worship once Caleb’s curiosity was aroused. As soon as Caleb catches wind of Falkland’s secret

he sees the faults in his God as his oppression and his only way to leave his service is to commit

a kind of blasphemy. This blasphemy is leaving Falkland to become a wanderer.

The only way to gauge Falkland’s knowledge is to assess to what extent Caleb thinks

about his master’s seeming omniscience. “Escape from his pursuit, freedom from his tyranny,

were objects upon which my whole soul was bent...Did his power reach through all space, and

his eye penetrate every concealment?” (Godwin 336). Caleb’s fear is palpable because of its

sincerity. His paranoia is a direct result of his fear of Falkland’s omniscience. Because every

facet of Caleb’s being is devoted to evading Falkland, it is obvious to see how his fear can be

equated to biblical portions. This is related to Caleb’s “blasphemy” of running away from

11

11

Schneller

Falkland and Caleb’s own recognition of his omniscience. He expresses Falkland’s all

knowingness with bewilderment and fear. The sincerity of Caleb’s escape makes the

psychological scars on him inflicted by Falkland that much more believable.

Caleb Williams is a novel depicting many kinds of power struggles and binaries; many of

which I have dissected. The usual power binary I exemplified had a “giver” of power: a tyrant,

oppressor, or master. In these cases, the giver or rather givers of power are the aristocratic gentry

of Tyrrel and Falkland. The receivers of power are Falkland’s underlings and Caleb Williams

himself. These receivers have the unfortunate circumstance of being demeaned as the oppressed

and the slaves. Binaries are formed between these opposite characteristics of power. What is

harder to dissect are the relationships of power expressed as binaries. Tyrrel’s old method of

power is contrasted with Falkland’s more modern form of power. These binaries are also applied

to the French Revolution and one of the power binaries ends up being undermined when read

within a revolutionary context. Finally, it is necessary to measure which form of tyranny is more

effective: Falkland’s or Tyrrel’s. It is easy to cite Falkland’s victory over Tyrrel and yes, I do

agree with this assumption, however, I think the effectiveness of the modes of power depend on

the oppressed. As Godwin says: “It is not the persecution, but the catastrophe which is annexed

to it, that makes the difference between the tyrant and the sufferer!” (Godwin 412). The suffering

felt by Caleb surpasses that of Tyrrel’s subjects, therefore, Falkland’s breed of power and control

surpasses that of Tyrrel’s.

12

12

Schneller

Works Cited

Bailey, Quentin. "'Extraordinary and Dangerous Powers': Prisons, Police, and Literature in

Godwin's Caleb Williams." Eighteenth-Century Fiction 22.3 (2010): 525-48. ProQuest. Web. 13

Nov. 2013.

Bailey writes about Godwin attends to the evils of governmental powers such as incarceration and a

secret police exemplified in an attempt to derail the system currently in place at the time, a system no

longer influenced by the popular role of literature. The method the author uses is a historical one by

comparing the injustices of Caleb Williams to the injustices of the English penal system. I will use this

article very sparingly, however, I will explain how Falkland manipulates Caleb through use of the

governmental procedures as a method of tyranny.

Daffron, Eric. "'Magnetical Sympathy': Strategies of Power and Resistance in Godwin's Caleb

Williams." Criticism: A Quarterly for Literature and the Arts 37.2 (1995): 213-

32. ProQuest. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

Daffron argues that Caleb’s sympathy (key word) for Falkland creates a power relation that threatens

Falkland’s political power, social station, and manhood. The article uses a slight Historical style of

criticism because of the allusions to the French Revolution being used as a method of radicalizing the

power struggle between Falkland (oppressive political regime) and Caleb (revolutionary peasant). I will

use this in my argument to determine how sympathy is a method of control and power. Tyrrel, Falkland,

and Caleb’s character details will be further accentuated with this article.

Garofalo, Daniela. "'A Left-Handed Way': Modern Masters in William Godwin's Caleb

Williams." European Romantic Review 17.2 (2006): 237-44. ProQuest. Web. 13 Nov.

13

13

Schneller

2013.

Garofalo’s article offers a representation of power as “Left Handed,” that is, an arrival of modern leaders

usurping the old “Right Handed” monarchy in an attempt to explain Falkland’s obscene power contrasted

with weak morality. The article uses a Historical perspective by comparing monarchies circa French

Revolution and eighteenth-century to Falkland and Tyrrel’s methodologies. I can use this article to

introduce an interesting point about the contrasting method of power between the new monarch

(Falkland) and the old monarch (Tyrrel).

Godwin, William. Caleb Williams. Peterbourough: Broadview Press, 2000. Print.

This novel is a young man’s curiosity growing in leaps and bounds while pursuing the information of a

suspected murderer’s dark past. This is a novel, and will be my primary text that I will utilize in my

discussion. I want to trace the power and tyranny of Falkland and Tyrrel through means of various power

binaries by comparing and contrasting their respective methods of tyranny.

Gold, Alex Jr. "It's Only Love: The Politics of Passion in Godwin's Caleb Williams."

Texas Studies in Language and Literature 19 (1977): 135-60.

Gold writes about love, passion, and the various guises these emotions elicit in Caleb Williams in an

argument to explain how love is really the real culprit when trying to dissect the institutional evils of the

novel. The article utilizes a psychological view, which can be arguably interpreted as psychoanalytic,

because male-to-male homosexual desires are traced through Freud’s theories, however, the author does

not entirely rely upon Freud’s work. I will use this article as a possible counterargument to my thesis. I

can refute love being tyrannical by explaining how the aristocracy wields the harshest power.

Rodden, John. "Godwin's Caleb Williams: 'A Half-Told and Mangled Tale'." College

Literature 36.4 (2009): 119-46. ProQuest. Web. 13 Nov. 2013.

14

14

Schneller

This essay contends that Caleb’s narration of disconnected events and ambivalence toward Falkland

become understandable when tracing the obsessive/oppressive homosexual desire between the two. This

article is comprehended through the lens of psychoanalytic theory’s stipulations of sexual development. I

will use this article to further trace the power relations between Caleb and Falkland. Father/son and

master/slave binaries can be drawn from this text as a direct support to my thesis.

15

15