A weird old movie I saw years ago featuring nuns eating acid, shooting heroin, blackmailing people, etc. Seems oddly applicable.

Some stuff I've found so far...

Billington, Ray.  "Maria Monk and Her Influence."  The Catholic Historical Review 22.3 (1936):  283-96. JSTOR.  Web.  11 Sept. 2010.

Thanks, mom!

Wow, you can really tell from this guy's tone that he's writing in a Catholic publication.  He's pretty scathing about the Protestants and their propaganda (maybe with good reason, but still).  Also, given how early this was written, it's possible that not all of the controversy had died down yet and the Catholic church still had some residual pissed-offness about the whole thing.  Either way, this source gives a pretty useful summary of all the early reviews and interviews and discussions in Catholic and Protestant papers within the first couple years of Awful Disclosures's publication.  In particular, he mentions an interview with Maria Monk's mother in which case she says that Maria Monk was a wild kid and a crazy adult, was actually in a mental institution, not a convent, in Montreal, and that her baby was that of her lover and not a lascivious priest.  While this sounds more plausible than the convent story, I like to think that if I were to ever run into trouble my mom wouldn't throw me under the bus like that.  Thanks Mom.

Griffin, Susan.  "Awful Disclosures:  Women's Evidence in the Escaped Nun's Tale."  PMLA 111.1 (1996):  93-107.  JSTOR.  Web.  23 Sept. 2010.

Places Awful Disclosures in context of proliferation of escaped nun tales at the time; as it turns out, most of them (Awful Disclosures included) were hoaxes designed to create more anti-Catholic panic than there already was (because clearly there wasn't already enough mad religious fervor going on).  All the corroborating stuff (the exhaustive appendices, supporting articles, etc.) becomes a trope used in more or less all of these tales.

Mannard, Joseph.  "Maternity . . . of the Spirit":  Nuns and Domesticity in Antebellum America."  U. S. Catholic Historian 5.3/4 (1986):  305-24.  JSTOR.  Web.  11 Sept. 2010.

Argues that part of the reason Protestants were so against convents is that they kept women from being in their "proper place":  home, barefoot and pregnant.  Interestingly, Protestant men and women objected to convents for different reasons:  men because it was horrible and unnatural to keep women away from the great joys of male company and childbearing (ha!), women because they wanted alternatives:  Protestant schools and seminaries that admitted women, etc.

Pagliarini, Marie.  "The Pure American Woman and the Wicked Catholic Priest:  An Analysis of Anti-Catholic Literature in Antebellum America."  Religion and American Culture:  A Journal of Interpretation 9.1 (1999):  97-128.  JSTOR.  Web.  11 September 2010.

Similar to Mannard (although a little more thorough, and a lot more current), discusses anti-Catholic literature as largely stemming from Catholicism's undermining of the "cult of domesticity"; hence the stereotyping of Catholic priests as depraved sexual madmen and nuns as innocent, deceived victims.

Much, much more to come, but here's a start.

Rhetorical Analysis

Awful Disclosures is the first-person narrative of Maria Monk, a nun in Montreal in the early nineteenth century.  The novel recounts her childhood experiences with religion, the misinformation that led her to the convent, the horrors that occurred there (corrupt priests, totalitarian nuns, suppression of speech, gang rape, infanticide, imprisonment, and torture, to name a few), and her subsequent escape.  The veracity of these events is unclear, as is the “real” identity of the novel’s author; however, the implied author, the Maria Monk of the narrative, presents herself as a misunderstood victim, drawn into the convent under false pretenses and later accused of fabricating the whole experience as an anti-Catholic propaganda piece.  Indeed, in the front materials, Monk’s primary purposes seem to be first to persuade her audience to believe her account and second to incite them to take action against the Hotel Dieu Nunnery and against Catholicism generally.

One can infer that Monk assumes her audience to be primarily non-Catholic and unaware of the true inner workings of convents.  In the preface she addresses “the world” (although “the world” in this case more or less means the British, Canadian, and American public, the English-speaking world) to trust in the truthfulness of her tale; she also addresses the British government to take political action:  “I would also solemnly appeal to the Government of Great Britain . . . and ask, whether such atrocities ought to be tolerated, and even protected, by an enlightened and Christian power?  I trust the hour is near, when the dens of the Hotel Dieu will be laid open, when the tyrants who have polluted it will be brought out, with the wretched victims of their oppression and crimes” (5-6). 

Monk conducts these appeals to her audience in a number of ways.  First, she appeals to the audience’s fear, conceding that while her story is almost “too monstrous to be believed” (1) and racy enough to corrupt the innocent minds of young readers, parents should be warned of the dangers of convents lest their children be taken in as she was; she then invokes the reader’s pity, lamenting the fact that no one had warned her as she now warns a public who refuses to believe her, despite her terrible circumstances:  “While there was a hope that the authorities in Canada might be prevailed upon to bring the subject to a legal investigation, I travelled to Montreal, in a feeble state of health, and with an infant in my arms only three weeks old.  In the face of many threats and dangers, I spent nearly a month in that city, in vain attempts to bring my cause to trial” (5).  She continues in this vein for almost two pages, using her victimhood as an emotional appeal.

However, this is not her only persuasive tactic.  The preface also cites copious corroborating evidence from others to lend truth to her account, in particular a review “furnished by a gentleman well qualified for the purpose” (1).  This is also alluded to on the title page, half of which is spent outlining the appendix:  “Revised, with an Appendix, Containing, Part 1.  Reception of the First Editions.  Part 2.  Sequel of her Narrative.  Part 3.  Review of the Case.  Also, a Supplement, Giving More Particulars about the Nunnery and Grounds.  Illustrated by a Plan of the Nunnery, &c.”  The illustration appearing directly after the title page, a two-page map of the convent, serves as further evidence toward the truth of her account:  the first page contains a map of the convent, the grounds, the neighboring Congregational Nunnery, and the surrounding block, pointing out features like the “Very High Wall” around the grounds and showing in dotted lines the supposed underground tunnel from the seminary to the convent as well as Monk’s route of escape.  The second page features a smaller version of this map next to a large drawing of the front of the convent.  The specificity of the drawings (street addresses, building features, etc.) invites the reader to go investigate firsthand if he or she is in doubt about Monk’s truthfulness.  Also, the imagery of confinement (the high perimeter walls, the imposing front entrance to the convent with its walls and dense trees) cannot help but be associated with prison.  This penal imagery extends into the beginning of the novel, as she refers several times to the nuns as “inmates.”

Overall, while Monk’s explicit purposes in writing this novel are clearly those of personal vindication and bringing the Hotel Dieu Nunnery to justice, it is implicit in the front materials that this book exists as an anti-Catholic tract designed to undermine the principles of Catholicism and the morality of its followers.

            

Aaaand here we go: Artifact Inventory

Q:  When, where, and by whom was your text first printed?

The earliest texts I can find are from 1836, of which several are available online (yay for no copyright laws in 1836!):

Monk, Maria. Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, or, The Hidden Secrets of a Nun’s Life in a Convent Exposed, Illustrated with Upwards of Forty Engravings. Manchester: Milner and Company, [1836].

This contains a small appendix of early reviews, which indicates it had been previously published.

Monk, Maria.  Awful Disclosures by Maria Monk, of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery of Montreal, Revised, with an Appendix.  New York:  Maria Monk, 1836.

This text contains a nearly exhaustive appendix containing newspaper articles and reviews, a sequel recounting what happens to Monk after she leaves the convent, and a summary of the events surrounding the public’s response to the text, as well as an explication of the design of the convent depicted in the map that appears in the front matter of this edition.

Additionally, there exists from the same year a response to Monk’s account:

Monk, Maria.  Further Disclosures by Maria Monk, Concerning the Hotel Dieu Nunnery of Montreal Also, Her Visit to Nuns' Island, and Disclosures Concerning That Secret Retreat:  Preceded by a Reply to the Priests' Book.  New York:  J. J. Slocum, 1836.

The most commonly listed is the New York edition, apparently self-published. The multiplicity of editions within the first year of publication indicates that this case caused at least somewhat widespread controversy, thus the need for repeated explication.  The first two (Manchester and New York) editions reference an earlier edition by Howe and Bates that I believe is this one:

Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk:  As Exhibited in a Narrative of her Sufferings During a Residence of Five Years as a Novice, and Two Years as a Black Nun, in the Hoten Dieu Nunnery at Montreal.  New York:  Howe & Bates, 1936. 

I have thus far been unable to obtain a copy of this first edition but have decided to use the New York self-published edition for research purposes, as it contains the author’s revisions and additions and seems to be most often cited.  I found this edition on microfilm as well as online.

Q:  How often was your text reprinted?  List all of the reprints.

In addition to the early ones I have already mentioned:

Awful Disclosures by Maria Monk and the Startling Mysteries of a Convent Exposed.  Philadelphia:  T. B. Peterson, 1836.

Awful Disclosures by Maria Monk or the Hidden Secrets of a Nun’s Life in a Convent Exposed.  London:  Cambridge Publishing Co., 1836.

 

Awful Disclosures by Maria Monk, of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery of Montreal.   London:  James S. Hodson, 1837.

Awful Disclosures, by Maria Monk, of the Hotel Dieu Nunnery of Montreal, Containing, also, Many Incidents Never Before Published.  New York:  DeWitt & Davenport, Publishers, 1855.

Awful Disclosures of Maria Monk, as Exhibited in a Narrative of her Sufferings during Her Residence of Five Years as a Black Nun in the Hotel Dieu Nunnery, at Montreal, Ont.  New York:  D. M.  Bennett, 1878. 

These are only a few; there are scores of editions, many of which are just reprints of earlier editions already mentioned that have been redistributed by different publishers.  This indicates first that Monk’s work was often called into question and reevaluated and second that more or less anyone was authorized to reprint a text.

Q:  What was the actual size of your text in inches or centimeters?  What information can you find about its physical presence, binding, etc.?  Do you think it was expensive or inexpensive? 

As I haven’t had access to a physical copy of the book, this is hard to say; all editions I have encountered have been either in pdf or microfilm.  Given the excess of editions, I would assume that this work was, in one form or other, easily accessible to many and thus relatively inexpensive.

Q:  View the original title page using the digital database or microfilm.  What is included there?

This is from the aforementioned 1836 self-published edition available online and on microfilm at UCF:

Q:  If there is more than one edition, compare the title pages. 

The other 1836 editions:

The Further Disclosures title page is almost impossible to make out due to the quality of the image, but here it is anyway:  

The 1855 edition: 

It seems that, with the exception of the Further Disclosures text, the title pages seem to become less verbose as time goes on.  Whether this is due to redundancy or just because it became over time less fashionable to summarize the entirety of a text’s contents on a title page, I’m not sure.

Q:  What miscellaneous front matter exists?

The front matter is different among all the early editions.  The main (New York) text begins with a map of the convent depicting the house, the grounds, the alleged undergound tunnel between the convent and the nunnery, and Maria Monk’s route of escape:

  

From the (presumably slightly earlier) Manchester 1836 text: 

The 1855 edition has no front illustrations.

While the prefaces differ from edition to edition, the gist is similar:  Monk defends the veracity of her claims and charges readers/reviewers/detractors to visit the convent in question and look at its architecture if they doubt her story. The presence of the map in the New York 1836 edition indicates further Monk’s insistence that the reader take her story as absolute truth; by providing a physical manifestation of her surroundings she helps eradicate doubt.

The fact that she not only defends her claims in the prefaces and the front art but also includes corroborating articles in multiple editions indicates that either her shocking account of her experiences in the convent is true and she is horrified at the possibility of its not being believed less atrocities continue or that she is casting a fictional story as truth for some other reason, whether for dramatic effect, fame, or personal gain.  Either way, the prefaces point out the issue of truth versus fiction as central to research on this work.

Q:  How long is your text?  Is it broken into volumes and chapters or is it one big chunk?  How many volumes and/or chapters?  Is the print large and easy to read or dense, with many words on each page and lines close together?

The text appears more or less modern; the S’s don’t look like f’s and everything is typed similarly to the way it would be today; it’s well spaced and easily readable.  The main text, including the appendices and blank pages, is 376 pages long.

The easy readability of the text in contrast to, for example, Winthrop or other earlier writers, situates the work as well into the twentieth century.  The regime of the Puritans has been over for a while and thus is not a major issue in this text; twentieth century Catholicism is a new and different animal and must be treated as such in research.

Q.  What back matter exists?

The revised text contains several appendices:  a large collection of critical responses to the work, a detailed description of the topography of the convent, a summary of the hoopla surrounding the book’s publication, and a sequel.  This back matter constitutes almost 150 pages; the book itself is just over 200.  The fact that Monk goes to almost as much textual trouble proving her claims as she does making them leads one, again, to the theme of truth versus fiction in research on this text. 

Q:  Given all of the above, what might you wish to include as you think about creating a virtual/physical site for your project (your blog)?

I would like to include more recent resources evaluating whether this work is biography or fiction:  was there actually a Maria Monk, was she actually in this convent, and was it as chock full of torture, gang rape, infanticide, and general craziness as the book depicts?  I would also like to situate it contextually be researching similar stories (in particular the “Gates of Hell” story Monk was accused of plagiarizing, as well as other escaped nun tales and anti-Catholic literature from around the same time).