I love reading literature about women with fortitude and moxy, and the stories/letters written by the Bronte sisters did not lead me yearning. There bold convictions and straightforward letters were filled with such emotion and self sureness that was/is unexpected of Victorian women. I was so taken back by there vivid approach to telling their dislikes for being a governess, I wondered if the duality of their lives and “thoughts” were not, somewhat, dangerous on many levels.
In public, the typical governess appeared to a meek, attentive whipping girl for her subjects and mistress. She had no thought or existence outside of household commands. Her every move and thought was controlled by the needs of the house. Or were they? Was the governess so dutiful, that she lost her wit and being in order for employment? According to the Bronte sisters’ letters, a governess is a woman who does what she must to survive in public, and in private is the woman she wishes to be.
It comes as no surprise that governesses were verbally abused by their mistresses. Though, the governess’s job seemed imprisoning, she had a freedom not bestowed to the lady of the household, because she was not, in essence, a lady.
A lady would have never been able to speak to her master as the character Agnes Grey, from Anne Bronte’s Agnes Grey, did and live without being beaten. Only a woman fed up with unruly children, a mistress with too much time, and an unforgiving master would be bold enough to say, “Then, sir, you must call them [the children] yourself, if you please…” (563) after her master insisted she wrangle his unruly children in from the snow, and not care the consequence. The beauty in her statement, though polite, is that it is against all the rules given by Sarah Stickney Ellis, because, again those rules were for “ladies.” Governesses weren’t ladies, they were simply governesses and they, without knowing, were smudging away at the definitions that defined women in general. Could the blurred social ranking of the governess be one of the pillars for women’s liberation?
Now, let us take a moment to speculate what Agnes Grey would have said had she been a modern woman in the movie The Nanny Diaries. I believe her monologue would have been similar to this:
“Then, sir, you must call them [the children] yourself, if you please, for they won’t listen to me…for all I care, the brats can catch a hellish cold or suffer from pneumonia. Frankly, I quit!”
Frankly, I would quit too. And because of the hardship suffered by these strong, enterprising ladies I have the right to.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The Lady of Shalott- Alfred Tennyson
It seems after reading both the 1830 and the 1833 versions of the Lady of Shalott, we are introduced to conflicting versions of the same woman. The woman in the original version seems whimsical, unstable. The more determined, self-sufficient heroine is described in the 1833 version. As a modern woman, I can’t help but to identify with the lady in the 1833 version. In both versions she is described as, “…the fairy Lady of Shalott” (lines 35-36, 590 text; lines 26-27 e-text). In theatre, fairies are usually a representation of youth, ignorance, and emotional turbulence. Many were often seen as the cause or the raw element of trouble. It is not hard to wonder if Tennyson deliberately characterized the Lady of Shalott as a fairy to emphasize her “curse.” Though neither lady, in either version, knows her curse or who/what cursed her, the consequences of their curse seem to have implications for completely different implications for the role of women.
In the 1830 version it was not until the Lady of Shalott overheard “…two young lovers lately wed…” (line 70, 590) did she express any resentment of having only seen people or their shadows through her mirror. She had not been as touched by religion (the Abbott in line 55), death (the funeral in line 67), or nature (the moon in line 69) as she was by the love the two newly weds shared. Why is their love, or love itself, so frustrating? Had love inspired Tennyson so, that he knew it would be the only thing to stir curiosity in the Lady? Or is it love, particularly love for a man, Tennyson uses to showcase how women are bound to men? I believe the latter.
It would not be farfetched to say that Tennyson, like most writers or educated males, would have been well exposed to the Bible. It is in the Bible that the first woman, Eve, is cursed to desire her husband. Eve, being the lifeline and representation for all women, passes this curse to every woman child. The Lady of Shalott would not have been an exception to this rule. Tennyson eludes to this in lines 109-117
“She left the web, she left the loom,
She made three paces thro’ the room,
She saw the water-lily bloom,
She saw the helmet and the plume,
She look’d down to Camelot.
Out flew the web and floated wide;
The mirror cracked from side to side;
‘The curse is come upon me,” cried
The Lady of Shalott. (1830 version)
The modern woman in me wants to believe this is another ploy for man, Tennyson, to disenfranchise woman, The Lady of Shalott. My mind is even allowed to oblige this thought when it is Sir Lancelot, the Lady of Shalott’s desire, who gives the unknown damsel importance and meaning in death because, “…she has a lovely face...” (593, line 169) and it is his blessing for “…God in his mercy lend her grace…” (593, line 170). Is Tennyson suggesting that woman has no meaning until man gives it to her? It is hard to say…however, Tennyson would not have revised the poem in the manner he did in the 1833 version.
In the 1833 version, Tennyson empowered the Lady to speak for herself, even in death; an honor most women would not have been allowed in reality or fiction.
“The web was woven curiously,
The charm is broken utterly,
Draw near and fear not---this is I,
The Lady of Shalott.” (e-text)
The lady’s level of self-respect and self-awareness seem to leap off of the page. She has plotted her own destiny. Had Tennyson began to see women and their role as humans differently, or was he expressing a belief he couldn’t in 1830? I believe that the Lady of Shalott’s death had nothing to do with feminism or traditionalism.
Though the curse of love, stemming from Eve, has not been broken the right for women to speak for themselves is transitionally unleashed from 1830 to 1833. That is the beauty of these poems; the same outcomes with different implications on the liberty of women to be human. An idea a modern woman can feel confident in passing on. I’m not sure if this was Tennyson’s objective when producing the 1833 revision, but I feel confident that he was sending us all a message that: life and death has everything to do with free will.
In the 1830 version it was not until the Lady of Shalott overheard “…two young lovers lately wed…” (line 70, 590) did she express any resentment of having only seen people or their shadows through her mirror. She had not been as touched by religion (the Abbott in line 55), death (the funeral in line 67), or nature (the moon in line 69) as she was by the love the two newly weds shared. Why is their love, or love itself, so frustrating? Had love inspired Tennyson so, that he knew it would be the only thing to stir curiosity in the Lady? Or is it love, particularly love for a man, Tennyson uses to showcase how women are bound to men? I believe the latter.
It would not be farfetched to say that Tennyson, like most writers or educated males, would have been well exposed to the Bible. It is in the Bible that the first woman, Eve, is cursed to desire her husband. Eve, being the lifeline and representation for all women, passes this curse to every woman child. The Lady of Shalott would not have been an exception to this rule. Tennyson eludes to this in lines 109-117
“She left the web, she left the loom,
She made three paces thro’ the room,
She saw the water-lily bloom,
She saw the helmet and the plume,
She look’d down to Camelot.
Out flew the web and floated wide;
The mirror cracked from side to side;
‘The curse is come upon me,” cried
The Lady of Shalott. (1830 version)
The modern woman in me wants to believe this is another ploy for man, Tennyson, to disenfranchise woman, The Lady of Shalott. My mind is even allowed to oblige this thought when it is Sir Lancelot, the Lady of Shalott’s desire, who gives the unknown damsel importance and meaning in death because, “…she has a lovely face...” (593, line 169) and it is his blessing for “…God in his mercy lend her grace…” (593, line 170). Is Tennyson suggesting that woman has no meaning until man gives it to her? It is hard to say…however, Tennyson would not have revised the poem in the manner he did in the 1833 version.
In the 1833 version, Tennyson empowered the Lady to speak for herself, even in death; an honor most women would not have been allowed in reality or fiction.
“The web was woven curiously,
The charm is broken utterly,
Draw near and fear not---this is I,
The Lady of Shalott.” (e-text)
The lady’s level of self-respect and self-awareness seem to leap off of the page. She has plotted her own destiny. Had Tennyson began to see women and their role as humans differently, or was he expressing a belief he couldn’t in 1830? I believe that the Lady of Shalott’s death had nothing to do with feminism or traditionalism.
Though the curse of love, stemming from Eve, has not been broken the right for women to speak for themselves is transitionally unleashed from 1830 to 1833. That is the beauty of these poems; the same outcomes with different implications on the liberty of women to be human. An idea a modern woman can feel confident in passing on. I’m not sure if this was Tennyson’s objective when producing the 1833 revision, but I feel confident that he was sending us all a message that: life and death has everything to do with free will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)