<<

Rupayan Attack SOCIAL

that dynamics feminism.2 She: Laiterary following social they She: such This concept and to 2 don: 1 H. Sandra

a Yale

Rider A

patriarchal powerful

strives

artistically

a

essay

landscape

History

A

story & M. University

of

Abstract

Victorian This which implications values the as constructions Britain. specific them the cssay as the structure broad systemic culture. Susan Haggard, POLITICAL

specific that

on

History

Gilbert

works

a

The

immoral a

to

demonstrates

process

progressive

equal

Roy

woman

the misogynist

subservient

a

Ayesha,

of

issue

assault define Guhar Early essay

of engages

gender-based

aspects

and

express

of This Press, story and

Adventure

She:A gender-based

novel

Britain. that two

worth

aspects can

Victorian

of of MOVEMENTS of

or Susan

oppressive

having

is essay analyzes

their 1994). of Histoy

particular analyzing the of

the H.

is of discriminates

promiscuous; of

positions emergence explored often with Feminism

ideological pohtieal to

of

driven femininity Rider

In Gubaa

nineteenth-century

extent

Adventure

Leo

of — the patriarchal

progressive argues

women historical of

theme

doing

political

which the

Britain

nineteenth-century Adventssre

serve oppression, Haggard’s

extent

Vincey the

.jVo

status

the

in

to activists,

by

tool,

itself historical that Mans

identified of

so,

relation

which

and

novel

that a

against ultimately

and

messages gender-based —

as

interests.

power.

earls’ (Mattituck:

Haggard’s

contexts.

implicitly

cultural

quo the

functions to

as development Lana

men; and

socio-political

opposition

literature portray as She:A

and

this

one

to which novel,

first-wave

within

and

by context

well

women

feminism:

J’blurne

Holly

Haggard’s By

opposition

its

essay Near

Sandra

History

that and Arncreon

agenda

concerns

Henry

strives

novel

sei-ving relationship FOOTNOTES

as

which

as

certain 3:

its the

reflects

the feminism: socio-political

the

addresses the

a to of Letters

is react

who

and

feminism

of

Gilbert

misogynist

of

attacks

a

deeply Misogynist

a end United

novel

to

novel.1 Victorian House, Adventure, following functions

Rider

that

belief to fions

as instruments, political

renders early women

human

meet

assault

itself

to

of

social

the

with

and the

opposes

the

the sociological the

attacks

a l982.

committed In in in

Haggard’s

Kingdom. Front

first-wave

carrier

the

belief with

weapon Volume (Lon

bold

the

the

the

of

as

in 1 (2008) 22 FOOTNOTES

the equal worth of women and men; opposition to social constructions of femininity that portray certain women as immoral or promiscuous; and opposition to a political structure that discriminates against women and renders them subservient to patriarchal interests. While launching such a wide-ranging assault on early feminism, the novel also functions as an adversary of two key philosophical figures,John Stuart Mill and Josephine Butler. In short, the novel is a conservative political artifact from a country on the threshold of progressive social change.

The novel symbolically seeks to undermine a major element of John Stuart Mill’s nineteenth-century feminism: relative support for the concept of male and female partners ultimately being of equal worth. John Stuart Mill’spro-feminist work, OntheSubjectionof J4/imen,expresses a progressive belief that “the equality of married persons before the law” is a prerequisite for “moral cultivation” and “the happiness of [both partners] .‘° Haggard’s work, by contrast, is committed to a patriarchal belief that women are ultimately worth lessthan their male partners. The novel’srepresentation of Ayeslia’sdeath — when considered alongside the

novel’s representation of Kallikrates’ dead body — serves as the vehicle through which Mill’s early feminism is opposed. Once Ayesha has been stripped of her supernatural power and her life, she is placed at a lower level socially than Kallikrates, who is belatedly designated as her partner after taking the reincarnated form of Leo Vincey As a dead body that

has been “perfectly preserved,” Kallikrates has — in Holly’s opinion — retained the status of a person of “uncommon beauty” Holly’sdecision to invoke such concepts as perfection and 1beauty when describing Kallikrates is important, as he thereby suggests that one must continue to recognize the dead Kallikrates as a notable person. Even as a corpse, Kallikrates remains a fully-developed human being and adult member of society By contrast, the deceased and ex-supernatural Ayeshais depicted as being nothing more than “a monkey,” “a badly-preserved Egyptian mummy,” and “a two-months’ 5child.” In other words, she is infantilized, dehumanized, and rendered utterly imperfect. This implies that, without the assistance of supernatural power, Ayesha is an inferior being. As an infantilized corpse, she cannot be seen as the equal of an adult, and therefore cannot be valued as the equal of Kallikrates. In the process of turning into “a monkey” she essentially slides down the evolutionary ladder and consequently slidesaway from being the equal of Kallikrates, who is never presented as anything less than a fully-fledged member of the human species. As “a badly-preserved Egyptian mummy” she evidently lacks the quality of perfection that characterizes6 Kallikrates’ corpse earlier in the novel. Holly also asserts that she physically moves

3John Stuart Mill, OntheSubjectzonof Wbmen(Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, 1971), 61-2. 4 Haggard, 177. 5 Haggard, 2 16-17. 6 Haggard, 2 16-17. when like words, Kallikrates, Through lower both cannot their this symbolism She in non-supernatural a patriarchal of The the of revealed. promiscuous, was activism first Contagious thatJosephine stemming of force her the “instrumental with coquetry” that female Holly’s depiction concept 9 8 Press, 7 12 10 11

relationship Mill, Haggard, Haggard, Nancy

Boyd, Haggard, femininity

its a

women

a

concept

novel,

invoked conservative

“awful

he is

time

prostitute

novel’s male

partnerscan

the 1982),

“tortoise,”

that 61.

level first

opposition

as feel

effectively

“corrupter.”2

is

reference 47. Boyd,

of

of kind

“blinded” its a 216. when 217.

of

from partners. can 40-47.

Ayesha

perceiving

118-19. any

surrounding of

in

result

loveliness”

corrupting, Diseases who

ideology

Josephine

of antipathy

activation Ayesha’s to

In

in

the Three

with

development,

of Butler rape” apparently comparison

supposedly desire

SHE:

progressive

justify

the

its Holly,

which

short, —

to novel

novel

behaviour of

placed thrive.9

women Vsctorian

to

represents

bid

Kallikrates

as

alleged

The “coquetry”

by

A

her

Acts

John

of

actively for Later

nature

that

the

them,

the

to positions

who

her towards

also

HISTORY

as

Ayesha’s of

Butler. favours

or

Ayesha’s

suspected

novel

the

lowered I6men

defeat

in

When of

harm,

an commencement

living

are patriarchal

beauty

otherwise being

parts “coquetry constructs implicitly social

to

Stuart

is

and ex-supernatural

associated which — a the

challenged.

the

“evil”

watching

in clearly Who

men,

strive

the

position

is

As

early

the her

a

which of confuse, OF Leo 1 are one

that

significant, beauty

dramatic

status,

misogynist

change

860s

which misogynist Changed

prostitutes

Mill’s

equivalent

an

involved

vision

the as

ADvENTURE

quality to

the

further

lashes overwhelming,

feminism upholds

assesses

Vincey

of of

the

thinking

certain

activist,

further —

with

novel equality

Ayesha

where

Ayesha Their

includes novel’s a

which

This is

in philosophy

and

equivalent

espoused

“determined

death,

of

out

presented

the

as a

away version He

the

construction Wand — —

social

a —

the

impair becomes

male

of

her associate

it

women

which

she

at

is

patriarchal

in

unveil basically

Butler

recoils

can and and

realm

ideological

figure

also

explicitly AND

her (Oxford:

the

not

children,

it

ideologically-charged

from

regards

transformation.8

byJohn is

At

belief

becomes

of narrative no

men. “the

of

the

successful

“air

“hoarsely” a

build

EARLY

By simply not

herself,

various of as Ayesha.

“a of

condemned

apparent

man. a

longer

Ayesha

as

perfection

corrupter”

authorized Oxford argument

small

happiness”

of

reinforcing marital

of

aligns a

in

in the step

esteemed

to

construction

immoral

on

represent Stuart

hostility

sublimated

destructive

the

femininity

Moreover,

FEMINSM

particular,

contained

the clear

in supposed

describes

this

points hope

animal.7 University

In

or

with feminist

Ayesha

for

nature

asserts

which

status

other life

two”

Mill.

than early

that

that

and

He

the the

the

for the

by

of

or

to

in

is

a

a

23 24 FOOTNOTES

the seventeenth chapter of the novel strongly suggests that Ayesha enjoys tempting men. When Ayesha invites Holly to “press [his hands] round [her waist],” Holly indicates that he can “bear it no longer” and “[falls] upon [his] knees.” Ayesha, who “[claps] her hands in glee” upon seeing his behaviour, reveals that she was “[wondering] how many minutes it would need to bring [him] to [his] 13knees.” In other words, her conduct is made to appear very deliberate. Furthermore, when she invites him to “kiss [her]” and “[fixes] her dark and thrilling orbs upon [his] own,” Holly asserts that he is being “made [to feel] faint and 11weak.”

While she eventually puts an end to this scene, she refers to her own behaviour as “wanton play” and argues that “it is hard for a woman to be 15merciful.” This portion of the novel encourages the reader to view Holly as a male victim of female sexuality,while Ayesha is depicted as a self-designated representative of merciless female “coquetry” Ayesha’s words, which imply that she reflects the alleged attributes of women in general, are present in this novel to provide ammunition for misogyny. The novel’sconstruction of Ayesha’ssexuality is aimed at strengthening hostility towards women.

This socio-didactic goal becomes more apparent in the twentieth chapter, when Ayesha draws Leo “into evil,” overpowers him, and makes him kiss her over “the corpse of his dead love.” Holly, who functions as the male audience of this scene, decides that Leo “cannot be blamed too much” and thereby lays the blame at Ayesha’s16feet. This chapter holds Ayesha responsible for a sexually-charged scene that is “horrible and wicked.” These two negative and hostile adjectives, in conjunction with 7the message that they amplify, further intensify the novel’s war against women. Through its determination to construct female sexuality as a negative force, the novel attempts to tear credibility away from feminist opposition to patriarchal thinking. In effect, the novel establishes itself as a public platform for the literary expression of misogyny, as well as a launching pad for the reinforcement of an anti-feminist political agenda.

The novel’sdevotion to patriarchal politics is also apparent in its twenty- second chapter, which presents the patriarchal political status quo of Victorian Britain in a normalized and supportive way. Leo and Holly tell Ayesha that “real power in [their] country [rests] in the hands of the people.” They also assert that their country’s female constitutional monarch,8 who does not represent ‘real’political power, is “beloved by all

13 Haggard, 144-45. 14 Haggard, 145. 15 Haggard, 145. 16 Haggard, 172. 17 Haggard, 172. 18 Haggard, 189. promoting legislative right-thinking femininity. inciting female

They of — suggest Holly Women, to socio-political thinking personhood. that of is Minister that wish at did their involve political out.”°° feminism, government. a something women Holly that

Against are these strong While has British 20 21

19 [the

as

tool

assembled

love

extending Haggard, Haggard, Sheila

the the

actually

ever

not

they Leo

a

initially

country’s

to world]

state It.

arguably

reveal two

manifestation

through

novel these political desire

a

In Empire] that figure

antipathy

near support (London:

Rowbotham, establish

reform,

patterns.

seen.” have

and

symbolic

subtly

who

Gladstone

power

Leo

other

paragraphs

that In that 189. 190.

a

those

not

their

statements the

is

materially appear

Holly the They only

The to ceremonial

fact,

in

people opinion

were

political

political

and

continues

which

He placed

is this emphasize Pluto SHE:

disenfranchisement

and

the ambivalent. go for

words,

end

question

for

franchise voting who

towards

acceptable This

patriarchal

queen

by Hidden feels novel

by

Holly

to view view

power

not the

most

thereby Press,

“threatened of

to men of

A

in

men the do

the

stating

in particular

reveals

system

rights, HISTORY be supposed the

that

existing

Leo her

may

allowed for

which

rights From

men

to

the

not

who

was

attempt

glorious its 1974),

female

socio-clidactic feminism,

United

at

when are

rests

ambivalent.

represent “if

and

twenty-second

vast

embracing

Ayesha,

the History: proper

He

and

share and political the

appear

that

as

admiration

poses written

as

‘right-thinking’,

that for

50. the are

ultimately

with

controlled political

states the they

better” realms.”9 to

sufficiently

expense

aspect

figure

normal. OF

Holly to

normality to

Kingdom,

and

those

women.

their 300

woman’s

excluded

vote

his

of historical

sole no undermine are

who

people,

drop” ADVENTURE antipathy

to

express

disenfranchisement lèars that prosperous

a

a

women, feelings

A threat

perspective

express of

further are

who as

aspirations

in representatives

structure

few through state

is

favours

of for

By of

close

chapter,

their

Ayesha, Both

by

This

“wonderful,” a

the a

content democratic.

which FI4ment

amendment

As

“would

women.

their

from

admire

downplaying

a political years

parliamentary

context,

to

of

towards an

the

non-legislative

nineteenth activated.

towards

a statement conservative analytical the

they

assertions discussion

male

affairs,

male AND

degree

that anti-feminist

empire the

views

in Oppression

implies

their

who two

suffer

efforts

of after

with

speedily

the

spite

can

In

has

power British

political EPLY model,

it

the legislative

men

of

has

on

When

early which

would

the

conception

non-legislative becomes

was

from of

that British

attacked a clearly

presents

of

inspection

of

of and

are

novel, that

personhood.

any

century

is

‘real’

system

expressed

support

process supporters

bill

women —

comments

essentially those

make

the effectively

not FEMINSM

the Empire.21

feminism

Leo mode

distorted aimed

rights

need

this

a head

they involves

“change Fight

power

reality power

aimed

afford

Prime

which

world

taken

early clear their

part

who

that and

and

[the

see

for

for

for

of of

of of

of

at

as

a 26 FOOTNOTES

a woman’s powel; it is important to note that Holly’s positive tone is only reserved for a potential relationship between Ayesha and Britain’s foreign policy.He does not say anything positive about Ayesha’spotential for changing Britain’s domestic political landscape. In fact, he fears that within Britain, she would “blast her way to any end she set before 22her.” He is evidently convinced that her desire for power on British soil would constitute a negative force. Moreover, when he is not specificallythinking of her possible relationship with British imperialism, he indicates that she is “terrible.” He only sees her power as being “wonderful” when he speculates that Britain — which is characterized by an imperialist agenda shaped by male politicians — could use her power to advance its colonialist 23goals. In short, he hopes to see Ayesha’sfemale power become a tool through which male colonial violence can be enhanced. He does not express a desire for political changes within his own country. As a result, Holly’s ideological beliefs clearly do not disrupt the anti-feminist agenda exposed earlier in the chapter. His views are consistent with the novel’s commitment to patriarchy, which involves unwavering support for the anti-feminist status quo of Britain and tolerance for modes of femininity that pose no threat to male domination. In essence,the chapter steadfastly remains a reflector of patriarchal conservative thinking and a crucial carrier of the novel’santi-feminist message.

Furthermore, this misogynist novel builds on its desire to preserve Britain’s patriarchal political culture by dramatically punishing, and exterminating, the figure of the powerful and confident women. In doing so, the patriarchal novel engages in “sexual warfare” against feminist women, which has been identified as a nineteenth-century literary theme by Sandra Gilbert and Susan 24Gubar. The novel violently punishes Ayesha in a way that combines physical suffering with humiliation. As Ayesha dies, she feels “dazed” and cannot “see,for her whitish eyes [are] covered with a horny ifim.” Holly, who witnesses her demise, cannot begin to imagine what she must be feeling, which clearly indicates to the reader that she is in a great deal of pain. Moreover, as she dies, she looks “too hideous for words” and associates herself with “shame” when she speaks for the last 25time. By forcing her to go through a painful and humiliating death, the novel aggressivelytortures and destroys the woman who embodies female power. As a political document, this novel assumes the role of patriarchy as it yearns for a brutal victory in its war against feminism. As a work of literature, this book is clearly designed to symbolically argue that female power can be quashed. Its ultimate goal is to incite enthusiasm on the part of those who favour male power at the expense of women and, by extension, wish to see male domination continue to characterize Victorian Britain.

22 Haggard, 190. 23 Haggard, 190. 24 Gilbert and Gubar, 362. 25 Haggard, 216-17. vision fuel This of simultaneously between that Butler’s conservatism advocates the reflector activism, humanity this Britain’s bid literary represent acknowledges

gender

novel

for work to

embraces

essay

of

maintain

misogyny

works

early

socio-cultural

of

confirms

the

of

Haggard’s fiction.

relative

of

and

within

has

the

literature,

progress.

in

novel

feminism,

and

resists undermining the

male

Victorian SHE:

discriminatory explored

gender-based

As

As

legal human marriage.

its

paints fundamental

domination. an

a

legal

A

allegiance

She:

spectrum.

Overall,

political

employs HISTORY

artifact

equality

the

Britain.

culture.

various

reform

a

A

picture

novel

a

As

History

progressive

oppression.

Haggard’s that

and

instrument

to

such

a

It

between OF

and relationship

In

As

a

details

is weapon

is

represents

system of

male-chauvinist ADVENTURE

the

a an devices

geared

supports

side of

the

opponent

process

that

She:

married

Adventure

movement,

This British

that that

of

that

towards

as

the

A

hostility patriarchal

that

establish

was

symbolic

is

is novel

Histoiy

of AND

spectrum

aimed

of Victorian

aimed

partners,

can

challenged

destroying

wing

and

John

providing EARLY

this

towards

does

of

a

exist

violence at

constructions

at

Adventure of anti-feminist

Stuart

novel

relationship

that,

influencing

not

status

Josephine

the

Victorian FEMINSM

between

feminist by

Ayesha,

literary

simply

within

tacitly

Mill’s

novel

in early

quo

is

its

a

27 28 FOOTNOTES

Works Cited

Boyd, Nancy. ThreeVictorianWomenWhoChangedTheirJ4’rid.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1982.

Gilbert, Sandra M. and Susan Gubai: .iVoMans Land, Volume3: Letters from theFront.New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Haggard, H. Rider. She:A HistofyofAdoenture.Mattituck: Amereon House, 1982.

Mill,John Stuart. OntheSubjectionof Women.Greenwich: Fawcett Publications, 1971.

Rowbotham, Sheila. HiddenfromHistory:300 liars of WomensOppression andtheFightAgainstIi. London: Pluto Press, 1974.