I would like to compare Esther and Lucy not just to each other, but to other women and their roles in the Victorian Era. Where both these young women have similarities and differences, it’s interesting to see how they stack up against the “average” woman. Through their relationships, we can see that they both don't fit the perfect cookie cutter mold of the time.
It is safe to say that women of this time period knew their place: in the home. Depending on which social class they were a part of, this role varied. Some had to leave the house to find work, while others stayed at home and kept it perfect. We can see a blend of these two roles with our main protagonists in the novels we read. Both were sent at a young age to schooling, to help further their current position in society into something better. Where we saw Lucy flourish as a teacher at the school, Esther’s role is simpler in just keeping the house running for Mr. Jarndyce. Both women were considered well off, neither of them having to work in tough conditions such as a factory. Although Esther was originally an orphan, she lucked out by receiving care—not loving in ways—from her aunt. She could have ended up like Jo or any other homeless child and not survive as long as she did.
Woman of the time also relied heavily on the man for income. It is interesting to see characters like Lucy and Esther; both of them have their future taken care of by men. Esther receives the loyalty and committed love and financial aid from Jarndyce, even after she is wed to Allen Woodcourt, the doctor. She obviously has her life set, no matter if she did lose one of them. Lucy, although similarly well off, lives out her last days alone. This is quite interesting, seeing that Bronte set up her future as mysterious, alone, and content. Most people of the time would probably argue that she wouldn’t be happy or be able to live a fulfilled life, but she does through her career and memory of the love she had. We see Esther as the perfect “happily-ever-after” woman, one that many women would have probably looked up to and was jealous of.
This post made me wonder who or what the ideal Victorian male was. There seems to be much more freedom and variety available to males, but both authors seem to really appreciate doctors--Dr. Woodcourt and John Bretton are each idealized in the books.
ReplyDeleteIn Bleak House, more so than in Villette, we see several examples of what the ideal male does Not look like: Tom Jarndyce, Mr. Vholes, Nemo, Jo, Mr. Guppy, Richard. In Villette, readers get a mixed bag of emotions regarding M. Paul Emmanuel--he is neither ideal, nor completely repulsive. I wonder if something you pointed out--that the lead female characters receive independence Through the agency of males--affected the way Charlotte Bronte wrote about males. Was she aware of her initial dependence on males, and therefore afraid or unwilling to bash them in permanent ink?
Dickens doesn't seem to have any qualms about creating disgusting female characters..perhaps he didn't have any reason to withhold opinions the same way Bronte would have.
The similarities between the way Jarndyce prepares a house for Esther and M. Paul prepares one--and a school--for Lucy are almost uncanny. This sounds like an interesting chapter.
ReplyDelete