The Role of Women in The 19th Century: Analysis of Literature

Marked for its vast economic and technological growth, the 19th century is also known for its many narrowing views toward its women, purporting ideals that separate the sexes; increase limitations and expectations, and limit agency. By analyzing Elizabeth Gaskell’s Mary Barton, William Makepeace Thackeray’s Vanity Fair, and Honore de Balzac’s La Cousine Bette, modern readers can better understand the role of women in the 19th Century - specifically within the confines of the years 1846 through 1848 - as well as draw parallels between each novel through the juxtapositions of their respective protagonists - Mary Barton, Becky Sharp, Amelia Sedley, and Lisbeth Fischer - with their choices that either support or challenge the status quo of the era.

Furthermore, by examining these characters and their respective novel’s themes as they relate to their publication date, readers can ascertain the prevailing message throughout the time period that characters who play by the rules of the Victorian society receive rewards, while those who don’t face certain consequence.

Gaskell’s Mary Barton introduces the titular protagonist who bears the weight of her father’s survival and the conflicting affections she feels for Harry Carson and Jem Wilson, men above and below her rank respectively. Though Mary eventually plays a pivotal role in proving the innocence of the latter, she grapples with what is expected of her, and what she expects of herself. Because she is in the working class, she holds some agency by choosing to work outside of a factory, a decision that introduces her to Harry. By entertaining his courting, Mary continues to act out against the quo of marrying above herself so that she may climb the social ladder and even save her father from himself. However she soon resolves her feelings for her childhood friend, Jem Wilson. Carson isn’t the man who holds Mary’s heart. However, because of her digression, Jem is implicated in the murder of Carson and Mary must intervene. It’s through this quest that Mary is able to “[create] her own opportunities…and economic and personal independence,” (Brown 355). Mary must then reassert her alignment with the ideals prescribed by the Victorian Era when she returns and saves Jem from unjust consequences for the murder he did not commit so that she may validate her worthiness to the wedding all Victorian women are conditioned to covet (Hughes, “Gender Roles in the 19th Century”). It’s because of Mary’s return and support of her male counterparts that she is allowed her happy ending.

Similar to Mary, Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley show moments of conformity and mutiny against their peers and betters, albeit to differing degrees in Thackeray’s Vanity Fair. Where Becky schemes to increase her station, Amelia chooses to play by the rules due to her family’s affluence. Becky and Amelia attend boarding school where they learn various skills to better their prospects of marriage; Becky ultimately takes a position as a governess to serve as a teacher of Victorian mandates to the next generation (and class above her) (Hughes, “Gender Roles in the 19th Century”). However, Thackeray then plays with the role of governess by illustrating Becky’s move against the grain when she expresses romantic interest in her employer, so that she may attain the means to advance her social standing. Dissimilarly, Amelia spends the novel serving the needs of her family, her husband George, and her son. Though she is an ideal participant in Victorian society, her beloved has never loved her and she isn’t afforded new opportunities until she entertains the idea of marrying again. Because of their adherence to the ideals of society, Becky and Amelia “enable, if only temporarily, material and social accession” (Dobson 7). Vanity Fair then positions that not only is duality of character possible, but agency is attained by playing the hand that society has dealt. However, because the characters - Becky specifically - continues to make choices based on her superficial wants and needs, Vanity Fair claims that redemption is not possible for flawed heroes.

It’s in Balzac’s La Cousine Bette that Lisbeth Fischer, the eponymous protagonist, shows the most divergence, challenging gendered spheres and femininity. Lisbeth’s relation to her cousins, the Hulots, affords her numerous proposals of marriage however she rejects them all choosing to retain her autonomy. As a result, because Lisbeth has abandoned her domestic sphere, she’s become “uncategorizable in terms of traditional gender norms” (Moscovici 473). Lisbeth thereby distances herself from the obligations of Victorian society, maintaining her position in the public sphere, trading her marital inclinations to Steinbock for scheming to ruin his life as well as the Hulots, and serving her own desires rather than serve as a teacher to the following generation. Of the three literary works, Lisbeth then positions herself as the poster child of how not to behave in Victorian society as she spends her time working to ruin the fortunes of the men and women in her life as it pertains to her bitterness. La Cousine Bette argues then that selfishness, though temporarily freeing, leads to incurable bitterness of the characters who stray from the status quo.

What’s interesting then to note is that the characters’ liberal freedoms, like the times, narrow as each novel is published, and these commentaries are easily understood by reading the novels in conjunction with one another and mirroring their original release dates. Published in full in 1846, La Cousine Bette purports that women can retain autonomy should they refute marriage and societal expectations. Between 1847 and 1848 in monthly installments, Vanity Fair satirizes the pomp and circumstances of Victorian society through unlikable characters, positing that fortune gained by women advancing their own agendas is fleeting at best. Finally, in two volumes near the end of 1848, Mary Barton introduces readers to a protagonist who asserts agency and transcends the comfort of her sphere only when absolutely necessary, be it to increase her own station but more often than not so that she can service the struggling men around her (her father and Jem); unlike her literary peers, Mary Barton retains the ideal that marriage is the highest attainable reward available to her, thereby wrapping the bow on a decade of assertions that women do not belong in the public sphere, must increase their breadth of skills to pass on to the next generation but never eclipse their male counterparts, and seek marriage (Hughes, “Gender Roles in the 19th Century”).

Through the likes of Mary Barton, Vanity Fair, and La Cousine Bette - and their respective protagonists who bend and conform to the status quo as it pleases them, modern readers can examine the agency found within 19th century literature. Mary Barton asserts that the working class can surmount their hardships so long as they ultimately marry within their station and make the most of their situations; Becky Sharp and Amelia Sedley illustrate the flaws in the working class and middle class, respectively; and Lisbeth refutes the prescriptions of Victorian Society and chooses to support herself. It’s through the juxtaposition of these novels that the duality of woman emerges, offering commentary to the women, and men alike, of the time that consequences accompany each and every choice. In spite of suffocating boundaries dictating allowable fates of women in the 19th century, these protagonists offer readers - then and now - literary examples, escapes, and warnings as they appear within their respective texts.