I see Geraldine - unhappy, trapped - as an opportunity for Smith to express herself. It's interesting that there's never a reply to Geraldine's Vol. 3 Letter X evaluation of the "marriage market." She remembers how Mrs. Waverly threw her in front of any rich or noble man, no matter how horrid. The disappointing bit from a modern standpoint is that Geraldine's indictment of her mother's attitude is watered down since she doesn't blame her mother for wanting her to be happy (social butterfly, fashionable hostess, and worldly wise) - apparently, she wouldn't have wanted that anyways. Come on, Geraldine/Smith. Why pull the punch?
However, it doesn't particularly bother me that Smith doesn't have her really struggle against her circumstances in a way that would let her escape. Divorce before the 1857 reforms was extremely rare - some bureaucratic nonsense about petitioning Parliament and then it was beastly expensive apparently. Since the husband would get custody of any children, it wouldn't even be an option since Geraldine is so attached to hers. Geraldine's situation is one that cannot really be solved without a drastic plot event, which is why Mr. Verney had to die to ensure her happy ending.
What is annoying, and which Smith brings to the fore, is the double standard by which men and women's sexual behavior is judged. Desmond's liaison with Josephine de Boisville seems so out of character after spending the entire novel mooning over Geraldine, but it nevertheless positions his actions in direct contrast to innocent Geraldine who (if she can be believed) "never... even in thought" (Vol. 3 Let. 23) behaved indecently. The plot rewards both of them with a promising future together, but as to the general political context in which Smith placed the book, it deserves scrutiny. It's an unbalanced outcome that surely must rank amongst the evils of Smith's time and she wants her British readers to remember that they too live in a glass house when they think themselves so superior to the silly French.
The double standard by which men and women's sexual behavior was judged is hard to imagine. Men could do whatever they wanted without consequence, but as you mentioned it was almost impossible for a woman to divorce. As the introduction states, only in cases of "bigamy, sodomy, or life-threatening violence" could a woman file for divorce (Smith 10). I find it mind-blowing that even if a man is having affairs with multiple women, as long as he does not marry one his wife cannot leave him without risking "forfeiting her maintenance without gaining either legal or financial autonomy" (Smith 10). Obviously women had to put up with a lot or they would lose everything they had in a society where their social status depended on their husband.
ReplyDelete