The purpose of this blog will to be focus on the roles women have played within several in-class texts. Basically, we will be analyzing the social standards imposed on women, their place within society, and their symbolic meaning within said society. The claims we will develop are that women have played a submissive yet powerful role within society as intermediaries of class, wealth, fortune and, in some cases, superstition. Finally, we will discuss the evolution of women within society towards the end of our project.

“A Doll’s House” is a play written by Henrik Ibsen. It is one of his most recognized works and is remembered for the ending scene of the door slamming. The story of the play consists of elements similar to “Hedda Gabler” such as blackmail, manipulation, and woman’s rights. The play centers around Nora and Torvald, a happily married couple, that bears a secret in which Torvald is unaware of. The secret is that Nora has taken out a loan to fund Torvald’s vacation, which the doctor recommended, under her dead father’s name. As the play unfolds, Torvald has received a job and plans to fire Krogstad for his fallacious dealings and dishonest nature. However, Krogstad is man that approved of Nora’s loan thus knows about her fraudulent request. He then uses this information to threaten Nora with blackmail if her husband, Torvald, fires him. As the play unfolds, Torvald exclaims how he wishes Nora was in danger so that he may save her. Nora then uses this opportunity to tell Torvald of Krogstad’s scheme only to have Torvald banish her from seeing her children due to moral corruption. However, Krogstad has a change of heart and decides not to blackmail the family. Hence, we are left with a cowardly, and hypocritical husband and a woman who realizes she was nothing more than a doll in his eyes. She states she is leaving due to her marriage being superficial, and slams the door behind her.

The story seems to center on elements of power between multiple parties and how it can be used to manipulate others. This is most notably shown through Krogstad’s scheme and Mrs. Christina’s, Nora’s long time friend, power over Krogstad since they were lovers. This is comparable to “Hedda Gabler” in which Judge Brak threatens Hedda with a scandal, and how Hedda manipulates the characters throughout the story. Yet despite the theme of power, we notice several  focuses on women throughout the play which are comparable to “Hedda Gabler.” Firstly, Nora is introduced as a woman whose responsibilities revolve around household duties such as chores and caring for her children. She is shown to be in a marriage that consistently displays her husband as being the dominant member through his financial influence, condescending treatment and verbal abuse. This is most apparent when Torvald bans Nora from eating macaroons, restricts her finances to an allowance, and calls her by several names.  Yet despite this, Nora seems to abide by it rather than challenge it, like Hedda Gabler. Although the play was set in the late 19th century, it can be seen that woman’s roles at the time did not change much compared to the time of writing of “Hedda Gabler.” They were largely expected to be within the household and take care of household duties. This is exemplified by Nora’s lifestyle and the treatment she gets from her husband.  However, we see a change of heart in Nora towards the end of the play. When her husband responds hostilely to Nora’s self-sacrifice, Nora realizes she was in an unfulfilling marriage and decides to leave him. The ending scene is the most dramatic scene within the play. The slamming of the door signifies the idea of individuality, control, and choice for women at the time. For one, Nora’s decision to leave her husband can be seen as her first act of defiance and a daring decision to take control of her life. She has decided to relinquish her dependency on Torvald and ultimately live a life outside of his domain and household. Additionally, Nora decision communicates the idea of choice, an idea that was rare among women at the time. One can say that Nora could’ve possibly stayed since she has abided by her husband for a long time, however, Nora decision to leave empowers her character since it is contradictory to her character’s behavior yet self-discovered. This, I believe, attributes to the dramatic impact of the slamming door.

A previous post we touched upon Victorian women, however, through Hedda Gabler there is much more to said about Victorian women. Firstly, the entire play is set within the confines of the drawing room in which the play unfolds through a succession of characters. This choice of a singular setting is deliberately done by Ibsen to represent the core of Gabler’s problem: she is limited and caged within a Victorian society. Therefore, the drawing room serves as the focal point of the play in representing an oppressive society. Apart from the setting, the character Hedda Gabler seems to be a contradiction, or rather, an anomaly in the play. Gabler, being raised by General Gabler, is shown to have an independent, strong-willed, and untamable personality. Her love for pistols outwardly expresses how unconventional a woman she is to her friends and to Ibsen’s audience. She also possesses a talent for bending people to her will. This is shown when Lovborg inquires about how he can not resist telling her his secrets and on how the characters seem to revolve around her. Surely, these characteristics are unlike the behavior a Victorian woman should possess. After all, Victorian women were expected to be pure of character, virginity, and display.

Like many women of Gabler’s time, women in the Victorian Era were limited to household duties. They were expected to have an essence of innocence so they may be suitable for marriage. Their power in wealth was essentially nonexistent since all property ultimately belonged to the male of the household. After marriage, they were limited in options economically and intellectually. Victorian standards deemed that a women’s role strictly remained in maintaining the house and assisting their husbands. Hence, this passive lifestyle frustrates Gabler and thus she emanates her desire by stating ” once in her life to have power to mold a human destiny.” Having no means to exert her passion for life, she turns to manipulating the people around her since society deems her for little purpose. Gabler accomplishes this by getting Lovborg back on to alcohol and convincing him to commit suicide. She also burns his manuscript and allows Tesman to cover for her. Despite her efforts, Gabler’s control over herself comes to an end when Judge Brak threatens her with a scandal. This pushes Gabler to relinquish all desire for her life since being caged once again is attributable to death.  This destructive and dark path is only the result of a woman who longs to live the life she desires in a Victorian society.

However, many critics view Gabler as either a tragic heroine or a coward. Her desperate yet narcissistic attempts to fulfill her desires isn’t the product of her weakness but rather a product of social repression. Hence, her vicarious solution holds a sympathetic tone of a woman born ahead of her time. On the other hand, we see  Mrs. Elvsted, who shares a similar boredom for life, pursuing her desires in a constructive manner. She actively plays a role in Lovborg’s life and the reconstruction of of his manuscript. Furthermore, in the last seen Mrs Elvsted is shown to deteriorate Hedda’s influence on Tesman in her own constructive way.  It seems that Mrs. Elvsted has found a way to subvert authority and pursue her desires freely. Therefore, when juxtaposing Mrs. Elvsted with Gabler, readers deem Gabler a coward. A coward since Gabler refuses to break social standards, in which Gabler is aware of, and for ultimately choosing to live and die in the confines of the drawing room. Regardless, it is undeniable that the typical Victorian women lived in a patriarchal society where social and economic mobility were nonexistent. Their lives were strictly defined as a woman who marries in order to take care of household chores. Hence, they did not share the same freedom as men when it came to life decisions.

Hedda Gabler is a play written by Henrik Ibsen during 19th century Norway. This time period is known as the Victorian era which is largely characterized for its peace, prosperity and social reform. We find elements of the Victorian Era throughout Ibsen’s play in various forms ranging from human rights to economic peculiarities. Firstly, through plot development, it is apparent that Judge Brak and Hedda Gabler are the only members that belong to the aristocrat social class while the other members are upstarts that have gained their membership through other means. Notably, we witness Berta commenting “I should never have dreamt in those days that she and Master George would make a match of it.” In other words, Berta is surprised that two individuals from different social classes have married in such unlikely circumstances. Furthermore, we find Miss Tesman trying to fit within her new found status by purchasing a hat. This attempt utterly fails as Hedda mistakes it for a maids garment. Miss Tesman’s unfamiliarity and discomfort with her position only serves to emphasize the ascendancy of the middle class. Hence, we find the theme new money versus old money where previous upper class members find their world dissipating by the membership of the middle class.

Compared to the previous century, gender roles in society remained largely unchanged. There was still a large belief for a patriarchal system within households and the government. A monarch was still in place, only to be impeached in the late 19th century, with the aristocrats controlling economic and political elements throughout the country. Although the Victorian Era was a time of large reform, women’s roles were restricted to household duties and intermediaries of wealth through marriage. In Hedda Gabler, we find Hedda struggling against Victorian standards by her burning passion to find purpose for her life only to fail since society did not teach, and provide her with the necessary resources to do so. Additionally, Tesman’s membership to high society can be mainly attributed to Hedda accepting his hand in marriage thus signifying women’s roles as contracts of wealth. Furthermore, Hedda’s dilemma can also be attributed to the lack of economic mobility women faced. Her material wealth disappeared when she married Tesman thus showing that women had no control over property at the time. On another note, men’s roles in Victorian society was largely defined around the material success they achieved outside of the house. We notice throughout the play that Tesman is ecstatic about his career opportunity but rather jealous of Lovborg. This is shown when Tesman seems to take a subtle joy in the destruction of Lovborg’s “child.” After all, Lovborg achieved recognition by publishing a highly recognized yet controversial book while Tesman safely continues on with his research. Therefore, this jealous is mainly attributed to how society deemed men worthy and the characteristics men attributed themselves to when it came to self-worth.

In conclusion, the Victorian Era was a time where economic changes vastly swept over the country. We see in Hedda Gabler that the middle class are now flooding what use to be an exclusionary society. Despite the economic changes, male and female roles were largely unchanged but strictly defined. For one, males were responsible for bringing in and controlling wealth ,and pursuing worthy jobs.  The female role was mainly within the household with little to no opportunity for mobility in society. They were largely expected to take care of all household duties and retain an essence of purity, hence the impact of a sexual scandal. In summation, the play revolves around characters strictly adhering to Victorian social standards with only a few representing the oppressive and restrictive nature the standards carry.

Moliere’s “Tartuffe” mainly gives the impression of a satirical play on religious hypocrisy. However, throughout the plot, it is apparent that “Tartuffe” also functions as a social commentary on women and the patriarchal hierarchy that deems them necessary for little purpose. This is most apparent on his use of several female characters, that possess a great capacity for reason, cleverness, and rationality, to critique the social structure that oppose them so unfairly and, through them, demonstrate that females are capable of much more. After all, it is the female characters that utilizes logic and cunning to bring about Tartuffe’s unmasking and succeed where the men failed to do. Hence, it is through the females characters insistency that guides the family through Orgon’s foolish decisions and Tartuffe’s scheme.

Firstly,Mariane is portrayed as an obedient and submissive female who refrains from outwardly expressing her opinion. In this respect, Mariane is the most conventional character of her time. She reflects what society finds acceptable in women and displays what function women played within a hierarchical system. This is most apparent within several scenes between her and Orgon. The scene where Mariane expresses her disdain towards her father’s plan only to have it utterly dismissed by Orgon shows the dilemma most women at the time faced. Their voices were largely unheard even though it is rational and morally right. Furthermore, Orgon states “to graft Tartuffe into my family. So he must be your husband” portrays women as intermediaries of wealth, power and ownership. Lastly, Mariane further supports the conventional ideal women by her soft spoken nature and her decision to delegate the responsibility of vocalizing her direct disdain towards her father’s plan to Dorinne. In summation, Mariane portrays the conventional women who is oppressed under a patriarchal system. They were expected to hold blind obedience towards men even though men’s decisions can lead to an unfavorable outcome.

Dorine and Elmire are perhaps the stars of “Tartuffe.” They are largely outspoken characters that consistently defy conventional standards with tremendous vigor and enthusiasm. Dorine, the maid of the family, outwardly expresses her opinion despite her role as a maid. She openly expresses that Tartuffe is a fraud defiantly towards Orgon with reason and understanding in which Orgon seems to lack. Dorine’s absolute disregard for her position combined with her rational ability to see through Tartuffe’s scheme communicates Moliere’s argument that women should pay no heed to their position within the hierarchy since they are capable of using logical reasoning and making rational decisions, just as much or even more so than men. In addition, Elmire is shown to display a great degree of intelligence through her subversion of authority and using social conventions to convince her husband of Tartuffe’s scheme. Most notably, Elmire uses cunning to expose Tartuffe by advancing on Tartuffe with Orgon hidden. This ultimately leads to Tartuffe’s demise, as well as, Orgon dismissing his plans for his daughter. In this scene. Elmire displays a great degree of intelligence in many regards. Firstly, despite Elmire’s social status, she uses her position to convince Orgon to follow through with her plan. Furthermore, she displays a great understanding of men and expertly uses persuasive language to expose Tartuffe within her grand scheme. Once again, Moliere demonstrates that women are capable beings who deserve more than what the patriarchal hierarchy deems them.

In conclusion, women within the 17th century were largely oppressed due to the nature of society. As such, women’s roles were limited to function as a bond or contract between wealth and power. Furthermore, due to society largely ignoring women, they were forced to use indirect tactics to influence social decisions. Despite this, Moliere recognizes this as evidence for women’s rights and uses the play to shun the oppressive system women lived under.

 In Jean Baptiste Poquelin Moliere’s “Tartuffe,” we are given a list of character names and their association. This provides some insight on 17th century social structure. Dorine and Flipotte are written as servants to their own respective masters thus implying wealthy family set within a hierarchical society that also maintains an elaborate hierarchy within the household. In addition, act one shows many of the characters protesting Tartuffe’s influence and choices within the household. This exchange of words reveal various changes taken within the house despite most of its members protesting the changes. This further supports the idea of a hierarchy established within the house in which all lower members must obey the rules fixed by the head members. Finally, the last scene of the shows a king’s messenger rendering judgement on the conflict within the household. This denotes that 17th century France was under a monarchical government.

Religion seems to be a central topic throughout the poem. However, it should be noted that religion is not the subject of mockery but rather hypocrisy within those who claim religious devotion yet use religion as a means of manipulation. Moliere uses several characters to represent the central theme within his play:the difference between true and false religious devotion. Cleante, and the women plays the role of the voice of reason and true understanding of religion while Tartuffe is a manipulative character only using religion for his own gains. The third character, which I believe is the most important for this theme, is Orgon. Despite Cleante and Tartuffe playing the roles of truth and false, Orgon represents the common man or rather one who doesn’t fully understand the religion yet is extremely eager and inclined to believe anyone that offers guidance. In other words, the relationship between Orgon, Cleante, and Tartuffe represent the religious conflict that was happening during early 17th century. Many Catholics in power misused their authority to accumulate wealth thus causing a conflict within practitioners from distinguishing true religious leaders.

Lastly, the theme of logical vs irrational is prevalent throughout the plot. Orgon and Pernelle shown to behave irrationally by holding a unjustified yet grandiose view towards Tartuffe. Additionally, Orgon commands his household with harmful and foolish reason that not only brings about the trouble but further exacerbates it. This is most notable when he demands his daughter to marry Tartuffe simply because it is the right thing to do and hands the deed to the family house to Tartuffe. On the other hand, Pernelle holds an undying devotion towards Tartuffe only for it to be distinguished after considerable effort on from other members and undeniable evidence of Tartuffe’s treachery. Hence, it should be noted that the prevalent theme of logic and reason is due to the Enlightenment movement that was taking place in 1660 in which “Tartuffe” was published 1664.

Therefore, we can view early 17th century society that was dominantly ruled with a patriarchal hierarchy in which males are consistently the head figure. Authority was held by members highest within the system and lower members had to obey. Furthermore, “Tartuffe” reveals a religious struggle during the time in which priests misused their authority in order to accumulate wealth which ultimately led to a great disdain towards the Catholic religion. However, despite the existence of a submissive system, a movement was taking place that moved fought against unreasonable oppression and celebrated logic and reason. This movement ultimately led to a period in Europe called the Enlightenment Era.

In “The Rape of the Lock”, Pope reveals within his dedicatory letter that Belinda is a literal representation of Arabella Femor, a member within his Catholic circle. He expresses within his letter that the poem primarily functions to point out the follies of women and society, and hopes that a few may admit and enjoy the humor within their follies. Therefore, Pope uses Belinda to represent early 18^th century women and satirically poke fun at their silly ways.

At first glance, we are introduced to Belinda as a stunningly beautiful woman whose beauty is a “rival to [the suns] beams.” The praise, however, is ironic for in the previous canto we see that Belinda has deliberately and ritually created this image with “puffs, powders, patches, bibles, billet-doux.” Therefore, Pope uses Belinda’s effort in creating such an image to ridicule society for placing external beauty as a significant value for women to pursue rather than internal beauty. Furthermore, Belinda adorns a cross on her “white breast” for which “ Jews might kiss, and infidels adore.” Despite the cross being a strictly Catholic symbol, Belinda uses the religious symbol for ornamental purposes to sexually enhance her beauty for “Jews” and “infidels” to admire. Hence, the use of a religious symbol for purely aesthetic purposes amounts to sacrilege and moral depravity for Belinda and all her admirers.

During the climax of Belinda’s tussle with the Baron, Belinda is described to dodge the Baron’s attempts at snipping a piece of her hair several times. The Baron only succeeds when the sylph, who are guarding her hair, witness in “the close recesses of her virgin thought…an earthly lover lurking in her heart” thus causing the sylph to resign their efforts. Despite Belinda’s dramatic scream, it is implied she secretly desired to sacrifice her moral chastity. Furthermore, the two maids “ill-nature” and “affectation” show that Belinda had an ulterior motive to use this occasion to wear a new gown or act. Later in the poem, Thalestris states “ Gods! Shall the ravisher display your hair…and all your honor in a whisper lost” shows that Belinda does not regret nor languish in the thought of her moral breach but the embarrassment of social humiliation and her image. Therefore, Belinda is shown to lose her “virgin” or pure thought when she secretly desires the Baron to violate her hair. The lack of moral integrity is further exacerbated through Belinda’s anguish of not her moral purity but rather her fear of social humiliation. Given these points, one can exam Belinda’s entire situation as being corrupt since her anguish was intentional and her motivation to right what is wrong lacks any moral consideration.

In conclusion, we can see through Belinda that early 18^th century women of high society were primarily admired for their beauty. It can be inferred from the extravagant parties and flirtatious engagements that women of this time prioritized social activities and were, perhaps, discouraged pursuing academic education. Therefore, women of the early 18^th century played a role of social status symbols based on external beauty. Despite Popes satire on women, one can look at Pope’s ironic criticism as a means of advocating women’s rights. By satirizing how contemporary women behaved, Pope encourages readers, especially women, to humorously take his criticism but earnestly consider on pursuing more serious pursuits. Therefore, the discrepancies between Pope’s heroic couplets serve another layer of illumination and stimulation.

-Richard Chang

            In Alexander Pope’s “The Rape of the Lock,” Pope eloquently uses heroic couplets to mock the trivial pursuits society indulges itself in. The first few lines “what dire offense from amorous causes springs, what mighty contests rise from trivial things” mocks how society no longer honors and celebrates pursuits that are righteous and significant but rather pursuits of diminishing quality. The “contest” Pope alludes to are card games and sexual conquests rather than “mighty” struggles such as the epic battles of ancient stories. Hence, Pope begins his first canto in an ironic sense by juxtaposing the significant with the insignificant. He illuminates and ridicules the trivial games society indulges itself  in rather than addressing issues of serious manners such as economics and politics. Furthermore, the line “her joy of gilded chariots, when alive, and love of ombre, when death survive” states woman are primarily concerned with social image and, within the mind, lack any sense of seriousness towards things outside of their world due to social conventions. In addition, the line “with varying vanities, from ev’ry part, they shift the moving toyshop of their heart; where wigs with wigs, with sword-knots sword-knots strive” suggests that vanity has replaced intelligence and society has deemed values of little importance to be outstanding qualities of character and person. However, Pope does not blame the participants for the immoral state of principles but rather the supernatural creatures “sylph that contrived it all.” Therefore, we see that the mystical beings serve an allegorical purpose. By stating that these creatures have woven the current state of society, Pope is placing the blame not on the participants but rather society for creating such deplorable individuals.

In conclusion, Pope describes a society lacking in morality and overwhelming in vanity. He satires the pompous nature of the aristocracy and presents the upper class as foolish and ridiculous. However, he sympathizes with these participants by blaming social conventions for creating such individuals. Furthermore, we can infer from Pope’s mockery of social conventions that early 18th century was, perhaps, a time when religious influence was declining. Hence, in the eyes of a Catholic, it may be concluded that Pope’s mockery of society is a product of religious downturn.

-Richard Chang