Images of Marriage in Short Stories by U.S.

Women Authors between 1890 and 1930

Diplomarbeit

Zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades

einer Magistra der Philisophie

an der Geisteswissenschaftlichen Fakultät

der Karf-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von

Barbara HOFER

am Institut für Amerikanistik

Begutachter: Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. phil. Walter Hölbling

Graz, 2010

Für meine Eltern

Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung

Ich versichere, dass ich die eingereichte Diplomarbeit selbständig verfasst, andere als die

angegebenen Quellen und Hilfsmittel nicht benutzt und mich auch sonst keiner unerlaubten

Hilfsmittel bedient habe. Ich versichere ferner, dass ich diese Diplomarbeit bisher weder im

In- noch im Ausland in irgendeiner Form als wissenschaftliche Arbeit vorgelegt habe.

Graz, Jänner 2010 Barbara Hofer

1

Introduction 3

Part 1: General Historical and Legal Background 5

1.1. Changing economics and its influence on the institution of marriage 5 1.1.1. Historical Background 5 1.1.2. Economic influences on marriage 6 1.1.3. The economic side of divorce 8

1.2. Sexual Revolution from the turn of the century till the 1930s and its influence on

marriage 9 1.2.1. Historical Background 9 1.2.2. Sexual Revolution as a challenge to the institution of marriage 10 1.2.3. Sexual Revolution and divorce 10

1.3. Strife towards independence, the women’s movements and its influence on marriage 11 1.3.1. Historical background 11 1.3.2. The women’s movement and its influence on the institution of marriage 12 1.3.3. The women’s movement and its influence on divorce 12

1.4. Conclusion 13

Part 2: Discussion of the five short stories 15

2.1. “Désirée’s Baby” by Kate Chopin 15 2.1.1. The author 15

2.1.1.1. Brief Biography 15 2.1.1.2. Chopin’s view on marriage 16

2.1.2. General Remarks about “Désirée’s Baby” 17 2.1.3. The image of marriage in “Désirée’s Baby” 18

2.1.3.1. Character analyses of Désirée and Armand Aubigny 19 2.1.3.2. The image of marriage 23

2.2. “Souls Belated” by Edith Wharton 26 2.2.1. The author 26

2.2.1.1. Brief Biography 26 2.2.1.2. Wharton’s view on marriage 27

2.2.2. General Remarks about “Souls Belated” 28 2.2.3. The image of marriage in “Souls Belated” 30

2.2.3.1. Character analyses of Lydia Tillotson and Ralph Gannett 31 2.2.3.2 The image of marriage and divorce 35

2.3. “Turned” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman 38 2.3.1. The author 38

2.3.1.1. Brief Biography 38 2.3.1.2. Gilman’s view on marriage 39

2.3.2. General Remarks about “Turned” 41 2.3.3. The image of marriage in “Turned” 43

2.3.3.1. Character analyses of Mrs. Marroner, Mr. Marroner and Gerta Petersen 43 2.3.3.2. The image of marriage 47

2.4.” A Jury of Her Peers” by Susan Glaspell 49 2.4.1. The author 49

2.4.1.1. Brief Biography 49 2.4.1.2. Glaspell’s view on marriage 50

2.4.2. General Remarks about “A Jury of Her Peers” 51 2.4.3. The image of marriage in “A Jury of Her Peers” 53

2.4.3.1. Character analyses of Mrs. Wright, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters 53 2.4.3.2. The image of marriage 58

2

2.5. “The Gilded Six-Bits” by Zora Neale Hurston 61 2.5.1. The author 61

2.5.1.1. Brief Biography 61 2.5.1.2. Hurston’s view on marriage 62

2.5.2. General remarks about “The Gilded Six-Bits” 63 2.5.3. The image of marriage in “The Gilded Six-Bits” 65

2.5.3.1. Character analyses of Missie May and Joe Banks 65 2.5.3.2. The image of marriage 69

Part 3 Comparing the Image of Marriage in all five stories 72

3.1. Comparison of the female protagonists and their development in each story 72 3.1.1. Development towards independence 73 3.1.2. Development towards greater dependence on the male character 75

3.2. Comparison of the establishment and development of the image of marriage in all five

stories 77 3.2.1. The typical patriarchal marriage 77 3.2.2. Breaking out of the patriarchal marriage pattern 79

3.3. Comparison of affairs and divorces in the stories 82 3.3.1. Male Affairs 82 3.3.2. Female Affairs 84

3.4. Comparison of the solution process and the ending in all five stories 87 3.4.1. The married couple ending 88 3.4.2. The separation ending 89

3.4.2.1. “Désirée’s Baby” and “A Jury of Her Peers” 89 3.4.2.2. “Souls Belated” and “Turned” 90

Conclusion 93

Bibliography 96

3

Introduction

Marriage is and has been an important social institution. As such, different approaches

to define what constitutes the institution of marriage have been undertaken throughout

history. Different authors tried to find ‘objective’ definitions such as:

Marriage is a status created by two single persons of the

opposite sex living together in the relation of husband and wife

and holding themselves out to the community in which they live

as such.

(Donovan 1915:1)

At the same time that any marriage represents personal love and

commitment, it participates the public order. Material status is

just as important to one’s standing in the community and state as

it is to self-understanding.

(Cott 2002:1)

It appears, however, that marriage, as an institution formed by the conception of society,

always is a child of its time, rendering it impossible to find a definition that can universally be

applied when leaving aside the sociological background of the corresponding time and place.

The image of marriage can, therefore, only be depicted for a specific time and place.

For discovering the image of marriage a certain society had, reading about the views of

authors of that society is of particular interest. Their description of marriages of the time, their

criticism of what appeared to them as anachronistic habits, and their vanguard views for

different forms of marriage can give us an insight into the image of marriage at their time.

In the development of marriage the epoch between the 1890s and the 1930s is of

exceptional importance. The seemingly consolidated power relations within marriages,

favoring the male part, were questioned due to a new self-conception of women and changed

social circumstances. Therefore, this thesis will illustrate the image of marriage focusing on

this period.

To achieve an extensive understanding of the changing image of marriage during this

revolutionary period, five stories, composed by five very diverse authors, have been chosen.

“Désirée’s Baby” by Kate Chopin (1893), “Souls Belated” by Edith Wharton (1899),

“Turned” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1911), “A Jury of Her Peers” by Susan Glaspell

(1917), and “The Gilded Six-Bits” by Zora Neale Hurston (1933) will be analyzed in this

work. These authors did not only write their stories in different decades of the chosen period,

4

but they also come from different regional and social backgrounds. Some examples for this

diversity included in this thesis are, for instance, one author from the South (Chopin), authors

from the white upper class in the North (Wharton and Perkins), an author from the Midwest

(Glaspell), and one black author (Hurston).

The aim of this thesis is to depict the variety of visions expressed by these authors

through their stories of the institution of marriage, including their criticism of existing

conditions. By doing so it can be ascertained whether and to what extent those five authors

voiced vanguard views concerning the institution of marriage.

In order to answer this question, the general historical and legal background

concerning the institution of marriage in this period of time will be discussed firstly, in Part I.

As explained, the institution of marriage was subject to the values of the time, and thus a

literal analysis without any socio-historical background would miss explanation for certain

phenomena occurring in the period. Moreover, it can serve to establish a certain ‘norm’ of the

institution of marriage, which can be used to investigate whether literature dissented from this

picture. In this section, the legal background of the institution of marriage and divorce will be

depicted as well, since it is of great significance, as it concerns how the institution of marriage

was secured by law. The changes in law reflect the changing image of marriage.

The analysis in Part II will then focus on the image of marriage in the five different

stories. A chronological order of the stories was chosen, since then the development of the

institution of marriage in the selected time period can be well illustrated. After presenting

each author’s biography and sociological background, the image of marriage in each story

will be analyzed. For doing so, this thesis will study the partners who constitute the marriage,

the spouses first, which is why a characterization of them will be carried out before analyzing

the marriage as a whole. In order to achieve a deeper insight into the story’s image of

marriage, the corresponding author’s view will be discussed as well.

Part III serves to establish differences and similarities between the images of marriage

in each story in a comparative approach. Certain components that constitute this picture will

be subject to a closer analysis. These components are: the female protagonists and their

development, the character of the marriage, separations, and endings.

5

Part 1: General Historical and Legal Background

In order to determine if and to what extent the selected authors tried to break with

social conventions in their stories concerning the institution of marriage, one has to assert the

existing conventions first. Therefore, the historical background of that time needs to be

outlined briefly. In this context, legislation serves a special purpose as it preserves and reflects

social conventions of its time. One has to bear in mind, however, that whereas legislation is

mostly conservative, literature often voices avant-garde views.

In consequence of this train of thought, the timeframe which has to be discussed is not

determined by the time the authors set their story in, but rather by the time of publication, as it

were the values of that time the authors sought to ponder upon. Thus, a historical overview of

the time between the 1890s and the 1930s will be given. To be able to gain a differentiated

picture of all historical and social influences which shaped this period, three main fields of

historical development will be discussed, focusing on how they shaped and changed the

image of marriage. Major influences concerned the field of economics, the gaining of sexual

liberty, and women’s suffrage.

However, marriage cannot be discussed in an overall picture without considering the

end of such a relationship, divorce. This legal ending to a marriage is also treated literally in

the stories, and thus it is necessary to consider the legal and historical background of this

practice.

1.1. Changing economics and its influence on the institution of marriage

1.1.1. Historical Background

With the withdrawal of troops from the Southern territories in 1876, the USA had

widely surpassed territorial military conflicts in their own country. Leaving aside the military

involvement, the United States were now able to focus on national, economical, and industrial

matters (cf. Heideking/Mauch 2008:155-157 and Norton et al 1999:316-317).

A key characteristic of this new economical focus was the growth of the industrial

sector. In accordance with the doctrine of ‘Social Darwinism’, the government granted

entrepreneurs wide economic freedom. The USA became an industrial and export nation. This

led to urbanization and mass production, which altered the daily life of many people. More

women started to work, especially in jobs as clerks or secretaries in offices rather than in

domestic or factory work. Between 1880 and 1900 there was an increase of employed women

6

from 2.6 million to 8.6 million (cf. Heideking/Mauch 2008:167-172 and Norton et al

1999:341-351).

1.1.2. Economic influences on marriage

Both, the new focus on economy as well as women being part of the workforce led to

drastic changes in the concept of marriage. Whereas before, the institution of marriage had

been valued as a stabilizing factor for a country struggling for a national identity, it was now

rather viewed in economic terms. The still existing male dominance within the marriage was

now justified by the husband’s role as primary provider, rather than as simply given due to

male superiority, as it was accepted before (cf. Cott 2002:156-158). The role as primary

provider was certainly true for most middle and upper class relationships. Especially

concerning women in these classes, Ross describes the change in women’s perspective. When

women of those classes married in the middle of their twenties, they were not required or even

not allowed to work any more, because their husband earned enough money. For a woman

who had worked before her marriage, entering such a relationship could therefore mean the

loss of an economic independence she was able to enjoy before (cf. Ross 1909:58-60). On the

other hand, it has to be mentioned that women knew about the conception and working of

marriages at that time, and - despite the growing criticism by intellectuals, including Charlotte

Perkins Gillman (see below 34-43) - willingly sacrificed their independence for economic

stability, which a husband would have been able to grant (cf. Cott 2002:167-168).

When looking at Ross’s theory, it has to be noted that he wrote it in 1909. Thus, his

views can also be used as a source to reflect prevailing views of his time. This can be

illustrated by the following statement concerning the importance of good housekeeping for a

marriage:

Without her old housekeeping knack, and despising the crude

work of the kitchen, the latter too often fails to make home

comfortable, and the couple may sink into a misery which ends

in domestic shipwreck. (Ross 1925:58)

Lane takes a different look on the topic of working married women and focuses more

on career chances, which were not in the typical field of women’s jobs as described above. She

states that in the second half of the 19th

century women had, in fact, more possibilities for

achieving a professional career, for example in medicine. The main focus lay on the question

of whether those middle and upper-class educated women would be able to have a career and a

7

marriage. Career chances were hindered by a marriage since, as the view voiced above shows,

men were seen as the provider and women and their decisions were bound to be approved by

their husband. The example of Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s two marriages shows that, even if a

woman was well aware of those problems, she still entered marriage and gave up her career for

her husband. This is illustrated by Gillman’s first marriage. In Gilman’s second marriage a

different pattern appears. She was now able to follow her career because of her husband’s

approval and was economically independent. This second marriage, however, has to be seen as

an exception, since most marriages of that time can be compared to Gilman’s first marriage. In

this marriage she was forced to be economically dependent, even though she would have been

able to provide for herself sufficiently (cf. Lane 1990:69-70).

As illustrated above, economy and the character of marriage are closely connected,

especially in times of economic change. In the discussion above, only middle and upper class

women were subject to considerations concerning their marriages. Since the stories below,

however, do not only focus on middle and upper class women and their marriages, the working

class deserves a closer look as well. Even though women possibly contributed equally to the

family income in worker families - and in the period during World War I sometimes even

functioned as the sole provider for their families, working in male dominated jobs - the image

of the husband as primary provider remained largely unquestioned. This can be particularly

well seen when looking at the legislation of the 1930s. Even by that time, two states still did

not grant women wages of their own when working outside the house. In the Economy Act of

1932, which was passed as a response to the depression of the 1930s, married women were

excluded from public sector jobs, since the act stated that only one part of a married couple

was allowed to work in one of those jobs, favoring the male part (cf. Cott 2002:172-173).

Thus, it can be seen that the image of a marriage in society was – despite the women’s possible

contribution to the economic welfare of a family – that of a provider-dependent relationship.

The lesser value and the partly exclusion of women from work outside the home can

also be illustrated by the fact that women had to work for a lower minimum wage than men

when carrying out the same job (cf. Heideking/Mauch 2008:262).

It is interesting to see that after the achievements concerning economic independence

described at the beginning of the period (e.g. new employment opportunities) there is very

little development towards the end of the period. The Economy Act of 1932 could even be

viewed as a backward step in the development of marriage towards a relationship of equal

partners, and this backward step is directly linked to economics. This shows how closely

interrelated economy and marriage in fact are.

8

In conclusion it can therefore be stated that although women sometimes contributed

equally to the family income, at least in the working class, and although they theoretically

could start a career, the social image of marriage was that of a provider-dependent relationship

between husband and wife, in which the male part secured the family income, whereas it was

the women’s obligation to do domestic work, which was still seen as a husband’s domestic

right.

1.1.3. The economic side of divorce

Economy as an obstacle for divorce

Even though legislation permitted partners to divorce in the majority of states of the

USA at that time, with one exception, South Carolina, where a marriage once entered could

not be dissolved any more (cf. Livy 1924: 57 and Donovan 1915:31); economic reasons often

prohibited a divorce. Especially in upper and middle class marriages divorces were not carried

out due to the fact that there existed no strong system of alimony (cf. Cott 2002:49), which

could ensure that the wife could retain her living standard after a divorce. Even if she worked

this was hardly possible for her because of lesser wages paid to women, as explained above,

and also on account of the traditional role ascribed to women, which meant that they were not

expected to follow a career and thus work in well paid jobs (cf. May 1983:158-162).

Economy as a reason for divorce

May carried out a study concerning the reasons for divorce, and especially the reasons

for an increase in divorce cases between 1880 and 1920. She states that other reasons than

economic ones given for divorces, such as neglect, did not increase during that time, but that

economic considerations as reasons for divorce did, in fact, increase drastically. Women

assumed that their husbands were supposed to be their provider and expected them to raise the

living standard. If he did not provide sufficiently for them, they would divorce him. This was

a new view on marriage connected to the upcoming mass consumerism. Before that a husband

was only expected to provide for basic needs, such as food, clothing, and shelter. Many

divorce cases now centered on the question what other needs besides the mentioned ones the

provider needed to supply for.

The change in economy also influenced male jobs. They did not start businesses of

their own as often as in the previous century any more, and the job they had influenced

divorce rates. Divorces of wealthy members of the society were less common than divorces

between small businessmen and their wives. Many of those had to fight for economic survival

9

at that time since large chains and department stores appeared. For blue collar workers’ wives

the reasons for divorce might also have been economic, yet not because of consumerism but

for the lack of providing a home or other basic needs by the husbands. Underlying all those

divorces for economic reasons is the disillusionment, despair, and disappointment that one

could not reach the life status hoped for and promised by the new economic opportunities (cf.

May 1983:154-168).

This study of economic reasons for divorce is interesting concerning the literary

analysis of the stories below. Economic reasons were, for example, the initiator for infidelity

in “The Gilded Six-Bits” and also to a certain extend the reason for murder in “A Jury of Her

Peers”. In those cases there was no divorce between the couples, but economic pressure and

neglect influenced or initiated the conflicts of the couples, which shows the influence of the

high economic pressure of that time.

1.2. Sexual Revolution from the turn of the century till the 1930s and its

influence on marriage

1.2.1. Historical Background

Since the turn of the century a new understanding of sexuality developed, reaching its

peak in the so called “roaring twenties”. Even before this period, well known for its sexual

liberation of women, attempts to challenge the old Victorian values of sexuality can be traced.

As a consequence of these attempts, a new image of sexuality formed even before the 1920s.

This can be seen by the fact that even respectable newspapers such as Nation acknowledged a

woman’s right “to a frank enjoyment of the sensuous side of the sex-relation” (cf. Cott

2002:159-160).

In the “roaring twenties” the sexually liberal woman even became erotically desirable

and the image of “the Vamp” gained popularity (cf. Cott 2002:159). Moreover, sexual

liberation was concerned with fashion as can be seen by the example of the ”flappers” who

openly showed their female sexuality by wearing short skirts, bobbed hair, and makeup.

Young women openly discussed sexual matters and Sigmund Freud became popular. By the

1930s, however, greater criticism towards free sexual standards was voiced, leading to a

reestablishment of conservative values concerning sexuality (cf. Tindall/Shi 1996:1102-

1105).

10

1.2.2. Sexual Revolution as a challenge to the institution of marriage

Newspapers went as far as seeing a crisis of marriage by the end of the 19th

century,

rooted, among other reasons, in the revolution in morals. Not only did the new progressive

generation propose premarital sexual relationships, but also did they question monogamous

relationships as such and therefore the core of the institution of marriage. Acknowledging this

stride towards a new morality some conservative thinkers tried to establish a new kind of

morality. They, however, proposed a change within marriage opening marital sex to more

liberal expressions. This excluded sexual emancipation and led to new roles for wives within

their marriage, being recognized as a sexual partner now. Romantic love as a concept was not

viewed as desirable within a marriage. This is, for example, reflected in the attitude towards

sexuality which was made public through sex manuals. Marriage, love, and sexual activity

were rationalized and turned into something that could be achieved through work (cf. Lasch

1983:83-86).

By the 1930s romantic love was again viewed as the basis of a marriage. This showed

the return to more traditional values at that time, especially concerning extramarital sexuality.

The revolutionary thoughts that were expressed before, however, were still important in the

1930s. The breaking of taboos in the previous decade led to healthier relationships, as one

sociologist expressed in 1934. The marriages at that time were, thus, characterized by a loving

relationship in which sexual desire was expressed freely. The husband, however, was still

seen as the head of the household (cf. Tindall/Shi 1996:1104-1105).

1.2.3. Sexual Revolution and divorce

From the beginning of the century onwards newspapers voiced anxiety at the

increasing divorce rates. Nationwide there were 19,633 divorces granted in 1880 and this

number increased to 167,105 in 1920 (cf. Norton et al 1999:365-366). The divorce rate

increased even more in the 1920s. Whereas in 1920 the ratio was that 1 of every 7,5 marriages

was divorced, in 1929 the ratio was 1 in 6 (cf. Norton et al1999:455).

This increase might be connected to economic matters, as explained above, but it can

also be attributed to the new sexual identity women had gained, which included a new

treatment of their body. Women now found that they were entitled to the same rights of sexual

freedom as their husbands were. Thus, women started affairs outside their marriage, like their

husbands. Whereas some spouses accepted this behavior, others did not. As voiced by Cott,

11

who states the case of Tinker v. Colwell, adultery was still seen as violating the husband’s

exclusive right to sexual intercourse, meaning that a wife could not consent to an extramarital

sexual relationship (cf. Cott 2002:160-161).

1.3. Strife towards independence, the women’s movements and its influence

on marriage

1.3.1. Historical background

Women between 1880 and 1930 tried to gain more independence and wanted to

achieve equality between the sexes. Of course, this desire was voiced earlier, as can be seen

by the Declaration of Sentiments in 1848 in which the equality between the sexes was

proclaimed (cf. Norton et al 1999:245). Since women did not achieve the right to vote

together with black males after the end of the civil war, the period treated here is important.

Only at the end of it women gained the right to vote, which changed their public role

significantly.

Women’s suffrage was one important concern of organizations such as the National

American Women Suffrage Association, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, or The

National Association of Colored Women. Women were allowed to vote in only four states in

1896, and only in 1920 the right to vote was granted nationwide by the 19th

amendment.

Suffrage was, however, not the only question these organizations were concerned with, but

they also considered the question of the separate spheres, and the right to be included in the

discussion of questions relevant for society. Authors, such as Gilman discussed below, were

also concerned with this question and were active in organizations. Especially Gilman was

concerned with questions of feminism that also focused on economic and sexual

independence, both topics of discussion already treated above (cf. Heideking/Mauch

2008:182-183 and Norton et al. 1999:402-404/457).

Equality, however, was not granted to both sexes after women had the right to vote.

This becomes evident, for example, in the fact that the Equal Rights Amendment of 1923,

which was designed to do so, was not adopted until 1972. Women were, for instance, still

discriminated against concerning their right of serving on a jury. Different states decided

differently in this question. New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois did not grant that right till

the 1930s, and Wyoming and Colorado till the 1940s. One argument the opponents of women’s

jury service used was that they considered women irrational and emotional, and moreover that

12

this service would collide with their obligations of making the home. Thus, women were still

regarded as wives rather than independent citizens (cf. Cott 2002:164-166).

This observation concerning women’s jury service is especially interesting for the short

story “A Jury of Her Peers”, discussed in detail below. In this story the question of whether

women would be better jury members judging other women is raised.

1.3.2. The women’s movement and its influence on the institution of marriage

The influence of suffrage on the image of marriage consisted of its social

achievements. Those are traceable in a changed legislation, which granted women

fundamental rights lessening the inequality between husband and wife before law. As a result

women were now also able to represent their own person before society, may it be in form of

her independent right to vote (19th

amendment 1920), or the possibility to sue freely for

themselves (e.g. Married women’s property and earning statute for the District of Columbia

used in Thomson v. Thomson 1911) (cf. Cott 2002:161-164).

With these developments the restrictions of the wife merging into her husband’s

person before the law could not be realized any more. In order to establish a new system of

dependence the husband was now seen economically as provider and the wife as dependant.

This gave the husband again more weight and power in the relationship, as explained in detail

above (cf. Cott 2002:157).

Members of the women’s movements sought to voice their opinion publicly and did

not fear disputes concerning their beliefs. Equally a new culture of debate arose within

marriages. Quarrels and disputes were now seen as possibly healthy. This led to a new

perception of marriage, leading away from a unanimous representation (cf. Lasch 1983:85-

86).

Many of the newly proclaimed rights for a wife, however, only existed on paper. As

such, although a women’s right to her own physical integrity was unquestioned, courts refused

to sanction the application of physical force by a husband. Judges reasoned that such issues

should remain within the marriage and not be taken into the public (cf. Cott 2002:162).

1.3.3. The women’s movement and its influence on divorce

The new self-conception of women is also reflected by the fact that it were in most of

the cases women who filed a divorce. Ross states that at the end of the 19th

century in the

13

North the initiative for a divorce was taken by women in 71 percent of the cases, in the South

in 55 percent (cf. Ross 1925:57).

Thus, it can be concluded that although women’s suffrage did not achieve equality

within marriages, at least its ideas strengthened female self-appreciation to break out of

dysfunctional relationships.

1.4. Conclusion

When looking at the historical and legal background of the three main areas of interest

discussed above, several conclusions can be drawn. All three areas, economy, sexual

liberation, and women’s suffrage, led to a different public picture of women. In the wake of

this changed public picture a new private conception of women developed as well, and this

can be directly linked to the concept and image of marriage.

It is, however, evident that women’s wishes, legislation, legal practice, and the role of

society differed to a great extent in shaping this new image of women. Wishes of women in

organizations were of course the most outspoken ones with the most advanced ideas of that

time concerning the equality of the sexes. Legislation only reacted to developments, but was

far behind in years to the advanced ideas voiced by the women’s movement. This is probably

best illustrated by the Equal Rights Amendment, granted 50 years after it was demanded.

When focusing on legal practice, a certain laxity in execution can be noted, since laws

concerning the equality of women, already existing, were not enforced as fiercely as other

laws might have been enforced. As explained above, this laxity could be rooted in the

perception of many male members of society, who viewed women still as dependent beings,

for whom it was unnatural to voice own opinions, live independently, or earn their own

money. This observation serves as an introduction to the final point, namely the role of

society. This is the hardest to trace, since no historical evidence is able to inform about all the

different perceptions members of society had about the changing role of women, since society

as a term includes so many different people with different beliefs. Thus, the legal practice can

serve as something that helps with approximation.

In summary, it can be said that women between the 1890s and the 1930s gained rights

formerly only granted to men. Even though they had more possibilities now for being

acknowledged outside their homes for their achievements, the situation in the marriage itself

did not change. Men, as explained above, found other ways of assuring their higher

hierarchical position, and the provider-dependent relationship remained the standard. This is

probably best illustrated by the situation of women in the 1930s.

14

Concerning how society shaped the image of marriage one additional thought needs

mentioning. Literature can also serve this purpose of approximation, referred to above in

connection with legal practice, but from an entirely different point of view and approach. The

following chapter will deal with five different short stories concerning marriage and its

different images, analyzing the shaping of the image of marriage from the viewpoint of

literature.

15

Part 2: Discussion of the five short stories

In this part the five short stories “Désirée’s Baby”, “Souls Belated”, “Turned”, “A Jury

of Her Peers”, and “The Gilded Six-Bits” will be analyzed separately. The circumstances of

their creation will be taken into consideration as well since this influenced the stories. Thus,

each story’s author will be introduced by a short biography and the view of each author

concerning the topic of marriage and divorce, if treated in the story, will be discussed as well,

since this might also have influenced the image of marriage conveyed in each story. Then the

story’s contents and setting will be given, and the perspective in each story will be analyzed.

In order to identify the image of marriage in each story the main characters will be analyzed,

and then the image of marriage and the character of each marriage will be described in detail.

2.1. “Désirée’s Baby” by Kate Chopin

2.1.1. The author

2.1.1.1. Brief Biography

Kate Chopin was born as Katherine O’Flaherty in 1851 in St. Louis and lost her father

in an accident when she was four years old. She graduated from the St. Louis Academy of the

Sacred Heart when she was 17 years old and then met her later husband Oscar Chopin from

New Orleans. From the beginning of her marriage onwards her husband accepted her freedom

and gave her many rights of her own. First the couple settled near New Orleans, and then they

moved to Cloutireville in Natchitoches, Louisiana. Chopin set most of her stories in those two

places and among Creoles and Acadians living there, whose French society she was a part of

and described in a detailed way. In 1882 Chopin’s husband died and she moved back to her

mother in St. Louis. Her mother died in 1885 leaving Chopin an independent woman without

close family relations, except her six children. In 1887 Chopin started her career as a writer,

influenced by the short stories of Guy de Maupassant. In 1894 she published Bayou Folk, a

collection of short stories and vignettes of which “Désirée’s Baby” is part of (cf. Solomon

1976:ix-xiv). Bayou Folk received input from Chopin’s life at Cloutireville because she used

the language spoken there, which was a variety of French and English, drew some of her

characters on real-life persons, and used some of the places that were familiar to her in several

of her stories (cf. Toth 1990:223-224). This specific use of language can be found as well in

“Désirée’s Baby” as can be seen by many remarks in French uttered by the characters

16

belonging to the upper class. In 1899 Chopin’s novel The Awakening was published in which

a women’s sexual awakening is portrayed in detail, a novelty at that time that offended

sensibilities (cf. Solomon. 1976:xxiii-xxiv).

In Kate Chopin’s stories women are depicted as strong and intelligent beings living

their own lives, sometimes against conventions of that time. This led to rejections of her

stories in the beginning of her career; however, she managed to publish other stories later on

and achieve literary success. The heroines in her stories also sometimes voice a certain

perspective on marriage, different than the prevailing contemporary one (cf. Solomon

1976:vii-viii). Thus, her stories are interesting concerning the image of marriage, and

concerning the women in those marriages she portrays in her stories. The reason for

transmitting a certain image of marriage might also be connected to Chopin’s own marriage

or even her whole life.

2.1.1.2. Chopin’s view on marriage

As described above, in her biography, Chopin was an independent woman who loved

the freedom which was granted by her husband. She had her own views on topics, including

the role of women and marriage. Chopin was fiercely against cruel husbands who dominated

their wives, as shown by the example of Armand in “Désirée’s Baby”, who was certainly

based on behavior she encountered throughout her life and whose character might have been

based on Albert Sampite, as discussed below (see page 19).

In 1894, in the same year Bayou Folk was published, Chopin wrote the short story

“The Story of an Hour”, in which she criticized the traditional behavior of self-sacrifice of

married women. She attacked patriarchal marriages, reasoning that one person’s dominance

over another entailed self-sacrifice which she considered not to be a right of the husband (cf.

Toth 1990:252-253).

Beer states that Chopin became more liberal concerning the question of marriage and

its value only later in her life, and also links this development to her fiction (cf. Beer 1997:13-

14). Moreover, she states that Chopin was able to use the local color in her stories to “express

the otherwise inexpressible through the regional” (cf. Beer 1997:18).

17

2.1.2. General Remarks about “Désirée’s Baby”

Contents

“Désirée’s Baby” is the story of the marriage between Désirée, a foundling, brought

up by the Valmondés, and Armand Aubigny, who owns a huge plantation and slaves to work

on it. The marriage develops favorably up to the point where Désirée gives birth to a son.

After that things develop in a downward spiral without Désirée knowing the reason for it.

Until one day she discovers that her baby is not white but only when directly contrasting him

with a black slave boy. Thus, she confronts her husband, who sends her back to her parents,

being convinced that a relative of hers was black. Désirée and her child wander into the

woods and disappear. The twist at the end of the story is, however, that Armand discovers a

letter from his mother, where she admits that his real mother was black.

The story considered here, “Désirée’s Baby”, has been analyzed in many ways. Since

race is a strong and recurring topic in it this has of course been discussed by many authors as

well. In analyzing the marriage, race is not the only decisive topic as not only prejudice broke

up the marriage. After all, not solely the fact that Désirée and Armand belong to different

races leads to the separation, but rather mistrust, inequality, and the distribution of power in

the relationship. Thus, the characters of Désirée and Armand will not be analyzed according

to their belonging to a certain race, but according to their roles in the marriage displayed by

the author.

Setting

There is no specific time or place setting given in the story. The only indication for a

place is the mentioning of Louisiana and the only mentioning of time has to be considered

within the storyline. It can be assumed that the story has to be set before the civil war (1861-

1865) since slavery was abolished afterwards. The story is set on the hugest, but a little

decayed plantation in Louisiana, indicated by the description of Mrs. Valmondés when she

visits Désirée and her child. The social circumstances both characters live in are upper class

and will be discussed in detail below.

Perspective

In this story an authorial third person narrative voice is employed. The narrator is

omnipresent and omniscient and thus the reader knows about all characters’ feelings and

thoughts and is informed about past events as well. In the beginning the focus of the narration

18

lies on Désirée’s and Armand’s past, introducing the beginning of their relationship and the

birth of their son. Then the perspective shifts and focuses on Désirée. It is described how she

detects and then copes with the black skin color of her baby. By doing so, the gradual process

of realization, which alters her behavior and eventually changes her life, is described. The

focus of perception, however, remains external. Désirée’s feelings are depicted by the narrator

from the outside and thus an external focalizer is employed in the story.

At the end of the story the focalizer changes. Now Armand and his reaction to the

baby’s black skin is in focus. He burns Désirée’s belongings after she and the baby have

disappeared. The focalizer continues to be external since Armand’s feelings are not revealed

here, and only his actions are described.

In both cases, Désirée’s and Armand’s, the actual ending is omitted. The shift in focus

from Désirée to Armand occurs before the reader knows what happened to Désirée, and the

story ends before Armand’s feelings concerning the discovery of his guilt are revealed. Thus,

the reader is supposed to end the story in his or her imagination, and infer the characters’

feelings.

Remarkably, the focalizer in the story changes in the same way as the attribution of

guilt changes. First Désirée is supposed to be responsible for the baby’s black skin, and thus

she is the focalizer. At the end of the story, however, Armand is blamed for his son’s black

skin and here he functions as the focalizer. By focusing on the supposedly responsible

character the author accomplishes that the reader is involved in solving the question of guilt.

Moreover, the change in perspective serves to make the story interesting and the omitting of

Armand’s feelings to the revelation that he is the source of black genes in his family leaves an

open ending to the story.

2.1.3. The image of marriage in “Désirée’s Baby”

Marriage, as defined above, see page 1, includes two people living together as husband

and wife. Thus, an author can define marriage or convey a picture of marriage through the

behavior of those characters in the story. In order to obtain a clear picture of the type of

marriage described here, character analyses of the two partners are necessary. It would not be

sufficient to only analyze the character of Désirée, but the character of Armand has to be

analyzed as well because both of them, in a way, shape and create the marriage they have. In

analyzing both characters conclusions about the power relations between the two characters in

the marriage can also be drawn more easily.

19

2.1.3.1. Character analyses of Désirée and Armand Aubigny

Désirée Aubigny Désirée Aubigny is a newly married young woman who is mother to a son as well. Her

husband belongs to one of the richest families in Louisiana, and married her because of her

beauty. Désirée, however, was a foundling brought up by Madame and Monsieur Valmondé

and no one knows who her parents were. She appears to be the classic devout white woman of

a slave-owning husband. Désirée is described as “gentle, beautiful, affectionate and sincere”.

(Chopin 1976:189) in contrast to her forceful, strict, powerful and strong minded husband

Armand Aubigny.

The onset of their marriage seems to have been perfectly happy, but since the child

was born, something has changed. Désirée is not able to detect what is wrong. This might be

caused by her newly held role as a mother or due to her being naïve and unable to understand

how her perfect family could be disturbed by anything. She is only able to perceive the black

skin color of her child when she has a direct comparison to it other than her own, namely a

little black servant boy. When noticing the black skin color of her baby Désirée decides to

take action. After her husband denies support, she moves from being the impassive devout

wife to an active woman. In analyzing her decision, it might appear that she does not take the

easy way out of moving back to her parents. Instead she goes to the woods and is never seen

or heard of again. But would it be possible for her to take a different way out of her situation?

Staying with her husband would have been impossible for her because of his outright

rejection and his dominance in the partnership. Désirée is not independent and only exists as a

woman married to her husband and a mother to her son. Thus, she is, in fact, not able to defy

her husband’s wishes. On the other hand, if she would have gone to her parents, she and her

son would have had to live with shame. They would have been stigmatized their whole life

and they would never have been accepted by society again. Even if her husband, which seems

implausible, would have admitted her innocence, the son still would not have been able to

lead a normal life. All other options would, therefore, require Désirée to assert herself against

society and its values. As Désirée is, however, not established as a strong character, those

opportunities are not open to her. For her, ending her life seems, in fact, the easy way out.

On the other hand, the decision to kill her child seems to conflict with a different

aspect of her character, which has been treated as a key character trait in several literary

analyses, namely her supposed innocence.

As such, innocence can be related to the character of Désirée in two different ways:

her childlike behavior and her role as an innocent victim of the circumstances.

20

Wolff describes Désirée in terms of her innocence connecting this innocence to her

being childlike and naïve. This childishness can, for example, be seen in her limited

experiences. Even though she has only been adopted, she is a child wished for by the

Valmondés. She can, thus, be considered a love child. She does, however, only know one side

of love, the wonderful pretty and innocent part, whereas her husband seems to be

impersonating the dark side of love, such as passion or violence towards his loved one (cf.

Wolff 1987:39-40). Her naivety can also be seen by the fact that the world surrounding her

does, in fact, know about what is “wrong” with her son, whereas she needs a long time to

realize it.

On the other hand, Désirée is, in fact, innocent of what her husband accuses her of, as

it were, in fact, his ancestors and not Désirée’s who were black. Therefore, adding to this

“childlike” innocence, she is, in fact, objectively “innocent”.

Stating this, it seems hardly conceivable that Désirée is capable of killing her own son,

possibly rendering her guilty.

As such, Ewell holds her not guilty of infanticide. She considers Désirée’s death as

given because now, being the wife of Armand Aubigny, she cannot return to her parents and

she cannot stay with her husband because he has sent her away, thus, there is no place in life

for her any more, she has to go, she has to die (cf. Ewell 1986:70-71) – her innocence

untouched.

On the other hand, one can perceive her husband’s rejection as disillusionment,

shattering her innocence stemming from her childlike and naïve world view. Having lost her

innocence that way, she is now capable of committing something as horrible as murder.

Another key character trait of Désirée is her submissiveness to her husband. In fact,

her subordination to her husband reaches such an extent, that one might even state a loss of

individuality.

In that way, Ewell characterizes Désirée as being unable to define herself outside of

the traditional role of mother and wife. Désirée does not create an independent identity for

herself and thus is ‘erased’ from the world by her death. She lives in a society where women

are defined according to their relationship with men. Moreover, they mostly do not define

themselves according to that relationship, but they are defined by society. Another sign for

this outward definitions lies in Désirée‘s name itself. She is the one ‘desired’ by her husband,

but it is never said what she herself does or does not desire (cf. Ewell 1992:160-163).

Désirée is therefore rather object than subject. She is defined by society. In the

beginning of the story Désirée is defined from the outside by her being a foundling without

21

any traceable family bounds. Later, when she marries, she is defined by her newly gained

family name, being the wife of her husband Armand. Her “independence” from her husband

only last for a short period in time and ends in death.

Armand Aubigny Armand Aubigny, as every character in the story knows, bears a well known family

name in Louisiana. He owns, after the death of his father, a plantation with slaves working for

him. The indication of his treatment of those renders him a powerful and cruel being. He is

proud which can be seen in his statement when Désirée’s adoptive parents inform him of her

lack of relations, and even a family name. His reaction to this lack in family history is stated

as follows: “What did it matter about a name when he could give her one of the oldest and

proudest in Louisiana?” (Chopin 1976:189-190).

Armand discovers the black skin color of his child earlier than his wife and eventually

sends her away, as already explained above. The expulsion of his wife shows that Armand’s

character incorporates the stereotype of a traditional patriarchal slave owner of the South. He

has a view on life that renders the husband powerful and the wife without any rights,

especially when she has done something to offend him. The only instance in the story when

he is in a way powerless occurs at the very end of the story. He discovers a letter of his

mother while burning Désirée’s belongings. When he reads it, he finds out that he is the

source of black genes in his newly founded family. At that moment he is not able to do

anything against it and this makes him powerless in this situation, maybe for the first time in

his adult life. His world view, based on white supremacy, is shattered.

The description Toth gives of Armand is forceful because she describes him as evil,

“unfaithful, brutal, brooding-and Satanic in appearance” (Toth 1990:215). Toth mentions that

the character of Armand Aubigny might have been based on husbands who beat their wives,

who Chopin personally knew or on the author’s father in law who, in fact, owned slaves and

treated them cruelly (cf. Toth 1999:64-65). To reinforce this assumption Toth states that the

character of Armand might have been based on one specific person well known to Chopin,

Albert Sampite, with whom she had an affair. Divorce was, however, theologically impossible

among Catholics at that time and so she was unable to marry him. When realizing that he beat

his wife Loca when he was drunk, she did not wish to marry him anyway, but decided to end

the relationship and base some of her evil male characters on him (cf. Toth 1990: 170-172 and

215).

The character traits discussed by Toth were mentioned above already, except one,

being unfaithful. This character trait can, however, only be inferred when reading the story

22

from a certain point of view. The supposedly slave woman with whom he is said to have an

affair is only mentioned twice in the story: when Désirée describes her son’s crying: “[…] ‘

Armand heard him the other day as far away as La Blanche’s cabin.’ “(Chopin 1976:190), and

when Désirée confronts her husband: “ ’As white as La Blanche’s’ ” (Chopin 1976:193) he

answers when asked about Désirée’s skin color. Thus, the affair seems to be a bit far fetched

since there is, in fact, no unfaithfulness mentioned. The assumption that Armand has an affair

with one of his slaves, one of the beings he treats so cruelly, would, however, fit in the dark

picture of Armand’s character.

Wolff states that the marriage between Désirée and Armand is the love of two

opposing sides. As stated above Désirée is considered to be the innocent part, and Armand is

described as passionate. Having fallen in love at first sight, for example, illustrates this

character trait. However, the author further states that Armand is somehow subjected to an

even more powerful force which the author considers to be more “turbulent, reckless and

cruel” (cf. Wolff 1987:39-40).

Exactly those somehow dark innate feelings are reflected in his mood when Armand

discovers that his son is black. He does not know how to cope with this mark of shame and

thus treats the people surrounding him according to those feelings. The character trait

described as reckless can, for example, be seen when he burns Désirée’s belongings.

Beer describes Armand as a stereotypical character. She, however, considers him a

victim of his time, meaning the social organization of slavery, which focused on race. Armand

can only love a wife that is of the same kind as he is and so he has to hate Désirée to keep the

order between the races intact. Armand is only able to assert his status as a master of slaves by

hating Désirée and sending her away (cf. Beer 1997:36).

When looking at Beer’s analysis, the first part can be supported easily since Armand

does not show any development of character in the story and is, in fact, the stock character of

a southern slave-owner. The second statement, concerning the observation that Armand is a

victim of the time he lives in needs deeper analysis. On the one hand, his actions concerning

the desire of preservation of the white race can be attributed to the times to a certain extent.

His cruel nature displayed in his treatment of his slaves and eventually Désirée can, however,

not be connected to the times he lives in. His father, for example, is described to have treated

his slaves differently and was considered a kind man, which shows that Armand’s behavior

cannot be entirely attributed to historical and social circumstances, and he is not solely a

victim of his time, but can be held responsible for his actions.

23

2.1.3.2. The image of marriage

Marriage in this story is portrayed as a patriarchic institution, dominated by the

husband. All decisions are taken by him. It is also inferred that the belief that women are

responsible for the sex and outer appearance of a child is still prevailing. This belief is clearly

rooted in the timeframe of the story. When considering influences on the changing image of

marriage, it can clearly be stated that the sexual revolution (see Part I page 5-6), including a

more scientific approach towards sexuality, still lies in the future and does not influence,

neither shape the story since, for example, the responsibility for everything concerning the

child is connected with the female.

On account of the traditional roles in the marriage, the wife, even though she belongs

to the upper class, leads a life reduced to the house, being mother and housekeeper or not even

that, since servants are responsible for chores and duties in and around the house. The

patriarchal structure of the marriage both lead is enforced in many instances throughout the

story. One example for displaying this image of marriage would be Désirée’s dependence on

the mood of her husband. She can only be happy when he is. In the beginning of the marriage

he was, in a way, tamed because of his loving feelings towards his wife, which were even

heightened by the birth of a male heir. This state of mind is reflected in his behavior towards

his slaves. He did not punish them and was not as cruel to them as he had been before. The

change in his mood, when he discovers that the child is of the skin color of his slaves, is

closely related to his cruel treatment of his slaves. However, this time, his cruelty, his power,

and his pride of the white race extends towards Désirée. She is now even more subject to his

mood and he sends her away. She does not protest and simply agrees with him and leaves the

plantation.

Solomon also states that Désirée Aubigny’s marriage is described in a patriarchal way.

The woman, as Solomon mentions, possesses character traits one would expect from an

author with a traditional point of view when considering marriage. The husband, for example,

is characterized as powerful, strict, and arrogant. To further underline the traditional point of

view and the two contrasting characters Solomon describes the feelings Désirée had, when

giving birth to a male heir: She was glad to please her husband. Moreover, Désirée’s

dependency is shown, in Solomon’s considerations, in the ending and in the perception

conveyed by it, to consider a woman as so called “damaged property” (cf. Solomon 1976:xiv-

xv).

Cott even states, that marriage is structurally and legally similar to the relation

between master and slave. Those two relations, marriage and the master-slave relation, were,

24

in fact, combined under the same law and called domestic relations. Each relationship was

defined as combining two unequal parts, one being the superior independent part that

provided support and protection, and the other one being the inferior dependent part, who was

supposed to be obedient. The dependent part had to be submissive and self-sacrificing. The

important difference was, however, that marriage was voluntary and slavery was not (cf. Cott

2002:62-63). The similarity between the master-slave and husband-wife relationship might

have been a motivation for setting the story criticizing marriage backwards in time. Since the

setting also includes a slave owning planter the connection seems to be even more obvious.

Toth also states that Chopin’s intention in publishing Bayou Folk of which “Désirée’s

Baby” is part of, was designed to criticize the patriarchal marriages at the turn of the century,

which were the most common ones and only changed in character slowly. She argues that

Chopin was able to get her work published, because she was able to conceal the open

criticism behind the local color of her stories (cf. Toth 1999:150). In later works, however,

Chopin voiced this criticism more openly, as stated above (see page 13-14).

In “Désirée’s Baby”, the patriarchal marriage along with its powerful husband is

criticized only through the ending, namely the death of Désirée. As such, Désirée is

stereotypical for women who were not emancipated. Because of that, all other options after

the expulsion by her husband were not attainable to her, as explained earlier. Therefore, it is

her own submissiveness and her own lack of self-consciousness that ultimately leads to her

death, rendering her a symbol of admonition to the women of Chopin’s time to not being

suppressed by their husband – a traditional claim of women’s suffrage. If the husband

dominates the wife, this only leads to destruction. In this story, the irony is that Armand, as

the dominating part, uses his power to rid himself of any discomfort, and sends Désirée away,

because he thinks she is culpable for the situation, whereas, in fact, he is. This entails a

critique on his behavior. The “guilt” in every sense, for misusing his power and for the

situation itself is attributed to Armand, the dominant husband. He is to blame for the outcome;

he is responsible for the deaths of two innocent people.

The fact that this criticism is concealed, however, as Toth states, can also be shown by

the fact that Chopin set the story back in time. Therefore, the criticism of contemporary

marriages was not made evident. The setting in times of slavery, therefore, serves a double

purpose: to conceal the critique of contemporary marriages in order to have her work

published and to establish a resemblance between the relationship of master and slave and

husband and wife, as mentioned above by Cott.

25

Interestingly, this subtle criticism of patriarchal marriages was given in the form of a

short story. This was cleverly done, because many more women, who were not members of

women clubs, would read fiction rather than articles about women’s rights or even marriage.

Showalter also states this point and finds that women in Chopin’s times viewed the short story

as a suitable medium for feminist themes, and critique on the male dominated system (cf.

Showalter 1995:12).

Connected to the question of power relations in the marriage is the question of

property owning, which is also inferred in the story. Désirée only takes her child with her and

leaves everything else behind, which infers that everything legally belongs to her husband,

and she does not own anything, except her life. She is even considered to be property that has

to be returned to the sender, her adoptive parents. Concerning property rights, it can be said

that, as explained above (see Part I page 3) property and wages of a wife legally belonged to

the husband until the 1930s. Additionally, there existed no strong system of alimony and thus

Désirée would not have had much legal support concerning the question of property. These

economic implications contribute to the hopelessness of Désirée’s situation. Thus, the

influences between economy and dependency are stressed.

Armand is able to burn all of Désirée’s belongings. He is, thus, considered the owner

of everything. The act of burning can, however, also be seen from a different angle and might

have been intended as erasing her out of his life in a final act. It could also have been intended

as a cleansing act. Fire can cleanse certain things off that water cannot, at least in a symbolic

way. Thus, he cleanses himself off any connection to the black race, off any connection to

Désirée. This can be seen as the final act of separation; a divorce without legal terms. This

thought of a divorce without legal terms would fit into the perception of Chopin. As explained

above in the character analysis of Armand, Christian religion forbade divorce at that time.

Race is mentioned in the story as a separating factor as well, since the marriage of

Armand and Désirée would probably not have ended, if their child would have been white.

Interracial marriage, or more precisely its legal status at the time the story was set in and the

time the story was written in, thus, needs analysis in order to understand the sudden change

that occurs in the story, when the race of the child is revealed. Before the civil war slaves

were legally not allowed to marry, even though, their masters encouraged them to found a

family so that the children would become his property as well (cf. Norton et al 1999:76 and

204-205). In 1924 interracial marriage, declared as “marriages between whites and persons of

color” was still prohibited in Louisiana (cf. Livy 1924:20).The legal situation of mulattos, the

offspring of interracial relationships, was unclear and solved differently by different states and

26

parents. Sometimes those children were given a good education; sometimes they were not

even released from slavery, as long as this institution existed, or at least were treated in the

same way as black people (cf. Norton et al 1999:202).

Thus, the situation in which Armand finds himself in the story does not only carry

personal difficulties, but legal ones as well. Since Désirée gave birth to a colored child he

assumes that she had had colored ancestors in her family. This fact would render her black as

well, since she is considered to be a mulatto, a person of color. The marriage is, thus, an

interracial one and not valid anymore, because law prohibits it. Considering all these facts his

behavior is in a way understandable. He does not consider himself married any more and

Désirée, in believing in her own guilt, probably does not either. Thus, her reaction can only be

suicide. Otherwise she would not have been able to lead a “white life”, the one she was used

to, any more, since she was considered black.

In conclusion, the image of marriage, which Chopin draws in “Désirée’s Baby”, is that

of a patriarchal relationship, additionally defined by racist laws. Both factors contribute to the

tragedy at the end of the story, voicing Chopin’s criticism on both.

2.2. “Souls Belated” by Edith Wharton

2.2.1. The author

2.2.1.1. Brief Biography

Edith Wharton was born as Edith Newbold Jones in 1862 in New York City into an

upper class family. After the end of the Civil War the family moved to Europe in 1866, where

they stayed in England, Italy, Spain, France, and Germany. When Wharton returned to the

United States in 1872 she started to write and continued to read widely among English and

American literature. Her first verses were published in 1880. In 1885 she married Edward

Wharton. During the following years she continued traveling through Europe on several

occasions and bought a house in New York and in Massachusetts (The Mount). Several

poems and short stories were published and a book about interior design as well. Her first

collection of short stories The Greater Inclination, of which “Souls Belated” was part of, was

published in 1899. In 1898 she suffered a mental breakdown and underwent the “rest cure

27

treatment"1. In 1905 The House of Mirth her literary most successful novel was published (cf.

Howard 2001:901-908).

Lewis states that most of Wharton’s short stories concerned with the topic of marriage

were written from the time when her husband began to suffer from mental illness till the

divorce. He further observes that during that time Wharton’s relationship to Walter Berry, a

friend of hers before her marriage, gained intensity (cf. Lewis 1986:12). In 1913 Wharton

divorced her husband Edward. Since the beginning of her career as a writer she has been in

contact with Henry James, who often commented on her work and encouraged her. In 1920

she won the Pulitzer Prize for Age of Innocence. She died in 1937 in France (cf. Quinn 1950:

v-xxiv and Howard 2001:912-921).

Edith Wharton can be considered a special literary person. She was an independent

and intelligent woman, widely read, and stood in contact with Henry James which influenced

her style of writing. When considering her personal relation it has to be noted that she has

been divorced from her husband, which might help to establish her view on marriage and

divorce. It has, however, also to be taken into consideration that she lived in different parts of

Europe for a longer amount of time during her life. This might also have influenced her

writing style and the characters in her stories.

2.2.1.2. Wharton’s view on marriage

As Lewis points out Wharton was one of the very few 19th

century American writers

concerned with the ‘marriage question’ as he terms it. He further states that she was

concerned with many phases of marriage in her short stories, for example the grounds for

marrying in “The Quicksand”, the adjustments and declining hopes of married life in “The

Fullness of Life” or the topic of divorce and adultery in “Souls Belated” and many more. The

author directly links the question to social life and human nature in general (cf. Lewis

1986:11-12).

When analyzing Wharton’s view on marriage her mother’s role and the traditional

values she taught her need to be taken into consideration. As Nevius and Lewis point out,

Wharton saw marriage as a life long bond that should not be dissolved by divorce, even

1 The rest cure treatment was developed by Dr. S. Weir Mitchell in order to cure women from ‘nervous troubles’.

The treatment included complete bed rest, overfeeding, and no stimulation such as books, writing and

conversation. This was supposed to cure hysterical women from their inappropriate ambitions, and ‘make them

accept life’s blessings calmly’ (cf. Spender 1992:519).

28

though, divorce was fashionable amongst the society she lived in (cf. Nevius 1953:110-113

and Lewis 1986:333-334).

This attitude towards divorce seems astonishing considering that Wharton herself was

divorced. She, however, did not want to take this step and prolonged her marriage as long as

possible; even excusing her husband’s numerous infidelities (cf. Lewis 1986:336). Quinn

even states that Wharton considered the divorce laws of the United States absurd and a danger

to real marriage (cf. Quinn 1950:xi).

All those statements above give the impression that Wharton saw marriage as a

necessary social institution. On the other hand, Wharton experienced marriage as a cage or

prison cell, limiting her own possibilities and independence (cf. Lewis 1975:87).

As Singley states, Wharton tried to follow her inspirations by writing and was able to

realize some freedom within her marriage, since she also began to associate with people

sharing her literary spirit, which her husband did not (cf. Singley 1995:50). Despite the

problems she faced in her marriage she, therefore, tried to solve the moral dilemma described

above by maintaining her marriage, but shaping it according to her wishes in order to break

free of the gilded cage. This behavior included a certain emancipation within her marriage,

even rendering Edward financially dependent on her (cf. Lewis 1975:192). This, however,

did not improve the marriage which, as already mentioned, was dissolved by divorce.

As Singley states Wharton was concerned about the role of women in society, but she

did not participate in the clamorous feminist activism occurring at the turn of the 19th

to the

20th

century. Her voice, also in her stories, however, is clear in calling for social equality and

against the marginalization of women (cf. Singley 1995:1). Thus, it can be concluded that

Wharton did, in fact, see marriage as essential, but tried to improve upon it concerning power

relations.

2.2.2. General Remarks about “Souls Belated”

Contents The story describes the journey of two Americans through Italy. Lydia Tillotson is

traveling with Ralph Gannett, her lover. When the story commences they are in a train leaving

Bologna, and Lydia has received a letter stating that she is now officially divorced from her

upper class New York husband. While traveling she is thinking about what to do with her

newly gained freedom and confesses that she does not wish to marry her lover, but be free

instead. After a year of travel from one secluded spot to another, they arrive at a huge Anglo-

American hotel, where they are included into the society quickly. This is only possible

29

because they have pretended to be a married couple when checking in. The society at the hotel

has decided to exclude the Lintons, another couple residing at the hotel, because they consider

them arrogant. One day Mrs. Linton talks to Lydia. She explains her situation of being Mrs.

Cope and that the man at her side is Lord Travenna. The couple had caused a scandal in

London through their elopement. Mrs. Cope is worried about her lover’s intentions of

marrying her, and thinks that he has disclosed his feelings to Gannett. Mrs. Cope further

reveals that she knows that Lydia and Gannett are not married and wants to use that

information so that Lydia will ask Gannett about the conversation between him and Lord

Travenna. Lydia does not know what to do, since she is included so well into the society, but

does not want to marry either in order to deprive Mrs. Cope of her motive for blackmailing

her. Her decision is made easier when Mrs. Cope receives her divorce papers and leaves the

hotel. Lydia, however, does not want to lie to all the people at the hotel anymore and wishes

to tell them about her status of not being married. Gannett again tries to convince her to get

married, but she declines and even thinks about leaving him. The next morning he sees her

going to a boat with luggage and buying a ticket. He is sad about that, but does not attempt to

stop her. When the boat leaves she is, however, still at the landing and comes back into the

room. Gannett buys tickets for Paris so that they can leave and get married.

Setting

The story is set in Italy. This is, however, only the background setting since the real

influence is produced by the people the story is set amongst. Thus, the hotel society is

important. The guests are upper class Americans or English and have created their own

society similar to the existing ones in their home cities.

The story was published in 1899 and it might be set around that time, the end of the

19th

century. There are no indications that it is set earlier. One implication for that timeframe

is given by the attitude towards divorce since it was shifting at the turn of the century towards

being accepted by society.

Perspective

The narrator in this story is authorial and covert, and the story might be termed a

figural narrative in some parts, since, for example, in the beginning, the story is told from

Lydia’s perspective. She is the internal focalizer in this part, and her feelings about her

recently received divorce papers and her contemplations about her past are described. Then

the story continues and consists almost entirely of conversations between Gannett and Lydia.

During these conversations Gannett’s opinions are revealed, but Lydia remains in the position

30

of the focalizer, since her feelings and contemplations are in focus, and the reader is even

closer to her than Gannett. Gannett only knows her opinion through frequent discussions, but

the full extent of her inner turmoil is only revealed to the reader. This change between

conversations and views into Lydia’s mind continues throughout the whole story. Lydia

converses with several members of the hotel society and then continues her contemplations.

In the last scene, however, the focalizer changes, since now Gannett is in this position.

Lydia has just left Gannett and wants to board the boat. The reader is deprived of Lydia’s

thoughts and feelings at this moment and only reduced to watching Lydia through Gannett’s

eyes. Gannett’s feelings are only revealed through his actions of letting her decide on her own

and then booking the passage to Paris, when she returns on her own account. Thus, the

narrative situation does not only shift from one focalizer to another, but also shifts from

internal to external, leaving aside Gannet’s feelings.

As will be discussed below in detail this shift in perspective has been viewed as

important by literary critics, since the reader is still able to sympathize with Lydia, because

her contemplations at the moment of leaving Gannett remain subject to interpretation.

Moreover, the reader is left to infer the reason for her return to Gannett. The possible reasons

for her return will be discussed below in the character analyses.

2.2.3. The image of marriage in “Souls Belated”

Even though Wharton herself stated that the development of a character can better be

observed in a novel and is, therefore, not the main concern of a short story (cf. Lewis

1986:10) character analyses will be used here to establish the basis of the relationships in the

story. As already discussed above (see page 1) a marriage, or in this case a love relationship

mostly concerns two people, and thus it is possible to identify the image of marriage

conveyed in the story by looking closely at the main characters. Even though, they are not

married to each other in the story yet their relationship, and in particular the influence of

Lydia’s divorce conveys the image of marriage implied in the story. Moreover, Lydia’s

reluctance to enter a marriage with Gannett can lead to further conclusions concerning the

image of marriage.

31

2.2.3.1. Character analyses of Lydia Tillotson and Ralph Gannett

Lydia Tillotsen Lydia is an American woman traveling through Italy. She has left her New York

husband for Ralph Gannett, a writer. Lydia did not belong to the highest ranking society

before she married, but came from an unknown small town. After a brief phase of naïve

adoption of upper class views, values, and way of life she soon got bored with society life and

all the strict and rigid acts of daily life it entailed. In order to flee from it, she eloped to

Europe with Gannett. Lydia, as she is presented at the beginning of the story, seems to be an

independent woman, who knows what she wants from life. She wants to be free and

independent without any restrictions, such as marriage, which would reduce her freedom. She

even makes her point clear, when she receives her divorce papers, and would now be free to

re-marry. She definitely does not want to do so causing her relationship to Gannett, as she

believes, to change. In her conversation with him, it can be seen that she is powerful in their

relationship because she is able to convince him, or so it appears, of her point of view and he

seems to accept it. It is also shown that she is an unconventional and intelligent woman, who

thinks about her arguments and develops them according to logical thinking, even when

emotions are concerned. Her standpoint against marriage for example is stated as follows:

“…if marriage is sacred in itself and the individual must always

be sacrificed to the family – then there can be no real marriage

between us, since our – our being together is a protest against

the sacrifice of the individual to the family.” (Wharton

2001:103)

The situation changes when Lydia and Gannett check into the Hotel Bellosguardo.

Here they pretend to be a married couple in order not to offend the people living there. Since

it is a huge upper class hotel a society with all its leaders and followers has already developed

– a society similar to the one Lydia and Gannett attempted to leave behind them. Lydia,

however, assimilates, and is even glad to be accepted by the Ladies of that society.

A change in her behavior is triggered by Mrs. Cope, who also eloped with her lover

and knows, or feels, that Lydia is in the same situation. When she threatens to reveal Lydia’s

secret, Lydia reflects her previous behavior in connection with the hotel society. In doing so,

she detects that, in fact, she slipped back into a pattern of behavior which is unacceptable for

her. When Gannett proposes again she decides to leave him.

32

Rationally this seems to be the solution for her problem, but she is unable to do so.

This might be connected to her feelings for him, but the real reason is never given. In the end

she bends to her lover’s will and to society’s conventions, and marries him. Maybe she

realized that it is impossible to flee society, because there is a new one with different actors,

but the same rules to be found everywhere.

Lydia’s full name: Tillotson, the last name of her ex- husband is never given

throughout the story, and the husband is only mentioned in her reflections about her past. She

exists without a last name except for when she disguises as the wife of her lover. This is

interesting because it might point to the development at the end of the story where she

eventually agrees to marry her lover, or it renders her a woman who is not a real part of

society. Everyone has a last name and Lydia can gain a new one by marrying Gannett. In

doing so she follows society’s conventions and can become a fully accepted part of it again.

Furthermore, the adoption of the husband’s last name can be seen as submission. By not

mentioning her last name, her ex-husband’s name, Lydia’s independence is stressed. This may

also imply that a marriage to Gannett, entailing the adoption of his name, may threaten that

independence.

White points out that Lydia lacks a last name because she is in the intermediate state

of being divorced, and not wanting to re-marry. The author also considers the change in point

of view at the end of the story. It is Gannett who watches Lydia leave and thus the reader sees

her through his eyes and does not know her feelings She appears a more likeable character

than she would if the reader were in her mind. Gannett can speak of her return to him in a

different way than she would have been able to and so she does not appear melodramatic or

self-absorbed (cf. White 1991: 58-59).

This change in the point of view is interesting since it prohibits the reader to discover

Lydia’s real motive for returning to Gannett. It is not disclosed whether she returns because of

her love for Gannett or because of society’s pressure. Her behavior is therefore not judged

upon and the future of this character’s independence remains unclear.

Nevius characterizes Lydia concerning her moral. Here the author uses the example of

Lydia being offended by Mrs. Cope and then being surprised by her own reaction towards

Mrs. Cope. The moral question concerning respectability, thus, debated by Lydia is whether

to bend to social conventions or not. The seemingly rebellious Lydia does exactly do that in

the end (Nevius 1953:18-19).

As White points out above the reader does not gain any insight into Lydia’s decision.

The reasons for her return to Gannett can, thus, not only be attributed to her moral

33

considerations. She either decided to bend to social conventions, or she gave in to her lover’s

wishes and thus only indirectly followed society’s rules.

Singley compares Lydia’s problem concerning her status with Hester Prynne in The

Scarlet Letter. Both women have to realize that in order to change women’s fate one has to

change the whole system of society. Singley also mentions Lydia’s intelligence and writes

that Lydia is separated from society for two reasons. Firstly, because of the innate structures

of society she is not willing to accept, and secondly because of her critical intelligence. She

describes Lydia’s moral dilemma as the choice between sacrificing her social standing or her

independence (cf. Singley 1995:13-14).

This depiction seems to be too narrow, as it is not evident that Lydia may not maintain

her independence in a marriage to Gannett, especially when taking into consideration that

Gannett values her critical mind. Further analysis will be carried out below. (see The image of

marriage)

Ralph Gannett

Gannett is a writer and was part of New York’s upper class society as was Lydia.

Nothing else about his background is revealed, except the fact that he met Lydia at her

mother-in-law’s dinners. Gannett is in love with Lydia because she is unconventional. He

loves her for her intelligence and for her rationality, without acknowledging that she is similar

to all other women and has an irrational, emotional side as well.

It appears as if Lydia is the stronger part in the relationship. She seems to be able to

decide what the couple would do next she decides whether or not they stay at the hotel.

Interestingly, their roles change, when Lydia is desperate about her situation of not being

married and lying to everyone. Gannett is the one again proposing, but she is against it. He is

still able to console her and it seems that he knows exactly what he wants, whereas she seems

to be undecided in a way.

The reason for his certainness about what to do about their situation may be grounded

in him being a man. It is by far easier for him to marry because he would not have to give up

his freedom; he could lead his life the same way he used to, with the only exception of being

an accepted part of society again.

The reason why the couple checks into the hotel lies in Gannett’s work. He can only

write when being surrounded by members of society because he draws his inspiration from

them. He deprived himself from it because of Lydia, but now he wants to start writing again.

One other reason for him wanting to re-enter society might lie in his wish to marry Lydia. In

34

showing her that society would only accept her, if she was married to him he is able to defend

his point without having to argue with her.

When Lydia decides to leave him, he shows his love for her, and his love of all her

character traits, in letting her go. He would be able to stop her, but he lets her decide, what to

do, what seems right for her to do. This of course renders him a modern man, who attempts to

have a relationship between equals, and a man who tries to understand Lydia and her

uncertain feelings towards marriage at that point. When Lydia finally returns, he can be sure

that she, in fact, wants to stay with him. She decided, out of her free will to marry him. This is

only possible because he did not follow her. Thus, their marriage, even when facing several

obstacles, such as prejudice from members of the society concerning re-marriage, might be

happy, it might be different than the one Lydia was fleeing from.

As White notes, it often carries greater impact to state feminist points through a male

narrator, as Wharton does with Gannett (cf. White 1991:58). This can be noted in the scene

described above. If Gannett, a man, is able to understand Lydia’s feelings, the reader can

understand them as well. If Lydia were the one thinking about her departure, it might have

been more difficult to follow her thoughts.

Gannett is more passionate about his relationship to Lydia. He loves her and sees a

marriage as one possible solution for their problem of being outcasts of society. Since he

loves her so passionately, he does not think about this relationship in abstract terms, contrary

to Lydia and when they again argue about getting married he says: “ ‘You judge things too

theoretically,” he said at length, slowly. “Life is made up of compromise’ ” (Wharton

2001:103)

Interestingly, Singley interprets the lines from “Souls Belated” above in a different

way. She argues that Gannett is, in fact, satisfied with the relationship and wants to preserve it

the way it appears now. The statement, she explains, indicates that Lydia is dissatisfied with

her status and wants to change it, he, on the other hand, is content and does not think

extensively about it (cf. Singley 1995:14).

When looking closely at the story’s development one can easily detect that Gannett is,

in fact, not satisfied with the relationship as it is. He wants to marry Lydia throughout the

whole story from the beginning onwards. The thing that divides both lovers is the fact that

Lydia was already married and knows society’s conventions concerning this relationship.

Gannett, on the other hand, was never married before. He wants to marry Lydia not, or at least

only marginally, because of society’s convention, but because he loves her. Thus, he is in a

way naïve concerning this topic. This can also be seen in his remark above about her thinking

35

too much. For him it is easy: she is divorced and free-for him. Now they can marry. He does

not consider the implications a marriage would mean for their relationship. Since the

institution of marriage is formed by society’s conventions, the roles are also clearly decided

upon. In marriage, at that time, there mostly is no space for a powerful, intelligent woman

voicing her thoughts, at least, if the spouses want to live up to society’s expectations.

2.2.3.2 The image of marriage and divorce

In this story two images of marriage are described, one that renders it a cage for

women and another one that sees it as a foundation for a relationship and as a ticket to reenter

society. Divorce is also depicted in the story as well as adultery being the cause for it.

Moreover, an unconventional relationship is described which, at that time, was a man and a

woman living together without being married to each other. More about the different views

concerning those topics will be discussed below, starting with marriage.

One passage illustrating Wharton’s view on marriage and thus the image of marriage

conveyed in this story can be found in one passage of “Souls Belated” as Lewis states (cf.

Lewis 1986:14).

“Do you know, I begin to see what marriage is for. It’s to keep

people away from each other. Sometimes I think that two people

who love each other can be saved from madness only by the

things that come between them-children, duties, visits, bores,

relations-the things that protect married people from each other.

We’ve been too close together-that has been our sin. We’ve seen

the nakedness of each other’s souls.”

(Wharton 2001:118)

Marriage, in general, is treated as a necessary, conventional, but not exactly satisfying

solution for women in the story. Lydia was able to escape from her conventional and boring

marriage with a wealthy husband, who was dominated by his mother. In this relationship she

was caged by social conventions. Now, at the beginning of the story, she has gained a certain

independence, deriving from her economic situation after the divorce “There was money

enough…” (Wharton 2001:121) and her new self-awareness. As explained in Part I (see page

3-12) economy and the new self-conception of women were integral factors for female

independence. This newly gained autonomy also explains one part of Lydia’s moral dilemma.

Singley states that by giving in to Gannett’s wishes concerning marriage she would have to

sacrifice her newly gained independence, or so it appears (cf. Singly 1995:14). This view

36

conveys the implication that the story serves to criticize the institution of marriage harshly.

Singley does not take into consideration that Wharton uses an open ending, even excluding

the reader from Lydia’s thoughts in the end, as explained above. Thus, it seems possible that

Lydia would be able to keep her independence. The question, however, still remains to what

an extent society shapes marriage. Considering the power relation between Lydia and Gannett

they might lead a marriage of equal partners. The influence of society, however, might force

them to lead a conventional marriage including the husband in power and returning Lydia to

her ‘gilded cage’ she sought to escape.

A different view on marriage is proposed by Gannett. He sees marriage, as already

discussed above, as a relationship sanctioned by society and thus as a necessary instrument to

be part of the society. His image of marriage does not include Lydia’s experiences of

inequality and lack of love. He assumes that a marriage would even deepen the love in their

relationship. When considering these two conflicting views on marriage, one could ask, which

one is favored by the author.

Nevius writes that Ganett’s view of marriage as a social convention that grants

protection to the ones that agree with it correlates with Wharton’s image of marriage as a

necessary social institution (cf. Nevius 1953:18).

Lewis agrees with this view, that Gannett is, in fact, Wharton’s voice and represents

her opinions on marriage and divorce. He uses the following quotation to illustrate this.

Gannett mocks Lydia when stating in a conversation concerning her unwillingness to marry

him: “ ‘[…]I didn’t know that we ran away to found a new system of ethics. I supposed it was

because we loved each other.’ ” (Wharton 2001:103). It is evident from this statement for

example that Wharton thought it impossible for a man and a woman to start a new life on a

new and socially unconventional basis, namely without marrying (cf. Lewis 1986:12-13).

White argues that Lewis’ view of Gannett representing Wharton’s idea of marriage

might be right, but she also assumes that Lydia’s position on marriage and divorce might be

Wharton’s as well. She says that Wharton displayed Lydia’s view in several other stories and

thus it can be concluded that both position co-exist in “Souls Belated”, and represent the

author’s view. This includes uncertainness about divorce and the need of weighing different

views against one another. White concludes with the following statement of Wharton’s view

on marriage and divorce: “ ‘[…] that the woman is an object of exchange in marriage, a

divorce is not the answer to the marriage problem’ “. (White 1991:81).

The problem, Wharton sees in divorce, is not based on religion, but on the fact that

divorce does not offer a solution for the problem of women being treated as exchange

37

objects. They can only regain their worth if they re-marry as it happens in “Souls Belated” to

Lydia. So Wharton is, as the author argues, not against divorce, but points out that the

problem of marriage cannot be solved by divorce (cf. White 1991:79-81).

Wharton’s view on marriage, expressed in “Souls Belated”, therefore, seems to be a

complex one, seeing it as a social necessity on the one hand, but also considering the

problems and dangers that it entails. As Lewis states, in “Souls Belated” Wharton uses the

image of life as a prison cell for the first time which also indicates that she herself saw her

life in that way (cf. Lewis 1975:87). As Lydia has experienced in her previous relationship,

marriage can also be a ‘gilded cage’

This depiction of marriage as a ‘gilded cage’ also derives from Wharton’s own

experiences. In this way Lydia’s situation in her first marriage can be compared to Wharton’s

marriage to Edward, since Wharton herself experienced a feeling of being caged.

In “Souls Belated” divorce is as well a topic as marriage is. Concerning the topic of

divorce Lewis writes that Wharton was indeed writing about it during a time when divorce

changed from being scandalous to being socially acceptable. This shifting status was exactly

prevailing at the time when she was writing the story, and this explains the uncertain status of

her heroines that were divorced. Wharton was not so much interested in the reasons leading to

a divorce, but in the individual’s psychological treatment of it. Which shows the influence of

Henry James (see Biography above) (cf. Lewis 1986:15-16).

Cott also mentions the shifting perception of divorce between 1870s and 1880s.

Divorce was not seen as appalling any more, but the question of remarriage remained to be a

problem. Opinions against remarriage voiced the fear that this would lead to free love, or that

polygamy would be practiced (cf. Cott 2002:108-109).

The shifting status of divorce can clearly be seen in the treatment of the two divorces,

namely by Mrs. Tillotson and Mrs. Cope. Lydia is not shocked by the fact that Mrs. Cope

wants to be divorced, she is only enraged by the fact that she should act as a spy, as she calls

it. Lydia is also content with her status as a divorced woman, even though she is unable to

explain her status to the society at the hotel. Exactly this shows the shifting status of divorce

at that time. One could be divorced, but would only be accepted by the society again when

remarried to another partner. Another reason for her reluctance to offer her actual status might

lie in the fact that she committed adultery and thus she is guilty. Maybe this would stigmatize

her in the eyes of society even more. Remarriage seems to have been viewed differently in the

story than it was by Cott. The marriage between Lydia and Gannett seems inevitable and

wished for by society.

38

The third form of relationships discussed in the story is the adultery and later pre

martial relationship between Lydia and Gannett. These relationships are not approved of by

society, which shows that sexual liberties, achieved through the sexual revolution (see above

Part I page 7-9) were not yet thought about. A woman had to be married in order to be able to

have a sexual relationship with a man.

In conclusion it can be said that Wharton, as illustrated by her statement and through

her story, saw the institution of marriage as necessary. She was, however, not in favor of

marriages where the female partner was suppressed by the male partner and sought to change

the character of marriages of her time, without breaking them apart.

2.3. “Turned” by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

2.3.1. The author

2.3.1.1. Brief Biography

Charlotte Perkins Gilman was born as Charlotte Perkins in 1860 in Hartford,

Connecticut. After her father left the family they were in a strained financial situation, which

caused several moves to different places, and left Gilman with only four years of official

schooling. Because of her interest in books, which was encouraged by her father, she became

self-educated and developed a need for independence. After her relationship with Martha

Luther had ended she was introduced to Walter Stetson, who wanted to marry her. It took him

two years to convince Gilman to marry him in 1884, since her views about marriage were in

no favor to this institution (see below Gilman’s view on marriage). In 1885 her first daughter,

Katherine Beecher Stetson, was born and Gilman’s depression, which had commenced at the

beginning of her marriage, deepened after giving birth, and she underwent the rest cure

treatment developed by Dr. Mitchell. This treatment drove her close to insanity. Afterwards

she was able to achieve a separation from her husband, since she saw her marriage as the

reason for her depression, and went to California with her daughter in 1888, where she could

write freely. She started to publish articles and poems, and engaged herself in women’s clubs,

which was also connected to her family history since she was the great-niece of Harriet

Beecher Stowe. When she was finally divorced from her husband in 1894, she sent her

daughter to live with her ex-husband and his new wife, since she did not own sufficient

financial means to provide for her daughter. Gale sees another reason for Gilman’s decision to

part from her daughter. She states that Katherine showed an interest in art and since her father

was an artist, Gilman decided to let her study with her father (cf. Gale 1987:xxix). In 1900

39

Gilman married her first cousin George Houghton Gilman with whom she moved to New

York, and was joined by her daughter and then moved to Connecticut in 1922. In 1935

Gilman committed suicide knowing that she had inoperable breast cancer (cf. Knight 1998:xi-

xv).

Concerning her literary work it can be said that her publications were numerable. In

1890 she finished her most famous short story “The Yellow Wall Paper”, which was

published in 1892 in The New England Magazine. The story analyzed here, “Turned”, was

published in 1911 in The Forerunner, a monthly magazine Gilman wrote, edited and

published (cf. Knight 1997:222-224).

Since Gilman’s literary success rendered her a public person she was also subject to

articles that criticized her way of life. When Gilman decided to divorce her first husband in

1894 and sent her daughter to live with him and his second wife, Gilman's friend, the press

reacted in a way that showed how untypical break-outs of the typical conventions of marriage

and divorce were at that time. The press was outraged at the fact that Gilman and her ex-

husband remained on good speaking terms throughout the whole divorce process and

moreover that he remarried so soon after the divorce. The crescendo of outrage, however, was

reached, when Gilman sent her daughter away (cf. Kessler 1995: 26-27). This was against the

conventions of traditional motherhood and shows that Gilman led an unconventional life

according to her beliefs.

2.3.1.2. Gilman’s view on marriage

Beer states that Gilman’s stories cannot be looked at in isolation; they are interrelated

with her sociological writing (cf. Beer 1997:168). In those sociological writings Gilman held

the belief of women’s own choices concerning marriage, separation, and divorce. This is also

evident in her own life, since she decided to divorce her first husband after reluctantly

marrying him. This reluctance is illustrated in her autobiography and later explained in her

book Women and Economics.

My mind was not fully clear as to whether I should or should

not marry. On the one hand I knew it was normal and right in

general, and held that a woman should be able to have marriage

and motherhood, and do her work in the world also. On the

other, I felt strongly that for me it was not right, that the nature

of the life before me forbade it, that I ought to forego the more

intimate personal happiness for complete devotion to my work.

(Gilman 1987:83)

40

Gilman’s view on marriage is well documented through her diaries and letters. She held the

view that women should be able to combine marriage, motherhood, and career. This view,

however, collided in her own life with her desire to simply serve humanity (cf. Knight

1998:36-37). In her letters to her first husband Stetson she expressed her fear of losing her

‘self’ when marrying, of losing her independence (cf. Knight 1998:xii-xiii).

All those views concerning marriage can be found in the statement above. Gilman was

unsure of what to do, and did not view marriage as a solution for women’s lives, but rather as

an institution that would interfere with her own professional life.

Davis mentions that Gilman famously proposed her views on the combination of career

and marriage in the 1898 published work Women and Economics, in which she clearly

pronounced her view on the importance of women’s economic independence, which would

benefit the whole world, since women would then be able to fulfill their human potential. This

would give meaning to women’s lives and improve their marriages, since both partners would

be equals in the relationship. Love is only mentioned in abstract terms, in terms concerning the

intellect. Interestingly Gilman, when writing the book, had not applied her proposals to her

own life successfully. In her first marriage, it was impossible for her to reconcile the demands

of love and work and her second marriage was yet to come (cf. Davis 2005:243-245).

One famous statement concerning marriage can also be found in Women and

Economics. Gilman openly criticizes society for holding the belief that young women have to

marry in order to find fulfillment. She argues against the fact that women only gain an identity

through their husbands and are fully dependent on them (cf. Davis 2005:247). This statement

can directly be linked to Part I, since self-representation and a new self conception of women

were integral considerations in the women’s movement. Moreover, this also implicates the

wish for a changed image of marriage. Marriage should not be an institution in which women

lost their independence again.

Davis notes that before and in her second marriage, which Gilman entered after the

publication of the book, she, in fact, did not live according to the ideal marriage she proposed.

She was and wanted to be dependent on her husband, and found out that an economic

independence seemed only to foster neediness in her (cf. Davis 2005:255-257).

Spender notes that the reason for Gilman’s attitude towards marriage and motherhood is

rooted in her childhood. Gilman became suspicious of the institution of marriage, because her

father left her mother and thus the whole family. The image of romantic love did not exist for

Gilman any more, but was substituted by reality (cf. Spender 1992:516). Spender further notes

that Gilman, in her already mentioned book Women and Economics, criticized marriage and

41

the male system of economics. Women have to be there in order to help the men to increase

their wealth, but they are not valued for it. She even compares their role to horses, since they

also help to increase men’s wealth but as she states, they are treated more equally than women,

since they do not work out of a sense of duty and are seen as an investment. Gilman further

writes that marriage has been established by men as the only aspiring, legitimate relationship

between the sexes, forcing women into dependence. The interesting observation being, that

there existed the fear when women would gain full independence they would not marry any

more. This proved Gilman’s point of dependence forcing women into marriage (cf. Spender

1992:523-524).

Gilman also voiced her view concerning housekeeping, seeing it as a major part of life

for women who are married. She states in one article in the Forerunner “What Diantha Did”

that domestic work in the house done by women can be compared to slave work of former

household salves, and proposes cooperative housekeeping. (cf. Kessler 54-55). This view

shows Gilman's inner need to find a way to combine marriage and a professional career for all

women.

Gilman’s view on divorce can only be seen in her publication and in her ‘return to

normality’ which occurred after her divorce. She was again free to do her work without any

limitations by the institution of marriage. Gale notes Gilman’s attitude towards alimony.

Gilman saw no good in it and even scorned it as a mean payment for women (cf. Gale

1987:xxix). This view is understandable when considering her views on women’s economic

independence and her want of living independently after her separation and later after her

divorce.

2.3.2. General Remarks about “Turned”

Contents

This short story is centred on Mr. and Mrs. Marroner, an upper class couple living in

Boston, and Gerta Petersen, their servant. When Mr. Marroner is on a business trip Mrs.

Marroner frequently receives letters from him. One day she receives a letter from her husband

that is not intended for her, but for Gerta. In this letter it is revealed that Gerta is pregnant

from Mr. Marroner. After a time of desperation Mrs. Marroner decides to leave her husband

and does not hold Gerta responsible for the affair, but instead takes her with her. When Mr.

Marroner returns home after having extended his trip for quite a long time he discovers his

house empty, and is unable to find his wife and lover Gerta, about whom he had already

almost forgotten. After unsuccessful investigations undertaken by him, he engages a private

42

investigator, who finally discovers his wife. She lives under her maiden name in a college

town and has resumed teaching. Gerta is with her and already has had her baby. The story

ends with the final encounter of Mr. and Mrs. Marroner, now Wheeler: “What have you to say

to us?” (Gilman 1997:47), meaning Gerta and her.

Setting

The story is set in Boston’s upper class and a college town nearby during the course of

about a year. Indications for this timeframe are given through the return of the husband, who

returns after his prolonged business trip of about seven months, in spring. When he finally

decides to engage a private detective, it is autumn already. The year, the story is set in, is

probably around the publishing date, since the wife possesses a PhD and thus went to college

and had a profession of her own, before she married. Gilman was concerned with the role of

women at her time and this story might serve to illustrate her views and thus has to be set

around the publication date.

Perspective

In this story the author employs a covert authorial narrator. Since the reader is directly

informed about the characters’ feelings, perceptions, and thoughts, this story can be termed a

figural narrative with a variable focalization.

When the story commences the internal focalizer is Mrs. Marroner. Her feelings,

contemplations, and views are described in detail. When she the wrongly addressed letters the

situation is described from her point of view, since it is revealed how she experienced it.

Moreover, her actions and feelings towards leaving her husband are described rather than

Gerta’s, who simply follows her gratefully.

At the end of the story a change of the internal focalizer occurs, since Mr. Marroner is

now in the focus of the narration and thus Mr. Marroner’s perspective is shown. His feelings

towards his wife are revealed and the reader is informed about Mrs. Marroner’s whereabouts

only through Mr. Marroner. Moreover, the reader only knows about Mr. Marroner’s feelings,

and how he views the final encounter with his wife and his lover. Mrs. Marroner’s and Gerta’s

feelings are not revealed and thus need to be inferred by the reader. The only hint is given

through a direct speech by Mrs. Marroner, who ends the story with the sentence: “ ‘ What have

you to say to us?’ ” (Gilman 1997:47).

The change in perspective is cleverly employed in this story. The reader knows about

Mrs. Marroner’s feeling of betrayal and is also informed about the thinking process that led to

the decision of leaving her husband. Thus, the reader is able to sympathize with her. When the

43

perspective shifts to Mr. Marroner, the reader grasps his character fully and is able to realize

his paralysis, desperation, and confusion when faced with an empty house. The reader,

however, is deprived of Mrs. Marroner’s perspective at the end of the story, and so she remains

a likeable character, whom the reader can relate to since no feelings of hatred or jealousy are

revealed.

This change of focalizer can, however, also serve to disguise Mrs. Marroner’s

supposedly homosexual relationship to Gerta. In omitting Mrs. Marroner’s feelings for Gerta

the reader is left to infer her bisexuality. A more detailed description of this relationship can be

found below (see Character analyses and The image of Marriage).

2.3.3. The image of marriage in “Turned”

The marriage central in “Turned” is the one between Mr. and Mrs. Marroner. Thus,

both characters will be analyzed here in order to be able to draw a picture of their marriage as

was already done in the discussions of other short stories above. In addition to those two

characters Gerta has to be taken into considerations as well, since she is also in a relationship

with both spouses, even though those relationships differ essentially. Through her relationship

to both of them, a deeper insight into the marriage of the Marroners can be gained.

2.3.3.1. Character analyses of Mrs. Marroner, Mr. Marroner and Gerta Petersen

Marion Marroner Marion Marroner is an upper class New England wife, living together with her

husband in Boston. There are a few indications in the story that she is from an upper class

family. Firstly, her university degree and secondly that she possesses some money of her own;

enough to begin a new life. She appears to be happy in her marriage, but unsatisfied with her

life. She posesses a PhD and would rather teach than stay at home and play the traditional

housewife. Mrs. Marroner does not have children, and this adds to her feeling of

dissatisfaction. In Gerta Mrs. Marroner has found a substitute child, and a pupil, whom she

wants to teach, which appears to be difficult because of Gerta’s dullness.

The established picture of the normal upper class wife is turned upside down, when

Mrs. Marroner decides in what way she should react to her husband’s infidelity. In her first

outburst of fury she acts as her class companions would by ending the engagement of Gerta,

and sending her away. After contemplating her situation, Mrs. Marroner, however, reaches a

different conclusion of how to handle the situation. This renders her an independent, rational,

44

intelligent, and powerful person. She simply leaves her husband, blaming him for the affair,

and not the inexperienced Gerta and resumes teaching at university, which suits her better

than being a wife confined to her space in the house.

Mrs. Marroner’s intellect is important in the story. She seems to be able to separate

emotions from rational thinking, which is unusual in a time where women were generally

considered to be subject to their feelings and emotions. This can be illustrated by the

following sentence: “Mrs. Marroner rose to icy peaks of intellectual apprehension, from

which her hours of frantic pain seemed far indeed removed.” (Gilman 1997:44) .Interestingly,

the reader knows her thoughts and considerations from the beginning onwards. Her

contemplations underline her intellect, and her thoughts are contrasted with Gerta, who is

supposedly dull. This is supported by the fact that Gerta is only described from the outside

through her looks.

Beer mentions that there are two different value systems described in the story, the

male and the female. The male system would see the initial reaction of dismissing Gerta as the

solution to the problem. This is concerned with female economic dependence on the male

partner (see above Part I, page 3-6). The female view, however, finds a different solution to

the problem. Mrs. Marroner has had an education, and is, thus, able to overcome her emotions

by intellect, and find a suitable solution for herself. Beer further mentions that Gilman’s views

about women in society influenced this ending of the story. If a woman has had the same

degree of education as a man, it is possible for her to make her own choices. Beer describes

the moment when Mrs. Marroner changes her mind about the solution of the problem arisen

as an epiphany infused with feminist and secular views.

Mrs. Marroner came of stern New England stock. She was not a

Calvinist, hardly even a Unitarian, but the iron of Calvinism was

in her soul: of that grim faith which held that most people had to

be dammed”for the glory of God”.

Generations of ancestors who both preached and practiced stood

behind her; people whose lives had been sternly moulded to

their highest moments of religious conviction. In sweeping

bursts of feeling, they achieved “conviction,” and afterward they

lived and died according to that conviction. (Gilman 1997:45)

Mrs. Marroner reaches a conviction, seeing Gerta as the victim, and then lives according to it

by taking action (cf. Beer 1997:163-165).

45

It is interesting to call this scene an epiphany, but it could be termed this way. The

further proceeding of the story also suggests as much, since after the epiphany Mrs. Marroner

radically changes her life because she seems to have reached a deep insight.

When considering the first part of Beer’s statement, the economic dependence, it can

be said that Mrs. Marroner is able to arrange her life in a way suitable for her because of her

economic independence, stemming from the money she supposedly has from her family. Mrs.

Marroner is a university educated woman who is able to provide for herself, which shows that

women’s emancipation in the story is already as far as accepting women to teach at

University. Moreover, Mrs. Marroner develops a new self conception by leaving her husband

and relying on her own talents.

Mr. Marroner

Mr. Marroner is a typical upper class male figure. He is on business trips frequently,

but it is not stated on which business, and where he has gone in more detail. He is married and

leads a happy life until his infidelity is discovered.

Mr. Marroner is the father of Gerta’s child, and attempts the usual solution chosen of

upper class men when they find themselves in a similar situation. He simply gives Gerta

money to solve the problem. He does in no way think that this problem would affect his

marriage. He seems to love his wife, in contrast to Gerta, who was only entertainment for

him. The low value he applies to his problem with Gerta is also illustrated by the way he

contacts her through a letter. The letter is different in character to the letters he writes to his

wife. It is written in a matter of fact style, dealing with the pregnancy businesslike. This

reveals a character trait in him, which his wife previously did not encounter, namely the

coldhearted businessman without emotion.

When confronted with the situation that his wife left him, he is powerless and helpless

in the beginning. He did not anticipate this behavior, which shows that it was unusual at that

time for a wife to simply leave her husband without stating a reason, or filing divorce. When

he finally finds his wife, he is prepared to beg her to come back into his life and, regains

strength by taking this decision. When he is, however, confronted with the product of his

affair, and his wife taking care of it, he again cannot handle the situation and is again helpless

and unable to take any action.

Beer describes Mr. Marroner as loving his wife and appreciating her. The victim of his

seduction, Gerta, however, he only sees as a disturbing factor in his relationship with his wife.

46

He blames her for having come between him and his wife, for having taken away his wife

from him. He does in no way take responsibility for his future child (cf. Beer 1997:164).

His lack of taking responsibility is also illustrated by his search for his wife. He does

not search for Gerta and his child; he only is concerned about finding his wife.

Gerta Petersen Gerta is a servant and a simple minded Swedish girl. She works for the Marroners and

seems to be a child and pupil substitute for Mrs. Marroner. Her childlike nature is underlined

by her appearance of being rosy-cheeked, for example. Even though she is already a woman

of eighteen, she still appears infant like through her naïve temper, her ignorance, and

weakness. Both Marroners love Gerta, but as it seems in a different way. Gerta is Mr.

Marroners mistress and pregnant with his child. She has changed her temper substantially

when discovering this fact, and Mrs .Marroner notices dark shadows around her eyes and

even suspects a pregnancy, but of course not linking her husband with the affair. Gerta’s

simple mindedness can be detected by Mrs. Marroner’s attempts to educate her, which does

not work well since Gerta seems to be interested in different things than the ones Mrs.

Marroner tries to teach her. Additionally, this can be seen through her willingness to start an

affair, and then leave everything to the man to sort out. Gerta is efficiently working in the

household and seems to enjoy this work.

Interestingly, Gerta is repeatedly described through her outer appearance throughout

the story, in contrast to Mrs. Marroner whose thoughts and contemplations the reader is

familiar with. This stresses the different levels of intellect of the two women even further. The

contrast between the two women is apparent from the beginning of the story, where both

women are described to be weeping because of the truth they have discovered concerning

Gerta’s baby. Mrs. Marroner tries to control herself, and soon analyzes the situation. Gerta is

unable to control herself, and falls asleep being exhausted by her emotions.

A change in Gerta’s behavior occurs when she and Mrs. Marroner leave the house, and

start a new life together. When Mr. Marroner sees her again in company with his wife he

detects ”Gerta, holding the child as a bulwark, with a new intelligence in her face, and her

blue, adoring eyes fixed on her friend-not upon him. “(Gilman 1997:45). Thus, Gerta

developed through the guidance of her friend Mrs. Marroner. By the absence of men in her

life; she finally seems to be able to learn from Mrs. Marroner, and seems to have developed

intellectually. Moreover, she now discovered a new sense of value for herself, a new self-

conception. This development can be compared to Mrs. Marroner’s.

47

2.3.3.2. The image of marriage

The marriage described in the story is a typical upper class marriage of the turn of the

century. Both partners love each other, and have their separate spheres of living. The male part

is concerned with business and earning money and the female part is confined to the house,

taking care of it and the servants. The break with conventional marriage does not occur with

the infidelity of the husband, but with the wife’s reaction to it. She acts in an unusual way, as

described above, and leaves her husband without notice. The roles in the marriage, the power

relations are changed. Mrs. Marroner seizes the power, gained through her education and her

family background through which she owns money of her own. She decides to take action on

her own without the dependence on a husband, and simply leaves him. She breaks out of her

conventional life of being married, and begins a new life with a new companion and a child.

The existence of a child is essential. Mrs. Marroner herself is not a parent, she does not have

children. By separating from her husband she not only gains independence, but also a child.

She might be in a more satisfying relationship now than she was before.

The reason for the separation of Gilman from her first husband might have been

different from the reason for separating for Mrs. Marroner, but this experience certainly

influenced the story. Gilman had an intense period of writing, when living separately from her

husband in California (cf. Knight 1998:106). Mrs. Marroner is also glad to be able to return to

her professional life by separating from her husband and thus a parallel can be established

between Gilman and the character of Mrs. Marroner, concerning their attitude towards their

work.

When trying to draw a parallel between Gilman’s life and the story, one also has to

mention her view concerning the balance between marriage and career, which she proposed in

her book Women and Economics. Mrs. Marroner in the story is not able to balance her

professional work and her marriage. She gave up her profession as a teacher, when marrying

Mr. Marroner. Gilman also gave up her career for her husband. Both women were able to attain

economic independence through their profession. Another parallel to Gilman’s views voiced in

her book can be drawn when looking at how the topic of love in the marriage is treated in the

short story. Mrs. Marroner uses her intellect in order to decide what to do; she is able to

analyze the situation and her love on an abstract level. Davis states that critical opinions

concerning Gilman’s book voiced the belief that she did not consider “the power of love” in

marriages in it. She, however, did treat it, but only on an abstract level (cf. Davis 2005:244).

Knight interprets the ending, the scene, where Mr. Marroner finally sees the two

women after his extended search, as the beginning of a new relationship. She states that Mrs.

48

Marroner has found a new partner in Gerta. This is firstly unlined by the picture drawn by Mr.

Marroner when he encounters a little family with one partner having a baby on its arm, and

secondly by Gerta’s behavior of looking in Mrs. Marroner’s eyes (cf. Knight 1997:202-203).

The idea of a new partnership can be extended even further since Mrs. Marroner uses a

new name now, her maiden name, and calls herself Miss Wheeler. She did not go as far as

calling herself Mrs. Wheeler, but the change of name, as it usually happens by marrying, could

also indicate this new unconventional ‘marriage’ of the two women.

Gilman herself did not support the change of name of women when they marry. She

thought that it would have been better to publish under her maiden name from the beginning

onwards, since she had to change her name on her publications after her second marriage. She

only found this an unnecessary nuisance and noted that women nowadays were starting to

outgrow this habit (cf. Gilman 1987:284).

Relationships with women can also be found in Gilman’s biography. After the

disappointment of her first marriage Gilman had a relationship with Adeline Knapp. In this

relationship she held the belief of being able to combine love and career, which was not the

case in her first marriage; however, this relationship did not last (cf. Davis 2005:251-252).

When looking at the power relations in both relationships it is clear that Mrs. Marroner

only gained power by separating from her husband. Even though her husband loved her, the

marriage still fostered the traditional roles of the husband as the provider, and the wife as the

homemaker. Since the husband earns the money, he has more power of decision in the

relationship. When looking at her second ‘marriage’, Mrs. Marroner is now the providing part

and can even be said to have taken on a male role. She is also older than Gerta and so she

teaches her her way of living, which she tried before, when Gerta was her servant. Now it

seems as if her efforts were finally fruitful. Gerta has also elevated herself by leaving the house

of the Marroners. She doesn’t seem to be a servant any more, but has taken the role of a wife

and mother. Interestingly there seems to be no equality between the partners again, which

Gilman proposed as important in Women and Economics.

Lane cites Gilman in her book and moreover writes that Gilman in her pre-martial letter

correspondence with her second husband, Houghton, voiced the view that he “held the

woman's place toward me” meaning that she saw herself in the male role of the relationship

(cf. Lane 1990:213). This can be considered interesting because it supports the view above that

Mrs. Marroner now is in the male role of the partnership. Thus, Gilman herself saw the

possibility of women taking over male roles and voiced this in her letters and in her story.

49

In conclusion it can be said that the image of marriage described in this story

corresponds with Gilman’s view on marriage. Gilman saw marriage between unequal partners

as an institution in need of change, and famously proposed her idea of economic equality

between the sexes.

2.4.” A Jury of Her Peers” by Susan Glaspell

2.4.1. The author

2.4.1.1. Brief Biography

Susan Glaspell was born in 1882 in Davenport, Iowa. In 1899 she graduated from

Drake University, and worked afterwards as a reporter for a newspaper for a short period of

time, in which the Hossack case, that inspired the story “A Jury of Her Peers”, occurred (see

below). From 1909 onwards she published literary works starting with the novel The Glory of

the Conquered. In 1916 Trifles was published and in 1917, one year later, it was reworked into

the short story “A Jury of Her Peers”. In 1913 she married George Cram Cook who died in

Delphi, Greece, in 1924. One year later she married Norman Matson. This marriage was,

however, dissolved in 1931. After many successful productions of her plays Glaspell won the

Pulitzer Prize in 1931 for her play Alison’s House. In 1949 she died of pneumonia (cf.

Waterman 1966:13-14).

As Waterman stresses, there is a close relationship between Glaspell’s life and her

literary work, which can be divided into 3 phases. The first phase begins around 1909 and

extends till 1913, when she married her first husband. During that time she mainly wrote short

stories and novels. From around 1913 till the 1920s she was closely related with the

Provincetown Players for whose theatre she wrote plays. This can be seen as her second phase.

In the third phase, starting from around 1928 till her death, she focused again on novels,

concentrating on the Midwest and its values (cf. Waterman 1966:7-8).

Makowsky states that Glaspell wrote in the era considered “The New Woman”, which

can be placed around 1870 to 1920, but that she differed from modernist writers of the cities.

Glaspell was closer in her writing to Emerson and Whitman, and this can also be seen in how

she treated her women in her stories and plays. Glaspell focused on women’s experience rather

than the battle of the sexes, which was mostly the important topic at that time. Considering the

form of her novels, it can be seen that she admired Virginia Woolf’s writing, but stuck to a

conventional form in her own writing in order to be able to reach a greater audience.

50

Radicalism and experiments can only be seen in her plays, as for example in Trifles, which was

reworked into the short story “A Jury of her Peers” (cf. Makowsky 1993:4-5).

2.4.1.2. Glaspell’s view on marriage

Glaspell is characterized by her biographers as a woman who was dependent on her

husband and was submissive as well. When looking at her marriages, Makowsky states that

Glaspell did, in fact, provide economically for her family, but was submissive to her first

husband Cook, who was the founder of the Provincetown Players, as well as to her second

husband and previous lover, Matson. Because of her submissiveness in marriage she cannot be

entirely be viewed as a feminist, because this behavior supported women’s traditional role in

marriage (cf. Makowsky 1993:7).

When considering Glaspell’s biography, however, one might detect some details that do

not fit into this description. For example, she never took the last name of her husband. Her

view on marriage in “A Jury of Her Peers” also shows a different perspective on marriage than

the traditional patriarchal one. Here, marriage is characterized as a social institution taking

away the rights of women and isolating them, leaving them in the power of their husbands,

even if they are abusive. So, in a way, she criticizes this system. Another indication for her

view that this kind of marriage is, in fact, not right for women might lie in the fact that she left

Iowa with her husband in order to life in New York. The new setting had to be more liberal

concerning marriage, and thus Glaspell’s marriage might have changed and been different from

the marriages she describes in her story.

Ben-Zvi states that Glaspell saw her marriage as a possibility to escape from Iowa, but

still have contact to her heritage, since her husband was from Davenport as well. Both first

moved to Chicago and then to New York, where they could develop their ideas more freely

than in Iowa (cf. Ben-Zvi 1995:4-5).

As a response to a question by a reporter, asked in 1921, Glaspell answered: “ ‘Of

course I am interested in all progressive movements, whether feminist, social, or economic, but

I can take no active part other than through my writing.’ ” (Noe 1983:44). This quote perfectly

illustrates Glaspell’s opinion. She criticized through her writing, but lived in a different way to

that. She was not an activist, even though she would have had the possibility to be one.

Ozieblo describes Glaspell as torn between her belief in freedom of choice and speech,

and her belief in the obligations to family, friends, and society. She was torn between

modernist views and Victorian values (cf. Ozieblo 2008:13).

51

As Fletcher stresses, Glaspell never saw female sisterhood as centrally important as

later ascribed to her stories, especially to “A Jury of her Peers”. In her early life Glaspell

aspired to belong to clubs in her hometown, but was never included because of her low social

standing. Later, at University, she was, in fact, part of the fashionable group, but when she

returned to her hometown, she was again rejected by Midwestern conservatism, since she

wanted to pursue a career. In 1912 Glaspell moved to Greenwich Village, New York, and was

confronted with a two sided feminism, focusing on female solidarity on the one hand, and on

self-discovery on the other. Exactly those two strands of feminism, not including women’s

suffrage, are evident in her stories written between 1913 till 1922. Glaspell’s life shows this

two sidedness as well. She went to college against the wish of her father, bobbed her hair and

kept her own last name after her marriage. In contrast to that she did not participate in the

suffrage movement, and did not challenge the practice of female self-sacrifice in marriage, but

practiced it herself. Glaspell never described herself as a feminist (cf. Fletcher 2006:239-245).

All literary critics above focus on the fact that that Glaspell was confronted with the

ideas of the women’s movement, but made no effort to realize them in her own life. Her

opinions concerning those ideas are only traceable in her works. Thus, the image of marriage

she proposed in her stories, and the marriages she led probably differed essentially.

2.4.2. General Remarks about “A Jury of Her Peers”

Contents

Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters are summoned into Mrs. Minnie Foster Wright’s house,

because she has been imprisoned for murdering her husband. There are, however, not enough

pieces of evidence yet, and the country attorney and the sheriff are trying to reconstruct the

crime with the help of Mr. Hale, who found the dead body. The two women are left alone and

try to find some clothes and other things for Mrs. Wright, who is in prison. While doing so,

they discover several items of everyday life, which are, in fact, evidence that lead to a motive

of Mrs. Wright for murdering her husband. The two women find a quilt where they see regular

stitching and then suddenly find it to become irregular. Mrs. Hale immediately starts to redo it,

even though she cannot explain why. Both women find it strange to have such a sudden change

in sewing- Mrs. Hale attributes it to nervousness and Mrs. Peters to tiredness. When continuing

to search for pieces of clothing for Mrs. Wright, the two women discover a dead bird. The

bird’s neck was wrung and the cage was broken into violently. The two women now know why

Mrs. Wright killed her husband, and they also know why she chose to strangle him. She did the

same thing to him as he did to her bird. The two women, however, do not tell the men about

52

their findings, but hide the evidence and thus the motive for murder. At the end of the story the

possibility of Mrs. Wright being released from prison, on grounds of missing evidence, still

remains.

As Ben-Zvi states Glaspell insisted that Trifles and “A Jury of Her Peers” were based

on an actual murder case which occurred during her time as a reporter. This case was

concerned with the murder of a sixty-year old farmer named John Hossack, who was murdered

on December 2, 1900 in Indianola, Iowa (cf. Ben-Zvi 1995:21).

Setting

No clear indication of a time setting is given in the story. The reader only knows that it

is March, and a very cold one because the people in the story gather around the stove in Mr.

and Mrs. Wright’s house in order to warm up. Another indication for the cold time of year is

given through Mrs. Hale, because, before she leaves her house, she runs back to retrieve her

woolen shawl against the cold northern wind.

The spatial setting is given as Dickinson County, but there is no indication in which

state this County is. Since Glaspell came from the Midwest and her early fiction is concerned

with her hometown, the conclusion can be drawn that the story is set somewhere in the

Midwest. The year is also not given, but it could be set around the publication date, which

would be at the beginning of the 20th century. Another indication for this assumption is given

by the actual murder case which happened in 1900.

Hedges considers the setting of the story and its impact important. She found out that

Dickinson County is, in fact, a place in Iowa close to the border of Nebraska, Glaspell’s home

country (cf. Hedges 1995:52). The vast land and the loneliness connected to it are, in fact,

important in the story, as will be discussed below.

Perspective

This story is narrated by an authorial omniscient narrator and the focalizer is external.

Since the story was adapted from a play, the form of narration strongly reminds of these roots.

The characters converse in dialogical form throughout the whole story and the reader gains

information about their feelings and opinions purely through these dialogues and the narrator’s

comments on speakers. The only exception to this dialogical kind of narration is the beginning

of the story where the setting and the situation are explained by the narrator.

Even though the focalizer could be termed external, the feelings and opinions of Mrs.

Hale and Mrs. Peters are in focus. They draw conclusions according to their beliefs and the

53

reader is almost forced to adapt their perspective. The interesting fact concerning this story is

the outside perspective on the imprisoned Mrs. Wright. She is only viewed through the eyes of

other characters and thus her own perspective on her situation is never given. Her motive for

the murder is only inferred by other characters.

Since the perspective of Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters is prevailing in the story, the men’s

perspective is mentioned only marginally. It is, however, revealed in several conversations that

the men do not understand Mrs. Wright because of their different world view.

2.4.3. The image of marriage in “A Jury of Her Peers”

2.4.3.1. Character analyses of Mrs. Wright, Mr. Wright, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters

When looking at the story, it does not seem to include the topic of marriage as its main

theme. Not even the two protagonists who usually would make a marriage tangible for the

reader are present. The marriage is described by different means, through the eyes of the two

women who are only supposed to gather some personal things for the woman imprisoned,

because she is accused of murdering her husband. Considering this, the story is essentially

different from the stories discussed above, where a clear male and female protagonist were

present from whose behavior one could assume the character of the marriage, they live in. The

interesting aspect of two substitute persons finding out about the marriage lies in the fact that

the substitute persons can only assume what was happening to both partners. Because of this

special situation in the story Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters will be analyzed as characters as well,

since their subjective view, experiences, and conclusions significantly shape the image of

marriage conveyed in this story.

The central figure of the story, Minnie Wright, is absent throughout the whole story.

The sheriff’s wife, Mrs. Peters, and Mrs. Hale, a neighbor, are supposed to gather things for

her and by doing so discover the motive of the crime and reveal the character of the marriage

of the Wrights.

Emotional tension, thus, tension concerned with the marriage, is for example evident by

irregular stitching on a quilt. Even the final motive for the murder is discovered by the two

women, namely a dead canary bird that was the closest substitution for children and a friend

for Mrs. Wright. Both women protect Mrs. Wright in the end because they are able to

sympathize with her. They protect her from the male world who would not understand her as

her female sisters do (cf. Waterman 1966:28-30).

54

As can be read above, the two women save Mrs. Wright from being persecuted. This

behavior is typical for heroines in Glaspell’s fiction. As Papke stresses, Glaspell might be

viewed as submissive to her husband in the biographies written about her, but the women in

her stories do, in fact, contradict conventional submissiveness of women. They fight against

gender expectation derived from conventions and try to create or construct true womanhood

(cf. Papke 2006:20-21).

Mrs. Minnie Foster Wright

Mrs. Minnie Foster Wright is the figure around whom the story evolves. She was

imprisoned for killing her husband, and is thus not present in the story. She is only

characterized by Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, who draw conclusions about her and her married

life. They assume from the state of her kitchen, that she was unhappy and lonely. This

loneliness is further emphasized by Mrs. Hale’s contemplations in which she blames herself for

never visiting her childhood friend, Mrs. Wright.

Ben-Zvi notes that the last name, Foster Wright, is, in fact, a pun that marks her lack of

rights in the story, and her right to free herself from the oppressing control of her husband. The

author continues to investigate the reasons for this absence and concludes that the central

question of her guilt, which can be discussed in an objective way by her absence more easily,

is, in fact, not the central question. The central question is why Mrs. Wright killed her husband.

The setting of the kitchen reveals many things about Mrs. Wright’s character and the character

of her marriage. The preserves, for example, are exploded, which happened because of the

cold. Ben-Zvi sees a connection in that to the causal relationship between isolation and

violence. Mrs. Wright killed her husband in the same way he killed her bird, and in the same

way she was treated by him-she strangled him. The jury, Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, reach the

conclusion that it was her right to do so (cf. Ben-Zvi 1995:34-35).

Ben-Zvi sees the reason for the murder as the central question. Since this reason is

linked to the character of the Wright’s marriage, Mrs. Wright’s role needs closer

considerations. She seems to have been enduring her marriage to a violent husband until one

final act of violence changed her behavior. She decided to take action, to seize power and take

revenge by killing him. The interesting part is that she was able to endure his violence as long

as it only affected herself. The moment her husband decided to use violence against her bird,

her child substitute, she reached the point where she decided to defend herself.

55

One source of Mrs. Wright’s loneliness, also mentioned by Ben Zvi as essential for the

story, lies in the separation of spheres in the 19th

century. Mrs. Wright was confined to the

kitchen, to loneliness. She does not have any contact to the world beyond her kitchen.

Hedges notes even a strain of madness in Mrs. Wright’s behavior. She was confined to

her farm, and only had her canary as consolidation; she even turned into a canary in a way.

When the bird is strangled, a part of her is strangled as well. Many rural women in the 19th

century turned mad, induced by their loneliness and thus the case of Mrs. Wright would be no

exception (cf. Hedges 1995:59).

The bird cannot only be viewed as a substitute child, but it can also be seen to

symbolize music. Mrs. Wright was a good singer in her youth and loved to sing in church.

When she married she did not do that anymore. Her canary sings and thus he is her substitute

for music. It is understandable, in a way, that the killing of it finally triggered the murder of her

abusive husband.

Mr. Wright

Mr. Wright is also absent throughout the story because he has been murdered. He is

described in opposing ways by different characters in the story. Mr. Hale describes him as a

common man would; as hard working and as stubborn concerning a telephone line that Mr.

Hale wanted to be installed. He does, however, not find anything unusual in Mr. Wright’s

behavior.

Through the women, the reader sees a different picture of Mr. Wright. He was a violent,

abusive husband, who created an atmosphere that not even neighbors, such as the Hales,

wanted to penetrate. He abused his wife, and even killed her one and only precious property, a

bird that brought happiness into her loneliness. In creating that sphere of violence, Mr. Wright

kept his wife lonely, because no female friend wanted to enter the house. Moreover, he ensured

that no one would discover his crimes against his wife, because she did not have the possibility

to talk to anyone. Those assumptions are supported by his rejection of the installation of a

telephone line. This telephone line, would have given his wife a possibility to communicate her

misery.

Ozieblo sees the reason for the men’s different view on Mr. Wright in gender

differences. She states that through male hierarchy and camaraderie, they are unable to read the

clues in the same way, the women did, and in missing the clue of the violent behavior of Mr.

Wright towards his wife, they are missing the “reason” for the crime (cf. Ozieblo 2008:69).

56

Mrs. Hale

Mrs. Hale is a farmer’s wife and the neighbor of Mrs. Wright. She is a woman, who

works hard and “She hated to see things half done […]” (Glaspell 2000:85). She is reluctant to

step into the kitchen at first, because she was a friend of Mrs. Wright, when they were younger,

but did not visit her since then. She is a down to earth person, rooted in the farm life of the

Midwestern world. Because of that, she finds clues for the motive for the murder of Mr. Wright

in everyday things, such as the quilt.

Hedges notes the fact that Mrs. Hale has not visited Mrs. Wright for more than a year,

even though she has known her since their shared childhood. Mrs. Hale is, however, excused

by Mrs. Peters, since life on a farm for women was hard and usually meant seldom visits to

town for them, in contrast to their husbands who went to town more often. This is also evident

in the story, because Mr. Hale is going to town with his son when they discover the body of

Mr. Wright (cf. Hedges 1995:58-59).

Ben Zvi finds Mrs. Hale’s an accessory to the crime. She describes that Mrs. Hale

realizes her own complicity in the case, because she did not attempt to help her neighbor in her

difficult situation. “[…] Martha Hale had a moment of feeling she could not cross that

threshold. And the reason it seemed she couldn’t cross it now was simply because she hadn’t

crossed it before.” (Glaspell 2000:85) (cf. Ben Zvi 1995:38).

Mrs. Hale is affected by the loneliness of the place. This starts on the way to the

Wright’s house, when the group wanders through a lonesome country. The feeling is extended

to the moment when they see the house, which appears lonely in the middle of the vast country.

Hedges states as well that 19th

century women seemed to have been more affected by this

specific loneliness in the landscape of the west than men, thus the perception is different (cf.

Hedges 1995:53).

Hedges further notes the confined spaces as discussed above (see Mr. Wright) and that

Mrs. Hale only moves from one kitchen to another. She stays in her confined place (cf. Hedges

1995:58). This move from one kitchen to another can also be connected to the feeling of

loneliness Mrs. Hale experiences when walking to the Wright’s house. Mrs. Hale stays in her

confined place, and rarely leaves her kitchen, thus, the country appears even more deserted to

her.

It can be concluded that Mrs. Hale is a woman content with her role in life. She does

not question it, and takes it as it is. The only act of rebellion against her assigned role can be

detected in her protection of Mrs. Wright. She sympathizes with Mrs. Wright’s fate and tries to

57

improve it. Thus, she associates herself with other women and their lot, showing her

disapproval of the male dominated society.

Mrs. Peters

Mrs. Peters is the sheriff’s wife and has been asked to gather some things for Mrs.

Wright, who is in prison. Since she is the wife of a law enforcement officer, she seems to be

socially higher ranking than Mrs. Hale, which might be a reason why the two women are

distanced at the beginning of the story. Mrs. Peters does not want to go to the house alone with

the men and thus Mrs. Hale is asked to accompany her, and help her to find the things needed.

She is characterized by Mrs. Hale as not looking like a sheriff’s wife. She is a small woman

without a strong voice, and she seems to be timid, in a way, since she does not want to go to

the house by herself with three men.

Ben-Zvi notes that Mrs. Peters first defends the search of the home as men’s duty, only

imitating the view of her husband, the sheriff. During the stay in the house, Mrs. Peters begins

to realize that she is, in fact, not different from Mrs. Wright, since she is only considered the

wife of the sheriff, and not an individual person in society. She is dependent on her husband in

the same way as Mrs. Wright was. Mrs. Peters gradually begins to identify with Mrs. Wright

due to the isolation and loneliness she also feels, and because both women are childless. The

greatest impact on her is, however, reached by the dead pet. She now understands Mrs.

Wright’s situation and would have probably acted in the same way.

When I was a girl, “said Mrs. Peters, under her breath, “my kitten-

there was a boy took a hatchet, and before my eyes-before I could

get there-“She covered her face an instant. “If they hadn’t held be

back I would have”-she caught herself, looked upstairs where

footsteps were heard, and finished weakly-“hurt him.” (Glaspell

2000:101)

Mrs. Peters reads the case unfolding before her, and does not act the way her husband would.

She is not similar to her husband any more and thinks independently and thus is able to see the

motive, and finds Mrs. Wright innocent, in her own opinion. Moreover, the story shows what a

woman may become, if given legal power of her own. She might come to decisions different to

the ones of her husband and thus might form opinions against male hegemony. The author

even attributes Mrs. Peters with the act of seizing a juridical position (cf. Ben-Zvi 1995:37-38).

Hedges notes that Mrs. Peters is torn between loyalty to the law, represented by her

husband, and sympathy for Mr. Wright. Mrs. Hale has already chosen sides earlier, but for

58

Mrs. Peters the moment of rebellion against male authority first occurs, when she conceals the

evidence of the dead bird before the men. This happens after Mrs. Hale has corrected the queer

stitches on the quilt and has also concealed evidence. Through those stitches Mrs. Peters first

began to sympathize with Mrs. Wright, and this would later on lead to open complicity (cf.

Hedges 1995:62-63).

2.4.3.2. The image of marriage

One could argue that the main topic of this story is the murder case, and the attempts of

the women to hide the motive before the men searching for it. However, the reason for Mrs.

Wright murdering her husband lay in an unhappy marriage, which makes the topic of marriage

more central again. The other difference to the stories discussed above concerns the solution of

marriage problems. Each of those stories discussed above focuses on one marriage in which the

two main actors have certain problems. The solutions to those problems are different, but never

as radical as in the story here, where a wife kills her husband, because she is no longer able to

continue to live her life with him.

Ben-Zvi sees an appeal for the empowerment of women in the story. She argues that

those two women, Mrs. Peters and Mrs. Hale, have seized their own rights, even though they

are legally still not empowered, since women’s suffrage would only be realized later (see

above Part I 9-11). Glaspell does not victimize her women, but lets them conduct a trial and

gain power in doing so; she shows other option for women than murder (cf. Ben-Zvi 1995:39).

The marriage central in the story is the marriage of the Wrights. Since this marriage is

only seen through the eyes of strangers to the marriage, the character of the marriages of Mrs.

Peters and Mrs. Hale also influence the description. In a way, all three marriages are the same.

All three women are confined to their space, the farm, and more specifically the kitchen. The

husbands have the power to decide on all matters, even decisions concerning the wife. Thus, it

can be concluded that the marriages follow the typical patriarchal system of female obedience.

The only factor different in the three marriages appears to be Mr. Wright, since he abused his

wife. The other husbands do not act in this way, or so it appears. The abusive character of the

marriage is central to the story, because it triggers the murder, as a rebellion of the wife. This

behavior is unusual, because women at that time were supposed to be submissive, and not

supposed to rebel against the patriarchal system of marriage. The other women understand

Mrs. Wright in a way, because they are in a similar situation of legal powerlessness in their

marriages. As illustrated in Part I (see page 11) legal practice assumed that the appliance of

physical force by the husband was seen as a right and not persecuted in most cases. Thus, the

59

men present at the crime scene, since they are on the powerful side, do not understand Mrs.

Wright.

It has to be noted, however, that Mrs. Hale did, in fact, notice that Mrs. Wright was

unhappy, but did not do anything against it. She conventionally assumed that marriage and its

working only concerned the husband and the wife. When looking at it from that perspective,

this marriage is made public, and the roles of both partners are considered by the public, who

still applies conventional views to assess the relationship.

Ozieblo describes Glaspell as torn between her belief in freedom of choice and speech,

and her belief in the obligations to family, friends, and society. She was torn between

modernist views, and Victorian values (cf. Ozieblo 2008:13). This sate of mind is illustrated in

the story. Mrs Peters changes her view concerning Mrs. Wright, when she discovers details of

her life. Both women in the story rebel against the social convention by keeping their findings

secret from their husbands and thus the male society. They, however, do not directly question

their own position and including that; their marriages.

Alkalay-Gut focuses on the unjust legal system for women, and the structure of

marriage in her considerations about the story. She states that the women were trapped by the

social system. They might have been led to crime and then they were punished for committing

it. The situation of women as legal minors can be seen in Mrs. Wright’s absence, she is

accused of a crime without the existence of evidence, and by the fact that Mrs. Hale and Mrs.

Peters are allowed on the crime scene only because of their husband’s involvement. They are

the wife of the sheriff and the wife of the witness. The power relations in the marriage can be

seen in the state of the kitchen and Mrs. Wright’s clothes. She is dependent and cannot provide

for herself. Mr. Wright denies her basic things, such as a hearth to produce decent warmth.

Another illustration of this power relation, legally manifested, is given when Mrs. Wright is

asked why she did not help her husband, if there were intruders trying to kill him. Her simple

answer is: “ ‘Yes, “says she, ‘but I was on the inside.’ “ (Glaspell 2000:89) This position of

being on the inside, illustrates her passive position, which renders her helpless. In this position

of powerlessness, it would be impossible for her to kill her husband, or so she claims (cf.

Alkalay-Gut 1995:71-75).

The state of things in the kitchen described is, however, a violation of the marriage

agreement, since the husband is, in fact, supposed to provide in a decent way for his wife. He is

viewed as the provider and thus needs to supply necessities of life for his wife (see Part I).

Minnie Wright’s marriage is characterized by Gardiner as captivity. She is kept by the

valley setting and her abusive husband in her gloomy kitchen. When choking her husband after

60

he has killed her bird, she is free again and no prisoner anymore. However, then, she is caged

again when her crime is discovered by the authorities. The ending of the story suggests that

with the help of the two other women she might be able to be finally free (cf. Gardiner

2006:195-196).

Minnie Wright impersonates the central metaphor in the story, the caged bird. This

metaphor is expanded throughout the whole story. Considering the support of Mrs. Hale and

Mrs. Peters the theme of female bonding comes to attention. The two women understand why

Mrs. Wright committed the murder. This extreme form of standing together reflects the times,

the story was written in. Women were fighting for their right to vote, and had to stand together

against men in order to achieve their goal. This happens here as well, when those two women

try to protect a third one, who is not even a close friend of theirs. Even though Glaspell did not

view female bonding as important in her story many literary critics have indeed found this

theme important in the story, given the time it was set in (see above Glaspell’s view).

The legal situation of women in Iowa at the time the story was written in was as

follows. Women did not have the right to vote (see above page 11), and were not allowed to

serve on juries. They were only allowed on juries in Utah, Washington, Kansas and California.

Women did not have any legal rights concerning their matters. This influences the situation in

the story, because Mrs. Wright and Mrs. Peters know that the men are unable to identify the

clues the women have found. The men might be open to explanations by the women and will

then understand the clues viewed as trifles. Mrs. Hale and Mrs. Peters, however, do not want to

share their knowledge and thus they become criminals in concealing the clues. The women

gained some power, even though they do not have this power in front of the legal system (cf.

Alkalay-Gut 1995:11-78).

As explained in Part I, one central demand of the women’s movements, besides

suffrage, was self representation. This story could serve to show that women needed self-

representation in order to be treated equally before law. This also influences marriage insofar

as it would lead to equality since the husband would not be supposed to represent his wife in

front of the law any more.

In conclusion it can be said that the image of marriage employed in this story is

patriarchal. The author illustrated how this situation affected women, and described two

solutions, a violent, murder, and a peaceful one, legal rights for women.

61

2.5. “The Gilded Six-Bits” by Zora Neale Hurston

2.5.1. The author

2.5.1.1. Brief Biography

Zora Neale Hurston was one of the most influential black women writers between

1920 and 1950, but only few facts about her life are known, and those often contradict each

other. She is, for example, said to have been famous for her racial pride. This image would fit

in with her role as partly shaping the Harlem Renaissance together with other authors of that

time. The other image or accusation concerns an entirely different role she is supposed to

have been playing, that of the “happy darkie”. She is said to have impersonated this

stereotypical role in order to secure financial means of white supporters. There, thus, remain

many questions concerning Hurston’s life, the first one being the year of her birth (cf.

Washington 1979:7-9).

Zora Neale Hurston was born, or so it is believed, in 1901 in Eatonville, Florida,

which was a black town, the government and all other public offices also being occupied by

black people. It was not a part of a white town and thus a slum, but an independent all black

town, which shed Hurston from race prejudice in the beginning of her life. Her mother died in

1909 and her father married again after a short period of time. His new wife did not want the

children around her, which eventually brought Hurston to leaving school, when she was

fourteen years old, and to working as a maid and in several other jobs, such as the Gilbert and

Sullivan traveling dramatic troupe. She finished high school in Baltimore, attended Howard

University in Washington D.C. from 1919 till 1924, and then began to study cultural

anthropology at Barnard College from 1925-1928, having spent one year in New York City at

the height of the Harlem Renaissance. She came to the notice of Franz Boas, a famous

anthropologist at Columbia University, and studied under him until 1927, when she returned

to the South where she collected folklore. Her first marriage with Herbert Sheen, which was

celebrated after six years of relationship lasted from 1927 till 1931, and ended with divorce.

She started publishing her works from 1921 onwards, her first short story, “John Redding

Goes to Sea”, was published in Stylus. She published “The Gilded Six-Bits” in Story

Magazine in 1933. Her second marriage with Albert Price III lasted from 1939 till 1943, and

also ended with divorce. The last decades of Hurston’s life were marked by her need to earn

money and her right wing political views, supporting Republicans and segregation, which was

untypical for black people at that time. Hurston died in 1960 in Florida in a well-fare home

62

without sufficient means to provide for her burial (cf. Howard 1980:11-31 and Bloom

1986:175-178).

The image of the “happy darkie” introduced above stemmed from Hurston’s

involvement with rich white people. Hurston’s work of collecting folklore in the South was

supported financially by a white woman named Mrs. R. Osgood Mason for five years. In

those years Hurston received about fifteen thousand dollars, and had a letter correspondence

with Mrs. Mason, in which the accusations of Hurston playing the “happy darkie” are

probably rooted. In order to please Mrs. Mason, Hurston wrote her letters in a flattering

manner enforcing the image of the “happy darkie”. Hurston also tried to become self-

supporting, but her main goal was to have a career (cf. Washington 1976:11-14).

Another opinion, for which Hurston was criticized, was that of being against

desegregation. She expressed the view that two societies existed apart from each other, and

that both were equal. Her novels were also criticized for portraying the black communities in

the South as almost pastoral (cf. Washington 1976:17-19).

2.5.1.2. Hurston’s view on marriage

Plant claims that Hurston was concerned with self-empowerment through

achievement, but did not identify with equality in heterosexual relationships or even marriage.

The author further claims that Hurston did, in fact, identify with the patriarchal system of

marriage and blamed her parents for not living according to this model, since her mother

seemed to have been a strong partner in the marriage. Plant even goes as far as proposing that

Hurston’s perception of an ideal marriage views the husband not only as the dominant part,

but also as the sole provider, protector, and benevolent patriarch. She further writes about

three commandments around which Hurston’s marriages in her stories are centered: “man

must bravely confront the challenge of “Dame Nature”; he must protect and provide for his

dependents; and woman must understand, love, and support her mate.” (Plant 1995:167).

Interestingly, Hurston did not only see the patriarchal marriage model as the ideal and

displayed it in her fiction, she also did not protest against domestic violence, and blamed her

father for not being able to force her mother’s submission (cf. Plant 1995:166-169).

Hurston had internalized her father’s views about femininity, and how women should

behave. In her stories women submit to their husband and are, thus, loved. Plant mentions,

however, that Hurston did not live according to the ideals she proposed in her fiction. Hurston

herself did not submit; neither to her husbands nor to her lovers. She stayed independent

63

because her work and especially her career were more important to her (cf. Plant 1995:172-

173).

The answer Plant offers for Hurston’s depiction of the patriarchal system in her

stories, even though she lived in a different way, is that Hurston developed a sense of being a

female ‘other’, which led to self-love early in her life. She was discriminated against because

of her race and her gender, but because of her self-love Hurston saw herself in a different

way, and aspired to power. The power surrounding her was held by males and thus she

identified with males, rather than females. This can be seen in her marriages, divorces, and

affairs. Hurston behaved like a man and created an androgynous character for herself (cf.

Plant 1995:178-179).

Howard defines certain characteristics Hurston saw as integral for a successful

marriage, namely courage, honesty, love, trust, respect, understanding, and a willingness to

negotiate differences. In her stories, it is shown that if those characteristics are flouted by one

partner this leads to disaster. Howard compares Hurston’s treatment of men, who make a

mistake, to women who do wrong in marriage. He observes that men usually suffer a harsher

treatment than women. The men usually die, but the women only suffer a punishment as it

happens in “The Gilded Six-Bits”. Howard further mentions that Hurston saw marriage as an

important institution, and claims that she portrayed it realistically and varied, but that

marriage was not meant for her (cf. Howard 1980:71).

Howard does not describe the character of the marriage as Plant did, but only mentions

the ingredients he thought Hurston would find important. His reflections on the punishments

of spouses, who make mistakes, are interesting to look at, because they paint a different

picture of Hurston’s perception of male and female. Male characters are punished by death

when behaving in a wrong way, and females are only mildly punished as in the story

discussed here. This shows that Hurston might have portrayed patriarchal marriages in her

stories, but did, in fact, empower women in a way, because their abusive husbands die in the

end and leave women to live their own life.

2.5.2. General remarks about “The Gilded Six-Bits”

Contents Missie May is the wife of Joe, a worker, who works night shifts and only has Saturday

nights off. Both are very happy and loving in their relationship and they have a ritual game,

they perform each Saturday, when Joe returns from work in a fertilizer plant. Joe throws silver

dollars into the door, and then hides behind bushes in the garden. When Missie appears, she

64

pretends to be offended by this act, and chases him around the house until she catches him.

Then she searches his pockets for candy. One day, however, Joe comes home early to find his

wife in bed with a new citizen of the town called Otis D. Slemmons. Slemmons owns the ice

cream parlor in town and came from Chicago. Joe chases him away, but keeps one of

Slemmons’ gilded half dollars, believing it is real gold, as Slemmons pretended. The marriage

begins to get worse after the affair. Joe uses Slemmons’ golden dollar as a constant reminder

of Missie’s guilt, and leaves it, for example, on his pillow after a sexual encounter. Even

though the situation does not improve and Missie is pregnant, the child possibly being

Slemmons’, there is no notion of separation. When Missie finally delivers a boy, and the child

looks like her husband, Joe is relieved and decides to forgive his wife Missie May. In order to

show her that, he gives away Slemmons gilded half dollar and performs the same game ritual

they used to play before Missie’s affair.

Setting

The story is set in Eatonville, Florida, which is supposedly close to Orlando, since Joe

goes there to purchase gifts for Missie. The town used as setting is Eatonville, an independent

black town. This was also the name of the independent black town where Hurston grew up.

The town has to be close to a fertilizer factory, since most men, including Joe, work there. It

is a rural, peaceful setting.

It could be concluded that the time the story is set in are the 1930s, the same time the

story was published. There is, however, no indication given for any year. As suggested below

(see The image of marriage) the 1930s might be the right time to set the story in, since that

was the time of the depression, and the story is concerned with money. The story unfolds for

about one year. This can be concluded from the events. There are events before the affair, and

then three month after the affair Missie is pregnant. The story ends nine month later with

Missie giving birth.

Perspective

In this story an authorial third person narrator is employed, this standard narrative

voice, however, changes within the story when the character’s feelings are revealed. The

focalizer is external and internal, and alternates constantly between Missie and Joe in short

instances, such as the beginning where Missie bathes herself, or when Joe discovers the affair.

65

The change of the focalizer mostly occurs after a conversation between Missie and

Joe, in which the feelings of both are revealed at the same time, in contrast to the parts of the

story where a clear internal focalizer of one or the other is marked.

The story, however, also appears to be a hybrid form between figural narration and

authorial narration because there are also scenes where there is no focus on a special

character, and the narrator simply continues to tell the story from an external perspective.

By employing alternating focalizers, interrupted by conversations in the story, the

reader is constantly informed about the two main characters’ feelings, expressed in their own

dialect. This technique gives the reader an advantage over the character’s partner, since the

partner is left to infer feelings from bits of information revealed in conversations. Thus, the

reader is able to fully grasp the reasons for both characters’ behavior and gain a deeper insight

into their changing relationship.

2.5.3. The image of marriage in “The Gilded Six-Bits”

Race as a separate factor will not be discussed in the character analyses below. This

might even be close to the author’s intention, since she also held the opinion that white and

black people were equal, and only lived separately. Thus, is possible to leave the racial part

aside and only analyze the characters and their behavior.

Hurston herself writes in her autobiography Dust Tracks on a Road that race is

meaningless as a social index. The author writes that she is able to have relationships and

friendships with whites as well as blacks and that the social problems between the races are

caused by individuals, not by race as a whole (cf. Plant 1995:25).

2.5.3.1. Character analyses of Missie May and Joe Banks

Since the marriage portrayed here only consists of two people and the third person,

Slemmons, is only an intruder, he will not be analyzed separately here. Only the two

protagonists and how the image of marriage is conveyed through them will be analyzed in

detail.

Missie May Banks

Missie May is a black woman, happily married to Joe for one year, living a

conventional life. Missie May is young, which is suggested at the beginning of the story,

when she bathes herself in order to be prepared for her husband’s return from work: “Her

66

dark-brown skin glistened under the soapsuds that skittered down from her wash rag. Her stiff

young breasts thrust forward aggressively like broad-based cones with tips lacquered in

black.” (Hurston 1976:208).

Missie May seems to enjoy her marriage and be happy with her husband, when he is at

home. Missie appears childish, since she and her husband play a game each Saturday that

includes chasing him around and pretending to be enraged at his behavior. Missie seems to be

pretty, since she is able to ‘out dress’ every woman in town at church on Sundays and at the

ice-cream parlor as well. She is a loving, caring wife who takes good care of the house, while

her husband is at work. Moreover, she shows her skills at housework and her love towards her

husband by preparing a special meal for him each Saturday, when he returns. She is not

employed otherwise and thus does not earn any money and is financially dependent on her

husband.

The change in the happy marriage occurs when Mr. Slemmons from Chicago comes to

town and opens an ice cream-parlor. He seems to be handsome and desired by all the women

in town. Missie starts an affair with him, even though, she did not talk favorably about him to

her husband before, and assured her husband that he was by far better than Slemmons. She

seems to start the affair in order to get gold money from Mr. Slemmons, which shows that she

is naïve in a way, because she only wanted this money for her husband, thinking that he

deserved it more than Slemmons. Her naïve character is supported by her seemingly

ignorance that her behavior in this situation is similar to how a prostitute would behave.

When her husband discovers her in bed with Mr. Slemmons, she remains passive. She

lets her husband take action and control, which then extends to their further married life. She

still loves him and does everything to please him, but remains passive. When she discovers

that she is pregnant, she also does not take any action, but simply delivers the child and waits

for her husband to forgive her eventually. The strained situation of their marriage only

changes, when Joe discovers that the child must be his, since it bears similarities to himself

and not Slemmons. This similarity is also confirmed to him by his own mother.

Interestingly, Missie’s passive behavior also extends to the scene when her husband

leaves her money and treats her like a prostitute. She does not protest against it, but simply

accepts it. Thus, she is ready to accept any humiliations by her husband, because she wants to

save their marriage. Another interesting aspect is the reason why she does not want to leave

him. Money is never mentioned as a reason, even though this was her reason for starting the

affair. The reason for why she does not leave her husband might simply be her love for him.

67

Lowe introduces the theme of cleanliness and sexuality as intermingled in the story.

Right at the beginning of the story Missie May bathes herself in joyful anticipation of her

husband. He, in return, also always cleans himself of the fertilizer acids of the plant before

having dinner with her, or going to bed. The connection to sexuality is established through

Missie’s adultery, in which she brought dirt into the bed and the marriage (cf. Lowe 1994:76-

77).

Joe Banks

Joe is a black man married to Missie May. He is an attentive, considerate, and loving

husband. Joe works the night shifts in a fertilizer company, and only has the nights off on

Saturday. He celebrates this freedom by a ritual each Saturday. This ritual includes throwing

silver dollars into the house, and then having a mock battle with his wife in which she

wrestles with him in order to find her gifts. His love for his wife can be illustrated by the

following sentence for example: “That was the best part of life-going home to Missie May”.

(Hurston 1976:213)

When Joe discovers that Missie is having an affair with Slemmons, he reacts very

calmly and only orders him to leave the house. Since that does not seem to happen fast

enough he strikes him twice with his fist. He does not, however, seek revenge, but simply

goes on living his life with only one alteration; he does not show his love for Missie any

more. He seems unable to articulate and show the whole extent of his feelings:

Missie May kept on crying and Joe kept on feeling so much and

not knowing what to do with all his feelings, he put Slemmons’

watch charm into his pants pocket and took a good laugh and

went to bed. (Hurston 1976:214)

Lowe mentions that Joe’s laughter can have a special meaning, since it is considered

to undermine a strong point stated in black culture (cf. Lowe 1994:77). This could, in fact, be

the case here, since Joe does not say anything else. He only lets deeds speak for him, thus, his

laugh is the only statement he utters and it seems to be a strong one.

After living together like two strangers for three month, Joe allows Missie the first

body contact, because she should rub his back. This eventually leads to a sexual encounter,

and in the morning he leaves the gilded money she got from Slemmons as a payment and thus

degrades his wife, and shows that he has not forgiven her yet. Even when he discovers that

Missie is pregnant his hostile attitude towards her does not change. The only thing different is

68

that he helps her with the heavy housework now, but it is still obvious that he has not forgiven

his wife, and keeps the gilded dollar as a constant reminder close to him.

“Is gointer be a boy chile and de very spit of you.”

“You reckon, Missie May ?”

“Who else could it look lak?”

Joe said nothing, but he thrust his hand deep into his pocket and

fingered something there. (Hurston 1976:217)

Joes’s mother helps Missie deliver her baby and only after he has been told by her that

the son looks like himself, he is inclined to forgive Missie. He takes preparations by buying

candy as he used to before the affair, spending the gilded dollar he associated with Missies’s

guilt. Then he initiates the ritual performed every Saturday before the affair.

Joe does not seem to be a violent or aggressive husband. After he discovers the affair,

he is in total power of the relationship, but does not exploit it. His gesture of leaving the

gilded dollar might be cruel, but since he is unable to express his feelings in words this

gesture shows how he still feels about his wife.

Lowe also sees importance in the gilded dollar and its use at the end of the story. He

states that the gilded dollar is the key symbol in the story, and by purchasing candy for his

wife with it the dollar is transferred from a token of shame to a token of love and forgiveness.

It is deeds, not words that are able to ‘wash’ away the sins committed (cf. Lowe 1994:78).

After realizing that the son is his, he gladly returns to his usual self of the attentive and

generous husband. Joe can, as well as Missie, also be considered to be childish, in a way,

because of their ritual, but both are, at the same time, simply happy to have each other.

Another character trait in Joe is his pride. He is proud of his beautiful wife, whom he outfits

with beautiful clothes in order to underline her beauty.

Lowe writes that Joe yearns for money and power and in a way is also responsible for

the adultery of his wife, because he admired Slemmons since the day he entered Eatonville.

He was impressed by the way he spoke and by the stories he told. Moreover, the outer

appearance impressed him and the gold he supposedly owned (cf. Lowe 1994:76-77). The

perception of Joe as wanting to improve his wealth is also illustrated by Missie’s motive for

the adultery: “Oh Joe, honey, he said he wuz gointer give me dat gold money and he jes’ kept

after me-“ (Hurston 1976:215)

69

2.5.3.2. The image of marriage

The marriage depicted in this story is a typical patriarchal relationship based on

romantic love, as was the ideal in the 1930s, as explained above (see Part I page 8). The

husband earns the money, and the wife stays at home to do all tasks concerning the house.

She works hard and is rewarded by her husband’s love. The wife is economically dependent

on her husband and submissive. This is, for example, depicted by the Saturday scene. The

husband comes home, and orders his wife to get dressed so that they can go to the ice cream

parlor. She would never go there alone and moreover he is the one deciding what happens.

The image of the patriarchal relationship is further enforced by the behavior of both partners

after the adultery. The wife waits for her husband’s reactions and does not take any action,

even though he treats her miserably and does not explain his feelings to her. She simply

accepts his behavior as given, and is happy when he finally forgives her. The interesting detail

about this relationship is, however, that the husband does not use violence against his wife.

Hurston would not, in general, have minded it, (see above Hurston’s view) but does not use

this kind of behavior in “The Gilded Six-Bits”.

Lowe sees the dinner scene as an important indication to see how happy the marriage

between Missie and Joe is. He compares the appetite at the dinner with the healthy

relationship. Moreover, he notes how loving and delicious this scene is described, including

banter, which makes a considerate part of the relationship (cf. Lowe 1994:75). After the

adultery the change in the character of the marriage is illustrated by the absence of the

previous happy banter and laughter. There is no trivial game any more, played by the two

partners, there are no jokes made any more (cf. Lowe 1994:77).

Hurston’s view on marriage, as explained above, was rather traditional, except

concerning her own life, since she viewed herself as ‘other’. This traditional view is evident in

this story as well.

Howard separates the story in three parts always having the state of the marriage in

focus. The first part is the beginning where Missie and Joe have a happy marriage with clear

duties, Missie keeps a spotless home and cooks delicious dinners to show her love, and Joe

buys little presents to do so in return. When Joe discovers the affair, Missie begins in order to

get gold pieces for her husband; the married life is characterized by misery. After the delivery

of a boy, which looks like Joe, a return to the previous happy marriage is possible. Howard

describes the first part as an innocent, carefree marriage, which is replaced in the second part

by maturity and knowledge, and in the third part regains strength by resorting to its

70

foundation. This foundation is strong enough to enable both partners to return to their

previously happy marriage (cf. Howard 1980:69-70). This view shows that Howard does not

see anything particularly bad in the marriage, including its patriarchal character. He only

focuses on the happiness without looking at the character of the foundation of the marriage.

Hoeller considers the marriage from an economic point of view, looking at the value

of each partner’s work and the value of silver and gold money. She, moreover, introduces the

historical context of the story, since it was published in the 1930s; the time of depression in

the USA. The story’s interest in money is easily detectable and might even be the reason for

the adultery, since Missie only slept with Slemmons in order to obtain gold money for her

husband. Joe showed open admiration for Slemmons, who owns gold money, which is

connected to rich white people. Slemmons himself claims to have got the money from rich

white ladies in Chicago. The connection between money and the marriage is established right

at the beginning of the story with the Saturday ritual where Joe throws silver dollars into the

house for Missie. The importance of money for the marriage can be seen by Missie’s behavior

of stacking the money next to her plate at dinner. She sees the money as a kind of payment for

her labor, she is paid by her husband and thus economically dependent. He is the one who

holds the economic power and can decide on what is wife is supposed to do, he can even

decide on how much she is allowed to eat.

After Missie had made two or three unsuccessful grabs at the

pan, she begged, “Aw ,Joe gimme some mo’dat tater pone.”

“Nope, sweetin’ is for us men-folks. Y’all pretty lil frail eels

don’t need nothin’ lak dis. You too sweet already.”

“Please, Joe”

“Naw, naw. Ah don’t want you to git no sweeter than whut you

is already. We goin’ down de road a lil piece t’night so you go

put on yo’ Sunday-go-to-meetin’ things.” (Hurston 1976:210)

Even though this is only mock behavior, it still reveals the power the husband obtained by

factory, industrial, and especially paid work. The husband is even able to use, as the author

suggests, Missie as his possession in showing her off to Slemmons in her best clothes, who

appears to be wealthy because he owns gold money. Joe’s behavior eventually triggers the act

of Missie selling herself for gold money, which disrupts the marriage severely. Afterwards

Missie is treated as a possession even more openly, when Joe leaves the gold coin, he

obtained from Slemmons, with Missie and treats her like a prostitute. The return to a happy

marriage is only possible through returning the gilded coin into the white market and so to its

71

origin. When Joe purchases gifts for his wife from a white shop owner he does exactly do

that. (cf. Hoeller 2005: 761-764, 767-775).

This link to economic matters gains importance by Gilman’s observations concerning

the link between women’s economic independence and equality in marriage (see Part I 3-6).

The economic dependency of Missie, thus, reveals the character of the patriarchal relationship

in which the one partner that earns money can decide on all matters concerning the marriage.

Hoeller’s thoughts concerning the setting of the story during the depression are

interesting. It is, however, never mentioned that Missie and Joe are, in fact, poor and need

more money in order to survive. The important part connecting the marriage and money

concerns Slemmons’ gold money. Both partners develop an obsession for it, since they only

own silver money. The disappointment in discovering that the supposedly gold money is only

gilded shows how dangerous and misleading obsessions can be. Moreover, it is depicted that

as long as Missie and Joe decided on the values in their marriage they were happy. As soon as

parts of society and their values intrude upon the marriage, it changes.

The image of marriage depicted in this story is that of a patriarchal marriage. Since the

author sees a marriage with a patriarchal character as positive, there is no criticism visible in

the story. Marriage as an institution is portrayed as essential, and divorce is not even

considered. As explained above in detail the view on marriage, transported through this story,

greatly diverges from the author’s view on her own life, including marriage and divorce.

72

Part 3 Comparing the Image of Marriage in all five stories

Each story has been analyzed separately above and several conclusions concerning the

image of marriage in each story have been drawn. The question, however, still remains

whether those images were only the view of the author writing it, or whether they were

images of marriage as an institution, prevailing at that time. In order to answer this question

some aspects of the stories have to be reconsidered in comparison to the other stories treated

above. A round picture of this comparison can only be reached by comparing several aspects

of the stories: the development of the female protagonist, the development of the marriage in

each story and its connotations concerning the time they were written in, a comparison of how

divorce is treated in the stories, and finally a comparison of the solutions to the conflict in

each story.

Especially the aspect of the solution to the conflict in each story carries important

connotations about the character of each marriage, since every story began with a relationship

that encountered a problem. The solution to this problem either separated the two partners

involved in this relationship, or brought them back together, sometimes even closer than

before. Thus, the analysis and especially the comparison of the endings are important in order

to grasp the character of each marriage.

3.1. Comparison of the female protagonists and their development

in each story

In the analysis above the image of marriage in each story was, in one part, analyzed by

means of character analysis, treating the male and the female partner. This was carried out in

order to gain a full picture of the marriage or relationship those two people lived in. This part,

however, will only compare the female characters, which can mostly be viewed as the

protagonists in the stories above. By comparing those female characters’ development the

image of women at that time can be analyzed. By keeping in mind the historical developments

discussed in Part I, important conclusions concerning the image of marriage can be drawn,

since the changing image of women and, moreover, the changing role of women in society

substantially influenced the image of marriage.

73

3.1.1. Development towards independence

Marion Marroner, Gilman’s protagonist, and Minnie Foster Wright, Glaspell’s

protagonist, both develop towards independence in their stories. Even though Minnie Foster

Wright is an absent heroine of Glaspell’s story, she is the character around whom the story is

written and around whom the story evolves. Thus, she will be the character that is subject to

comparison here.

Minnie’s situation from which she develops her independence is certainly different to

Marion’s, because the two characters live in entirely different social and spatial settings.

Minnie is a simple Midwestern housewife, coping to survive in the loneliness surrounding

her. Marion, on the other hand, is an educated upper class woman, who lives in the city, and

copes with society’s expectations.

Minnie can still be compared to Marion because of the similar situation they find

themselves in. Both women are betrayed, and treated badly by their husbands. Minnie’s

husband does not provide enough love and care for her, and as a final betrayal of their

marriage even kills the one creature she dearly loved, her bird. Marion is betrayed in a

different way by her husband; by a breach of trust. She trusted her husband, and both loved

their servant girl Gerta like a daughter. Marion’s husband, however, violates this relationship

by starting an affair with Gerta. The reaction of both women concerning the betrayal by their

husbands is similar. Both, after discovering the betrayal, seize power and decide to live their

life independently without their husbands now. In Minnie’s case this behavior is radical,

because she kills her husband. Given the fact that the general legal practice was that women

were not granted full legal rights in most cases, as explained above in Part I and II, Minnie’s

possibilities before the law were limited. It would also have been impossible to simply leave

her husband since she was confined to the house, and because of the vast land surrounding

her, which does not give her any possibility to notify friends of her situation. Thus, murder

seems to be the only possibility for her.

The situation Marion finds herself in is different to Missie’s concerning her social

standing. She, for example, possesses financial means of her own, and is also an educated

woman. Marion seizes her intellectual and economic power and leaves her husband. For her,

he is dead in the same way as Minnie’s husband is dead.

Both women have in common that they simply want to leave their married life,

including their husbands, behind, and start a new life without the ‘burden’. For Marion, this

seems possible because of the education she received previous to her marriage. For Minnie,

74

female bonding and understanding seem to enable her to start a new life. Mrs. Hale and Mrs.

Peters conceal evidence of Minnie’s guilt and thus enable her to begin a new life on her own,

or so it appears at the end of the story. Because of the different circumstances both women

find themselves in, the development towards independence seems to be easier for Marion. She

can be sure of her independent life without a husband, in contrast to Minnie, who is dependent

on her female ‘friends’’ opinion of her situation. Exactly this difference proves Gilman’s

point of view concerning women’s education discussed in Part II above. Even though the two

characters compared here seem to represent two different images of women, their

development towards independence and its influence on their marriages is similar, and thus

many parallels between those characters can be established.

Désirée Aubigny, the protagonist of Chopin’s story, could be viewed as the ultimate

dependent character, especially in comparison to the other four characters analyzed here. She,

however, achieves a very brief moment of independence, when she decides not to follow her

husband’s orders to return to her parents, but goes into the forest instead. The decision to end

her life might be viewed as an ultimate act of dependence, at first sight, but on the other hand

she deprives him of his power over her. Furthermore, Désirée has lost her naivety, which was

one of the main reasons for her dependence.

When comparing Désirée to the two characters discussed above, several similarities in

their initial situation can be noted. Désirée, for example, belongs to the upper class, as well as

Marion. Also, Désirée is the weak and dependent part in her marriage, in which she resembles

Minnie. There are, however, also significant differences to be noted when comparing Désirée

to Marion and Minnie. The initial event that triggers her development towards independence

is, for example, different in character when compared to the events that triggered Marion’s

and Minnie’s development. Désirée’s husband’s betrayal is not the reason for her actions, but

the realization that she cannot continue her life the way she used to. Désirée develops a kind

of independence, because she seizes the power to end her life independently. Thus, in

Désirée’s character there is a development towards independence from her husband, but this

newly gained independence is only supposed to serve temporarily, since she will end her life

eventually. Her development towards independence can, thus, be noted, but never directly

compared to the developments of the characters above, since it is entirely different in

character. Marion and Minnie intend to free themselves from their husbands in order to live

independently, according to their wishes. Désirée intends to free herself from her husband as

well, but her motive for doing so is different, since she never intends to live afterwards.

75

In conclusion, it can be said that all three characters develop from dependence to

independence, but only one character, Marion, is described to live independently. This can be

attributed to this story’s author’s view on marriage and women’s rights, which Gilman openly

expressed, as discussed above. Moreover, it can be noted that the degrees of development

vary because of the different initial social and spatial settings, and because of the different

situations those women are in at the end of each story.

3.1.2. Development towards greater dependence on the male character

Lydia Tillotsen, the protagonist of Wharton’s story, will be compared to Missie May

Banks, the protagonist of Hurston’s story in this chapter. The initial situation, both characters

find themselves in, is, however, entirely different. This can mostly be attributed to their

different social circumstances. Lydia has only recently gained independence through a

divorce from her upper class New York husband, and is traveling through Italy with her lover

now. Missie, on the other hand, lives in the South in a happy marriage. She is not as

independent as Lydia, but within the social frame of her marriage she could be termed

independent. It has to be admitted, however, that she is, for example, financially dependent on

her husband.

Interestingly, the development of both characters ends with submission to their male

partners, and thus there is a development towards greater dependence on their male partners

visible in both stories. The reason for this behavior might stem from different causes, but the

outcome is the same. Both women accept the role society assigns them and both are

acquiescent to the wishes of their husbands. Missie is even submissive to the point of pain.

Shortly after giving birth to her son, she tries to perform her role in the reenactment of the

game she used to play with her husband. In trying to do so, she crawls to the door of their

house in pain. Lydia, on the other hand, suffers a different kind of pain. She has to give up her

independent life for her lover and soon to be husband. This infuses her with emotional pain,

which can be seen in her attempt to flee by ship, which she eventually does not do, but only

after supposedly painful contemplations of her situation. In the end she gives in and is

submissive to the wishes of her lover. Even though both women suffer pain, the one physical,

the other one emotional, the source of their pain is substantially different in character. Missie

suffers from the absence of a relationship, and Lydia suffers because of the existence of the

relationship as such. Another parallel that can be drawn between those two characters is the

ending of both stories. Both women achieve supposedly happy marriages with a loving

partner in the end of the story, but only after losing their power and independence.

76

The endings of the stories reflect both authors’ views on marriage. As discussed

above, both, Wharton and Hurston, viewed marriage as a necessary social institution. The

essentialities difference between those two authors’ view is that Wharton saw marriage as a

necessity, even though it entailed a loss of power and independence for women, while

Hurston even saw patriarchal marriages as positive. Thus, the ending of “Souls Belated”,

which leaves mixed feelings, is an expression of Wharton’s complex view on marriage, and

the ‘happy ending’ (of a patriarchal marriage) in Hurston’s story exemplifies her approval of

this form of marriage.

The developments of the characters, described here, are again different in their extent,

as already mentioned in the comparison above. Lydia submits to her lover’s wishes of

marriage, and Missie fully submits herself to her husband’s wishes.

When looking at the development of the female characters in all stories, many

comparisons can be carried out, and many parallels can be established. This shows that the

roles of women in general, and the roles of women in those marriages are similar in their

development. This is an interesting observation, because the characters are from different

regions of the USA and from different social and racial backgrounds; but still their fate offers

similarities. The division into two groups concerning the characters’ development serves to

illustrate two ways, women chose at that time. The development towards independence could

be seen as a way to take advantage of new roles attributed to women at that time, as described

in Part I. The development towards dependence could be seen as identification with

traditional values and roles also described in Part I.

Marriage, as a social institution, however, was similar at that time for most women,

and their experience could be shared. In order to take a closer look at the validity of this

assumption, the marriages or rather the images of marriage in each of the stories discussed

above have to be compared in detail, taking the opinions of the author into consideration as

well.

77

3.2. Comparison of the establishment and development of the image of

marriage in all five stories

3.2.1. The typical patriarchal marriage

In this comparison the characters will only be concerned marginally, and the findings

concerning the images of marriages, as already analyzed above in Part II, will be compared.

While doing so, the findings of Part I will also be kept in view, since the historical facts

enable one to look closer at the views employed concerning this social institution.

The image of marriage in the first story discussed above, “Désirée’s Baby”, is that of a

typical patriarchal marriage, dominated by the husband (see page 21). When trying to find

another story where a similar image of marriage is conveyed “A Jury of Her Peers” can be

used for comparison. In both stories the marriage follows the typical patriarchal pattern with a

woman confined to her space, the house. Her behavior is expected to be submissive to her

husband. This includes that all property, brought into the marriage, automatically belongs to

the husband. In both marriages the women are economically dependent on their husband, and

they do not own anything of their own. Interestingly, married women property laws were

passed between the 1830s and the 1870s which enabled women to keep their own property,

when their husband left them. In both marriages, however, this law is not applied which can

be attributed to the gap between legal practice and legislation, already discussed in Part I. The

illustration for the validity of this situation in Désirée’s case is given by the description of her

desertion. She flees in the clothes she has on her body and takes her child, her only

“property”, with her. In Minnie’s case the property question is illustrated by the seemingly

neglect of the kitchen, triggered by lack of financial support by her husband, which is

contrasted by the careful wrapping of her dead bird, the bird being her only “property”. The

bird can indeed be seen as Minnie’s property, which was as dear to her as was the baby to

Désirée. Both only had one property dear to them, one thing that did not make them subjects

to their husbands. In both cases the ultimate destruction of the patriarchal structure of the

marriage is, thus, directly concerned with both properties. The difference in both stories is,

however, that Désirée in order to break free, sacrifices her own life; in Minnie’s case her

husband loses his life. In both stories the ‘property’ of the wives are dead at the end, and in

both cases the patriarchal structure of the marriage is irrecoverably lost and ended. The view

both authors offer of marriage as a patriarchal institution, suppressing the wife, is, thus,

negative. Both women try to break out of this system, but do not have any other decision

besides death, which is a rather bleak view on marriage.

78

After having compared those two stories one other story discussed above also

describes a patriarchal marriage, namely “The Gilded Six-Bits”. The image of marriage in this

story can be compared to the ones above because of the similar role of the woman in the story.

There exists, however, one essential difference between this story and the two stories above.

The patriarchal marriage is described in a positive way, contrasting the bleak views above.

Both partners in “The Gilded Six-Bits” deeply love each other, and this is evident from the

beginning onwards. Moreover, this love is connected to sexuality, which is also evident in the

story.

Coming back to the similarities it can be noted that Missie May is, in the same way as

Désirée and Minnie, confined to her sphere, the house. She is submissive to her husband, and

thus the marriage is dominated by him. Moreover, Missie May’s husband is able to take all

decisions, as did the husbands above. He tells her what to do, and is even able to deny her

food (see above page 67-70), how much banter might be included it still carries a grain of

truth. He is the provider and nothing in the house seems to belong exclusively to the wife,

which is interesting when looking at the time, the 1930s, in which the story is set. Women

were already allowed to vote at that time, and had by far more public rights than the women

described in the two other stories above. The image of marriage, however, is not much

different, which offers to draw the conclusion that the public role of women might have

changed, but the domestic role did not.

Another parallel between the three stories can be drawn through Missie May’s baby.

The baby, the “property” of Missie, alters the marriage, as it did in the stories above. In this

case, however, the baby is not connected with death, but with the final reconciliation of the

marriage. The wife is accepted again and the marriage continues. The pattern of the marriage

is not changed, however. When comparing this to the marriages in the two stories above,

death seems to be the only solution to change the patriarchal pattern of the marriage.

“Désirée’s Baby” was published in 1893, and set before the civil war. “A Jury of Her

Peers” was published in 1917, and set at approximately the same time. There is certainly a

time gap between the stories, but from the reactions of other characters in the stories both

marriages were seen as normal. Even in the third story, “The Gilded Six-Bits”, which was

published after an even greater time gap in 1933, the patriarchal structure seems to be

accepted by the other characters. There is no apparent questioning of the marriage structures

displayed, even though in both cases those eventually led to death. One might come to the

conclusion, thus, that the normal structure of marriage at the time the stories were written in

was still patriarchal, leaving equality aside and giving all power to the husband.

79

The stories’ image of marriage, however, cannot be analyzed without taking into

consideration the authors’ views, which were discussed separately in Part II. In comparing

those three stories the views of their authors emerge even more clearly than in the individual

analysis. In “Désirée’s Baby” Chopin criticized patriarchal marriage only subtly, but stating

her point by Désirée’s death in the end. The critique on the patriarchal system of marriage is

more direct in “A Jury of Her Peers”, and it is clear that this system was viewed as being in

need of improvement by Glaspell. The last author, Hurston, did not criticize the patriarchal

marriage system in her story “The Gilded Six-Bits”. This contrasts the view of the authors

above, and is interesting since the story was written much later than the previous ones, at a

time when women had already gained more rights of their own, and the role of women had

begun to change substantially.

This observation of the return to a patriarchal image of marriage proves to be

interesting, when looking at the two other stories discussed above, where this clear cut

acceptance of the prevailing marriage structures is not accepted as easily.

3.2.2. Breaking out of the patriarchal marriage pattern

The image of marriage in “Souls Belated” and “Turned” could be termed as breaking

out of the typical pattern of marriage described in the three stories above. Lydia Tillotsen of

“Souls Belated” and Marion Marroner of “Turned” are in a way similar, since both belong to

the upper middle or upper class of Northern cities in the USA, and both are white.

One possibility of breaking out of the traditional marriage pattern is offered through

education and economic independence, famously proposed by Charlotte Perkins Gilman, the

author of the second story.

The influences between economy, education, and power relations in marriages were

discussed already in Part I. The authors above see the reason for increasing separations and

dissolutions of marriages in the beginning of the 20th

century in the increase of employment

of women before marriage, and the gap between this achieved independence and the

prevailing power relationships women face when entering the institution of marriage.

This observation is valid for Marion. She is, in fact, a teacher at University and has

been working in this occupation previous to her marriage. The situation of marriage, however,

as it is presented to the reader, seems to follow the typical pattern described above. The wife

stays at home and the husband earns the money. There are separate spheres for both partners,

in which the husband’s sphere carries more prestige, since it is paid work, and he provides for

his family with the money he earns. This provider-dependent relationship between husband

80

and wife, therefore, establishes Marion’s dependence and submission, despite the fact that she

would be qualified to work for herself. Lydia does not seem to have worked in a paid

occupation outside her home before her marriage, and in her reminiscences of her now

divorced marriage, the roles are again divided according to the traditional pattern of separate

spheres. Both women are not satisfied with their role in marriage, and moreover with the

narrow confinement to a specific behavior, and thus they attempt to break out of it.

Both stories were written before women had the right to vote, which also entitled them

to several other freedoms in society. Thus, the portrayal of those women, who attempt to

break out of society’s conventional model of marriage, is even more remarkable. Gilman’s

observation of economic freedom of women is realized in the stories, since both women

possess money of their own, which puts them in a more powerful position and enables them

to be equal to men.

In both marriages the initiator for this escape from marriage is an affair. In Lydia’s

case she herself starts one, and is then divorced from her husband. Marion, on the other hand,

is betrayed by her husband and does not seem to seek an official divorce, but simply leaves

her husband, and uses her maiden name again. In both cases the women, reduced formerly to

a powerless position, seize power and break out of the marriage. The only possibility of doing

so seems to be in leaving the husband. Another parallel between both break-outs can be drawn

when looking at the alternative models of marriage or models of relationship the characters

live with after their separation from their husbands.

Both women do not want to spend their life living alone. They do not want to live in a

patriarchal and traditional marriage either, and so they create models of their own. Lydia

travels with her lover through Europe. She is not married, but enjoys the advantages of having

a male partner on her side. It appears as the ideal relationship, especially when comparing it to

the previous kind of relationship she was living in. Lydia and her lover have a relationship

between equals, and Lydia can develop her ideas and concepts of life freely. Interestingly,

both travel though Italy, where dramas at Shakespeare’s times already took place, which

offered shockingly new ways of living at his time and thus the setting carries importance as

well.

Marion even begins an even more radically different relationship. She lives with her

former maid now, regardless of society’s conventional perception that the traditional

relationship between two adults is supposed to be between male and female. She, thus,

contrasts her previous traditional relationship even more violently than Lydia. Interestingly,

the second alternative model seems to work, whereas the first does not, since Lydia eventually

81

bends to society’s conventions, and agrees to enter the model of living she previously detested

after her former marriage. Thus, Lydia only breaks free of the patriarchal model for a short

period of time, and then bends again. This reflects the views both authors voiced concerning

marriage. Wharton saw marriage as a necessary social institution for women, even though it

might limit their opportunities for self-fulfillment, whereas Gilman proposed a more radical

and emancipist view, insisting that women should be economically dependent, and do not

necessarily need a husband.

When looking at how the marriages are viewed by society, Lydia’s case comes to

attention first, since society plays an important part in her decisions. Her relationship to her

lover is unconventional, and thus society would view her as an outsider. She is a divorced

woman, and can only re-enter society by re-marrying. She cannot live according to her

wishes, because then she would remain an outsider and would lose access to society, which

was important at that time, as is also illustrated in the story by the case of another woman.

Society decides not to include her and it is shown that this proves to be effective, since she is

desperate about it, and even voices the fear that her soon to be husband might leave her. Thus,

in this story, society and the conventional view on marriage play an important role. In the

second story the view the public might have on the relationship is, in fact, not mentioned and

thus public opinion only plays a marginal part. But it does, in fact, play this marginal part as

is illustrated by the husband’s construction of lies, when he discovers that his wife has left

him. Exactly this shows that society saw the traditional, patriarchal relationship still as the

norm and did not easily accept a wife leaving her husband. The new relationship might be too

far out of the horizon of the conventional so that it is not considered to exist.

In conclusion it can be said that all characters in those five stories had contact with the

traditional marriage of patriarchal character in one way or another. Moreover, it can be said

that all characters tried to break out of it in one way or another, but only in one story,

“Turned”, this attempt of breaking out can be termed successful, the interesting detail being

that in the second relationship of the main character, two women form the relationship. In

order to be able to look at the different attempts of breaking out of the traditional marriage,

and thus of the traditional role ascribed to women of that time, a closer look at the divorces

and affairs of the characters of the five stories has to be taken. This will be the topic of next

chapter’s comparison.

82

3.3. Comparison of affairs and divorces in the stories

In all stories, except one, “A Jury of Her Peers”, discussed above in Part II, a betrayal,

as in affair, occurs. This does not mean that the male partners are always at fault, or that the

female partner is to blame. It only suggests that affairs happen, and are even the starting point

of events leading to a decision of whether the marriage will be prolonged or divorced. Since

there is no affair or divorce included in the plot of “A Jury of Her Peers”, this story will be

left out in this comparison. The importance of comparing affairs and divorces lies in the

nature of marriage. As described above in Part I, marriages were separated or drifted apart as

long as this social institution existed. The interesting detail in this comparison will again be

society’s expectations towards the separation of marriage and more importantly the reaction

towards affairs. Is it more acceptable to have an affair for the female or the male partner? Are

there differences in the treatment of this topic by different authors? How does the discovery of

an affair change the image of marriage formerly established in the story? In order to answer

these questions the analysis will start with male affairs described in two stories, and then

continue with female affairs also to be found in two stories.

3.3.1. Male Affairs

When comparing how affairs are described in each story, and when comparing the

results after the discovery of the affair, one might be able to separate the male affairs from the

female affairs. Affairs initiated by the male partner are described in two stories, “Désirée’s

Baby” and “Turned”. One might argue that the affair in “Désirée’s Baby” is not actually

described, but Toth describes above in Part II that Armand might have an affair with one of

his slaves. This can be based on one sentence uttered during the argument of Désirée and

Armand: “As white as La Blanche’s” (Chopin 1976:193). The more obvious affair prevailing

throughout the story, however, concerns other characters related to Armand and Désirée. First

there is the assumption that Désirée’s father might have had an affair with a slave woman,

since Armand and Désirée’s child is black. The baby’s skin color is blamed on Désirée’s

unknown family. The actual affair that, in fact, took place was, however, committed by

Armand’s father. He had an affair with a black woman, who is Armand’s mother. This affair

heavily influences the marriage of Armand and Désirée, and eventually leads to Désirée’s

death. This can be concluded since Armand’s father was, in the end, responsible for the black

skin color of Désirée’s baby, which started the fatal events ending in suicide and infanticide.

83

The question, however, still remains of whether the discovery of the actual affair, and thus the

discovery of the guilty partner might have changed anything.

The actual affair here takes place between a white male and a black female, the white

male being of the upper class. The affair was certainly not socially accepted, because then

Armand’s mother would not have been forced to flee to France and moreover then Armand

might have known of his ancestry. The affair, however, is only socially unacceptable, or so it

seems, because it was intended to be an actual relationship. As the example of Armand’s

supposedly own infidelity shows, simple sexual affairs of white males and black females

were, in fact, accepted, but kept secret.

A different relationship, and thus a different treatment of affairs, is depicted in the

second male affair described in the story “Turned” above. In fact, the marriage before the

discovery of the affair of Mr. Marroner and Gerta is similar to Désirée’s and Armand’s

relationship, since they are both male dominated and patriarchal. A change only occurs after

the discovery of the affair. When looking at how the affair is described a significant

difference can be discovered, since the people who were involved in it are still alive, and this

enables the betrayed partner to take action. A similar device, however, is employed in the

discovery of the affair, since in both stories the affair is discovered through letters that were

not intended to be read by the person who eventually read them. Moreover, a child is involved

in both affairs. The significant difference between the affairs and the treatment of the affair

consists in the fact that the betrayed women take different actions than expected from them.

Marion Marroner does not gloss over the affair by simply dismissing Gerta, which would

have been socially acceptable. This is proven by Marion’s contemplations and her first

thoughts of how to handle the situation. Her mind first only jumps to actions which are

normal in the society she lives in, and thus her automatic reaction to the affair of her husband

is to dismiss the servant and try to save the marriage, leaving her husband untouched. Marion

in fact, as already discussed in detail above, changes her mind and in doing so ends her

marriage. There is, in fact, no formal ending of the marriage by a divorce, but there is a clear

separation without the possibility of returning to the relationship led before the discovery of

the affair. Thus, in this story the affair of the husband can be viewed as an important turning

point in the story, changing the image of marriage transported through the description of it,

and moreover sufficiently changing the female characters in making them independent and

free of male suppression. The affair in this story is described as something that opened

Marion’s eyes, and enabled her to see the real character of her marriage. As mentioned

already, it would have been socially acceptable for Mr. Marroner to have ended the affair,

84

even though Gerta was pregnant. In contrast to this, divorce is not even discussed as a

solution to the troubles Marion had to face, although an informal divorce is carried out in the

end by herself. This shows that male affairs were socially acceptable. The outcome of the

affairs, the “proof of infidelity” should be concealed from society, however, by the expulsion

of Gerta as the expected appropriate measure. Society’s attitude towards male affairs is,

therefore, similar in both stories: Society was willing to turn a blind eye on male affairs, as

long as its results, the offspring, were concealed from it.

In conclusion it can be said that male affairs were acceptable as long as the image of a

happy marriage was still upheld. Moreover, those affairs seemed to have been accepted by the

wives, as well as the contrasting case of Marion in “Turned” shows, since she is certainly an

exception to the regular wife of an upper class husband.

3.3.2. Female Affairs

Two authors above picture an affair in their stories, which are not necessarily started

by, but which certainly involve the female partners of the marriages. Those two stories are

“Souls Belated” and “The Gilded Six-Bits”. Even though both stories are generally concerned

with different topics, since the protagonists stem from a different regional and social

background, the affairs of the female protagonists can be considered central to the stories, and

the affairs even carry the potential to change the story as a whole.

When looking at the first story, “Souls Belated”, this change, brought about by Lydia’s

affair, might not be as obvious as in the second story, where Missie changes the character of

her marriage by starting an affair. This changing potential can still be detected, however, since

Lydia’s affair brought her to the starting point of the story. Lydia only recalls her marriage to

her ex-husband in her mind, and the actual separation is never explicitly mentioned. Still, she

had started an affair, and her husband was willing to agree to a divorce. Her marriage is ended

legally at the beginning of the story, and she has already found a new partner with whom she

is willing to share her life. Interestingly, she does not live independently and on her own, but

stays with her lover and thus never leads the life one would expect of a divorced woman. In

the story the topic of divorce and of female affairs is treated explicitly, since Lydia is also

confronted with another woman who has an affair even though she is married. Thus, the

reactions of society concerning female infidelity can be easily observed in the description of

the second affair occurring in the story. It is clearly visible that having an affair as a married

woman, or living together unmarried is socially unacceptable. Even Lydia thinks in the same

terms as the rest of society does, even though she is in the same situation as Mrs. Cope, the

85

other married woman having an affair, the only difference being that Lydia has already

received her divorce papers. When taking a closer look at society’s reaction towards the

affair, it is interesting to observe, that only the woman, Mrs. Cope, and never her young

aristocratic lover is subject to criticism. Moreover, he is barely mentioned, and seems to play

only a marginal role in society’s observation and gossip concerning the affair. Everyone

knows exactly about Mrs. Cope’s circumstances, concerning her marriage, her husband, her

behavior, her character, and her elopement. Nothing, except her lover’s ancestry, is mentioned

concerning him. This is interesting, because it makes the female part the center of attention

and maybe the center of blame as well. Society does not seem to accept female affairs as

easily as male affairs, as could be observed in the part about male affairs above. This

conclusion is supported by the fact that Lydia loses balance and self confidence in her

decision not to marry her lover when realizing just how Mrs. Cope’s affair is treated, and

further acknowledging that she and her situation do not differ to the other woman’s situation.

Thus, Lydia’s behavior is an indication that female affairs are clearly not accepted by society

and only a re-marriage can gloss over this shame, and enable females to reenter acceptable

society and regain dignity.

As already mentioned above, Missie’s case is different because of her different social

and regional background. When taking a closer look at her affair, some differences to Lydia’s

are obvious. The affair is started for different reasons, it influences and changes the marriage

in a different way than Lydia’s, and the affair in itself has a different character. Where

Lydia’s affair is started because she did not love or maybe never loved her husband and wants

to escape her existence, Missie started her affair because she wanted to improve her marriage.

Missie was happy in her marriage, and only wanted to fulfill her husband’s unuttered wishes

she sensed in one of their conversations. In a way, she did not start the affair in order to

escape from her marriage, but in order to deepen her husband’s love for her, or so she naïvely

thought. When considering the changes that are brought about by the two affairs, they differ

to a great extend. Lydia’s affair led to a divorce and eventual remarriage. Missie’s affair did

not lead to a divorce, but only changed the character of her marriage, since the initial childlike

character is destroyed by her infidelity. Missie does, moreover, never seem to see her lover

any more after her husband discovered the affair. Lydia, in contrast, starts a whole new life

with her lover. Additionally, Lydia does not regret her affair, but Missie does, and she has to

pay for it as well. Lydia only seems to get what she wants, except that she would have

preferred to simply live together with her lover without being married. The character of both

affairs differs, since in Lydia’s case both partners involved in it seem to genuinely love each

86

other. Missie’s affair it is different. She does, in fact, love her husband, and only starts the

affair because she expects advantages for her husband from it. She never loves Mr.

Slemmons, and does not regret the end of the affair. This can be illustrated by the following

lines:

[…]"Cause Ah love you so hard and Ah know you don't love me

no mo'." […]

[…]"Oh Joe, honey, he said he wuz gointer give me dat gold

money and he jes' kept on after me--" […] (Hurston 1976:214-

215)

[…] Missie knew why she didn't leave Joe. She couldn't. She

loved him too much, but she could not understand why Joe

didn't leave her[…]

(Hurston 1976:216)

Society’s reaction to both affairs is similar, even though they are more explicitly

mentioned in Lydia’s case. Society does not, in fact, seem to know about the affair, but

Missie’s mother in law does, and she could be seen as representing society. Missie’s mother

in law sees the affair as connected to Missie’s ancestry, more precisely her mother. The rest of

society is not mentioned, but since Missie is pregnant, she does not go out that often any

more. This might also be due to society’s reaction towards her affair, but is never explicitly

mentioned. The affair is, however, glossed over in a way when Missie delivers a baby that

looks similar to her husband and not her lover. The fact that her marriage can now continue

again, and society’s approval of that, can be seen in the fact that not only her mother in law

helps her deliver the baby, but other old and experienced women do so as well. This would

certainly not be the case if society did not reach the conclusion that Missie can be forgiven.

Thus, in her case it is not a remarriage, but a baby, that enables her to reenter society. The

importance of society’s opinion is illustrated in various instances during the story, such as

when Missie’s husband wants her to out dress every other women at the ice cream parlor, or

at church. It can be concluded from this story that female affairs are generally not accepted, as

Missie herself wonders why Joe does not leave her, but Huston offers the prospect of

remission through submission.

When comparing female and male affairs it can be observed that men at that time

seemed to have affairs more frequently than women and thus it was a given fact and accepted

by society. Women, who did not accept the affairs of their husband were seen as different and

not the norm. Female affairs were not as common, or so it seems, and mostly led to divorce.

87

Interestingly, men do not seem to have difficulties in re-entering society after their affair or

divorce, but women do. They only seem to be able to be part of society again by showing a

token of respect for the institution of marriage. This can be another marriage or a child or so it

appears. Thus, it is shown that the roles of males and females in the marriage reflect the roles

society expects and assigns them, and these roles also reflect the behavior concerning affairs

and divorces. As mentioned above (see Part I) there are certainly cases, where those

traditional roles are not applied, but at the time those stories were written, the traditional roles

seemed to have been the norm, keeping in mind that there is no story of the twenties included

in this analysis. Since female authors wrote those stories their opinions concerning affairs and

divorce are also reflected in the stories, in a way, and thus prevailing opinions can be deduced

from it. Other forms of life than a working marriage were eccentric and not viewed favorably

by society, as can be seen in the authors’ biographies.

3.4. Comparison of the solution process and the ending in all five stories

The ending in each story can be seen as the result of the problem solution

triggered by the problem that arose in the story. Since all problems that arose within each of

the five stories discussed above are concerned with marriage or are marriage related, such as

the consequences of an affair, the ending can be viewed as an important part in shaping the

image of marriage conveyed in each story. In comparing those different endings one might be

able to detect the prevailing image of marriage at the time those stories were written in, and

moreover find out in how far the conveyed image differs from the prevailing image supported

by society and politics. Politic influence, as was already discussed above (see Part I), was

important in shaping the image of marriage by creating a legal structure for this institution.

This chapter will be used to compare the different endings of each story assuming

marriage problems as the central problem in each story, leaving aside other influences.

Moreover, those endings will be compared according to the image of marriage they are able to

establish, marking especially those endings that are able to create a new image of marriage

that contrast the one former established in the story. When looking at all five stories one

essential difference can be detected. There is only one story that has an ending in which the

initial two partners of the marriage are still a married couple, and there are four stories where

the initial couple is split up in the end and both partners have other partners, or live alone.

88

3.4.1. The married couple ending

The one story where the initial partners of the marriage are still a married couple at the

end of the story is “The Gilded Six-Bits”. In this story marriage as an institution seems to

carry heavy importance. The couple stays married even after the affair of the female partner.

As mentioned in Part II, the couple enters three phases in their marriage. Howard describes

them as the first, innocent part, which is replaced by maturity in the second part, and then the

third part, where love as the foundation on which the marriage was built is important. This

foundation is strong enough to enable both partners to return to their previously happy

marriage (cf. Howard 1980:69-70).

When looking at Howard’s considerations the problem, namely the adultery, was

necessary in order the replace innocence by knowledge. Thus, the solution of the problem can

also be viewed as positive and eventually leads to this strong foundation. When looking

closely at the image of marriage conveyed by this solution, by this ending, one might

conclude that the author favored the institution of marriage and found that, if a couple does

indeed love each other, marriage is the solution. Interestingly, this solution includes a

patriarchal marriage in which the wife merely submits herself to the husband. This traditional

view on marriage is enforced by the birth of the baby. Now, the couple is transformed into a

family and all differences are solved, and they can continue to lead their life as a happy

family. This can be considered a very traditional view on marriage, since the story was written

in 1933 and other, earlier writers developed more radical and less traditional solutions to the

“problem” of marriage in their stories, as will be discussed in detail below. The view on

marriage as traditional is also voiced by Plant (see above Hurston’s view), who states that

Hurston did indeed have this traditional picture of marriage and family in mind when writing

her stories, but did not live her own life according to it. In the ending of “The Gilded Six-

Bits” nothing of the author’s inner conflict is visible in the solution.

It is hardly surprising that Huston offers the only “positive“ ending where the original

couple is still married, since this was her view on marriage, as discussed in Part II. All authors

depict the image of marriage of their time, and only a socially unprogressive writer, who does

not seek to change the image of marriage, can provide a positive ending in upholding the

original marriage. On the other hand, it is surprising that neither of the authors actually

considered a positive change within the marriages since all other marriages ended in

separation as will be discussed in the next part.

89

3.4.2. The separation ending

“Désirée’s Baby” and “A Jury of Her Peers” both end with the death of one partner

and thus there only remains one single partner at the end. In “Souls Belated” and “Turned” the

female partner begins a new relationship with someone other than their married spouse. Thus,

the initial marriage does not exist any more at the end of all four stories, which can be seen as

the essential difference to “The Gilded Six-Bits”.

3.4.2.1. “Désirée’s Baby” and “A Jury of Her Peers”

In both of those stories the solution to the problem arisen in the relationship is solved

by the death of one partner. In the first story the female part dies and in the second one the

male part. The image conveyed through this drastic solution is that there is no other solution,

not any other way out of the patriarchal marriage than death. In the first story the female part

decides on suicide in order to flee from her patriarchal husband, who suppressed her entirely

leaving no freedom for her, except the freedom to kill herself and her unwanted child. The

view on marriage in the story could be seen as bleak, especially because of the ending.

In the second story “A Jury of Her Peers” the solution to the problem that the unhappy

marriage entailed is death as well. In this case, however, the female partner does not flee

herself into suicide, but rather takes action against her tormentor and kills him. The interesting

side effect is that she is rescued from jail in the end, or so it appears, and can, in fact, lead the

single life she probably envisioned by killing her husband. This liberation is only possible

through female bonding, showing a way for liberation through the women’s movement.

Death as a solution to marriage problems carries several connotations concerning the

image of marriage the authors transported through their stories. The image of those marriages

is in no way favorable. In both cases the marriage is patriarchal in character. This does not

cast such a bleak light on the institution of marriage as do other details, since a patriarchal

marriage can indeed be a happy one, as it is the case in “The Gilded Six-Bits” described

above. The desolate image of marriage is supported by the absence of love and compassion on

the side of the husband in both stories. Death is triggered by this climate of absence of love.

The clear absence of love in “Désirée’s Baby” can, for example be seen in the husband’s

action of burning his wife’s belongings without any regret or feeling. In the second story, “A

Jury of Her Peers”, this assumption is supported by the husband killing the one thing his wife

loved in her dreary marriage, the one thing that kept her from killing herself, to formulate it in

a sharper way. In this story the wife’s absence of love for her husband is then articulated by

90

her murder. One could, however, also formulate the question of Why did the authors choose

death as the “solution“? Death as an image shows the helplessness of the women in their

situation. It could be viewed as an outcry that marriage as an institution suppressing women

has to change. But whereas Chopin let’s Désirée die and therefore does not openly, but subtly

demand that change, Glaspell lets the patriarch die by the hands of the suppressed partner, and

even lets that partner get away with it with the help of women’s bonding, approving of this

deed. Thus, in this case the depiction of death conveys the open outcry for an improvement in

women’s rights.

In conclusion, it can be said that both authors enforce the absence of love in the

marriage of both women. In the story the lack of love is evident on both sides, in the first

story only on the side of the husband, since the author repeatedly mentions Désirée’s love for

her husband. Thus, it can be concluded that the ideal happy marriage at that time included two

loving partners in a patriarchal marriage where the husband had more power than the wife,

but did, in fact, love her. The question, however, remains of whether a husband, who

dominates his wife, can truly love her and thus the patriarchal marriage, which did not offer

equality for both partners, was questioned.

3.4.2.2. “Souls Belated” and “Turned”

As mentioned above the female characters in “Souls Belated” and “Turned” influence

the ending according to their wishes, since they both decide to begin a new relationship with a

partner other than their spouse. The breaking point in both stories are affairs, one begun by

the female, and the other begun by the male partner in the marriage, as already discussed in

detail above. The interesting detail when comparing those two stories and their ending is,

however, that the females decide independently on a new relationship and thus end their

marriage. In both cases the female partner is the strong one after the affair, and decides which

way the conflict resulting from the affair is solved and thus shapes the ending independently.

The appearance of such strong women, who are able to decide on their own how they

want to lead their life, was not common, and thus those stories are able to show how the

authors of the stories considered the institution of marriage and the social restrictions it

entailed. In the first story “Souls Belated” the solution to the problem in the marriage, the

affair begun by the female partner, is divorce. This was an increasing popular step couples

took in order to be legally separated, as discussed above. Interestingly, however, the blessed

state of being not married, but having someone to love does not last long for the protagonist,

and thus it can be concluded that the author did, in fact, not favor the state of not being

91

married for women, but saw the institution of marriage as an important part of life as long as

it was happy and between equal partners. Thus, the institution was found as something good

that only needed slight alterations concerning the living together of the couple. Quinn states

that Wharton considered the divorce laws of the United States absurd and a danger to real

marriage (cf. Quinn 1950:xi), and Singley mentions that Wharton was concerned about the

role of women in society and her voice, also in her stories, is calling for social equality and

against the marginalization of women (cf. Singley 1995:1). However, Wharton’s view on how

to change marriage is complex. It is implied that even an educated and independent woman as

Lydia is unable to revolt against society’s image by her own. It is unclear how Wharton then

envisions that change. Presumably she assumed that society has to change in order to create

an image of marriage that this important social institution deserves.

The solution to the marriage problem arisen through the affair of the male part is also

solved with a new relationship in the second story “Turned”. Here, however, the traditional

view on marriage is not supported. There is also no mentioning of divorce in the story, but

still it is clear that the wife separated herself from her husband in order to begin a new life.

This new life involves independence from males and a seemingly harmonious relationship

with a woman. This solution for a marriage problem is unusual for that time, and sheds an

entirely different light on how marriage was seen as an institution. It is clearly shown that

marriage does not function between unequal partners, and that women need their economic

independence in order that such a relationship will work. This view is, of course, discussed in

detail above, and was famously voiced by the author of the story herself (see above, Part II)

The solution and ending might be unconventional, but it also shows that women were able to

decide independently on how they would like to live and with whom, as the example of the

author herself shows. Interestingly, the author herself was, however, also torn between the

traditional view on marriage and new ideas concerning this institution. This is reflected in the

story when the protagonist tries to find a solution for her problem. Thus, this story illustrates

that marriage was not seen as the only social institution possible for women, but that other

possibilities might have been open to them as well already. It has to be emphasized, however,

that this was not possible for each and every women, regardless of their social background.

The relationship at the end of the story might have been intended to show other possibilities

and even the future. Gilman also envisioned that every woman can change her marriage

herself, whereas Wharton does not see that option if society does not change.

92

In conclusion it can be said that the marriage in which both partners love and respect

each other and in which there is equality between the sexes was seen as the ideal relationship

by all authors, except Hurston. The images of marriage illustrated by the stories shows that

there were, in fact, certain troubles within the institution that needed to be solved. Those

solutions, however, seldom led to satisfying results for both partners, and this led to

separation. Since Hurston did not view marriage as an institution that was supposed to

incorporate equal partners, she is the only author ending her story with the same couple being

married as at the beginning.

93

Conclusion

The initial question of this work, expressed at the beginning, was whether the five

female authors selected for this analysis, voiced different views concerning the image of

marriage, in their short stories or went as far as voicing vanguard views. In order to be able to

answer this question an assessment of each image of marriage in each story, including all

components discussed above, needs to be undertaken.

Since the existence of vanguard views in literature are only detectable when knowing

about the prevailing views society as a whole held, a historical analysis, including three

different aspects related to the construction of the image of marriage, was carried out in the

first part of this work. The conclusion that can be drawn after considering the changing

economic influences, the sexual revolution, and women’s movements during the time from

the 1890s until the 1930s is that of an established image of marriage, challenged by women.

The established image of marriage was certainly the patriarchal one. Even though legislation

did not provide the husband with as many rights over his wife as before, there still was the

legal practice of considering the husband superior to his wife. Women sought to change this

in different ways. That is not to say that all women were members of women’s clubs, or in

favor of changing the institution of marriage, but many women tried to improve their

situation. By analyzing the five short stories composed by female authors, five examples for

this different approach towards the topic of marriage are shown.

Starting chronologically with “Désirée’s Baby”, it can be said that in this story the

classic image of a patriarchal marriage is portrayed. The subtle criticism, Chopin voices, is

only visible in the ending of the story, where the female partner’s life ends in death. Thus, it

can be said that her dependence leads to damnation. This critique on the image of marriage

can, thus, not be said to have been intended to challenge the institution of marriage as a

whole. Only later in her life Chopin would become more liberal concerning her thoughts on

the institution of marriage, and her critique becomes more overt, visible for example in The

Awakening. At the point in her life, however, when she wrote “Désirée’s Baby”, there are not

exactly vanguard views detectable since no solution to improve the situation is offered.

In “Souls Belated” the image of marriage portrayed is more complex and closely

interrelated with the author’s life. Marriage is viewed as a social necessity for women, on the

one hand, and on the other hand as a gilded cage. This view is rather negative concerning the

future of intelligent or even critical women, since they will only be able to maintain their self-

confidence if they are married to a partner who allows them to be this way. This is a rather

94

negative or even fatalistic view on marriage. Wharton herself thought that the institution of

marriage is necessary for women and disapproved of the countless divorces members of the

upper class got, even though she herself eventually had to divorce her husband. This opinion

on marriage and divorce is visible in her story, since the female protagonist ends up being

married again. The vanguard view, concerning relationships, is voiced earlier in the story by

portraying a love relationship between equals. The female character was, however, not able to

achieve such a “vanguard marriage” against society’s conventions, or so it appears at the end

of the story.

The author of “Turned”, Gilman, did not see a future for patriarchal marriages without

equality between the partners. In her story education and earning power, which means

economic power as well, was described as the way to freedom and equality. Gilman voiced an

emancipatory and even positive view concerning women who are educated and able to

determine their own life, including their marriage. Thus, she can be said to have voiced

vanguard views concerning marriage. It has to be kept in mind, however, that Gilman was

closely connected to women’s clubs, and might have voiced her views in speeches as well.

Thus, her vanguard views are not only limited to literature, but were also voiced in speeches

and non-literature books.

In the story “A Jury of Her Peers” marriage is portrayed as a patriarchal social

institution where the husband and the wife are supposed to fulfill certain tasks. The husband is

responsible for providing financially for his wife, and the wife is responsible for providing

him with a home and food. Isolation is seen as a danger to this constellation. In the story the

consequence, death, of failing to fulfill these tasks on the husband’s side are shown.

Moreover, the author showed a perspective different to the simple provider-dependent

relation. She described female bonding as an alternative to female submission, and this

eventually lead to a change. In this story the author voiced a vanguard view concerning the

change of the patriarchal institution of marriage. Female bonding, as an alternative,

emphasized and strengthened women as individual beings outside their marriage and their

assigned roles.

In the last story “The Gilded Six-Bits”, the only loving marriage is portrayed. In this

story a positive view on patriarchal marriages is voiced. This shows that the author’s views

were in her time, since after the turmoil in the 1920s, the 1930s were marked by a return to

traditional values, including patriarchal marriage. Another thought in connection to marriage,

voiced in this story, is that everything within the marriage works, as long as society does not

interfere. This traditional view on marriage, however, only concerned the female characters in

95

Hurston’ stories, since she applied different values for herself. Those were entirely different to

the traditional values described in her story, since she saw herself as the ‘female other’, as

something close to a male, and lived her life according to it.

It could have been assumed that the authors, since four of them published their stories

at approximately the same time, would portray the image of marriage in a similar way. The

fifth story, published later, might have been expected to portray marriage differently, showing

a social institution were both partners are equal. It can, however, be said that this is not true.

The last story’s author voiced the most positive view on patriarchal marriage, favoring

hierarchy over equality.

The ideal marriage probably only existed in books, rather than in reality at that time

and still does. The different images of marriage in each story are able to establish one central

image that might have been the prevailing one at that time, namely the traditional patriarchal

marriage, where the husband works outside the home in order to earn money, and the wife

stays at home and takes care of the home and the children. The solutions to problems arisen in

those marriages mostly do not improve it. The solution proposed by all authors, except the

last one, is to end to the marriage, which portrays this institution rather negatively.

Concerning the initial question of whether vanguard views were voiced in the stories,

it needs to be said that there are certainly vanguard ideas concerning the image of marriage in

each story, except Hurston’s, but they are not realized in the end. There is not one story in

which the vanguard view of equality between the sexes is, in fact, realized within the marriage

and described in detail. Thus, is can be said that the individual authors might have led lives as

artist, following their own vocation, their heroines in those five stories, however, do not

challenge the established image of marriage at time to a great extent.

96

Bibliography

Primary Works

Chopin, Kate (1976). “Désirée’s Baby” [1893] In: Barbara Solomon, ed. The Awakening and

Selected Stories of Kate Chopin. New York: Signet Classic. 189-194.

Gilman, Perkins, Charlotte, (1997). “Turned” [1911]. In: The Yellow Wallpaper and Other

Stories. Mineola: Dover Publications, Inc. 39-47.

Glaspell, Susan (2000). “A Jury of Her Peers” [1917]. In: Tony Hillerman and Otto Penzler,

eds. The Best American Mystery Stories of the Century. Boston:.Houghton Mifflin Co. 85-

104.

Hurston, Zora Neale (1976). “The Gilded Six-Bits” [1933]. In: Alice Walker, ed. I Love

Myself When I Am Laughing. And then again When I am Looking mean and impressive. New

York: The Feminist Press. 208-218.

Wharton, Edith (2001). “Souls Belated” [1899]. In: Mareen Howard, ed. Edith Wharton.

Collected Stories 1891-1910. New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 95-122.

Secondary Works

Alkalay-Gut, Karen (1995). “Murder and Marriage: Another Look at Trifles”. In: Linda Ben

Zvi,ed. Susan Glaspell. Essays on Her Theatre and Fiction. Michigan: University of

Michigan Press. 71-81.

Beer, Janet (1997). Kate Chopin, Edith Wharton and Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Studies in

Short Fiction. Chippenham: Anthony Rowe Ltd.

Ben-Zvi, Linda, ed. (1995). “Introduction”. In: Susan Glaspell. Essays on Her Theatre and

Fiction. Michigan: University of Michigan Press. 1-14.

Ben-Zvi, Linda, ed. (1995). ““Murder, She Wrote”: The Genesis of Susan Glaspell’s Trifles”.

In: Susan Glaspell. Essays on Her Theatre and Fiction. Michigan: University of Michigan

Press. 19-48.

Bloom, Harold, ed. (1986). “Chronology” In: Zora Neale Hurston. New York: Chelsea House

Publishers.

Cott, Nancy F. (2000/2002). Public Vows. A History of Marriage and the Nation. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Davis, Cynthia, J. (2005). “Love and Economics: Charlotte Perkins Gilman on “The Woman

Question”” ATQ 19.4: 243-258.

Donovan, Joseph, Mitchel (1915). Marriage, Annulment, Domicile, Divorce. South Dakota:

Sioux Falls.

97

Elze Reinhard, Konrad Repgen, ed. (1974/2003) Studienbuch Geschichte. Eine europäische

Welltgeschichte. Band 2: Frühe Neuzeit 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

Ewell, Barbara C. (1986). Kate Chopin. New York: The Ungar Publishing Company.

Ewell Barbara C. (1992). “Kate Chopin and the Dream of Female Selfhood”. In: Lynda S.

Boren and Sara deSaussure Davis, eds. Kate Chopin Reconsidered. Beyond the Bayou. Baton

Rouge: Louisiana State Press. 157-165.

Fletcher, Caroline, Violet (2006). ““The Rules of the Institution” Susan Glaspell and

Sisterhood”. In: Martha C. Carpenter, Barbara Ozieblo, eds. Disclosing Intertextualities. The

Stories, Plays, and Novels of Susan Glaspell. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 239-256.

Gale, Zona (1935/1987). “Foreword”. In: Charlotte Perkins Gilman, The Living of Charlotte

Perkins Gilman. An Autobiography. Salem: Ayer Company Publishers Inc. xiii-xxxviii.

Gardiner Karen, H. (2006). “Reaching for “Out There”: Susan Glaspell’s rhetoric of the

Female Artist”. In: Martha C. Carpenter, Barbara Ozieblo, eds. Disclosing Intertextualities.

The Stories, Plays, and Novels of Susan Glaspell. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 183-200.

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins (1935/1987) The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman. An

Autobiography. Salem: Ayer Company Publishers Inc.

Hedges, Elaine (1995). “Small Things Reconsidered: “A Jury of Her Peers””. In: Linda Ben

Zvi, ed. Susan Glaspell. Essays on Her Theatre and Fiction. Michigan: University of

Michigan Press. 49-69.

Heideking Jürgen; Christof Mauch (1996/2008). Geschichte der USA. Michael Wala A. ed.

Tübingen: Francke Verlag.

Hoeller, Hildergard (2005). “Racial Currency: Zora Neale Hurston’s “The Gilded Six-Bits”

and the Gold-Standard Debate. American Literature 77.4: 761-785.

Howard, Lillie P. (1980). Zora Neale Hurston. Boston: Twayne Publishers.

Howard, Maureen, ed. (2001). Edith Wharton. Collected Stories 1891-1910. New York:

Classics of the United States, Inc.

Kessler, Carol, Farley (1995). Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Her Progress Toward Utopia with

Selected Writings. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press.

Knight, Denise D. ed. (1998). The Abridged Diaries of Charlotte Perkins Gilman.

Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia.

Knight, Denise D. (1997). Charlotte Perkins Gilman. A Study of the Short Fiction. Twayne’s

Studies in Short Fiction 68. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Lane, Ann, J. (1990). To “Herland” and Beyond. The Life and Works of Charlotte Perkins

Gilman. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.

98

Lasch, Christopher (1983). “Social Pathologists and the Socialization of Reproduction”. In:

Michael Gordon, ed. The American Family in Social- Historical Perspective. New York: St.

Martin’s Press.80-94.

Lewis, R. W. B. (1986). “A Writer of Short Stories”. In: Harold Bloom, ed. Modern Critical

Views. Edith Wharton. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 9-28.

Lewis R. W. B. (1975). Edith Wharton. A Biography. New York: Harper and Row Publishers.

Livy, Milton, Ives (1924). Marriage and Divorce. New York.

Lowe, John (1994). Jump at the Sun. Zora Neale Hurston’s Cosmic Comedy. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press.

Makowsky, Veronica (1993). Susan Glaspell’s Century of American Women. A Critical

Interpretation of her Work. New York: Oxford University Press.

May, Elaine, Tyler (1983). “The Pressure to Provide: Class, Consumerism, and Divorce in

Urban America, 1880-1920”. In: Michael Gordon, ed. The American Family in Social-

Historical Perspective. New York: St. Martin’s Press.154-168.

Myers, Gustavus (1925). “Rapid increase of Divorce” [1921]. In: Julia E. Johnsen, ed..

Selected Articles on Marriage and Divorce. New York: The H.W. Wilson Company. 16-27.

Nevius, Blake (1953). Edith Wharton. A Study of Her Fiction. Berkley: University of

California Press.

Noe, Marcia (1983). Susan Glaspell. Voice from the Heartland. Macomb: Western Illinois

Monograph Series.

Norton, Mary Beth et al (1999). A People and a Nation. A History of the United States.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Ozieblo, Barbara and Jerry Dickey (2008). Susan Glaspell and Sophie Treadwell. New York:

Rutledge.

Papke, Mary E. (2006). “Susan Glaspell’s Naturalist Scenarios of Determinism and Blind

Faith”. In: Martha C. Carpenter, Barbara Ozieblo, eds. Disclosing Intertextualities. The

Stories, Plays, and Novels of Susan Glaspell. Amsterdam: Rodopi. 19-34.

Plant, Deborah G. (1995). Every Tub Must Sit on Its Own Bottom. The Philosophy and

Politics of Zora Neale Hurston. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Quinn, Arthur, Hobson, ed. (1950).”Introduction”. In: An Edith Wharton Treasury. New

York: Appelton-Century-Crofts. Inc. v-xxvii.

Ross, Edward, Alsworth (1925) “Significance of Increasing Divorce” [1909]. In: Julia E.

Johnsen, ed. Selected Articles on Marriage and Divorce. New York: The H.W. Wilson

Company. 54-62.

99

Showalter, Elaine (1995, Jun. 16). “Smoking Room”. Times Literary Supplement. 12.

Singley Carol, J. (1995). Edith Wharton. Matters of Mind and Spirit. Cambridge: CUP.

Solomon, Barbara H., ed. (1976). “Introduction”. In: The Awakening and Selected Stories of

Kate Chopin. New York: Signet Classic. vii-xxix.

Spender, Dale (1982/1992). Women of Ideas and what men have done to them. London:

Pandora Press.

Tindall, George Brown; David E. Shi (1984/1996). America. A Narrative History. Volume II.

New York: W.W. Norton&Company. Inc.

Toth, Emily (1999). Unveiling Kate Chopin, Jackson: University Press of Mississippi.

Toth, Emily (1990). Kate Chopin. New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc.

Washington, Mary, Helen (1976). “Introduction. Zora Neale Hurston: A Woman Half in

Shadow”. In: Alice Walker,ed. I Love Myself When I Am Laughing. And then again When I

am Looking mean and impressive. New York: The Feminist Press.. 7-24.

Waterman, Arthur E. (1966). Susan Glaspell. New York: Twayne Publishers, Inc.

White, Barbara A. (1991). Edith Wharton. A Study of the Short Fiction. Twayne’s Studies in

Short Fiction 30. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Wolff, Cynthia, Griffin (1987). “The Fiction of Limits: “Désirée’s Baby””. In: Harold Bloom,

ed. Modern Critical Views. Kate Chopin. New York: Chelsea House Publishers. 35-42.