Melissa Ziemba
Marriage in Victorian England was viewed in terms of economic and material gain, especially among the upper class. It was not viewed as an equal partnership between a man and a woman. Rather, the husband was the dominant, controlling figure and the wife was supposed to be quiet and submissive to her husband's wishes. He controlled all wealth and property, including her personal effects, and the money she had before marriage (Perkin 130) . The Victorian woman had little or no rights regarding her marriage. She was completely under the control of her husband, with the law being in his favor.
Although by today's standards these laws seem highly unjust and almost barbaric, most Victorian women calmly accepted their role with little complaint. As Joan Perkin remarks, "many women . . . not only regarded marriage as their inevitable role in life, but actually welcomed it as an emotionally satisfying and . . . emancipating experience" (3). In addition, women saw marriage as a way to gain independence from their families and begin a life of their own. For one must remember that the law and reality were often two different things (Perkin 3-4). Not all husbands were cruel and domineering. Many husbands and wives held great affection for each other and lived happily and comfortably together.
Divorce in Victorian England was very difficult to obtain. As Joan Perkin states, "For most people . . . marriage was an indissoluble union, terminable only by death" (22). The only reason accepted for getting a divorce was adultery, and this was only valid for men. A woman could not use adultery as the sole reason for trying to obtain a divorce. She also had to claim and prove her husband engaged in incest, bigamy or excessive cruelty (Vogel 161). Clearly, there was a double-standard in granting divorces to men and women. Although these strict laws on divorce were modified in the mid-nineteenth century making divorces more accessible to both men and women, there was still a stigma that was placed on people (especially women) who got a divorce. Many felt that although the marriage was dissolved in the eyes of the law, it was still binding in the eyes of God. As a result, divorces were still scarce in the nineteenth-century.
It may seem highly ironic that a man could claim adultery as the reason for divorcing his wife, but a woman could not claim the same in trying to divorce her husband. However, this problem arose because a married woman was virtually invisible in the eyes of the law. She was strictly under her husband's care and protection. Since nineteenth-century law was in favor of the man and a married woman had the "protection" of her husband, what could a woman gain in claiming that her husband was unfaithful to her? Regardless of he was or not, since she was under her husband's care , and as long as he still took care of her, why should she be so concerned with his fidelity? On the other hand, if a woman was adulterous then she was clearly disregarding and disrespecting the "care" her husband provided for her. Therefore, the husband had ample reason for wanting to divorce her. This hypothetical scenario provides insight into the mentality of nineteenth-century law regarding divorce and explains why there was such a double-standard in dealing with men and women.
Obtaining a divorce during this time was an expensive undertaking. As a result, it was only a feasible option to those who had money, namely the upper class. Since these marriages had their basis in wealth and social status and not love, male adultery was not seen as a grave offense. It was not condoned by any means, but it could be overlooked with relative ease. For the upper-class, getting a divorce would entail the loss of some wealth and property. Since wealth and property were passed down from generation to generation, accumulation of these items was strongly encouraged and valued. Wealth and property helped to strengthen the family line. In giving up property or wealth, the family line was losing part of its strength and influence. Divorce, then, was not a practical option economically or socially.
In Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre, there is a rebellion against the societal norms of marriage. In this novel, Jane views marriage as an equal partnership (Pell 407). She refuses to submit to the idea of being the quiet, submissive wife that is pretty to look at but is worth nothing more. Even before she marries Rochester she makes her sentiments quite clear. When he affectionately calls her his angel, she replies "I am not an angel . . . and I will not be one till I die: I will be myself. Mr. Rochester, you must neither expect nor exact anything celestial of me--for you will not get it" (288; ch. 24). It may appear odd that a woman would become so defensive regarding a simple pet name, but for Jane this pet name symbolizes subservience and she is continually struggling for her independence. In rebuking Edward Rochester, what she is really saying is: take me as I am. Do not expect me to change for you. She wants Mr. Rochester to love her for who she is. That is why she refuses to be his "angel" for she views it as a means of compromising herself.
In view of nineteenth-century standards, Jane's rebelliousness towards Mr. Rochester was not typical. If a man wanted his future wife to be his angel, then that is what she would be. Victorian readers would clearly see Bronte's novel as rebellious. As stated by Helene Moglen, Jane's world is "a world which measured the likelihood of her [Jane's] success by the degree of her marriageability (her familial connections, her economic status, and above all, her beauty)" (106-7). Since at the time of the proposal by Rochester, Jane is orphaned, poor, and not particularly beautiful, it is clear that her behavior could be viewed as unconventional. Mr. Rochester has wealth, his background is renowned and although not particularly handsome (a man with wealth did not have to be handsome), he would most definitely be seen as a good match. One can see how a nineteenth-century reader would be discomfited at Jane's rebellious attitude.