國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
conditional love.
In addition to this unequal love, Sylvain hopes Mariana for the head of the house. If we use “conditional love” to explain Mariana’s desire, how do we view Sylvain’s wish for Mariana? Can his love in return be regarded as a “conditional love” as well? The conditional love seems to be reasonable for Mariana’s desire, but it does not mean all for Mariana’s love, which is too reductive to explain Mariana’s state. Sylvain has also an expectation for his wife; he expects Mariana to be the head of the house: “He wanted in her the head of his house; she to make her heart his home” (59). The expectation results in a serious harm for the wife: “No compromise was possible between natures of such unequal poise” (59). Bilbro overlooks how Sylvain’s expectation causes Mariana a serious harm, and I suggest that the harm is from losing freedom. Sylvain’s conducts extinguish Mariana’s wishes, which deepen her anxieties. If Mariana was not so longing for love, she would not be so painful in the marriage.
Sylvain’s Expectation of Mariana
To be the head/mistress of the house makes Mariana forfeit liberty. Mariana has more restrictions than Sylvain; for example, she has to stay at home to win the virtue of a good wife. Mariana is not as free as Sylvain, so she wants Sylvain to stay at
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
home with her longer. Sylvain has aspiration for business in the outside world, so he gets tired of the domestic life and goes out frequently. Mariana’s anxiety intensifies because of his absence from home. For Sylvain, the wife should fulfill his wishes and be “the head of his house.” It refers to Mariana’s being the mistress of the house.
A strong-willed woman knows what kinds of married life she has to own, not merely being a mistress of the house. More importantly, Mariana is an unfettered person as mentioned before. She likes to enjoy freedom or act freely in the performance during her school life. It is hard for her to just be a mistress of the house at all time.
Mariana cannot be gleeful without freedom, and her “blaze of energy” disappears little by little in a domestic space.
Sylvain’s expectation for Mariana to be the head/mistress of the house shows his veneration for Mariana—he lets her have her own life and her sovereignty at home. Nevertheless, the head of the house, is a task given by the husband, so who is a real head in the house? Mariana’s situation is still also overpowered by Sylvain’s intention. It is difficult for Mariana to decide what she wants because she has to follow the “heart” of her life—Sylvain. When Sylvain wants the house to be his reposing place, Mariana has to give up her performances and entertainment at home.
She brings joyful life to Sylvain while he stays at home, but the master does not appreciate it. Mariana is forced to cease these activities. In other words, Sylvain is a
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
real master of the house because he decides what kind of the life he wants in the house.
This expectation intensifies Mariana’s anxieties. Mariana cannot stay in the house alone, wanting more company from Sylvain. She feels: “The agonizing sense/
Of seeing love from passion melt/ Into indifference” (60). If she does not feel cared for in the house, how can she be a mistress of the house? Mariana wants more of Sylvain’s love and attention at home. The mistress is dependent on her husband somehow, so she cannot have an independent life and sovereignty in the house. The house is like a cage for Mariana, for she only waits for Sylvain to come back. Fuller further states that “[a]t home Mariana found that neither her book nor music would console her” (61), for she wants nothing from the house but Sylvain’s love and attention. Therefore, the house is a lonely place for Mariana. She is incapable of being a competent “head” of the house.
Sylvain’s expectation is relevant to Wollstonecraft’s argument that women are limited in their indoor sphere. It is not only a restriction for Mariana, but also for many women in the nineteenth century. According to John Stuart Mill,7 many nineteenth century women are restricted in a private space as a housewife and a mother. As John Stuart Mill in The Subjection of Women writes:
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
The general opinion of men is supposed to be, that the natural vocation of a woman is that of a wife and mother. I say, is supposed to be, because, judging from acts—from the whole of the present constitution of society—one might infer that their opinion was the direct contrary. They might be supposed to think that the alleged natural vocation of women was of all things the most repugnant to their nature; insomuch that if they are free to do anything else—if any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties, is open, which has any chance of appearing desirable to them—there will not be enough of them who will be willing to accept the
condition said to be natural to them. If this is the real opinion of men in general, it would be well that it should be spoken out. I should like to hear somebody openly enunciating the doctrine (it is already implied in much that is written on the subject)—“It is necessary to society that women should marry and produce children. They will not do so unless they are compelled. Therefore it is necessary to compel them.” The merits of the case would then be clearly defined. (26) Mill alleges that the so-called natural vocation is repugnant for women’s nature, and he attempts to overthrow it. He observes that the idea of “natural vocation”
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
comes from “acts” and “the whole of the present constitution of society,” not from women’s own will.
The “natural vocation” neither from women’s wish nor from men’s real opinion in general. It leaves an answerable question here; are women only limited to be wives or mothers? Mill may disagree with the present society in which women are expected to take care of families and do their domestic jobs so that they have to stay in their private sphere. Moreover, they are supposed to being wives and mothers. It is an unnatural circumstance for women. Women’s nature should be varied, and they should not be limited to only one vacation even regarding to be natural for them.
Mill’s statement further indicates that women’s “natural jobs” are being wives and mothers only because they are forced and limited to the private sphere. In other words, women are made to be domestic ones. In order to become models of competent wives or good mothers, women will obey patriarchal restrictions to stay in the private space, which causes women to be dependent on men. However, many women may feel anguish from this expectation because they struggle for liberation. For Mill, as well as
Wollstonecraft, women should have more choices in various fields, not merely playing wives and mothers in the house. Thus, this label of “natural job” for
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
women is “unnatural” indeed.
Mill’s statement speaks to Fuller’s writing as well. Firstly, in the case of Mariana, she has to be the head of the house because Sylvain has already given her a “natural” vocation. Although Mariana is given the title of the “head” of the house, she has to follow Sylvain’s wishes at home. She is compelled to fit into this “natural” vocation. Secondly, Mill proposes to make women have “any other means of living, or occupation of their time and faculties”, which is akin to Wollstonecraft and Fuller’s statement.8 Women can get rid of the idea of
“natural vocation” with professional knowledge and skills. Developing their own expertise, women will have an opportunity to work outside, and they can also have their own liberty to move freely. The idea of the “natural vocation”
for women will be overthrown by making women have skills and expertise, too.