Defining Marriage in 19th Century France: An Exploration of Female Adultery The Industrial Revolution began in earnest in France in the early 19th century century. As the economy shifted from the feudal “cottage industry” of home-made textiles to the large factory model and railroads crisscrossed the country, these transformations also resonated in society (Maynes). “The transition from commodity to industrial manufacturing…ended the relationship between home and business and led to a separation of the sexes and a precise definition of functions” (Smith 16). So men ran this booming new industry and their wives stayed at home, looking after the children and “keeping house.” “The development of industry accentuated the division of the world along gender lines” and effectively institutionalized an idea of ​​separate and rigid spheres for the sexes, where women remained totally isolated from the nascent male-dominated capitalism (Smith 49). Furthermore, although many historians (rightly) cite the 19th century in France as a century in which religious fervor gradually declined, the Catholic Church remained a cornerstone of French society and was closely intertwined with people's lives. , even in secular spheres. Thus, Catholicism and its underlying religious tenets of virginal femininity merged with new economic expectations to create a very narrow definition of what was expected of women. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay It is not surprising, then, that the literature of the period reaffirmed these expectations and ideals that were woven into the societal fabric. The gender roles that religion helped to establish and that industrial processes have institutionalized are found both in Madame Bovary and in Bel-Ami through the characters of Emma Bovary and Madeleine Forestier. Although the two women are very different and find themselves married to men who are virtually polar opposites of each other, each faces similar societal constraints within their marriage, and even though they demonstrate that this institution The firmly entrenched foundation of marriage can be overturned and expectations partially avoided. to some extent, these small margins of maneuver available to women are overshadowed by social and religious values ​​that make marital equality impossible and inextricably link female adultery to impurity and immorality. Although both novels demonstrate the strength of the institution of marriage in the mid-19th century, the historical analysis of this period is even more compelling. Between 1849 and 1879, marriage rates increased (Camp 37). Divorce, on the other hand, was incredibly rare, and even in 1900, only 1.6% of all marriages involved someone who had already been divorced (Camp 59). Although the French Revolution legalized divorce in 1792 on grounds that were radically liberal for the time – marital breakdown or simply incompatibility, for which neither party would be held responsible – divorce was soon after restricted under Napoleon, then completely abolished in 1816 (with female adultery). and mental illness as the only reservations) with the restoration of the monarchy and the reestablishment of Catholicism as the state religion (“Divorce and women in France”). It was not until 1884 that divorce was legal again, almost thirty years after the publication of Madame Bovary and only one year before Bel-Ami. Not only was the marriage virtually permanent (with "separationas the only legal means of ending the marriage during the couple's lifetime", apart from the other two conditions listed above), but it was also hierarchical (Camp 72). “Within each household, there existed a hierarchy between…husband and wife” (Smith 131). Thus, it is understandable that a wife might feel stifled, or at least constrained, by the pervasive gender hierarchy in society that extends to marriage. The experiences of Emma Bovary and Madeleine Forestier within their individual marriages illustrate the effects of some of these legal and societal constraints. Emma, ​​at first, is passionate and impulsive, in total juxtaposition with Charles, and she quickly finds herself "stripped of all illusions, with... nothing left to feel... She couldn't believe that this existence without incident was the happiness she had dreamed of. of… Oh why in heaven’s name have I already gotten married! » (Flaubert 37, 41). It is evident throughout the novel that the stability and permanence of marriage reduces a character like Emma who dreams of much more to both literal and figurative madness. Emma consciously acknowledges the impact this has on her, stating that her beauty and romantic idealism "had been sullied by marriage" and that she "would have liked to escape...and fly away" (Flaubert 216, 214). The entrapment that Emma feels due to Charles' dispassionate and boring personality as well as the erosion of his mind that she believes is happening to her is quite dramatic, but nonetheless a very direct reaction to society's expectation of May she live happily. and permanently with a man for whom she feels nothing. Madeleine, on the other hand, is very different, because she is as rational and calm as Emma is impulsive. Furthermore, her initially superior status to Georges gives her greater freedom of action, which she makes very clear to him before their marriage: “For me, marriage is not an obstacle but an association. I insist on being free, completely free to act as I please, to go where I want, to see who I choose, when I want... Man should also... consider me as an equal... and not as an inferior or obedient and submissive spouse” (Maupassant 218). This open statement is incredibly radical in that it directly contradicts gender roles, both underlying and overt. Madeleine's insistence on fair and equal treatment illustrates an understanding of her own marriage that is quite different from Emma's. Where the latter seeks passionate love, Madeleine recognizes the reality that she likely won't find that within the confines of marriage and instead seeks partnership. She is thus able to achieve a significant degree of agency within her marriage, although she certainly does not achieve this fully. Furthermore, Madeleine is clearly objectified by her husband. As his status, influence, and confidence increase, Georges' attitude toward her becomes more forceful and determined. He speaks of her as a prize to be won that would make him stronger, but also as someone he can conquer: “He was now determined to use all possible means to marry her if she seemed hesitant … He had confidence in his luck and in the powers of attraction...vague and irresistible powers that no woman could resist” (Maupassant 223). This statement demonstrates Georges' change in attitude, from initial shyness towards Madame Forestier to supreme dominance which results in a marriage where he considers himself superior to his wife. Although at this point in the novel he claims to love her, he also seeks to assert his dominance and force her to marry him, an example of the reinforcement of the gender hierarchy in 19th-century France. Despite the factWhether these two women face the effects of male supremacy within marriage, there are certain ways to circumvent these constraints temporarily or partially, with varying degrees of success. One of the ways Madeleine does this is through her writing. Even though she is very talented, she can only be published in a man's name. So, she writes through Georges, “whispering suggestions to him on how to phrase it. From time to time she hesitated and asked him: “Is that really what you mean?” » (Maupassant, 255). This approach is subtle but quite powerful. Not only is she able to directly dictate to him what to say, but she can also change his words for his without him fully realizing it. In a society where women journalists can be gossip columnists but not serious political journalists, Madeleine finds a way to escape societal constraints; Yet the fact that she must do it through her husband elevates this act from a victory of female talent to a victory of individual ingenuity. Emma also finds ways to overthrow society, although they are a bit more trivial than Madeleine's. Her love of novels allows her to dream of an existence very different from her own, even if, unlike Léon, she, as a married woman, is relegated to daydreaming about the boulevards of Paris instead of actually walking them. While not a literal distortion of gender ideals like Madeleine's writings are, it is nonetheless a way to distance herself from a reality that she finds infinitely dark. However, the main way in which both women temporarily escape the confines of marriages is through sexual relations, something quite common in this era, because "while the modern man can be deceptive in his business dealings, the woman modern is misleading in sexual matters of the body and the heart” (Goldstein). For Emma, ​​these are numerous, passionate, and incredibly devastating when they inevitably come to an end, yet they give her a taste of the love she continually and ardently desires as well as a way to momentary escape. Flaubert writes: “These periods of separation became intolerable… Each time she was seized by a sudden desire to see Léon, she left with as flimsy an excuse as possible” (250, 268). By having various affairs and feeling such strong romantic notions that don't exist with Charles, Emma finds a way to temporarily impose her limits on him; she neglects her marital duties for her own pleasure. Although her various affairs are ultimately successful, contributing to her eventual suicide, the sexual adventures give Emma a way to distance herself from the expectations of marriage and motherhood as well as the monotony of life with Charles. They certainly bind her temporarily to other men, sometimes turning into full-fledged pseudo-marriages, but they allow the norms of pure femininity and chastity within marriage to be circumvented. Madeleine's affair with Laroche-Mathieu is much more successful than these. that Emma has. Her rationality and practicality do not allow for the same passionate recklessness that motivates Emma's actions. As readers, we don't know much about this affair, yet it is clear that Madeleine manages to hide it from her husband for most of their marriage. After she is no longer a conquest to be conquered and Georges has taken care of various other women, he seems to forget about his wife for the most part, until finally "he reflects that in fact she is the only woman who never bothered him was his wife. . She lived her own life” (Maupassant320). This passage follows chapters on Madame de Marelle and Madame Walter, in which Madeleine is only briefly mentioned but rarely interacts with her husband. Thus, she even manages to largely avoid the novel's narrative, just as she periodically withdraws from her marriage and does what she wants, although she is still tied to Georges. Of course, her adultery is eventually discovered and she is socially disgraced, but her ending remains somewhat optimistic. When asked where Madeleine was during Georges' second marriage, Norbert de Varenne replied: "She lives quietly hidden... I have read political articles in La Plume which are terribly similar to those of Forestier and Du Roy... D 'from which I deduce that she likes beginners and always will' (409). Although Madeleine falls victim to the expectation that women remain faithful to their husbands – a stark juxtaposition with the very hypocritical George who manipulates women again and again for his own gain – she has more hope than Emma and clearly finds ways around the gender hierarchy. On the other hand, however, his experiences and ultimate social shame demonstrate how powerful and widespread these feelings are. Although it is clear from both novels that extramarital affairs were a means that could give women a degree of agency, they were also inextricably linked to immorality, and adulterous women were stigmatized for failing in their duties. feminine and marital. This, of course, is quite different from men, like Georges Duroy who is encouraged to take various mistresses, because women are "still the quickest way to success" for men in society (Maupassant 41). The fact that men were simply more powerful in 19th-century French society is a possible explanation for why this distinction is made between male and female adultery, but the reasoning behind this phenomenon is much more complex. The Church has had an incredibly important influence. As discussed previously, the 19th century was a period of slow decline for Catholicism, yet it was very present, both overtly and underlyingly. As a result of a gradual loss of status, "we see the desire of the Church to be more visible – abundantly – in the streets of the city", notably through sumptuous processions in the streets of the city, of which thirty took place throughout 1879 (from Hollander). Additionally, religious marriages were very important to the upper class. Although a civil service was also required, the church wedding "could cost large sums of money and could accommodate hundreds of guests" and was therefore an important social event, rather than a religious event (Bahorel ). So even though people were becoming less Catholic, they still had a strong interest in appearing to practice religion in society. Stable and faithful marriages were an important means of achieving this and were already ingrained in the social fabric over centuries of French Catholicism. Furthermore, legal codes sought to keep marriages in place and reinforced male dominance to achieve this. As mentioned, divorce was illegal at this time unless adultery was discovered. However, the punishments for male and female adultery were very different. In addition to the fact that it was much more difficult to find a husband guilty of infidelity (it was necessary to prove that he regularly maintained a concubine in the family home), women could be sentenced to sentences of up to two years in prison. while men only had to pay a fine (Bahorel). The legal codes of the time therefore reinforced.