{"id":4549,"date":"2020-12-11T11:27:40","date_gmt":"2020-12-11T16:27:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/y90sclassroom.blog.ryerson.ca\/?p=4549"},"modified":"2022-03-01T14:34:40","modified_gmt":"2022-03-01T14:34:40","slug":"blurring-the-lines-of-opposition-michael-fields-equal-love-a-critique-of-love-marriage-and-gender-conventions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/2020\/12\/11\/blurring-the-lines-of-opposition-michael-fields-equal-love-a-critique-of-love-marriage-and-gender-conventions\/","title":{"rendered":"Blurring the Lines of Opposition: Michael Field’s “Equal Love” a Critique of Love, Marriage, and Gender Conventions"},"content":{"rendered":"

\u00a9 Arianna Guaragna, Ryerson University 2020<\/p>\n

Historical Context<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Introduction<\/h3>\n
\"Perseus
Fig 1. Sir Edward Burne Jones. Perseus and Medusa. Black and white print, 1895-96. The Pageant Vol. 1, p. 187.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Evolving notions of gender, sexuality and patriarchy were hallmarks of the end of the nineteenth century. The fin-de-si\u00e8cle engendered bodies of artwork, poetry, and literature that resisted traditional notions of gender and gender roles endorsed through antiquated Victorian morals. Shifts in thinking about gender roles were not exempted from the domestic realm\u2014in fact, discourse on women\u2019s refusal of conventional and systemic patriarchy was made possible by the New Woman\u2019s literary identity (Shea and Whitla 9). Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper repudiated the rigid structures of the heteropatriarchy through their subversive writing under the shared pseudonym of \u201cMichael Field.\u201d The ambivalence of the shared name was a political strategy resisting existing structures and allowing new spaces to be inhabited (Thain 15).<\/p>\n

Michael Field\u2019s play \u201cEqual Love,\u201d published in The Pageant 1896, challenges Victorian ideals of patriarchal values by rejecting \u201cthe idea that the ideal woman, the moral woman, was a submissive woman\u201d (B. Griffin 48). Field achieves this by blurring gender oppositions through exposing and undermining the power imbalance within marital structures. Where the pursuit of a woman\u2019s desires was considered \u201cselfish\u201d and \u201cunwomanly,\u201d especially within marriage (B. Griffin 47), Field uses female agency and license to underscore the essentiality of the changing notions of women and gender roles within marital relationships.<\/p>\n

In understanding the gender politics of the authorial identity of Michael Field, it is possible to analyze Field\u2019s work as a textual manifestation of the evolving notions of gender throughout the fin-de-si\u00e8cle. The very core of nineteenth-century ideologies of domesticity and patriarchy are undermined through Field\u2019s artistic artifice, which effectively blurs the lines between gender\u2014suggesting that the antiquated nature of gender binaries and gender roles prohibit the union of men and women as equals.<\/p>\n

The Literary Genius of Michael Field<\/strong><\/h3>\n
\"Two
Fig 2. Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper. Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Michael Field<\/h3>\n

As life-long companions and lovers, Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper, under the union of their joint signature, prided themselves as being \u201ccloser married\u201d than the prominent Victorian couple, Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning (Works and Days 16). Thain describes \u201cthe quirks and eccentricities of Michael Field\u2019s work…as manifestations of an exaggerated, or extreme, engagement with some of the most vital literary concerns of the age\u201d (2). The authorial identity of Michael Field is a crucial topic of analysis, one that reveals Field to be \u201ctoo interesting a part of fin-de-si\u00e8cle aesthetics to remain on any horizon\u201d (Thain 2).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Fig 3. Unknown. Katherine Harris Bradley & Edith Emma Cooper, before 1913. Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Field\u2019s preoccupation with both Greek and Elizabethan pasts, cultivation of deliberate esotericism and commitment to challenging traditional notions of gender and sexual propriety mark their literary works with \u201cthe unmistakable imprint of Aestheticism\u201d (Evangelista 2). Field\u2019s literary genius is informed by their intentional blurring of oppositions, evident in their writing and their literary identity.<\/p>\n

The use of a male pseudonym combining both their nicknames, \u201cMichael\u201d (Katherine) and \u201cField\u201d (Edith), \u201cyoked in marriage,\u201d offers a unique expression of their co-authorship (R Griffin 197). The name Michael Field is a \u201cbipartite\u201d (Thain 4), illustrating the collaborative co-authorship and blurring the identities of Bradley and Cooper, respectively, as individuals. Robert J. Griffin describes the name Michael Field as \u201cboth a single, male name and, again, a doubled one, since both \u201cMichael\u201d and \u201cField\u201d are strongly marked masculine names\u201d (200). The use of two identifiably masculine names to subsume the identity of two female authors creates a paradox between genders while simultaneously creating an entirely separate identity. Understanding the importance of the pseudonym \u201cMichael Field\u201d is principal in understanding pseudonymity as \u201ca subset of anonymity\u201d (R Griffin 1). The complexity of the authorial identity of Michael Field offers a fundamental reflection of the literary works produced under their co-authorship, works that\u2014like their identity\u2014blur the lines of opposition of gender and gender identity.<\/p>\n

The Victorian Patriarchy and the Marriage Issue<\/h3>\n

\u201cVictorianism signifies the conventions and social expressions characteristic of either Victoria\u2019s reign, or more generally, of her epoch\u201d (Shea and Whitla 1). The institution of marriage was a fundamental part of Victorian society and vital in maintaining the dominant patriarchal values and morals. The advent of the New Woman discourse and feminist ideas of free union and marriage threatened the institution of marriage, resulting in its rigorous defence sustained by the belief that \u201cwithout conventional marriage and domestic arrangements, the social fabric upon which Victorian society was based would begin to crumble\u201d (Ledger 12).<\/p>\n

\"\"
Fig 4. Franz Xaver Winterhalter. “The Royal Family in 1846,” oil on canvas. Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Field\u2019s portrayal of Emperor Justinian and Theodora in \u201cEqual Love\u201d presents marriage in a rather nuanced way. Traditionally, women were considered docile and submissive. In the words of Shea and Whitla, \u201cwomen were often, like children, to be seen and admired, but not to be heard or counted as a presence\u201d (8). Field does not make this the case in their depiction of the Emperor and Empress of Byzantine; instead, Justinian pridefully remarks, \u201cOne joy remained \/ In store for me\u2014to make you fellow-ruler \/ With me of half the world\u201d (Field 202). Theodora is depicted as a strong and admirable woman; her position as Empress further legitimizes her importance and high esteem; her husband contends, \u201cIt is [his] glory to invest [her] with, \/ Find in [his] faith fresh splendour, further scope \/ For adoration\u201d (Field 202). Field\u2019s depiction of Theodora is intentional; she embodies the essence of the New Woman in such a way that sets up the play as esoteric in its critique of marriage.<\/p>\n

The New Woman<\/h3>\n

The New Woman, \u201cchristened\u201d in 1894 (Ledger 9), radicalized discourses on marriage, sexual propriety, domesticity and social roles. Freethinking feminists and the New Woman\u2019s literary identity sought to cultivate a space for the debate of controversial topics such as free love unions, divorce, and \u201cthe need for women\u2019s greater autonomy and independence within marriage\u201d (Schwartz 785).<\/p>\n

Despite the apparent enmity towards marriage expressed by the dominant discourse, early debates on the New Woman did not intentionally seek to undermine the institution of marriage but rather, address much-needed reform (Ledger 20). Ledger argues that \u201cthe collapse of Victorian domestic ideology\u201d can be attributed to its attempt to maintain that \u201chousehold harmony [is] compatible with male authority in the home\u201d (38). Ledger expresses that this idea perpetuated the mistaken assumption that men are always capable of using their domestic authority wisely and productively and that women were content in submission to their husbands\u2019 commands (38).<\/p>\n

Theodora<\/h3>\n

Discourse on the New Woman during the fin-de-si\u00e8cle was rather heterogeneous\u2014spanning from more medico-scientific discourse such as reproductive issues and the New Woman\u2019s refusal of maternity to more fictional discourses focused on the New Woman\u2019s \u201creputed sexual license\u201d (Ledger 10). Field depicts Theodora as a rather paradoxical character\u2014she is both loved and admired by her husband yet is described as having \u201cmany lovers\u201d in her past (Field 191). Theodora does not occupy solely one depiction of a woman; she is neither the outcast prostitute nor the virgin bride of the Emperor, in essence, she exists outside the ideal conventions of her gender.<\/p>\n

\"Mosaic
Fig 5. Meister von San Vitale in Ravenna, “Theodora,” mosaic, before 547, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Field\u2019s depiction of Theodora as a former prostitute is vital in analyzing her character as both having agency and representing the fictional idea of the New Woman. Prostitutes in Victorian England both undermined patriarchal ideals and religious ideas of purity. Shea and Whitla describes the Victorian patriarchy as \u201cparticularly entrenched in the church\u201d (9), elucidating the relationship between how prostitutes would be received by society concerning Christian ideals of female purity and sexual propriety. Walkowitz describes prostitution in Victorian Britain as \u201ca trade largely organized by woman rather than men,\u201d (25) thus calling attention to how the occupation of a prostitute \u201cmay have afforded poor women a certain degree of autonomy, but it did not liberate them from a life of poverty and insecurity\u201d (Walkowitz 21). Theodora contradicts this description of the common Victorian prostitute as she rises up to occupy a position of power and significance as the wife of the Emperor of Byzantine despite her past. Theodora also earns her husband\u2019s worship despite not having met as \u201cvirgin souls\u201d (Field 196). Field once again blurs the lines of opposition in depicting Theodora as both sides of the dichotomy, thereby undermining the \u2018ideal\u2019 Victorian woman\u2019s rigid ideas.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Fig 6. Front cover design, The Pageant, vol. 1, December 1896, The Yellow Nineties Online. Public Domain.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Victorian domestic ideology functioned to preserve household unity through women\u2019s complete subordination to their husbands\u2014the male authority would otherwise be in jeopardy if a more democratic decision-making model were deployed (B. Griffin 45). The rigid structure of the Victorian domestic sphere ensured that unhappiness within the home would be avoided; the source of this unhappiness stemming not from a wife disagreeing with her husband, but the fact that the wife would even consider having an opinion that contradicts that of her husband\u2019s (B. Griffin 48). The most radical element of \u201cEqual Love\u201d is the agency Theodora exercises within her marriage with Justinian. The Emperor presents his wife with an ultimatum\u2014to have her illegitimate child killed or remain married to him\u2014while this requisition is extreme, it presents Theodora with a choice, something women of Victorian society were not given. Justinian remarks, \u201cThe Empress shall determine if your life \/ Is for her honour and our empire\u2019s peace. \/ Theodora, you are judge of this\u201d (Field 207). In Theodora\u2019s decision to kill Zuhair herself, she not only defies her maternal obligations to her son, but she actively chooses her fate within her marriage.<\/p>\n

Meaning of “Equal Love”<\/h3>\n

Field challenges the very essence of nineteenth-century domestic ideology through their depiction of Theodora as the literary New Woman\u2014an empowered and autonomous female figure.<\/p>\n

The core of nineteenth-century domestic ideology was the internal logic that reconciled male authority with the ideal of marital unity\u2014a feature ignored by historical analysis which posits a sharp dichotomy between authoritarian and companionate models of marriage. The idea of unity referred not to a partnership of equals but to a couple united under one will\u2014that of the husband (Ledger 46).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Field actively works against the idea of marital unity being united under the will of the husband (Ledger 46) through their subversive writing\u2014not only by depicting Theodora as a woman capable of choice within marriage but also by depicting Justinian as a man willing to offer his wife the ability to choose.\u00a0In concluding \u201cEqual Love\u201d with Theodora committing filicide, Field radicalizes both Theodora and Justinian\u2019s characters, respectively. The concluding line of the drama, \u201cMy empire\u2019s strength \u2014 ours is an equal love\u201d (Field 224), spoken by the Emperor to his wife, consummates Field\u2019s political subversion.<\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h3>\n

The complex authorial identity of Michael Field offers an essential basis for analysis for their work, and more importantly, the criticism embedded within Field\u2019s writing. The usage of a male pseudonym allows Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper to transcend conventional gender identity by blurring the lines of gendered binaries. Within \u201cEqual Love,\u201d Field blurs the lines of opposition in their depiction of Theodora as both a former prostitute and an Empress and as both a wife to Justinian and a woman of agency and autonomy. Theodora actively defies the conventions of the ideal Victorian woman, possessing qualities incongruent with her gender, most notably her agency within her marriage. The idea of marital union is challenged by Field, who revokes the conventional ideals of marriage in their very existence as two female lovers united by their shared authorial identity. Under a shared pseudonym, Katherine Bradley and Edith Cooper \u201cwere designed and bound together by a strap to form one complete work\u201d (Thain 7). The precocious depiction of marriage in \u201cEqual Love\u201d reflects, artfully, the possibility of marriage between two equals, an idea that is urgently and poetically articulated through their subtle but powerful writing.<\/p>\n

\n

Works Cited<\/p>\n

Field, Michael. \u201cEqual Love.\u201d The Pageant 1896,<\/em> Henry & Co., 1895, pp. 189-224. Yellow Nineties 2.0, https:\/\/archive.org\/stream\/Pageant1896_201609\/Pageant1896#page\/n207\/mode\/2up.<\/p>\n

Secondary Sources:<\/strong><\/p>\n

Evangelista, Stefano. \u201cMichael Field (Katharine Bradley, 1846-1914; and Edith Cooper, 1862-1913),\u201d Y90s Biographies<\/em>, edited by Dennis Denisoff, 2015. Yellow Nineties 2.0<\/em>, General Editor Lorraine Janzen Kooistra, Ryerson University Centre for Digital Humanities, 2019, https:\/\/1890s.ca\/field_bio\/.<\/p>\n

Griffin, Ben. The Politics of Gender in Victorian Britain: Masculinity, Political Culture and the<\/em> Struggle for Women\u2019s Rights.<\/em>\u00a0Cambridge University Press, 2012.<\/p>\n

Griffin, Robert J., editor, Faces of Anonymity: Anonymous and Pseudonymous Publication from the Sixteenth to the Twentieth Century.<\/em> Palgrave Macmillan, 2003.<\/p>\n

Ledger, Sally. The New Woman: Fiction and Feminism at the Fin de Si\u00e8cle<\/em>. Manchester University Press,1997.<\/p>\n

Thain, Marion. \u201cIntroduction: \u2018something fierce, subtle, strange, singular\u2019.\u201d \u2018Michael Field\u2019 : Poetry, Aestheticism and the Fin de Si\u00e8cle<\/em>, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 1-19.<\/p>\n

Schwartz, Laura. \u201cFreethought, Free Love and Feminism: Secularist Debates on Marriage and Sexual Morality, England c. 1850\u20131885.\u201d Women\u2019s History Review<\/em>, vol. 19, no. 5, 2010, pp. 775\u2013793, doi:10.1080\/09612025.2010.509162.<\/p>\n

Shea Victor, and William Whitla, editors. \u201cIntroduction.\u201d Victorian Literature: An Anthology<\/em>, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2015, pp. 1-17.<\/p>\n

Walkowitz, Judith R., Prostitution and Victorian Society: Women, Class, and the State.<\/em> Cambridge University Press, 1980.<\/p>\n

Works and Days<\/em>, from the Journal of Michael Field . Ed. T. & D. C. Sturge Moore. London: John Murray, 1933.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a9 Arianna Guaragna, Ryerson University 2020 Historical Context Introduction Evolving notions of gender, sexuality and patriarchy were hallmarks of the end of the nineteenth century. The fin-de-si\u00e8cle engendered bodies of artwork, poetry, and literature that resisted traditional notions of gender and gender roles endorsed through antiquated Victorian morals. Shifts in …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":155,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[43,132],"tags":[402,64,111,189,301,168,272],"class_list":["post-4549","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-eng-810-f2020","category-the-pageant-1896-and-1897","tag-equal-love","tag-feminism","tag-fin-de-siecle","tag-michael-field","tag-patriarchy","tag-pseudonymity","tag-victorian-marriage","column","threecol"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4549","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/155"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4549"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4549\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":8051,"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4549\/revisions\/8051"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4549"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4549"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cdh.rula.info\/y90sclassroom\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4549"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}