Re-situating the fallen woman
Mark Inglis
Eng 362
December 18, 2021
Amelia Opie and the re-situating of the “fallen woman”
While in her later life Amelia Opie became a verdant Quaker, and abandoned the practice of writing fiction all together, her early sentimental writings can be considered progressive for how they re-situating of the troupe of a fallen woman. This re-situating does not happen over the course of one story but rather over the course of three: The Dangers of Coquetry, The Father and Daughter, and Adeline Mowbray. Within this re-situating through the use of a Marxist/feminist lens one can consider how Opie’s work can also be considered a critique of systemic issues of love and capital.
One way to view Opie’s work is through a Marxist feminist lens. As Marx stated, women's position in society could be used as a “measure of the development of society as a whole.” (Brown) Through this reading, the tendency for women to fall is not individualized but socialized. This in turn is mirrored by the structure of Opie’s stories wherein, Instead of individualizing the failures of Louisa Agnes and Adeline, an eye of critique is pointed towards the social beings who enforce such a fall as a hard law instead of a social happenstance. One such example of this is the socialites who consider Agnes a ”hardened wretch.” (75 Opie) By situating woman as wretch this perception seems to indicate a degree of pre-destiny to Agnes’s fall, because with such negative connotations, what can a wretch do but fall?
Continuing with this Marxist lens, one of key understandings gleaned from Opie’s work is that her women are defined not in their own power or their own individual qualities, but rather the capital they wield, or the wielder of capital they are attached to. From this, one can see of the central aspects of all three stories is their interaction with wealth or capital, and how each women’s position is at one time or another dictated by this relationship. For instance, in The Dangers Of Coquetry the first few chapters of the story tie capital and social perception together for their role in deciding who is capable and allowed to marry whom. This bond is made clear through the exploration of Caroline Egerton’s character, whose relationships are completely dictated by their connection to wealth. Even her idea of love is tied to capital, because in viewing Edward montage, (her true love) Caroline’s central hope is to one day give a “fortune equal to the liberty of his soul.” (Opie 191) It is as though Egerton’s love for Montague can only be fulfilled after he is valuable monetarily as well as individually. Continuing this focus on capital, Egerton is subject to a forced marriage resulting from “the ruin of [her] father’s fortune.” (Opie 207) Significantly, by having Caroline abandon love for the sake of monetary gain, and filial duty, especially in a sentimental novel where the quality of emotions speaks to the quality of the soul, one can see the presence of and social obsession with capital gain as a barrier to the trueness of the self. Similarly, Agnes’s process of rebuilding the relationship with her father starts by her rebuilding of wealth, with Agnes central focus being her “[laboring] to gain money.” (Opie 96) One again, capital is being situated as a barrier between the woman and love. Finally, Adeline has a connection with money and love through her inability to claim the money left to ger in Glenmurray’s will, due to her illegitimate marriage. This example in particular indicates how the social norms of Opie’s novels structurally uphold wealth as a barrier to love. By not adhering to the social conception of love through marriage Adeline is cut off from all forms of capital. This relation is merely the reversed relation of experienced by Agnes and Louisa and their inability to access love without capital. By positioning the synthetic (capital) against the natural (love) Opie, whether intentionally or not offers a critique of society’s obsession with wealth.
In Opie’s first work, similar conceptions of the dominant male social structures are indicated through Louisa’s interaction with coquetry and her eventual fall. One key piece of writing which exemplifies this structure is actually a response to the story itself by The Critical Review : “It teaches that indiscretion may produce as fatal effects as actual guilt; and that even the appearance of impropriety (especially in women) cannot be too carefully avoided.” In this piece one can see that the danger of coquetry is not the danger to the woman, but mainly that it destabilizes a hetro-normative power structure. So by having power over something as intimate as attraction, (and potentially love) Agnes’s coquetry signifies a fundamental disruption of core male power. It is because of this coquetry that Opie precipitates her fall. The danger of this fall can be read not as the action itself, but rather the social reaction to the act. This is because her fall is prompted by the regret and love she feels for her husband, who is killed in defense of her honor. The issue with this defense however is that it can be seen not as the desire to protect Louisa, and her honor, but rather a way in which Mortimer is defending his own honor and his prior ideals of hating coquetry. It is as though if Mortimer were to give in and accept the Opinion of Lord Bertie, he would discredit his own place in the hierarchy. Through this decision, both Louisa’s claims to femininity are destroyed as she is not merely stripped of her husband, and therefore the capital which quantifies her value, but also her reproductive rights through the depiction of her stillborn child. In reference to this, in her work on Desire and Futurity Teresa Perishing notes, “the destruction of her unborn child and the symbolic future.” (573) Therefore by losing her child, Louisa loses womanhood, and in turn the power of birth; one of her last remaining vestiges of empowerment. In losing this final power, Louisa completes her fall, and can therefore be stripped of life, as she dies shortly after.
The brutality of this moment is truly put on display, as it is all catalyzed by a single comment: “ to seduce a lover from his intended bride, and then glory in a conquest that disgraces me!”(Opie 245) This statement constitutes Louisa’s reflections on the night as imagined through the voice of Lord Bertie. Once again, the female is problematized in place of the male (Lord Ormington) whose desire to please Louisa and neglect his own bride is completely forgotten. It is as though in this forgetting, one silences the presence of a second party, and the autonomy of the male character. It is as though the figure of male infidelity, and its looming possibilities are accepted within the male dominated hierarchy. Blame can only be placed upon a woman, where ideas of success and conquest (especially in the intimate space,) is the realm of the man. In this moment, the woman’s place in the hierarchy is swapped with the male, as now the male becomes this seeming helpless, and inferior creature incapable of restraint while the female power becomes recognizable only in order to call her to answer for the violence action against her (in this case the adoration of Lord Ormington.)
in her second story, The father and daughter, keeping the first in mind, one can see how Opie strays away strays from the complete fall of Louisa, to a more complex depiction of the fallen woman through the treatment of Agnes. Unlike The Dangers of Coquetry, Opie’s narrator makes note that the reason for an extended view of Clifford’s “various and seducing powers” (Opie 12) is to “excuse as much as possible the strong attachment which he excited in Agnes.” (12) This act of excusing can be seen as a significant jump from her previous story, as it shapes the reason for the fall. It signifies that Agnes cannot (or should not) be condemned for actions spurred on by a villain. This inclusion by the narrator casts the eye of criticism outwards towards society in a manner not captured by her first novel.
When considering this aspect of social critique, It is significant that Agnes’s redemption comes at the hands of the impoverished, while she is simultaneously condemned by the higher class. This difference of condemnation Is clarified by feminist scholar Elisabeth Armstrong, who notes that such acts of judgement “[anchor] a class society.”(Armstrong 3) In turn, female movement within the hierarchy of class would indicate that the barriers between classes, and consequently the power of individuals beyond those barriers are fallible. The more transitive these hierarchies become, the less important they are to maintain. Therefore, Agnes must fall therefore to maintain balance to an English social society which subjugates and abuses the notion of womanhood.
Where the Father and daughter display a more complex depiction of the fallen women, it is not until Opie’s Adeline Mowbray that one can see a complete deviation from the social standard and fallen woman outline in The Dangers of Coquetry. Central to this subversion is the non-marital relation Adeline has with Glenmurray. Though this focus on the rejection of marriage is initially espoused by Glenmurray, his is quickly narratively condemned for the eager betrayal of his principals. (Eberle 133) Here Opie frames marriage as a “sacred barrier to guard his rights,” (Opie 53) thereby protecting him from social stigma and critique. It is as though such a decision would be a debasement of not only his personal philosophy but of his personage itself. Comparatively, Adeline’s rejection of this easy solution of marriage, which would solve the sexual aggression of her stepfather, and the social conception of her promiscuity vindicates her quality as an individual. The strength of her conviction clearly outmatches that of Glenmurray and rejects the idea of the fallen women in its entirety. Even though she has been stripped of her family fortune, disconnected from her house and mother, she refuses the fall. As Opie historian (Roxanne Eberle) notes, her fall con be considered only as a “fall from the good graces of a judgmental and often hypocritical society.” (132) The reason that Adeline’s actions are especially radical is that they subvert the patriarchal and sexual contract which foundationally creates “orderly accesses by men to women’s bodies” (Eberle 14) through the process of marriage and sexual conquest. Adeline has situated herself outside the supposed rules of this society, and is therefore challenging the notion of male dominance in its entirety.
The true fall for Adeline only happens once she accepts the social dogma and criticism which she is straddled with. This acceptance comes as a result of her becoming pregnant and talking to a bastard who disavows his own mother and father “because they are not married.” (Opie 190) this lesson prompts Adeline to break with her principals for the sake of her unborn child. This instance can be read in an alternative way which critiques society however, as the very nature of the bustard’s love is extinguished because of the “they” who claim authority on the quality of individuals. Through this lens, one can see how destructive social standards are by the manner in which they can eliminate filial affection. Adeline’s fall nearly mirror’s that of Louisa’s as she “[brings] forth a dead child” (Opie 191) thereby stripping her of an innate maternal power. This loss of child counters the depiction in The Dangers of Coquetry however, as it is shown not to be the result of the failure on behalf of the woman’s impugning upon society, but rather, that Adeline’s conviction is allowed to be broken by society. Opie frames the death as the response to the “anxiety and agitation” (Opie191) inflicted by this loss of moral determination. In turn this fall can be seen as the direct result of social intrusion, and not of Adaline’s individual failure, because in accepting the doctrine of marriage, Adeline’s view of self becomes clouded by the opinions and perceptions of the male “libertine gaze” (Opie 38) which strips and reduces her to a coquette.
Adeline’s intense belief in her own guilt is counterposed in the story by Opies “grim picture of the powerlessness of the married woman” (Eberle 140) after Glenmurray’s death, and her subsequent transfer to Berrendale. When compared to the companionship with Glenmurray whose “Hours, days, weeks, and months spent in a manner most dear to the heart and most salutary to the mind of Adeline,” (Opie 94) Her socially backed legal marriage is undeniably cruel. In her position, Adeline is not protected in any way, but rather subject to sexual violation and objectification at the hands of both Mr. Langley, who forcibly “kisses her ungloved hand” (Opie 257) as fee for his services, and later by Berrendale whose sexual demands are alluded to by Adeline’s quick impregnation. By focusing on this unfavorable comparison, Opie seems to indicate that healthy realities can exist outside the standard and accepted societal sphere.
Opie seemingly supports this reading of alternate healthy realities through her depiction of Savana, a mulatto servant. When considered through the lens of her later abolitionist work, Savana’s presence accentuates the reading Adeline’s fall at the hands of society as being unjust. Central to this point is that Savana displays “eternal hatred” (Opie 263) towards Berrendale, seemingly recognize the manner in which she, as a servant and Adeline, as a British wife are situated in similar positions of subjugation and abuse under the man. This reading is clarified when Savana confronts Berrendale stating that his “no kindness” “will kill [Adeline],” (Opie 263) clearly condemning in discretions of male treatment of women under legal marriages. By having this reality revealed through the perspective of a black woman, Opie is not only indicating the righteous truth of the statement, but is also brining to bear a similar social reduction afflicted on those of different races and on women. Savana is not the only character throughout Opie’s novels to represent this however, as a similar interaction takes place in The Father and daughter, as both the low-class cottagers and Fanny. The connection between Savanna and Fanny is especially clear because just as Agnes is “idolized by the Faithfull fanny” (Opie 73) Savanna views Adeline as her “angel-lady”(Opie 318). It is almost as though that both these women, due to their low-class status, and their separation from the social rules which dominate wielders of capital they are able to see the quality of each respective woman un-marred by social stigma. In turn, one could consider this reading as a Marxist explanation for the phenomenon of folksy wisdom. In spite of this attempted salvation however, Adeline dies at the hands of her own grief and enforced isolation, at the guilt of her past sins.
Central to this conversation is the troupe of the fallen woman. The fall is a male structuralist ideology which answers a central question of what happens when women are granted power. The inducement of the fall is based on fear; the fear of the status of women equaling to the status of women. Therefore, there must be a fall. An Icarus like moment of “hubris” followed by a swift and brutal decline. Importantly, the hubris in this case however is not an afront to God and fate as Icarus’ was, but rather an affront to Man and male dominated society. Importantly however is that the fall of Opie’s characters become complexified; as they eventually no longer resemble a fall but rather a social shove which attempts to reduce the female body.
Despite having written multiple stories, Opie’s first three works show a slow progression of the fallen woman as an archetype. From the complete fall of Louisa, to the partial rebuilding but eventual fall of Agnes, It is the final depiction of Adeline and her rejection of society’s will which establishes a hitherto unrecognized depiction of feminine power. Through the use of Marxist feminism, one can see that Opie’s depiction of society and love is also tied heavily to the reality of capital; potentially offering a radical critique of individual value under such a strict hierarchical system. By a contemporary standard, while none of these stories can be considered individually subversive, the progress and growth displayed in Opie’s stories over the course of her literary career indicate her drive to depict an alternate perspective on the fallen women; to situate the cause of the fall not on the women, but on the society, which forces them down.
Works Cited
Auerbach, Nina. “The Rise of the Fallen Woman.” Nineteenth-Century Fiction, vol. 35, no. 1, 1980, pp. 29–52, https://doi.org/10.2307/2933478.
Brown, Heather. “Marx on Gender and the Family: A Summary.” Monthly Review, 22 Jan. 2019, https://monthlyreview.org/2014/06/01/marx-on-gender-and-the-family-a-summary/.
Armstrong, Elisabeth, "Marxist and Socialist Feminism" (2020). Study of Women and Gender: Faculty Publications, Smith College, Northampton, MA. https://scholarworks.smith.edu/swg_facpubs/15
Eberle, Roxanne. “AMELIA OPIE'S "ADELINE MOWBRAY": DIVERTING THE LIBERTINE GAZE; OR, THE VINDICATION OF A FALLEN WOMAN.” Studies in the Novel, vol. 26, no. 1/2, University of North Texas, 1994, pp. 121–52.
King, Shelly, and John B Pierce. “The Amelia Alderson Opie Archive.” The Amelia Alderson Opie Archive, Queen’s University, Kingston ON, https://ameliaopiearchive.com/.
Opie, Amelia. Adeline Mowbray, or, The Mother and Daughter : a Tale / by Mrs. Opie. Printed for Longman, Hurst, Rees & Orme ; A. Constable, 1805.
Opie, Amelia, et al. The Father and Daughter: With, Dangers of Coquetry. Broadview Press, 2003.
Pershing, Teresa M. “Unbecoming: Desire and Futurity in Amelia Alderson Opie's Dangers of Coquetry.” European Romantic Review, vol. 28, no. 5, Routledge, 2017, pp. 571–84, https://doi.org/10.1080/10509585.2017.1362341.