As the title suggests, the central characters in The Woman in White surround marriage and brides. What is interesting about the novel is though marriage is the only acceptable social and legal communion between man and woman in the Victorian era, Collins’ presents marriage “as [the] sinkhole of deception, hostility, abuse” (Dever, 114) and illegal activity that is naturally present in male-female relations.
If we examine the conventional marriages in the novel, there is a clear male-dominated, female-directed ownership and exploitation that is justified in the name of property laws. The most obvious of these is Laura’s marriage to Sir Percival. The central marriage of the novel is motivated by the man’s desire to secure the monetary inheritances of his wife.
A side note here: traditional Victorian marriages typically joined a man and a woman of similar economic and social standing. For instance, Laura’s father would never have arranged her marriage to a middle class, blue-collared worker because quite frankly his name would not deserve the Fairlie Estate and he would not be able to provide for his wife in a reciprocal nature.
Back to the point: When we realize that Sir Percival “was not Sir Percival Glyde at all, that he had no more claim to the baronetcy and to Blackwater Park than the poorest labourer who worked on the estate,” it becomes clear that he intended to absorb Laura’s property through the justification of marriage (510). What otherwise would have been illegal (Percival’s right to aristocratic inheritance) is warranted by the sanctity of mariage.
We see similar questionable, if not illegal, manipulations in the Fosco marriage. Throughout Walter’s investigations it is revealed that Count Fosco is associated with an illegal organization referred to as ‘The Brotherhood’ (574). And from what we’ve seen of Madame Fosco’s obedience to the Count, it can be assumed that she has been used and manipulated by the Count either to protect his identity or to further his illegal agenda. When he writes his confessions he also admits to his control over his wife: “I ask, if a woman’s marriage obligations, in this country, provide for her private opinion of her husband’s principles? No! They charge her unreservedly to love, honor, and obey him” (612). Clearly, Madame Fosco was not allowed to think or act independently within the marriage, so her illegal associations with The Brotherhood were a direct consequence of man’s ownership of woman. Through her marriage to Fosco, Madame Fosco was legally contracted to act as the instrument for her husband’s illegal endeavors.
Even Mrs. Rubelle’s marriage ties her to illegal activity. Her husband’s relation to Fosco directly linked Mrs. Rubelle’s interests to the Count’s if by nothing other than her marriage (598, 603). And so Mrs. Rubelle becomes an active member of the illegal identity-swap of Anne and Laura for the legal benefit to both Sir Percival and the Count.
But women are also exploited when involved in extramarital male-female affairs. The male-domination and manipulation of women is “natural” in a society where women are second class, but it seems that outside of marriage they are given no legal safety net for this abuse. For one, Mrs. Catherick births an illegitimate daughter in exploitation by Mr. Fairlie’s sexual desire. This consequently leads Mrs. Catherick to a life of isolation and societal rejection. And on an unrelated occasion, she is also used by Sir Percival as a means to execute a criminal scheme to which she is held accountable until the day Sir Percival dies (532-533).
In fact, critics of The Woman in White including Carolyn Dever, cite homosexual and bisexual relations as the only ‘marriages’ that do not hinge on this unbalance between partners and abuse of women as men’s property. More specifically, Dever writes that the sisterly love between Laura and Marian is “affirmative, loving,” mutual, and respectable (void of an illegal activity and exploitation) (114). And so it appears that it is the legal and social sanctity of male-female marriages and relations that permit abuse and the less socially and much less legally acceptable sanction of female-female relations that allow for the freedoms of life and liberty.
While it is true that the novel depicts a number of conventional marriages complete with a dominant male figure and a submissive female figure, it is important to note that not all of these marriages are exactly alike. For example, the relationship between the Count and Madame Fosco is not as conventional as it may seem. While Madame Fosco does submit to her husband, Count Fosco also occasionally submits to her as well. Upon a closer look their relationship actually seems to be more progressive than all other marriages represented in the novel. I wonder if this holds any significance, especially considering their “evil” nature in the novel.
I’m in agreement with the Vicious Cockatoo up there; it is important to look into all of the marriages a little more closely because they don’t all depend on extreme power dynamics. I think, as Collins probably intended, that we don’t give women enough agency in the book. Your point about Ms. Catherick being exploited is, I think, incorrect; women, at least in 2015 and I would assume in 1860 if it was a consensual relationship, are just interested in sex as men are. The relationships described in The Woman in White are not straightforward in any way nor can they all be categorized in the same way; each dynamic is dependent upon each person involved.