(Image: Yes or No? Illman Brothers, 19th century. n/a, n.d)
The above engraving depicts a woman in relatively typical Victorian fashion, laboring over some correspondence with an unknown conversational partner. The woman is surrounded by scraps of paper, most likely torn up by her as she tries to answer the question posed by the title of the piece: Yes or No?
Given the typical subject matter of the time period, it is likely she is corresponding with a suitor or lover–a man of some description. Before the woman is a box, filled with both paper and strings of beads. This seems to be some sort of storage container for precious objects. Clearly, the letters she is agonizing over mean a lot to her, enough that she would store them with her jewelry (the most prized possession of many women of both that time period and today). The presence of a four-poster bed in the background of the image, as well as a modesty screen suggests that the lady is writing in her own bedroom, the ultimate area of privacy. This suggests that this correspondence is either something she would prefer to hide, or something she feels is important enough to want absolute privacy as she makes up her mind as to the answer to the question.
The most interesting thing in this image, however, is the woman’s facial expression. She does not seem happy at all, and simply “pensive” does not seem to properly encompass the emotion displayed. The lady’s large eyes and quill pen at her lips seem to suggest a sort of sadness or regret, on top of just the simple thoughtfulness that is also portrayed.
The atmosphere of this print overall reminds me of the article on Victorian gender roles on the British Library website by Kathryn Hughes, in which she discusses the separate spheres that men and women were expected to inhabit during this time period. In the image, the woman is hidden away in her bedroom, shown to be solidly within the domestic sphere reserved for Victorian women. Hughes also mentions that “a young girl was not expected to focus too obviously on finding a husband.,” which may relate to the engraving if, indeed, the subject happens to be composing a letter to a male acquaintance or suitor. We have previously discussed in class how much Victorian language was encoded so as not to talk overtly about sex and sexuality–it is possible that the woman in the engraving is attempting to draft a reply to her lover that does not sound too forward, but also conveys her meaning well enough to be understood.
The imposition of societal gender norms on women in Victorian times may also account for the woman’s less-than-thrilled facial expression. As women were not supposed to necessarily enjoy the prospect of marriage or sexuality (being assumed to be more or less asexual as a whole [see William Acton’s medical text]) (Hughes), it would be understandable if the woman in the engraving was not portrayed as being eager to respond to a query from a lover–such correspondence would, naturally, be just an opportunity to gain the chance to produce children and fulfill the maternal duty. Though art oftentimes has messages undermining the social order of the time, the context given by Dr Flaherty seems to indicate that these engravings were indicative of the Victorian attitudes that American audiences desired to emulate, and would therefore likely not have contained such subversive messages.
I really enjoyed your interpretation of “Yes or No?” I would like to add that the subject’s sadness may be because she knows that if she answers “yes” that she will lose much of her freedom. As we learned from our critiques of William Rathbone Greg’s “Why are Women Redundant”, the Victorian era was notable for its increase in unmarried women. Marriage in this period severely limited the rights of women, who upon marriage could no longer create legal contracts, testify in court as witnesses, or bring up lawsuits. Instead, husbands were expected to act in the “best interests” of women. Thus, women’s legal entity could not be separated from their spouses, a legal status known as “coverture.” Prior to marriage, a single woman had the power to own and sell property, and sue in the courts. Perhaps the woman in this image is caught between choosing marriage and choosing her freedom? Socia and familial pressures might encourage her to marry, but she also might realize that her unmarried status gives her a legal and personal freedom that will be lost if she responds “yes” to her suitor.
Griffin, Ben. The Politics of Gender in Victorian Britain Masculinity, Political Culture and the Struggle for Women’s Rights. New York: U of Cambridge, 2012. Print.
I find it interesting that this woman in the image may be dealing with responding to a suitor or lover as you talked about, because it seems like women during the Victorian era rarely had any control over their own love affairs. How did she even attain this letter to stow away in her jewelry box? From what we’ve read in The Woman in White, father-figure type men have ultimate control over the affairs of their daughters (women are property after all, and meant to be given away) and I have a hard time believing this woman could have any sort of power over her own love life.
I find this image fascinating, as well as your analysis of it. I love your observation about her conflicted expression, because of how marriage is such a restrictive legal relationship for women in the Victorian time period. She is clearly an upper class woman, which indicates she has a lot to lose from an engagement proposal – to have all of her property, including herself become someone else’s. Something I also find interesting is what looks like flower petals on the floor below her – but are more likely torn letters that she previously wrote, only emphasizing her conflicted mindset more.
Yeah, her body language is odd, isn’t it? She is parallel to the desk due to where she has her chair positioned, which indicates she made the effort to move it away from her task. In one hand, she is holding on to her correspondence, but the rest of her body faces the viewer. It almost suggests a false equivalence regarding the “yes or no” question. Rather than seeming torn between the two answers, she might actually be contemplating how best to break it to the guy, if at all. “Should I make the polite effort to inform him to fuck off?” I’m still trying to figure out what the refuse on the floor may be. Were they once part of her letters before they were presumably ripped to shreds? Or is there some other clue we’re missing? I agree that there is a quiet turmoil happening that goes beyond mere “pensiveness,” like you said.
I read this post a second time after reading the post “Gendered Futures” and I couldn’t help but think of the implications this picture would have had the gender of the focal point been changed. In “Gendered Futures” the writer talks about how the context of the picture would be changed if a change in gender was made. I think you did an excellent job in exploring all the possible reasons for the woman’s letter and all of them had to due with lovers. In changing the gender of the focal point, a viewer quickly realizes that it makes that possibilities of the letter content endless; it could be to a lover, but also to a business man, a government official, anyone really.
By gender swapping the focal points, it makes it significantly easier to pin point the expectations placed on Victorian women because the expectations will change as the gender does. This can help in farther interpretation of the art work.