Author: Lady Firestone

In his book, The History of Sexuality, Michel Foucault states in his introduction that “if sex is repressed, that is, condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere face that one is speaking about it has the appearance of deliberate transgression. A person who holds forth in such language places himself to a certain extent outside the reach of power; he upsets established law; he somehow anticipates the coming freedom” (Foucault 6). Foucault’s lens of sexuality could be corresponded with the untamable power men associated with the femme fatale, during the nineteenth century. The femme fatale can be examined as the person upholding sexual language that is “outside the reach of power; [she] upsets established law,” which the men around her dictate (6). Her ability to control the men around her with her sexuality causes a male panic that results in sexual repression over her female body. Her sexual freedom foreshadows a future of egalitarianism where the male is not the superior gender, but equal or inferior in sexuality. Salammbo, the woman engaged in sexual ecstasy in Salammbo by Gabrial Joseph Marie Augustin Ferrier, upsets the balance of sexual power beyond her identification with the femme fatale. In this drawing she controls every aspect of her sexuality through her gaze, her body language, her relationship with her snake, and most importantly through her status in society.

Salammbo is the political leader and representative of her tribe. Her ability to relate with a snake, an extremely, mysterious and solitary animal exoticizes her sexuality. The snake is a symbol of the tribe’s power, and her intimate relationship with it through sexual pleasure emphasizes her dominance over the tribe and the viewer. She is completely engaged in her own sexual enjoyment and posses her sexuality entirely. Salammbo exemplifies the ultimate femme fatale, a women who is truly independent and does not need male attention or support. The priest in the background exists in relation to her needs. He works for her, and she uses him for her political and sexual needs. Her position as a female leader, with immense sexual control expresses one of the the core pieces to Foucault’s argument. Salammbo exists unrestrained by law and sexual repression because she does not allow it bar her expression. She is entirely free and thus rises above “the regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse on human sexuality” (11). Salammbo’s identity is exposed and vulnerable because it is truthful and guiltless. She is not harboring her identity by presenting a facade of power and strength. On the contrary, she empowers herself by embracing her sexuality and revealing her identity truthfully with confidence.

The etching of the cat sitting in Eugene Gaujean’s The Two Friends instantly reminded me of Count Fosco’s manipulative and feminine characteristics. The cat is usually associated with femininity, nimbleness, and prowess, and the Count exhibits these traits throughout The Woman in White. For instance, Marian first describes the Count, “fat as he is, and old as he is, his movements are astonishingly light and easy. He is as noiseless in a room as any of us women, and more than that, with all his look of unmistakable power, he is as nervously sensitive as the weakest of us” (Collins 219). Marian’s description of the Count in this passage is quite feminine and feline-like. He moves with silent grace, as a cat does before it attacks its prey, and Marian compares this noiselessness to that of a woman. Although the cat in the etching is small, it upholds a massive presence that mirrors the presence of the Count, whom is fat, but tranquil in nature. Additionally, he encompasses “nervous sensitivity,” which is a phrase usually attributed to women. This sensitivity is another attribute cats express to their owner for affection, and more so to receive food. The Count uses his charisma and sensitivity extensively to manipulate others to give him what he wants.

Another aspect about the cat that resembles the Count’s essence is the way it resides in the portrait. The cat appears to be relaxing and at ease, but its eyes are squinting as though it is keeping watch on the room and the bird, like Count Fosco does in the library with Marian and Laura. This manipulative behavior is exemplified when Marian notes, peering through the library door as she’s leaving to deliver her letters to Fanny, that “[Count Fosco] must have specifically invited [the housekeeper] to see [the canaries]- for she would never have thought of going into the library of her own accord. The man’s slightest actions had a purpose of some kind at the bottom of every one of them. What could be his purpose here?” (308). Marian’s observation makes two inquiries which link Count Fosco to the cat. First, he is permitting the housekeeper’s presence in the library, just like the cat is allowing the bird to perch on the same chair. The cat, like Count Fosco, could snap at any moment and kill the bird. Secondly, Marian questions the Count’s motive, which by this point in the novel the reader expects to be malicious.  However, the Count conceals his motives with endearment, and faces each complication in his plan by landing gracefully on his feet like a cat.

(I want to mention and stress that I absolutely LOVE cats and do not believe that they are inherently evil. I just thought the stereotype made a strong correlation to Count Fosco. They do have a sneaky way about them, but I do believe they are wonderful pets.) And now… KITTY PICTURES WITH BIRDIES!! =]

In the article, “A Man’s Resolution: Narrative Strategies in Wilkie Collins’ The Woman in White” Pamela Perkins and Mary Donaghy parallel Laura’s emptiness of character with the concept of the ideal woman as an aesthetic object. Laura exists throughout the narrative as male property, which is exchanged through marriage transactions, disposed of through the forgery of her death, and in the end undergoes another marriage transaction only to ultimately benefit more men. Laura’s loss of agency and identity through male objectification is especially highlighted by Marian’s character, because she remains “[her] own mistress,” and in control of her own property by never being married off (258 Collins). Although Walter’s character exudes more superficial kindness and love towards Laura, his intentions are paralleled with Sir Percival and Count Fosco. He wishes to gain property, by having Laura as his wife, and thus he makes sure to mold her into the wife he desires. Laura exists as “a blank to be filled by male desire” and is used for “her ability to fit into the role of a charming and innocent young girl” (393 Donaghy). Laura’s character is portrayed as empty and dependent because all the characters, including Marian, need her to be that way so that they feel purposeful. Walter explains that he “is indebted to Marian’s courage” because “Laura’s brighter looks and better spirits told [him] how carefully she had been spared all knowledge,” and how carefully her growth had been stunted to maintain her childlike innocence and dependency on both Marian and Walter. Had Laura been exposed to all the details of the investigation Laura might have disagreed, or might have wanted to make decisions for herself. She may not have wanted to marry Walter after hearing about how Sir Percival died just inches beyond his reach. Walter or Marian could not bear the thought of Laura’s loss of innocence, because Marian could not cope with losing her purpose as a protector and Walter could not withstand losing his opportunity to possess two women and an estate. Thus, Laura is designated from birth to serve everyone else’s needs by remaining a piece of blank parchment, where Laura Fairlie’s life story is determined and narrated by everyone else but Laura.

Miss Halcombe’s influence as an essential narrator and witness in The Woman in White causes the reader to consider if Wilkie Collins supported female rights during the Victorian era. Marian Halcombe’s voice is predominantly audible throughout the novel and is presented as rational and trustworthy, like the voice of a man. Mr. Hartright and Mr. Gilmore’s narratives comment extensively on Marian’s sensibility and astuteness. Marian’s most important moments of reason are obstructed, however, my her status as a women, and she is forced to sensor her opinion to please the men around her. For instance, after Sir Percival clears himself of all Anne Catherick’s allegations, Marian remains suspicious of his character and disagrees with Laura’s choice to continue with the engagement. However, after a conversation with Sir Percival about Laura’s happiness Marian explains that she “answered him- more because [her] tongue is a woman’s, and must answer, than because [she] has anything convincing to say” (175). Marian is expected to behave and speak as a woman and refrain from causing unnecessary controversy. If she expresses her true opinion on their engagement, which is defined upon her unsupported intuition about his character, it would be interpreted as female hysteria or irrational because her judgements are solely reinforced by her female emotions.

Another instance where Marian is barred from expressing herself rationally as a women occurs when she must legally witness Laura’s signature for Sir Percival’s business arrangement. Marian explains, when Sir Percival becomes angry at Laura’s desire to read the document before signing, that she will not “assume responsibility of witnessing her signature[…] unless [Laura] first understands what the writing” is about (245). From a legal standpoint Marian’s interjection is justified and unerring, but through Sir Percival’s perspective she has overstepped her boundaries as a woman. After threatening her ability to remain at his home with Laura, Marian explains that if she “had been a man, [she] would have knocked him down on the threshold of his own door, and have left his house, never on any earthly consideration to enter it again. But [she] was only a woman- and [she] loved his wife so dearly” (245)! Because she is a woman, Miss Halcombe’s relationship with Laura and her financial situation are dependent on remaining on good terms with Sir Percival. At this moment, Marian has no choice but to retreat into her thoughts and continuing advising Laura privately against his irrational persuasions to sign the document she is legally sanctioned to examine. Instead, she must use her wit to uncover legal support from a man, because as women in Victorian society they are powerless, expected to obey, and prone to hysteria. Why then does Collins have Miss Halcombe confront all these Victorian female stereotypes? Is he, by contrast, revealing the irrational, greedy, and sexist nature of Victorian men?