Water Color? I Hardly Know Her: Subliminal Sexuality in “The Woman in White”

     As Mr. Walter Hartright confesses his love for Miss Laura Fairlie, his latent sexual desires bubble to the surface. Hartright reluctantly admits to the reader that Laura has led him away from the “narrow path” of propriety and respectability (Collins 66). His “situation in life” usually acts as “a guarantee against any of [his] female pupils feeling more than the most ordinary interest in [him],” but Laura is an exception to this rule (66). In Hartright’s mind, she experiences the same “unacknowledged sensations” that he does (67). These shared sensations imbue each of their interactions with an electric sexual energy, regardless of how innocent they may appear on the surface. 

     In a society where physical contact is frowned upon, even the shadow of a touch can arouse excitement. When Hartright recalls shaking Laura’s hand each “night and morning,” he acknowledges the eroticism in the slightest brush of their fingertips (66). To him, this ritual is not a mere formality; it represents a temporary transgression of social norms. If even for a moment, Hartright can feel Laura’s skin against his own. Their drawing lessons adopt a similarly sexual charge. Hartright cannot get “close to [Laura’s] bosom” without “trembl[ing] at the thought of touching it” (65). He longs to feel “the warm fragrance of her breath” on his skin (65). His body thrills as she watches “every movement” of his phallic “brush” on the canvas (65). It is reasonable to believe that these close encounters feed Hartright’s fantasies “in the quiet and seclusion of [his] own room” (64). He must keep his “hands and eyes pleasurably employed” to avoid other, even more pleasurable employments (64). Sin encroaches, and sexuality threatens to invite it into the most hidden recesses of the heart.

     Other domestic acts and subtle word choices also imply sexual connotations. When Hartright claims that he “always notice[s] and remember[s] the little changes in [Laura’s] dress,” for instance, he inadvertently admits that he ogles at her body (66). Hartright considers Laura’s figure as alluring as a “Syren-song” (66). In many nineteenth-century paintings, these seabound seductresses are depicted without a shred of clothing; perhaps Hartright imagines his beloved in much the same way. One thing can be said with certainty, however; with Laura around, the “monotony of life” becomes “delicious” (66). This adjective choice invokes kissing, licking, and other erotic activities involving the mouth. The days become so sweet that they beg to be consumed. Perhaps, in Hartright’s eyes, the same occurs with Laura’s body.

     Once considered “a harmless domestic animal,” Hartright evolves into a tertiary sexual predator (66). It only takes one encounter with erotic possibility for Hartright to discard his “hardly-earned self-control” as if he “had never possessed it” at all (66). As Hartright himself points out, the very same happens “to other men, in other critical situations, where women are concerned” (66). Collins demonstrates how quickly propriety crumbles under the immense weight of passion. As the novel progresses, I am curious to see if sexual desire is strong enough to fracture other Victorian customs, particularly the reticence surrounding the erotic.

Hartright’s Desire for Purity and Sex

Hartright’s narration between pages 64 and 65 of the growing attraction between him and Miss Fairlie demonstrates the pull between sexual desires and desires for female purity. Although Hartright repeats certain phrases to mirror his and Miss Fairlie’s movements, moments of halfway connections also characterize the passage. Hartright says that his lover’s charms “…can purify and subdue the heart of man” (Collins 64). He contextualizes her traits through the effect on his traits; he admires her for her ability to distract him from his character flaws. Instead of specifying that the “man” described him, Hartright broadens the scope to include any man. This enlarges her powers to “subdue the heart,” making her the paragon of purity who can inherently “fix” any man. 

Bearing the precedent of Hartright’s vision of a pure Miss Fairlie, their subsequent moments of physical sexual yearning stall at several points. Hartright writes “Not a day passed…in which my hand was not close to Miss Fairlie’s; my cheek…almost touching hers” (Collins 64). The pair purposefully do not contact skin to skin, but Hartright emphasizes the thrill he receives from the teasing closeness. Besides the references to his cheek, and he also notes “…the perfume of her hair, and the warm fragrance of her breath” (Collins 65). These references to hair, cheek, and breath all encircle a key feature on her face that Hartright fails to mention: her lips or mouth. Although Hartright arrives close to this feature when describing her breath, he refuses to focus on the most sensual part of a woman’s body, a part that has been hallowed in countless romantic works of prose and poetry. Even in a scene rife with sensual details, the lack of references to lips or mouth stands as a gaping hole. Obviously, Hartright would have noticed her mouth, but then made the conscious choice not to write it. Hartright enjoys these moments of halfway connection because they preserve his vision of her purity; having sex, even kissing would break the imagined barrier that separates Miss Fairlie from other, more promiscuous women. 

However, Miss Fairlie shares Hartirght’s affection, and the pair demonstrate their affection by mirroring each other’s actions. He describes the scene by writing “…at one time bending over her…to feel her bending over me, bending so close to see what I was all about…” (Collins 65). He uses the same word choice to describe the same movement, as if the two lovers had become intertwined into one. Repeating the same phrase three times causes a building sense of closeness, with every iteration increasing the number of times that they meet and even increasing how close together the bend brings the two. “… to see what I was all about….” presents a possible moment of innuendo. Its vagueness regarding what she looks at could point a look at his body. 

 

This Poem is Not for Babies

When I first read Christina Rossetti’s “Goblin Market”, I took it to be a poem about the dangers of female sexuality, pre-marital sex, race, and emotional entanglement, with a sexual assault (or, quite possibly, rape) scene thrown in for kicks and giggles. So hearing that this poem is for children kind of blew my mind. I mean, look at the scene on page 12:

 

“One may lead a horse to water,

Twenty cannot make him drink.

Though the goblins cuffed and caught her,

Coaxed and fought her,

Bullied and besought her,

Scratched her, pinched her black as ink,

Kicked and knocked her,

Mauled and mocked her,

Lizzie uttered not a word;

Would not open lip from lip

Lest they should cram a mouthful in:

But laughed in heart to feel the drip

Of juice that syrupped all her face,

And lodged in dimples of her chin,

And streaked her neck which quaked like curd.

At last the evil people,

Worn out by her resistance,

Flung back her penny, kicked their fruit

Along whichever road they took,” (12)

 

Well. That’s not disturbing at all. If there wasn’t a word limit on this prompt, I’d quote the preceding pair of stanzas, but I think the above gets my point across quite well. This poem uses the good sister, Lizzie, to suggest that nice young women don’t have sex. In fact, nice young women are so against pre-marital sex that it is impossible to rape them, because they just won’t “open lip from lip.” Great. It’s always encouraging to hear the suggestion that if women just resist hard enough, they cannot be raped (although the poem does suggest they can still be brutalized, and have “juice” sprayed all over their faces, which is does not sound pleasant in the least).

 

This stanza is more than just victim blaming, though. If Lizzie were to “open lip from lip,” like her younger sister did, she would become addicted to something she can never have again. In this case, that something is goblin fruit, although the juicy, juicy fruit is a thinly veiled representation of sex. That relationship between fruit (sex) and addiction is a clear warning to young women that if they start having sex before marriage, they will be unable to resist the temptation to do it again. In the poem, this addiction leads them to waste away, but it suggests a slightly less fatal outcome for actual Victorian women who give in to temptation. Victorian men wanted to marry virgins, so if a woman was found to be having sex, it probably wouldn’t have be good for her marriage prospects. In a society where marriage and procreation make up a woman’s entire purpose in life, losing the chance for those things to happen would mean an end to her future. The loss of a future is strikingly similar to the loss of a life, so suddenly, a deadly addiction to fruit makes a lot more sense in the context of Victorian sexuality.