The Victorian Ideal vs. Modern Romantics {Part 1}

[image error]

Just a couple weeks ago, I posted about how Christian girls shouldn’t wrap their worlds around marriage. And, to balance that out, now I’m going to give you some marriage advice!

Okay, okay. I’m joking! I’m really just going to ramble about a trope I’ve noticed in old books, some history, and how that relates to our modern romanticism, etc.

Are you ready for this? Because it’s a packed post! Ready … set … read!

[image error]

The Victorian Ideal vs. Modern Romantics

When we think about the Victorian era, specifically the morals and societal rules, we think of harshness. Rules too restraining to follow.

I mostly agree. All the rules about courtship, dress, etc. — all the proper little restraints — were unnecessary, and, more importantly, not based in any sort of Biblical or Godly backing.

They were just that — rules. Rules to make it harder for us to be moralistic and Godly. (As if we needed any help with that!)

I see it this way: if we were cows, you could say God gave us a nice, safe corral full of lush grazing fields, a trickling brook to explore and drink from, and grain, but not enough that we could founder from it.

Basically, God gave us a beautiful world full of beautiful things.

However, God, the farmer, gave our care to a farm boy (whoever makes societal rules … so I guess society itself!), and the farmboy built a second fence which keeps us away from the brook and the lush pastures. The farm boy also gave us no grain at all when we know very well that grain is all right and even healthy in small doses.

That’s what Victorian society did. It took away all the brooks, the green pastures, and the grain.

They were so restraining that it was impossible to follow all the rules, let alone want to follow them. True morality, true purity, love, grace, and mercy were lost … and so came prudishness, that holier-than-thou attitude, pride, and so many other sins.

This is probably why the kids of the ‘20s rebelled so hard, and why today we’re still fighting to get further and further away from that “Victorian ideal.”

However, the Victorians did have some things right, believe it or not!

Victorian Literature & Romance

One of my favorite authors is Gene Stratton-Porter. I’ve read all of her books, liking some better than others, but overall, I appreciate her characters, her vintage style, and her knack for understanding humanity and society (except for the fact that one of her books is awfully racist, but yeah).

Now, Porter isn’t directly a “Victorian author” given that her books were published in the early 1900s (1902-her death in the 1920s), but a lot of her ideas were Victorian ones, which makes sense as she began writing as a wife and mother who grew up Victorian.

Throughout Porter’s books, I’ve noticed a theme, and this theme is present in other books written during this era as well.

In these books, an idea is presented of the man adoring the woman, loving her unceasingly, loving her before she admits to loving him—or even before she seems to show anything beyond friendship and respect.

Idealistic Women Writing Idealistic Books, Perhaps?

Of course, my first thought was that Gene Stratton-Porter was an idealistic woman who wanted to believe that men adored all women like that. However, I’ve since learned that that theme is a popular belief or ideal of the era. Not just of the early 1900s, but the Victorian era.

In Porter’s Freckles, The Angel expresses it best when she reveals her dismay at telling the title character she loves him first: “‘Do you mean,’ she demanded, ‘that you don’t remember that a brazen, forward girl told you, when you hadn’t asked her, that she … that she loved you?’”

In A Six-Cylinder Courtship by Edward Salisbury Field, the main character also pursues a girl with no expectation of her loving him more than “a little bit,” and the same is reflected in several other of Porter’s novels.

The idea is also presented in Jane Eyre, where the title character spends most of the movie proving the exact opposite statement—women are capable of passion, of love, even when they are not properly married.

The Scarlet Letter is much the same in its exploration of morals, passion, and marriage, though of course Hester doesn’t get quite the ending Jane does.

Even the Incomparable Miss Austen!

To explore a bit further back, we find Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice. Everyone vividly remembers the saucy, back-and-forth passion of Miss Lizzy Bennet … but we forget about her older sister Jane.

Jane is in many ways a representation of this ideal despite the fact that Austen’s novels are not set during the Victorian era. She is passive, she is the one pursued, and when Mr. Bingley withdraws his courtship, she cannot simply write to him and say, “Hey bae, whut up, why you not call (on) me???”

Nope. Jane can’t do that. It’s not something a woman is supposed to do. Why? Because the man pursues. The woman simply accepts his courtship (or not).

In the end the decision lays with her, but in the beginning, not so much.

The Basic Victorian Ideal

You see, the ideal was simple—men would pursue and court the women.

He loved her until she was won over. Then she’d accept him. She was the one in power, really, though of course if he withdrew his affections, like poor Jane, the power was withdrawn, too. (Am I the only one who is driven mad even talking about this?)

After marriage, the woman might admit to a kind of passive love, inspired by him—a shallow reflection of his passion.

Her duty was to submit and respect. Love was never truly a woman’s duty except toward her children.

Is It Realistic, Though?

Now, there are so many problems with this ideal. For instance, a woman is going to love her husband! Yes, she will likely love him before they’re married—she might even love him before he loves her. (*all the Victorians gasp*)

Yes, a woman can love as deeply and passionately as a man. As Jane Eyre herself says, “I have as much soul as you—and full as much heart.” And never in the Bible does it intimate that women are to love less (or not at all).

I believe that’s because God wants us to be our loving, passionate selves—in all our relationships, from marriage to motherhood to friendship to daughter…hood.

But What About Submitting?

Now you probably expect me to say something along the lines of “submitting and obeying are outdated, too, y’all—don’t submit to your husband; that’s, like, totally uncool.”

Well, maybe it is uncool, especially by modern standards, but what do we care if something’s cool?

We’re Christians! We’re never going to be cool. We haven’t been since the moment they hung our Leader on the cross (though y’all know that didn’t go over well).

You see, it says in Ephesians 5:22, “Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.”

Did God put that there as a joke? Was He just messing with us? Can a loving God really expect us strong, independent, modern women to submit to a filthy stinky man? (I mean, their B.O., y’all! God can’t be  serious …)

Actually, God WAS talking about how marriages are supposed to be, and NEVER did He say, “if it fits in with your ideas of modern society” or “if you feel like it” or “if what your husband asks you to do is what you were going to do anyway.”

No. He says, plain and simple, “Wives, SUBMIT.”

The second part of that commandment is, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her.”

Husbands must extend an all-forgiving, unconditional love towards their wives.

Back to the Victorian Era

Then, to go back to the Victorian ideal, you’ll realize God’s requirements are quite similar.

The husband offers love and protection.
The wife offers obedience and respect.

These four principles (partnered with the fruits of the spirit thrown in for good measure) are the foundation of any strong marriage.

But why? If you’re a woman, you’re probably not a fan of this. I mean, the husband gets the good stuff, right? The obedience and the respect?

Well, I’ve run out of time to discuss that in this article, so for now I’ll leave you with this thought:

Whatever God decides is good and holy and just.

This Saturday, we’ll dive a little deeper into the topic.

TTFN!

Goodreads · Facebook · Twitter

~Kellyn Roth~

p.s.

What did you think of this post? What is your “marital ideal”? (If you want to share Bible verses, please do! I’d like to see how you arrived at your conclusions.) Have you read any of the novels I mentioned? How are you doing in the after-Christmas slump?

(Also, I will talk more about this in the next post, but before you go and throw this at me, there’s a difference between submitting and allowing yourself to be abused.)

The post The Victorian Ideal vs. Modern Romantics {Part 1} appeared first on Reveries.