Defining Marriage in 19th-Century France: An Exploration of Female Adultery The Industrial Revolution began in earnest in France in the early 19th century. As the economy transitioned from the feudal home-cloth industry to the large-scale factory model and railroads crisscrossed the nation, these transformations also resonated in society (Maynes). “The transition from mercantile to industrial production… put an end to the relationship between home and business and led to the separation of the sexes and a clear definition of functions” (Smith 16). Therefore, men led this new growing industry, and their wives remained at home, caring for the children and “keeping house.” “The development of industry accentuated the division of the world by gender” and effectively institutionalized an idea of ​​separate and rigid spheres for the sexes, in which women remained totally isolated from the burgeoning male-dominated capitalism (Smith 49). Furthermore, although many historians (rightly) cite the 19th century in France as a century in which religious fervor was gradually waning, the Catholic Church was still a cornerstone of French society and closely intertwined with people's lives, even in secular settings. . Therefore, Catholicism and its underlying religious principles of virginal femininity have coalesced with new economic expectations to create a very narrow definition of what is expected of women. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay It is not surprising, then, that the literature of the era reaffirms these expectations and ideals that became woven into the social fabric. The gender roles that religion helped establish and that industrial processes institutionalized can be seen in both Madame Bovary and Bel-Ami through the characters of Emma Bovary and Madeleine Forestier. Although both women are very different and find themselves married to men who are virtual opposites of each other, each experiences similar social constraints within their marriages, and as they demonstrate that this firmly entrenched institution of marriage can be subverted and partially avoided expectations. To some extent, these small instances of leeway women have are overshadowed by social and religious values ​​that make marital equality impossible and inextricably link female adultery with impurity and immorality. While both novels demonstrate the strength of the institution of marriage in the mid-19th century, the historical analysis of the time period is even more compelling. In the years between 1849 and 1879, marriage rates increased (Field 37). Divorce, on the other hand, was incredibly rare, and as early as 1900, only 1.6 percent of all marriages involved a previously divorced person (Field 59). Although the French Revolution had legalized divorce in 1792 for radically liberal reasons for the time – marital breakdown or simple incompatibility, for which neither party would be held responsible – divorce was soon thereafter restricted under Napoleon, then completely abolished in 1816 ( with female adultery and mental illness as the only warnings) with the restoration of the monarchy and the reinstatement of Catholicism as the state religion (“Divorce and Women in France”). Divorce would not be legal again until 1884, nearly thirty years after the publication of Madame Bovary and only a year before Bel-Ami. Not only was marriage virtually permanent (with “separation as the only legal device for ending marriage during the couple's lifetime,” apart from the other twoconditions listed above), but was also hierarchical (Camp 72). “Within every family there existed a hierarchy between…husband and wife” (Smith 131). Therefore, it is understandable that a wife may feel stifled, or at least constrained, by society's pervasive gender hierarchy that extends into marriage. The experiences of Emma Bovary and Madeleine Forestier within their individual marriages exemplify the effects of some of these legal and social constraints. Emma, ​​first and foremost, is passionate and impulsive, a total foil to Charles, and soon finds herself “stripped of all illusions, with…nothing left to feel…She couldn't believe that this quiet existence was the happiness he had dreamed of. of….Oh why in heaven's name did I ever get married!” (Flaubert 37, 41). It is evident throughout the novel that the stability and permanence of marriage reduces a character like Emma, ​​who dreams of much more, to both literal and figurative madness. Emma consciously acknowledges the impact this has on her, saying that her beauty and romantic idealism “had been tarnished by marriage” and that she “would have liked to run away… and fly away” (Flaubert 216, 214). The entrapment that Emma feels due to Charles's dispassionate and narrow-minded personality, as well as the erosion of her spirit that she says happens to her is quite dramatic, but still a very direct reaction to the fact that society expects her to live happily. and permanently with a man for whom she feels nothing. Madeleine, on the other hand, is very different, as she is just as rational and composed as Emma is impulsive. Furthermore, her initially higher status than Georges gives her a greater degree of freedom of action, which she makes very clear to him before they marry: “For me, marriage is not a bond but an association. I insist on being free, completely free to act as I see fit, to go where I please, see who I choose, whenever I want... Man should also... consider me an equal... and not as an inferior or obedient spouse and submissive” (Maupassant 218). This overt statement is incredibly radical in that it directly contradicts both underlying and overt gender roles. Madeleine's insistence on fair and equitable treatment illustrates a conception of her own marriage that is very different from Emma's. Where the latter seeks passionate love, Madeleine recognizes the reality that she will likely not find it within the confines of marriage and seeks a partnership instead. He is therefore able to achieve a significant level of agency within his marriage, although he certainly does not fully achieve it. Furthermore, Madeleine is clearly objectified by her husband. As his status, influence and trust increase, Georges' attitude towards him becomes stronger and more determined. He speaks of her as a prize to be won that would make him stronger, but also as someone he can conquer: “He was now firmly resolved to use every possible means to marry her if she seemed to hesitate... He had faith in his luck and in the powers of attraction…vague and irresistible powers which no woman could resist” (Maupassant 223). This statement demonstrates the change in Georges's attitude from an initial shyness towards Madame Forestier to supreme dominance which results in a marriage in which he considers himself superior to his wife. Although at this point in the novel he claims to love her, he also tries to assert his dominance and force her to marry him, an example of the strengthening of gender hierarchy in 19th-century France. Despite the fact that these two women contend with male supremacy within marriage, there are some ways in which these bonds canbe temporarily or partially circumvented, with varying degrees of success. One way Madeleine achieves this is through her writing. Although she is very talented, she can only be published in one man's name. Thus, she writes through Georges, “whispering suggestions to him on how to express it. Every now and then he hesitated and asked him, 'Is that really what you mean?'” (Maupassant 255). This approach is subtle but quite powerful. Not only is she able to directly dictate to him what to say, but she can also change his words with her own without him fully realizing it. In a society where female journalists might be gossip columnists but not serious political journalists, Madeleine finds a way to escape social constraints; however, the fact that she must do so through her husband downgrades this act from a victory of female talent to a victory of individual ingenuity. Emma also finds some means to subvert society, although they are a little more mundane than Madeleine's. Her love of novels allows her to dream of an existence markedly different from her own, although, unlike Léon, she, as a married woman, is relegated to dreaming of the boulevards of Paris rather than actually walking them. While this is not a literal distortion of gender ideals in the same way that Madeleine's writings are, it is nevertheless a means of distancing herself from a reality she finds endlessly bleak. However, the main way in which both women temporarily escape the confines of marriages is through sexual relationships, something quite common in this period, for “while the modern male may be deceitful in his business dealings, the modern woman is deceitful in sexual matters of the body and heart” (Goldstein). For Emma, ​​these are numerous, passionate, and incredibly devastating when they inevitably end, but they give her a taste of the love she constantly and fervently craves, as well as a means of temporary escape. Flaubert writes: “The periods of separation were becoming intolerable… Whenever she was seized by a sudden desire to see Léon, she left with an excuse no matter how feeble” (250, 268). Having various affairs and experiencing romantic notions so strong that they are nonexistent with Charles, Emma finds a means to temporarily warp boundaries about her; he neglects his marital duties for his own pleasure. Although her various relationships are ultimately successful, contributing to her eventual suicide, sexual relationships give Emma a means to distance herself from the expectations of marriage and motherhood, as well as the monotony of life with Charles. They certainly bind her temporarily to other men, sometimes eventually turning into pseudo-marriages, but they allow for the shifting of standards of pure femininity and chastity within marriage. Madeleine's relationship with Laroche-Mathieu is much more successful than Emma's. His rationality and practicality do not allow for the same passionate recklessness that drives Emma's actions. As readers, we don't know much about this affair, but it's clear that Madeleine manages to hide it from her husband for most of their marriage. After she is no longer a possible conquest and Georges has occupied himself with various other women, he seems to forget for the most part about his wife, until finally he “reflected that in reality the only woman who never bothered him was hers wife. . He lived his own life” (Maupassant 320). This passage follows the chapters on Madame de Marelle and Madame Walter, ones in which Madeleine is mentioned only briefly but rarely interacts with her husband. Therefore, he is even able to avoid for most of the novel's narrative, as well as periodically walking away from his marriage and doing what he wants,despite still being linked to Georges. Of course, her adultery is eventually discovered and she is socially disgraced, but her ending remains somewhat optimistic. When asked where Madeleine was at Georges's second marriage, Norbert de Varenne replies: "She lives quietly in hiding... I have read political articles in La Plume which are terribly similar to those of Forestier and Du Roy... From which I conclude who is fond of beginners and always will be” (409). Although Madeleine is a victim of the expectation that wives remain faithful to their husbands – a stark contrast to the hypocritical Georges who manipulates women time and time again for his own gain – has a more confident outlook than Emma and clearly finds ways around the gender hierarchy. On the other hand, however, her experiences and ultimate social disgrace demonstrate how powerful and prevalent these feelings are novels that extramarital affairs were a tool that could give a certain degree of agency to women, were also inextricably linked to immorality, and adulteresses were stigmatized for failing in their feminine and wifely duties. This, of course, is very different from that of men, such as Georges Duroy who is encouraged to take various mistresses, as women are “still the quickest route to success” for men in society (Maupassant 41). The fact that men were simply more powerful in 19th-century French society is one possible answer to why this distinction is made between male and female adultery, but the reasoning behind the phenomenon is much more complex. An incredibly important influence was the church. As discussed above, the nineteenth century was a time of slow decline for Catholicism, yet it was very much present both overtly and covertly. Following a progressive loss of status, “we see the desire of the Church to be more visible – generously – in the city streets,” one of which was the lavish processions through the city streets, thirty of which took place during 1879 (d 'Hollander). Furthermore, church weddings were very important to the upper class. Although a civil service was also required, the church wedding “could cost large sums of money and could have hundreds of guests” and was consequently an important social, rather than religious, event (Bahorel). Therefore, even though people were becoming less Catholic, they still had a strong interest in appearing to practice religion in society. Stable and faithful marriages were an important way to achieve this goal and had already been woven into the social fabric through centuries of French Catholicism. Furthermore, legal codes sought to keep marriages in place and reinforced male dominance as a means of doing so. As mentioned, divorce was illegal during this time unless adultery was discovered. However, the punishments for male versus female adultery were very different. Besides the fact that it was much more difficult to find a husband guilty of infidelity (it had to be proven that he had regularly kept a concubine in the family home), women could be sentenced to up to two years in prison while men only had to pay a fine (Bahorel ). The legal codes of the time therefore directly reinforced the stereotype that women had to be pure and chaste, but men could essentially do whatever they wanted as long as they remained somewhat discreet, a juxtaposition highlighted by Georges, who is praised for his womanizing , and Madeleine, who is exiled for a very discreet affair. Inheritance and property laws show a similar pattern:.