Introduction
Women’sPropertyMatters
I.UnsettlingWomen’sProperty
“Unfortunately,thepropertyofMadameRigaudwassettledupon herself.[ ...] consequently,MadameRigaudandIwerebroughtinto frequentandunfortunatecollision.EvenwhenIwantedanylittlesum ofmoneyformypersonalexpenses,Icouldnotobtainitwithout collision andItoo,amanwhosecharacteritistogovern!”¹
“Supposing[...]amanwantedtoleavehispropertytoayoung female,andwantedtotieitupsothatnobodyelseshouldeverbe abletomakeagrabatit;howwouldyoutieupthatproperty?” “Settleitstrictlyonherself,” theprofessionalgentlemanwouldcomplacentlyanswer.
“Butlookhere,” quoththeturnkey. “Supposingshehad,sayabrother, sayafather,sayahusband,whowouldbelikelytomakeagrabatthat propertywhenshecameintoit howaboutthat?”
“Itwouldbesettledonherself,andtheywouldhavenomorelegal claimonitthanyou,” wouldbetheprofessionalanswer.
“Stopabit,” saidtheturnkey. “Supposingshewastender-hearted,and theycameoverher.Where’syourlawfortyingitupthen?”
Thedeepestcharacterwhomtheturnkeysounded,wasunableto producehislawfortyingsuchaknotasthat.So,theturnkeythought aboutitallhislife,anddiedintestateafterall.²
ThesepassagesfromCharlesDickens’ s LittleDorrit (1855–7)offeraglimpse ofhowmarriedwomen’spropertyrightsinmid-nineteenth-centuryEngland wereseenasfarfrom “settled. ”³Intheopeningscene,a “sinisterandcruel”
¹CharlesDickens, LittleDorrit (unboundedition)no.I,London:Bradbury&Evans(Dec.1855):8,9.
²CharlesDickens, LittleDorrit (unboundedition),no.II,London:Bradbury&Evans(Jan.1856):51.
³ThoughthewealthdisputedintheRigaudmarriageis,ofcourse,notEnglish,itsdepictionin Little Dorrit is.IaminterestedhereinpopularVictorianperceptionsofwomen’spropertyandtheEnglish nationalstoriestheycomprise.
fortune-hunterrecountshisdealingswiththewealthywidowhemarriesandthen murders;⁴ inanotherearlymomentofthenovel,amanhopingtobenefithis impoverishedgoddaughtergivesupentirelywhenherealizesthatevenlawcannot preserveherwealth.Ineachcase,speciallegalsettlementshavebeenpresentedas amechanismforprotectingwomen’spropertyfromthose(“sayahusband”)who mightmaketheirownclaimsonit, financialworkaroundsthathighlightboththe maritallawthatwouldotherwisestripthesewomenoftheireconomicrightsas soonastheyceasetobesingleaswellastheexistenceofsomeonesuf ficiently concernedaboutthosewomenandtheirrightstoconsiderrecoursesoutside commonlaw.Buttogether,thesecasesalsosuggestlaw’sinadequacyforthejob. Whetherthrough “frequentandunfortunatecollision” orthrough “tenderheartedness,” becauseahusbandtakesitashisprerogative “togovern” orbecause someoneelse(“sayabrother,sayafather”)triesto “makeagrabatit,” villainyand compassionalikethreatenwomen’srights.Fictionalportrayalsofsuch “collisions” showrepeatedlyhowawiderangeoffamilialdemandscanunderminewomen’ s apparentlyindependentclaimstoproperty,evenastheyacknowledgethenecessityof findingsomelawtosettleandsecurethoseclaims.
ImaginingWomen’sProperty reframeshowwethinkaboutVictorianwomen’ s changingeconomicrightsandtheirrepresentationin fiction.Althoughthe (ironicallyinsolvent)legaladvisorsofDickens’snovelmighthavebeenunable toconceiveofor “produce[...]lawfortying” thekindof “knot” requiredby women ’ s financialclaimsin1855,thereformofmarriedwomen’spropertylaw between1856and1882nonethelessconstitutedoneofthelargesteconomic transformationsEnglandhadeverseen,⁵ aswellasoneofitsmostsignificant challengestofamilytraditions.Atthestartofthisperiod,marriagemeantthe completelossofawoman’scommon-lawpropertyrightstoherhusband;byits end,wivescouldindependentlyclaimtheirownincomeandinheritance,choose howtospend,invest,orgiveawaytheirmoney,andwritewillsbequeathingtheir property.Unsurprisingly,marriageandmaritallawhavebeenusefullensesfor viewingthesechanging financialrights:wivesonce “covered” bytheirhusbands throughthedoctrineofcoverturereclaimedtheirownassets,regainedeconomic agency,andforeveralteredthelegalandtheoreticalnatureofwedlockbydoingso. Yetinmanyliteraryaccounts,marriedwomen’spropertyreformwasneitheras decisivenoraslimitedasthismodelsuggests.Notonlydidlegalmechanisms coexistandfrequently “collide” withfamilialclaims,⁶ butthereallocationof
⁴ CharlesDickens, LittleDorrit (1855–7),ed.StephenWallandHelenSmall(London:Penguin BooksLtd.,2003):20.Subsequentreferenceswillbemadeparentheticallyinthebodyofthetext.
⁵ LeeHolcombe, WivesandProperty:ReformoftheMarriedWomen’sPropertyLawinNineteenthCenturyEngland (TorontoandBuffalo:UniversityofTorontoPress,1983):217.
⁶ AsTimDolinhasnoted,propertiedwomeninVictorian fictionarefrequently “unitedaswomen ofpropertynotbytheir financialindependencesomuchasbytheverytenuousnessofthatindependence ” (MistressoftheHouse:WomenofPropertyintheVictorianNovel (NewYork:Routledge,2016; 1997byAshgatePublishing):3.
wealthaffectedfarmorethanspousesorthemaritalstate.Indeed,even fictional contemplationofwomen’sgreatereconomicagency,intheyearsleadingupto theselegalchanges,producednarrativesthatshowtheramificationsofwomen’ s propertyrightsforotherkin(“sayabrother,sayafather”)andcommunities. Understandingthereformofmarriedwomen’spropertyasbothanideologically andmateriallysignificantredistributionofthenation’swealthaswellasone complicatedbycompetingculturaltraditions,Iexplorethewidespreadwaysin whichwomen’ s financialagencywasimaginedbyprominentliteraryauthorsand theirreadersduringthistransformativeperiod.
Byhighlightingtheliterarystakesofmaritalpropertyreform,thisbookjoinsa wealthofrecentscholarshipthathassoughttoaccountforwomen’slives, relationships,andpropertybeyondmarriage.⁷ Aswenowknow,Britishwomen duringthisperiodwerenotentirelywithouteconomicagencyormaterialmeans, norweretheygenerallypresentedassuchin fiction.FromthoselikeLucy SnoweofCharlotteBrontë’ s Villette (1853),whoteaches “‘forthesakeofthe moneyIget[...]fortheroofofshelterIamthusenabledtokeepovermyhead; andforthecomfortofminditgivesme’” towealthiertypes,suchaswidowedand “impetuous[ly]genero[us]” DorotheaCasaubonofGeorgeEliot’ s Middlemarch (1871),whois “ veryuneasy ” withhertwenty-sixhundredayearandeager “to havesomethinggoodtodowithmymoney[...]tomakeotherpeople’slives better,”⁸ Victorianwomenasanaggregateearned,invested,inherited,and bequeathedconsiderableamountsofmoney.Thesignificanceofthesefundsto families,businesses,andpublicworkshasbeenincreasinglywelldocumented.⁹ Thoughsome,likethe “tender-hearted” goddaughterdescribedabove,contributed
⁷ See,asasampling,KarenChase, TheVictoriansandOldAge (OxfordandNewYork:Oxford UniversityPress,2009):e.g.,14–36,71–3,139–40,144–9;KayHeath, AgingbytheBook:TheEmergence ofMidlifeinVictorianBritain (Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2009):e.g.,93–8;Rebecca Rainof, TheVictorianNovelofAdulthood:PlotandPurgatoryinFictionsofMaturity (Athens:Ohio UniversityPress,2015):12–14,60,81–5,110–15;LeonoreDavidoff, ThickerThanWater:Siblingsand TheirRelations,1780–1920 (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012):e.g.,78–102,133–64,167–9; ValerieSanders, TheBrother-SisterCultureinNineteenth-CenturyLiterature:FromAustentoWoolf (Houndmills:PalgraveMacmillan,2002):2;DaraRossmanRegaignon, WritingMaternity:Medicine, Anxiety,Rhetoric,andGenre (Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,2021):e.g.,12–13;Tamara S.Wagner, TheVictorianBabyinPrint:Infancy,InfantCare,andNineteenth-CenturyPopularCulture (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2020):14–15,37–42,164–5;ElizabethLangland, Nobody’sAngels: Middle-ClassWomenandDomesticIdeologyinVictorianCulture (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress, 1995):e.g.,71,151–71;DoriceWilliamsElliott, TheAngelOutoftheHouse:PhilanthropyandGender inNineteenth-CenturyEngland (Charlottesville:UniversityofVirginiaPress,2002);MarthaVicinus, IndependentWomen:WorkandCommunityforSingleWomen,1850–1920 (ChicagoandLondon: UniversityofChicagoPress,1985);TaliaSchaffer, CommunitiesofCare:TheSocialEthicsofVictorian Fiction (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2021):e.g.,166–8;JillRappoport, GivingWomen: AllianceandExchangeinVictorianCulture (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2012).
⁸ CharlotteBrontë, Villette [1853],ed.HelenM.Cooper(PenguinRandomHouse,2004):317; GeorgeEliot, Middlemarch [1871],ed.RosemaryAshton(London:PenguinBooksLtd.,1994):733, 765.
⁹ See,e.g.,LeonoreDavidoffandCatherineHall, FamilyFortunes:MenandWomenoftheEnglish MiddleClass,1780–1850,rev.ed.(London:Routledge,1987,2002);NancyHenry, Women,Literature andFinanceinVictorianBritain:CulturesofInvestment (Cham:PalgraveMacmillan,2018);George
on 13 July 2023
tofamily financesintheirsinglestate,manyofthesewomenaswellastheirfamilies alsowentontobenefitdirectlyfrommarriedwomen’spropertyreforms.Literary portrayalsofwomenwithmoneyintheyearsprecedinglegalchangeoftenreflecton therealorimaginedconsequencesofthesereforms.Appearingtoaffectprimarily wivesandmarriagethroughthereworkingofcoverture,marriedwomen’sproperty reformsarebecomingacriticalpartofouraccountofwomen’ s financialagency.¹⁰ Yettheyremainmarginaltothelargernarrativesliterarystudiestellofnineteenthcenturypropertyandeconomichistory,preventingusfromtakingstockofhow women ’snewfoundrightsfurtherimpactednotonlythoseverycategories women andmarriage butVictoriancultureingeneral.Thisbookinsteademphasizesthe socialsignificanceofmarriedwomen’spropertyreformtoshowsomeofthewaysin whichwomen’sdramaticallychangingaccesstoandautonomywithproperty shapednotableliterarytextsaswellasperceptionsoffamily financesandpublic institutions.
Fictionbysomeofthebestknownandmosthighlyregardedwritersofthe perioddepictswomen’salreadyexistingeconomicagencyasalarmingandthe prospectoftheirincreased financialauthorityasaproblemtobesolved.Changes tothelegalallocationofpropertywereimaginedashavingwide-ranging,plotshapingimpactnotjustonmarriagesandthewomeninorcontemplatingthem, butonthemanyothereconomicrelationshipstheycreateandvalueduringthis timeofconsiderablehistoricchange:extendednetworksoffamiliesandfriends,as
Robb, “LadiesoftheTicker;Women,Investment,andFraudinEnglandandAmerica,1850–1930,” VictorianInvestments:NewPerspectivesonFinanceandCulture,ed.NancyHenryandCannonSchmitt (Bloomington:IndianaUniversityPress,2009):120–40;GeorgeRobb, LadiesoftheTicker:Womenand WallStreetfromtheGildedAgetotheGreatDepression (Urbana:UniversityofIllinoisPress,2017); AnneLaurence,JosephineMaltby,andJanetteRutterford,eds., WomenandTheirMoney,1700–1950: EssaysonWomenandFinance (NewYork:Routledge,2009);JanetteRutterford,“‘APauperEveryWife Is’:LadyWestmeath,Money,Marriage,andDivorceinEarlyNineteenth-CenturyEngland,” in EconomicWomen:EssaysonDesireandDispossessioninNineteenth-CenturyBritishCulture,ed. LanaL.DalleyandJillRappoport(Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,2013):127–42;David R.GreenandAlastairOwens, “GentlewomanlyCapitalism?Spinsters,Widows,andWealthHoldingin EnglandandWales,c.1800–1860,” EconomicHistoryReview 56.3(2003):510–36:http://www.jstor. com/stable/3698573;DavidR.Green, “ToDotheRightThing:Gender,Wealth,Inheritanceandthe LondonMiddleClass,” in WomenandTheirMoney1700–1950:EssaysonWomenandFinance,ed. AnneLaurence,JosephineMaltby,andJanetteRutterford(LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2009): 133–50;AlastairOwens, “Property,GenderandtheLifeCourse:InheritanceandFamilyWelfare ProvisioninEarlyNineteenth-CenturyEngland,” SocialHistory 26.3(2001):299–317;Janette Rutterford,DavidR.Green,JosephineMaltby,andAlastairOwens, “WhoComprisedtheNationof Shareholders?GenderandInvestmentinGreatBritain,c.1870–1935,” EconomicHistoryReview 64.1 (2011):157–87:http://www.jstor.com/stable/27919486.
¹
⁰ SeeNancyHenry, Women;andCathrineO.Frank, Law,Literature,andtheTransmissionof CultureinEngland,1837–1925 (LondonandNewYork:Routledge,2016[2010byAshgate Publishing]),particularly58,105–16,bothofwhichconsiderwomen’srightswithregardtoparticular aspectsofproperty.DeannaK.Kreisel, EconomicWoman:Demand,Gender,andNarrativeClosurein EliotandHardy (Toronto:UniversityofTorontoPress,2012),examinesthefeminizeddepictionof economicdemandandaccumulation(e.g.,9,75,79,91).Fordiscussionsfocusingon fictionaldepictionsofwomen’spropertyandrolesinthecontextofreforms,seeDolin8,16andDeborahWynne, WomenandPersonalPropertyintheVictorianNovel (NewYork:Routledge,2016;2010byAshgate Publishing):e.g.,6–7.
on 13 July 2023
wellasamuchbroadergroupthatincludedshopkeepers,investors,andcommunityleaders.Children whetheractualoranticipated areparticularlysignificant tonarrativescontemplatingwomen’swealth,which,aswewillsee,frequently posittensionsbetweenwomen’ s financialclaimsandthoseofanheirorheirs.As thisbookwillshow,theimaginedcostsofmarriedwomen’slegalpropertyreform appearmostsignificantlyinthezero-sumequationspositedforfamilywealth.
ButthechanginglegalallocationisonlypartofthestoryVictorian fictiontells aboutproperty.Thoughmanyofthe financialclaimsthatappearwithinitspages areindeeddefendedbylaw,others,asouropeningexamplesindicate, findsupport inculturaltraditionsandfamilyexpectationsinstead.If,ontheonehand, Little Dorrit’ssuggestionthatlegaldevicesareinadequatemechanismsforprotecting womenandtheirwealthmightseemtoundercutaburgeoningpoliticalmovement forthereformofsuchlaws,similarviewsappearinnovelsbyauthorssuchas ElizabethGaskellandGeorgeEliot,who,aswewillsee,explicitlysignedontothe politicalmovementtosupportwomen’seconomicrights.Victorianliterature engageswithbutalsodivergesfromlawinaccountsofwomen’seconomicchoices andtransactions.Repeatedly,itsnarrativessuggestboththatthelawisinadequate toaccountforthewaypropertyenablesanddisruptsrelationships,andthatthe formoftheVictoriannovel initsabilitytotrackintimateandintricate exchangesacrossgenerations isbettersuitedtosuchtasks.
II.WivesandSons:ProblemswithWomen’sProperty
Althoughanunmarriedwoman,or femesole,hadindependenteconomicrights throughoutthenineteenthcentury,limitededucationandemploymentoptionsas wellasfamilyexpectationsrestrictedheraccesstoearnedwealthandupward socialmobility.Formostofthecenturytwocommonlawdoctrinesfurther diminishedhereconomicposition: primogeniture and coverture .The firstpassed overdaughters’ rightsofinheritanceinfavorofaneldestson’s,compellingmany tosecuretheirsocialstatusandsubsistencethroughmarriage,whilethesecond deniedwiveseconomicagencywithinsuchmarriages.A femecovert was “ covered” byherhusband,whocontrolledanypersonalpropertyorlandshebrought intothemarriageorreceivedsubsequentlythroughincome,inheritance,orgift.In this “ one-flesh” understandingofmarriage,marriedwomenhadnoindependent legalidentityandwerebarredfromsigningcontractsordevisingpropertythrough wills.¹¹Thisdoctrine “covered” herdebtorlegalinfractions,yetdespitethe
¹¹SeeMaryLyndonShanley, Feminism,Marriage,andtheLawinVictorianEngland (Princeton: PrincetonUniversityPress,1989): passim,e.g.,8,26,66;alsoSusanStaves, MarriedWomen’sSeparate PropertyinEngland,1660–1833 (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1990):27–36,129–30, 217;andLeeHolcombe, WivesAndProperty.Evenwidows’ rightswere “largelydeterminedbytheir deadhusband”;seeOwens, “Property,GenderandtheLifeCourse” 312.
on 13 July 2023
dubiousadvantageofthislegal “protection,” coverturealsostrippedawifeofher previousrightsasasinglewoman.
Duringtheearlydecadesofthenineteenthcentury, fictiontendedtoshowhow theseeconomictraditionsworkedtogether,blaminginheritancepractices(particularly,thoughnotalways,whatEileenSpringhasreferredtoas “customary primogeniture”)¹²aswellasmaritalcovertureforwomen’seconomicdisadvantages.Thisearlierviewofwomen’sdoubledmarginalizationallowsustoseethe discursiveshiftthatoccursaroundtheVictorianreformofwomen’spropertylaw. Coverture’suniquedrawbackscameundercloserscrutinyaftermid-century.The DivorceorMatrimonialCausesActof1857(20&21Vict.,c.85)notonly establishedtheconditionsandtermsforthedissolutionofmarriagebutalsoled topublicandsometimesdramaticrevelationsofthesemaritalfailures,bothin courtsandinpopularjournalism.¹³Asthemovementtoreformmarriedwomen’ s propertyrightsincreasinglygainedtraction,maritalbreakdownsalsofeatured prominentlyindebatesaboutwomen’sneeds.Duringthistime,primogeniture wasnolongershowcasedasamongwomen’smostsignificanteconomicdisadvantages.Instead,inworksfromthe1860sand1870s,theclaimsofprimogeniture begintoappearasanargumentagainstwomen’srightstoproperty;women’ s claimstoprivatewealthappeartoclashwithanddetractfromsons’ inheritance. Thischangeiscritical.Atstakeinthisshiftingnarrativeoftwocommonlaw doctrinesistherelationalaxisguidingthetransmissionofproperty:marriageor parenthood.Covertureasalegaldoctrinegovernslateral,conjugalties firstand foremost,whileprimogenituregovernsvertical,generationaltransmission, thoughofcoursebothhaveimplicationsforotherrelationships.Significantly, theideologicalandlegalerosionofcoverturewasnotnecessarilyunderstoodas foregroundingawife’sneeds.Instead,husbands’ former financialauthorityis displacedontosons,whoemergeasthenewfocusofnarratives’ economic concerns.AsI’lldiscussintherestofthissection,theshiftfromunderstanding maritaland filiallawsasworkinginconcerttoseeingthemintensionformedan importantpartofdebatesaboutwomen’sproperty.Thisdivergencemeantthat kinwhoformerlytreatedtheireconomiccircumstancesasintertwinedwere subsequentlyseenascompetingforresources.
Sothatwemayunderstandhowtherelationalnarrativechanges,Iturntotwo novelsbyJaneAustenthatillustratethebackstoryofcovertureandprimogeniture workingtogethertowomen’sdisadvantage,beforemovingontoworksthatbegin
¹² “[L]egalprimogeniture,” whichtransmittedpropertytoaneldestsonincasesofintestacy,wasof littlepracticalconsequencetolargerlandownerswhorarelydiedwithoutwills,butitwas “thesymbol forcustomaryprimogeniture,forthehabitofentailingestatesoneldestsons.” SeeEileenSpring, “Landowners,Lawyers,andLandLawReforminNineteenth-CenturyEngland,” AmericanJournalof LegalHistory 21.1(1977):40–59,43–4:https://www.jstor.org/stable/844924,accessedSept.25,2020.
¹³See,e.g.,DeborahCohen, FamilySecrets:ShameandPrivacyinModernBritain (OxfordandNew York:OxfordUniversityPress,2013):47–84.
totreatprimogenituremorefavorably.InAusten’sera,accordingtoRuthPerry, “thebasisofkinship ” shiftedfromanemphasisonbloodlineagetothatof conjugalties,withsignificanteconomicconsequencesforwomen.Daughtersof thelandowningclassesreceiveddiminishedinheritancesandsettlementsas familiessoughttosecurewealthforeldestsons,whiledaughtersofworking familiesfacedreducedaccesstotheirmeansofsubsistenceaslargeestateswere consolidated.¹⁴ Austenherselfexperienced financialdependence.Shenever married,andhercombinedearningsovertwentyyears roughly£1,500 yielded “lessthantheannualincomeAustenimaginedfor[PrideandPrejudice’s] Mr.Bennet,” forcinghertorelyuponherbrothers’ matchingcontributionstothe householdincomeshesharedwithhermotherandsister.¹⁵ Althoughothershave arguedthathistoricaldaughtersreceivedmoreinpracticethanthecommon lawdictatedduringthistime,¹⁶ fictionalrepresentationsofinheritanceoftenperpetuatetheimagesofunequaldistribution,dependence,andprecaritydiscussed byPerry.ManyofAusten’sheroines,openlydependentuponmarriagebecause theirfathers’ homesandwealthdescendtoabrotherormalecousin,typifythe plightofimbalancedinheritanceandsuggestthatitistoblamefortheireconomic trouble.¹⁷ Elinor,Marianne,andMargaretDashwoodof SenseandSensibility (1811),forinstance,donotbenefitfromtheirfather’sinheritanceofhissingle uncle’sconsiderableestatebecauseithasbeensecuredtotheirelderhalf-brother, JohnDashwood.ThisinheritanceincreasesJohn’salreadyconsiderableincomeby “fourthousanda-year” whilea flatsumof10,000pounds(yielding,possibly, £400–500peryear)willprovidethetotalincomeandfortuneofthreeonce extremelywell-to-dosistersandtheirmother.¹⁸ In PrideandPrejudice (1813), Jane,Elizabeth,Mary,Catherine,andLydiaBennetsimilarlylackfortunesbecause theirfather’sestate “wasentailed,indefaultofheirsmale,onadistantrelation.”¹⁹
¹
⁴ RuthPerry, NovelRelations:TheTransformationofKinshipinEnglishLiteratureandCulture, 1748–1818 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2004):2.Seealso2,24,34,40,47,64,212–13.
¹
⁵ DonaldGray, “ANoteonMoney,” inJaneAusten, PrideandPrejudice [1813]:AnAuthoritative Text,BackgroundsandSources,Criticism,ed.DonaldGray,3rded.(NewYork:W.W.Norton& Company,2001):403–5,405,404.
¹
⁶ SeeOwens, “Property,GenderandtheLifeCourse” 313–14,thoughOwenscautionsagainst overstatingthispoint(307–10).Alsoagainstthenarrativeofwomen’seconomicdiminishment, AmandaVickery finds “nosystematicreductionintherangeofemploymentsavailabletolaboring women ” ;see “GoldenAgetoSeparateSpheres?AReviewoftheCategoriesandChronologyofEnglish Women’sHistory,” HistoricalJournal 36:2(June1993):383–414,405.
¹
⁷ ForfemaledisplacementandhomelessnessinAusten’snovels,seeClaudiaJ.Martin, “Placeand Displacement:TheUnsettlingConnectionofWomen,Property,andtheLawinBritishNovelsofthe LongNineteenthCentury” (Diss.BinghamtonUniversity SUNY(2018), GraduateDissertationsand Theses 70:149,150:https://orb.binghamton.edu/dissertation_and_theses/70,accessedJuly8,2020.
¹⁸ JaneAusten, SenseandSensibility [1811]: AuthoritativeText,Contexts,Criticism,ed.Claudia L.Johnson(NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,2002):7.Subsequentcitationswillappear parentheticallywithinthetext.
¹
⁹ JaneAusten, PrideandPrejudice [1813]:AnAuthoritativeText,BackgroundsandSources, Criticism,3rded.,ed.DonaldGray(NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,2001):19.Subsequent citationswillappearparentheticallywithinthetext.Withregardto PrideandPrejudice’sentailment, SandraMacphersonarguesthat,despiteitsappearanceofinjuringtheBennetgirls,entailmentorat
by
Library user on 13 July 2023
Theunlikeablenatureoftheheirsinbothcasesmakethisdistributionappear particularlyunfair.ThatMr.Collinsactsasthefoolishmouthpiecefortheonefleshdoctrineofcoverture claiming,againstallevidencetothecontrary,thathis wifeandhe “havebutonemindandonewayofthinking” (142) alignsmaritallaw withtheprivilegingofmaleinheritanceandsuggeststhatbothdoctrinesare financiallyandsocially flawed.²⁰
Supportforwomen’srighttopropertythuscomes,duringthe firsthalfofthe nineteenthcentury,inrelationtoprimogenitureatleastasmuchastocoverture. Indeed,eventheunlikeablematriarchLadyCatherinedeBourghismomentarily sympatheticwhenshedeclares,inreferencetotheBennetsisters’ circumstances, “Iseenooccasionforentailingestatesfromthefemaleline” (109).Ineachnovel, thedaughters’ meagerinheritanceandtheirfather’sinabilitytocompensateforit hasdirectbearingonthenecessityofmarriageandthedifficultyof findinga suitablematch.Ifprimogenitureassumesmale financialcompetence,Austenand othersshowthatsuchcompetenceisfarfromassured.Mr.BennetandMr. Dashwoodfailtoprovideadequatelyfortheirdaughtersandwives,bothbecause thelegalsituationsecuringtheirestatestoindividualmaleheirsisapparentlyout oftheirhandsandbecausetheyarepoor financialmanagersofthemaritalwealth theydocontrol. “Mr.Bennethadveryoftenwished[...]that,insteadofspending hiswholeincome,hehadlaidbyanannualsum,forthebetterprovisionofhis children,andofhiswife,ifshesurvivedhim.Henowwisheditmorethanever” (199–200).Mr.Dashwood,too,despitehisbestintentionsof “livingeconomically” inorderto “laybyaconsiderablesum” forhiswifeanddaughters,dies beforeevermanagingtodoso(6).Theirfailuretolegallyprovidefortheir families,commonenoughin fiction,wouldhavebeenseenas “‘culpable,’” accordingtoAlastairOwens,whosestudyofearlynineteenth-centuryinheritance demonstratesaculturalemphasisonsuchprovisions.²¹
leastthelogicofentailmentenablesethicalsubjectivityandasenseofresponsibilityinthenovel;see “RenttoOwn:or,What’sEntailedin PrideandPrejudice, ” Representations 82:1(Spring2003):1–23,8, 16.PeterA.Appel findsevidenceagainstMacpherson’sclaimthattheentailmentwouldactuallyhave beena “strictsettlement,” adifferentlegalmechanismforland’stransmissionthat,heargues, “would likelycomewithsharesforeveryoneoftheBennetchildren” (624–6,624).Thedistinctionmatters because,asAppelnotes,Mr.Bennet’suseofa “ commonrecovery ” couldhavebarredanentail,andhis failuretodoso,alongwithevidenceinthenovelthat “thelawdidprovideameansforprotectingthe futureofdaughtersliketheBennets,” suggestthat “societalnormsconstitutedthemeansofoppression, notthelawitself ” (635).See “AFunhouseMirrorofLaw:TheEntailmentinJaneAusten’ s Prideand Prejudice, ” 41Ga.J.Int’l&Comp.L.(2013):609–36.Forthepurposeandoperationofthe “strictfamily settlement,” seeEileenSpring, “Landowners” 41–2.
²⁰ AsElsieB.Michiehasnoted,Austen’snovelsresistthenotionthatindividualsshouldaccumulate excessivewealththroughinheritanceormarriage.See TheVulgarQuestionofMoney:Heiresses, Materialism,andtheNovelofMannersfromJaneAustentoHenryJames (Baltimore:JohnsHopkins UniversityPress,2011):1–2,28–9.
²¹Owens, “Property,GenderandtheLifeCourse” 303–4.Strictsettlements,theformthat,as Macphersonnotes,most “entails” tookduringthisperiod(thoughnotnecessarily,asAppelargues, theformtakeninAusten’snovel),specifically “empoweredthelifetenants” toprovideforasurviving wifeandotherchildren;seeMacpherson8,Appel625,andJohnHabakkuk, Marriage,Debt,andthe
by
Library user on 13 July 2023
Ashistoriansandliterarycriticshavedemonstrated,primogeniture particularlyamongthemiddleclasses wasneverabsolute,²²andentailments didnotabsolutelyhaveto thoughtheyusuallydid privilegemaleheirs.²³ Nevertheless,thegeneralpreferenceforconsolidatingwealthandendowing malelineagemeantthatmarriagewasanimportantsourceof financialsecurity forwomen,evenaswomenconsciousofthis financialmotivationweredepictedas sellingthemselvesforanestablishment.²⁴ Yetwives,too,werefarfrom financially secure.²⁵ Coverturestrippedthemofeconomicrightsduringmarriage,whilethe DowerActof1833(3&4Will.4.c.104)eliminatedthelegalprotectionsthatonce followedit.Dowerhadpreviouslygivenwidowslifeinterestsinathirdoftheir husbands’ land,butafter1833mennolongerhadtomakeposthumousprovisions fortheirwives.²⁶ AsTimDolin,MaryJeanCorbett,andTaliaSchafferhave discussed,marriage particularlythoughnotonlyintheformofexogamous allianceswithstrangers couldpresentterrifyingriskstowomen’sindependence, intimatenetworks,andproperty.²⁷
EstatesSystem:EnglishLandownership1650–1950 (Oxford:ClarendonPress,1994):2.Fortheperspectivethatstrictsettlementswerenonetheless “primogenitiveinthrust,” seeEileenSpring, “The StrictSettlement:ItsRoleinFamilyHistory,” EconomicHistoryReview 41.3(1988):454–60,459: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2597370,accessedSept.25,2020; andEileenSpring, “LawandtheTheory oftheAffectiveFamily,” Albion:AQuarterlyJournalConcernedwithBritishStudies 16.1(1984):1–20, 3,10,12:https://www.jstor.org/stable/4048903,accessedSept.25,2020.
²²See,e.g.,AmyLouiseErickson, WomenandPropertyinEarlyModernEngland (London: Routledge,1993):26,78,224;Owens, “Property” 313–14;Rappoport, GivingWomen,e.g.,46,50.
²³Entailmentasalegalmechanismforpermittingadonortocontrolpropertybeyondhislifetime wasnot,initself,afunctionofthecommonlawdoctrineofprimogeniture,andcouldinfactbeusedto disruptit,byallowingthedonortochooserecipientsofhiswealthwellbeyondhisownlifetime (Macpherson7).However,AdamSmith,Austen’snearcontemporary, presents entailsasdirectlyand naturallyrelatedtoprimogeniture(AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthofNations,ed. R.H.CampbellandR.S.Skinner(1776;reprint,Indianapolis,1981),1:384,citedinMacpherson7). Andasothershaveshown,althoughitmayhavehadthelegalpotentialtodisrupttheclaimsof firstbornsons,entailmentwas “biasedtowardsprimogeniture” (Habakkuk30,also6;seealsoMacpherson 6;Appel611,615).Austen’ s SenseandSensibility and PrideandPrejudice,byassigningwealthtoa firstbornsonandsuggestingthatthelackofasondisinheritsthesisters,suggestthatcircumstancesfavor theprincipleofprimogeniture,evenifthelegalmechanismsdonotalways fitthatcommonlaw doctrineprecisely.
²⁴ Forwomen’sincreasingrelianceonconjugalfamilies,seePerry31–4.Forthe “paradox” of heterosexualexchange,seeKathyPsomiades, “HeterosexualExchangeandOtherVictorianFictions: TheEustaceDiamonds andVictorianAnthropology,” NOVEL:AForumonFiction 33.1(1999): 93–118,94.
²⁵ Foraclassiccontemporaryresponsetocoverture,seeBarbaraLeighSmithBodichon, “ABrief Summary,inPlainLanguage,oftheMostImportantLawsConcerningWomen:TogetherwithaFew ObservationsThereon” (1854),excerptedinDorothyMerminandHerbertF.Tucker,eds., Victorian Literature1830–1900 (FortWorthandPhiladelphia:HarcourtCollegePublishers,2002):87–90.
²⁶ Holcombe21;Staves49;Perry53.DowercouldbebarredevenbeforetheDowerAct,anda widow’sjointuretheoreticallyreplaceddowerwithmoresecureandalienableproperty,butitwasoften offarlessvaluethandowerandinmanycasesnomoreguaranteed(Staves32–7,96,114,130).
²⁷ Dolin3,13,86;MaryJeanCorbett, FamilyLikeness:Sex,Marriage,andIncestfromJaneAustento VirginiaWoolf (Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress,2008):e.g.,vii,20–4;TaliaSchaffer, Romance’sRival: FamiliarMarriageinVictorianFiction (NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2016):e.g.,13, 81,120,124;KellyHagerandTaliaSchaffer, “Introduction:ExtendingFamilies,” VictorianReview 39.2 (2013):7–21,10:https://doi.org/10.1353/vcr.2013.0055.
on 13 July 2023
Despitethisbleakpictureoflegalandsociallimitations,marriedandunmarried womenwereeverydayeconomicactorsandsometimessignificant financial figures throughoutthenineteenthcentury.Femalecharactersinthenovelsexploredhere areactivelyinvolvedinpropertytransactionswithwide-rangingimpact.Inits focusonthem,myworkispartofanemergentbodyofhistoricalandliterary scholarshipthatemphasizestherealandimaginedwaysinwhichsome Englishwomenexercisedeconomicagency,usedlegalandextralegalmechanisms togetaroundlegallimitations,andmade financialcontributions,bothsmalland large,todomestic,national,andevenglobaleconomies.Whileacknowledgingthe seriouslegalandsocialdisadvantageslivingwomenfacedduringthisperiod,aswell asculturalideologiesthatworkedtoseparatewomenfromthe “sphere” of financial interestoractivity,thestoryItellisnotoneofwomensufferingdispossessionor servingasdomesticangelstosoothemen’sanxietiesaboutVictorianmaterialism andthevolatilityofwealth.²⁸ Instead,thisbookexaminesthewaysinwhich women ’severydaypropertymanagementdisturbsculturaleffortstoidealize,stabilize,oraccountfortheirpositionorvalue,withinandbeyondtheirownhouseholds. AlthoughVictorianmiddle-classseparatespheresideologyassignedwomento privatedomesticityandmentopublicorcommerciallife,the1851census,asLee Holcombenotes,recordedthatonefourthofmarriedwomenhademployment outsidethehomeandthatthisnumberwasjustlessthanaquarterofthewomen employed.²⁹ CharlesDickens’ s OurMutualFriend,inwhichnearlyallofthe womenoutsideofthewealthierPodsnapandVeneeringcircleslaborforpayin arangeofoccupationsincludingschoolteachers,businessowners,factoryworkers,anddress-makers,reflectsthepervasivenessoffemaleemploymentinthe culturalimaginationaswell.Evenwhenwomenwerenotemployedthemselves, andlongbeforelegalreformswereinstituted,womenfounddegreesofeconomic agencybycontributinglaborandwealthtofamilyenterprises,asoccursin Oliphant’ s Hester.³⁰ Theirinheritances,income,andinvestments oftengovernmentbondsbutalsoriskierstocks³¹ supportedfamiliesandpublicworks;as NancyHenryhasnoted, “[o]verthecourseofthenineteenthcentury,women comprisedbetween5and20%oftheinvestingpublic.”³²Theyalsoparticipatedin
²⁸ See,e.g.,Michie3;JeffNunokawa, TheAfterlifeofProperty:DomesticSecurityandtheVictorian Novel (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,1994):50.AsmanyVictorianistshaveshown,these sphereswerefarlessseparateinpracticethanintheory.See,forinstance,MaryPoovey, Uneven Developments:TheIdeologicalWorkofGenderinMid-VictorianEngland (Chicago:Universityof ChicagoPress,1988);KarenChaseandMichaelLevenson, TheSpectacleofIntimacy:APublicLife fortheVictorianFamily (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000): passim,e.g.,85;Elliott.
²⁹ Holcombe8.
³⁰ SeeDavidoffandHall279–89.
³¹HelenDoe, “WaitingForHerShipToComeIn?TheFemaleInvestorinNineteenth-Century SailingVessels,” TheEconomicHistoryReview 63.1(2010):85–106,85–7:http://www.jstor.com/stable/ 27771571.
³²Henry, Women 7,6.SeealsoGreenandOwens, “Gentlewomanly” 512,519,523–4,531;Janette Rutterford,DavidR.Green,JosephineMaltby,andAlastairOwens, “WhoComprised” 158,169–70; JanetteRutterford, “‘A pauper everywifeis’ 137–41;GeorgeRobb, White-CollarCrimeinModern
anexpandingcommercialspherethroughproduction,shopkeeping,andpurchases.³³AsMargotFinnandothershaveshown,strategicusesofcreditand legalpracticessuchasthelawofnecessaries(whichrequiredmentoprovidetheir wiveswiththeitemsappropriatefortheirstationinlife)absolvedwomenoftheir husband’sdebts,givingwivesbothauthorityandadegreeofimpunityasconsumers.³⁴ Thesestrategiesaffordedopportunitiesforeconomicactivityandalso providedonewayforwomenandtheirsupporterstoresistthelimitationsof coverture,whichtheydidonmultiplefronts.
SomeVictorianwomenandmenavoidedcoverturebycohabitingwithoutlegal marriage,asGingerS.Frosthasdiscussed.Sucharrangements,comprising “asignificantminority” oftheworkingclasses,werecommonenoughtobe “not shockinglyexceptional, ” andalthoughmanyofthecasesFrosthighlightsshow women ’seconomicdependence,otherssuggestthatsharingahomeoutsideof marriageprotectedwomen’ s financesandpropertyfromtheirmalepartners.³⁵
TaliaSchafferhassuggestedthatthe “quasi-maritalarrangement” ofpartnerships involvingadisabledindividualalsogavewomenaccesstorelationships “freed fromthelopsidedconstraintsofcoverture.”³⁶ Withinmarriage,otherwomen benefitedfrom separateestates setupforthemthroughpremaritalsettlements ortrustsmadeincourtsofequity.Suchlegalsettlementswereseenbylegislators assignificantmethodsforprotectingwomen’sproperty.³⁷ In PrideandPrejudice , Mr.Darcy’salarmthathissister’sinheritancecouldhavebecomethepropertyof thefortunehunterMr.Wickhamissurelycompoundedbythefactthat,had theyelopedasplanned,nomarriagesettlementscouldhavebeenmadetoprotect MissDarcy’swealth(133).Yetaswehaveseen,settlementswereimperfect
England:FinancialFraudandBusinessMorality,1845–1929 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 1992):29–30;LucyA.Newton,PhilipL.Cottrell,JosephineMaltby,andJanetteRutterford, “Women andWealth:TheNineteenthCenturyinGreatBritain,” in WomenandTheirMoney,1700–1950:Essays onWomenandFinance,ed.AnneLaurence,JosephineMaltby,andJanetteRutterford(London: Routledge,2009):86–94,89–91.Forfemaleinvestorsinnineteenth-centuryAmerica,seeGeorge Robb, LadiesoftheTicker,e.g.,45–56.
³³SeeErikaDianeRappaport, ShoppingforPleasure:WomenintheMakingofLondon’sWestEnd (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2000)andKristaLysack, ComeBuy,ComeBuy:Shoppingand theCultureofConsumptioninVictorianWomen’sWriting (Athens:OhioUniversityPress,2008).
³⁴ MargotFinn, “Women,ConsumptionandCovertureinEngland,c.1760–1860,” Historical Journal 39.3(1996),703–22:706,707:http://www.jstor.com/stable/2639966;MargotFinn, “Working-ClassWomen” 129–30,145;Rappaport, Shopping 50–65;JoanneBailey, “Favouredor Oppressed?MarriedWomen,Property,and ‘Coverture’ inEngland,1660–1800,” Continuityand Change 17.3(2002):351–72,353;Erickson, WomenandProperty 150,224;Staves131.
³⁵ GingerS.Frost, LivinginSin:CohabitingasHusbandandWifeinNineteenth-CenturyEngland (ManchesterandNewYork:ManchesterUniversityPress,2008):quotesarefrom123,231;forthe greaterinstancesofcohabitingamongtheworkingclasses,seealso3,5;forwomen’seconomic vulnerabilitysee126;forcohabitingasameansofprotectingwomen’sproperty,see35,125,128.See alsoEllenRoss, LoveandToil:MotherhoodinOutcastLondon,1870–1918 (NewYorkandOxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1993):63.
³⁶ Schaffer, Romance’sRival 11.
³
⁷ Shanley15,25,Holcombe44.Fordistinctionsbetweenstrictsettlementsandmarriagesettlements,seeEileenSpring, “TheSettlementofLandinNineteenth-CenturyEngland,” AmericanJournal ofLegalHistory 8.3(1964):209–23,214–15,n.13:https://www.jstor.org/stable/844170,accessedSept. 25,2020.
Library user on 13 July 2023
mechanisms:theydidnotgrantwivespropertyrightsequaltothoseofmenor unmarriedwomen;securingthemrequiredbothsufficientwealthandattentive maleguardians;and,astheexampleof LittleDorrit suggests,theirprotections werenotfoolproof.Furthermore,theydidnotprotectwomenofallclasses.Only 10percentofmarriagesinvolvedsuchsettlements,whichwereexpensiveto produce.³⁸ Thediscrepancyinwomen’slegalconditionswasoneexampleofthe nation’sinconsistentjudicialsystem,withwhatamountedtodifferentlawsfor richandpoor.Publicopinionaboutthisinconsistencycontributedtothe reformsoftheJudicatureActof1873(36&37Vict.,c.66),whichaimedto reconcilethedifferentrulingsofequityandthecommonlawandgivepreference toequityinmattersofcon fl ictingrules.³⁹ ThePetitionforReformofthe MarriedWomen ’sPropertyLaw,whichwaspresentedin1856andincluded twenty-sixthousandsignatures,notedth einjusticeofthesedifferentsystems: “if theselawsoftenbearheavilyuponwomenprotectedbytheforethoughtof theirrelatives[...]and[...]theranktowhichtheybelong,howmuchmore unequivocalistheinjurysustainedbywomeninthelowerclasses[...]. ”⁴⁰ This petitionbeganatwenty-six-yeareffort bylawmakersandpublicwomentogrant marriedwomenlegalcontrolovertheirownwealthandearnings, fi nally achievedinpartbytheMarriedWomen’sPropertyAct,1870(33&34Vict.c.93), whichgavemarriedwomenrightstotheirwagesandbequestsofupto£200, andmorefullybytheMarriedWomen’sPropertyAct,1882(45&46Vict.c.75), whichextendedtheirrightsto “anyrealorpersonalproperty.”⁴¹
³⁸ Holcombe46.Stavesclarifiesthatthisgroupincludesmorethanthe “veryprivileged” (59).For theprevalenceofsettlementsamongthe “comfortable” classes,seealsoJanetteRutterfordand JosephineMaltby, “FrankMustMarryMoney:Men,Women,andPropertyinTrollope’sNovels,” AccountingHistoriansJournal 33.2(2006):169–99,185:http://www.jstor.com/stable/40698346.
³⁹ Holcombe15,16.Marriedwomen’spropertyreformhasbeenseenasmuchasafunctionofthis largerJudicaturereformasofafeministagenda(Holcombe17).FortheargumentthattheActcame aboutprimarilytopreventspousesfromcolludingondebt,seeMaryBethCombs, “‘AMeasureof LegalIndependence’:The1870MarriedWomen’sPropertyActandthePortfolioAllocationsofBritish Wives,” JournalofEconomicHistory 65.4(2005):1028–57,1029:http://www.jstor.com/stable/3874913. Forthewaysinwhichotherlawaffectingmarriedcouples,notablydivorcelaw,waspartofabroader programthatstrippedtheecclesiasticalcourtsoftheirjurisdiction,seeR.B.Outhwaite, TheRiseand FalloftheEnglishEcclesiasticalCourts,1500–1860 (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2006): 157–73.
⁴⁰“PetitionforReformoftheMarriedWomen’sPropertyLawPresentedtoParliament14March 1856,” quotedinAppendix1,Holcombe237.
⁴¹Shanley33;fordetailsonthetwoActsseechs.2(49–78)and4(103–30);Holcombe,237–8for fullreprintingsofthepetition,243–6forthefulltextofthe1870MarriedWomen’sPropertyAct,and 247–52forthefulltextofthe1882Act.Forthe1870Act,somekeypointsareasfollows: “Thewages andearningsofanymarriedwomanacquiredorgainedbyherafterthepassingofthisActinany employment,occupation,ortrade[ ...]and alsoanymoney,orpropertysoacquird[sic]byher[...] andallinvestmentsofsuchwages,earnings,moneyorproperty,shallbedeemedandbetakentobe propertyheldandsettledtoherseparateuse,independentofanyhusband[ ...]. Whereanywoman marriedafterthepassingofthisActshallduringhermarriagebecomeentitledtoanypersonalproperty [...]ortoanysumof moneynotexceedingtwohundredpoundsunderanydeedorwill,suchproperty shall[ ...] belongtosuchwomanforherseparateuse[ ...]” (“AnActtoAmendtheLawRelatingto thePropertyofMarriedWomen(9August1870),” quotedinAppendix4,Holcombe243–4).The1882 Actdecreedthat “Amarriedwomanshall,inaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthisAct,becapableof
Forthemostpart,thesepracticaleffortstoimprovewomen’seconomicstatus aftermid-centuryfocusedontheirlackofmoneywithinmarriage,notontheirlack ofpaternalinheritance,yetthisisadeparturefrompreviousunderstandingsof women ’sfortunes.Earlier fictionsuchasAusten’semphasizedtheinterconnectednessofthetwocommonlawdoctrines,oneemphasizingthe financialramifications ofwedlock,theotheremphasizingthe financialramificationsofbirth.Understanding howAustencombinesthetwotohighlightwomen’sdisadvantagesshedslighton theirsubsequentdeployment,when,aswe’llsee,primogeniturebecomesnotapoint ofsympathyforwomenbutasignoftheirownmoderateorexcessivedesiresanda rallyingcryagainstwomen’sincreasedpropertyrights.
Intheearlypartofthecentury,inheritanceandmaritallawworkedtogetherto consolidatewealthinmalehands. SenseandSensibility’sJohnDashwood,for example,notonlyreceiveshisfather’sestatebutalsobene fitsfromhisown mother’swealth,apparentlysecuredtoherasherseparateproperty.He “ was amplyprovidedforbythefortuneofhismother,whichhadbeenlarge,andhalfof whichdevolvedonhimonhiscomingofage” (5);theotherhalfofhismother’ s wealthwouldalsobehisbecauseit “wasalsosecuredtoherchild,and[her husband,John’sfather]hadonlyalifeinterestinit” (6).Ontheonehand, John’smother’swealth,herfamily’sresponsetocoverture,isevidenceofthe safeguardsalreadyputintoplaceforprotecting(some)marriedwomen’sproperty evenbeforethelegalreformsofthelatercentury.Hisfathercouldnotaccessthe principalofhismother’smoney,onlyitsinterestduringhisownlifetime.Despite theclaimsofcoverture,hermarriagedidnotmergeherpropertywithhis an exampleofthekindoftrustsestablishedforwealthywomenoutsideofthecourtof commonlaw,and,initsevasionofthecommonlaw,somethingofanargument againstit.YetthisprotectionofthelateMrs.Dashwood ’spropertyultimately seemslessatriumphforthewifethanforherson,whosefather,welearn,would havebeenverypleasedtoignorethecustomofprimogenitureanddividethe wealthwithhisthreelessprivilegedfemalechildrenfromhissecondmarriage instead.Thenarrativeemphasisonthosechildren whosefortunesandmarriage plotsoccupytherestofthenovel alsodiminishesanysensethatthisepisode reflectsafeministvictoryorevenarealdisruptionofthecommonlaw.AsCheri LarsenHoeckleyhasargued, “equitysettlementsoftensimplyallowedafatherto preservefamilyproperty[...]forfuturemaleheirs.”⁴²Thusevenawife’ s “ separateestate” hereultimatelyservesthepurposeofprimogeniture.Thenovel’ s acquiring,holding,anddisposingbywillorotherwise,ofanyrealorpersonalpropertyasher separateproperty,inthesamemannerasifshewereafemesole,withouttheinterventionofany trustee.[ ...She]shallbecapableofenteringintoandrenderingherselfliableinrespectofandtothe extentofherseparatepropertyonanycontract,andofsuingandbeingsued[ ...]inall respectsasif shewereafemesole[ ...]” (“MarriedWomen’sPropertyAct,1882,” quotedinAppendix5, Holcombe247).
⁴²CheriLarsenHoeckley, “AnomalousOwnership:Copyright,Coverture,and AuroraLeigh, ” VictorianPoetry 35.2(1998):135–61,149;Staves4,84.Widowsweretypicallytreatedascustodians oftheirchildren’sfutureinheritance(Owens, “Property” 310).
by Hartley Library user on 13 July 2023
discussionofinheritanceremindsreadersthatthedoctrinesofprimogenitureand coverture theeconomicsofbirthandmarriage collaboratetolimitwomen’ s financialoptionsandsuggeststhataddressingoneindependentlyoftheotherwill notguaranteewomen’seconomicsecurity.
CovertureandprimogenitureagainjoinhandsasJohnDashwood’swife,Fanny, directshisinterestsinfavoroftheirson.Ontheonehand,sheappearstohavea kindofeconomicagencythroughhim,inkeepingwithbothcoverture’stheoriesof jointinterestandseparate-spheres’ theoriesofwifelyinfluence.She “didnotatall approve ” ofherhusband’sinitialintentiontoprovideforhishalf-sisters,andher “consenttothisplan”—whichsherefusestogive seemsnecessarytoit.Asshe persuadeshimtoreducethegiftfromthreethousandpoundsto “sendingpresents of fishandgame” (12),sheeffectivelymanagesbothherhusbandandhis finances and,asElsieB.Michie’sstudyofrichwomenin fictionhasshown,becomesthe scapegoatforself-interestedwealth.⁴³Yetina “moreamiablewoman” (7),Fanny’ s narrowmaternalanxietyforherchild’sinterestsmighthavealignedherwiththe motherofherdisinheritedhalf-sisters-in-law,whoseloveofherownchildren similarlyobscuresanywidervisionshemighthaveoftheworld.Fannyhasno morelegalpoweroverthesituationthantheydo,and,unabletomakeanyclaims uponherhusband’srecentinheritance,mustresortto “begg[ing]” and “argu[ing]” (9,12)topreventanactthatsheperceivesasequivalentto “rob[bing]hischild” (9). Althoughsheenteredhermarriagewithasubstantialfortune,thelargerpartofher father’svastwealthwillgotoherbrother’sfamily,nottoherson(264).Her apparentgreedstemsfromthosesamejoinedcommonlawdoctrinesofprimogenitureandcoverturethatshapedherhalf-sisters’ fortunes.Theimplicationisthat bothsympatheticandunsympatheticcharacterswouldbebetteroff andperhaps evenmoregenerous underdifferentlegalconditions.
FollowingAusten,novelistscontinuedtounitecriticismofcovertureand primogeniture.InCharlotteBrontë’ s JaneEyre (1847),forexample,Bertha Mason ’slifeandthirtythousandpoundsalikefallvictimtoRochester’sfather’ s “resolutiontokeepthepropertytogether” forhisoldersonwhilelettinghis youngerson “beprovidedforbyawealthymarriage.”⁴⁴ Inasimilarvein,Anne Brontë’ s TenantofWildfellHall (1848)deploresboththedissolutelifestylethat ArthurHuntingdon’sfamilyestateshaveenabledandthe financialcontrolhe exertsoverthewifeheabuses.⁴⁵ Notonlydoeshetakehermoneyandjewelsbut
⁴³Michie28.ForFanny’ s “will” withrespecttothenovel’streatmentofinheritance,seeGeneRuoff, “Wills,” in SenseandSensibility[1811]:AuthoritativeText,Contexts,Criticism,ed.ClaudiaL.Johnson (NewYork:W.W.Norton&Company,2002):348–59,350–3.
⁴⁴ CharlotteBrontë, JaneEyre [1847],ed.RichardJ.Dunn,3rded.(NewYorkandLondon: W.W.Norton&Company,2001):260.
⁴⁵ AnneBrontë, TheTenantofWildfellHall [1848],ed.HerbertRosengarten(Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,1992,2008).Helenwisheshehad “somethingtodo,someusefultrade,orprofession, oremployment” (191);heneglectshistenants(208).Hisdebtsarisefromhisexcessesbutareenabled byhisreputationasalandedgentleman(208–9).
hedemandsafurther “ confiscationofproperty” (310),destroyingtheartsupplies shehasplannedtousetosupportherselfandhersonafterrunningawayto safety.⁴⁶ Ineachcase,ason’sinheritanceofpaternalwealthandawife’slossof bothfreedomandpropertyinmarriageappeartocoincidetoherdetriment.
Insubsequentdecades,however,debatesaboutwomen’spropertybegan deployingprimogenitureinnewways.The1856Petitionforpropertyreform andtheDivorceActof1857bothdrewattentiontotheimbalancedeconomicsof marriage.Intheirwillingnesstoaddressdivorcepriortoproperty,legislators emphasizedtheirdutytoprotectwomenwithinmaritalrelationships(thus ensuringthesmoothfunctioningofcoverture),ratherthanadvocatefortheir equalrights(whichwouldrupturethe fictionofcoverturealtogether).⁴⁷ Butas maritaltiescomeundercloseinspection,oneproofofawife’smerit(andhence herblamelessnessforafailingmarriage)appearsinherparentalrelationship. Beinga “goodmother” beginstomean,inpart,awillingnesstocedeeconomic needsorclaimstoachild.⁴⁸ The1856Petitiontreatsthe(working-class)wife’ s propertyneedsexplicitlyintermsofhermaternalrole,accusing “thelaw[...of] deprivingthemotherofallpecuniaryresources[...].”⁴⁹ Withgrowingattention giventobadmarriagesandthefailuresofthe “ one-flesh” doctrine,novelsfromthe 1860sbalancecriticismofmercenaryorotherwiseincompatiblemarriageswith thecelebrationofmotherhoodandprimogeniture.InAnthonyTrollope’ s Orley Farm (1862),forinstance,asecondmarriageposesproblemsprimarilybecauseit (sensationally)threatenstheclaimsofa first-bornson.Betrayal,forgeryofher dyinghusband’swill,andperjuryinordertoclaimanestateforherownyounger sonmarkLadyMasonas “acastawayamongtheworld’sworstwretches” ; ⁵⁰ despiteherlegalacquittal,thenovelexposesherdeedtothoseshecaresmost aboutandultimatelysecurestheestatetoherstepson,reinforcingbothprimogenitureandtheinadequacyofthelawtoeffectthecustomarypracticesthat fictionmorefrequentlysafeguards.YetLadyMasonreceivessympathyandlove despitehercriminalactivitybecausesheseeminglycommitsthecrimesnotfor personal “aggrandisement” oreconomicself-interestbutasamother,onbehalfof herson.Claimingtohavemarried “‘notcaringfor[herhusband’s]riches ’” for
⁴⁶ Tenant310–11.
⁴⁷ Shanley71–4,77–8.
⁴⁸ Motherhood’spresumedincompatibilitywithself-interestedeconomicclaimsalignswiththe anti-material(andperhapsanti-materialist)idealthatCarolynDeverdiscussesin Deathandthe MotherfromDickenstoFreud:VictorianFictionandtheAnxietyofOrigins (Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress,1998):19,27.Formaternalsacrificeanditsdestructiveresults,seeEllenRoss, Love andToil 54–5; “Introduction,” OtherMothers:BeyondtheMaternalIdeal,ed.EllenBayukRosenman andClaudiaC.Klaver(Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,2008):1–22,14;andHeatherMilton, “‘Bland,Adoring,andGentlyTearfulWomen’:DebunkingtheMaternalIdealinGeorgeEliot’ s Felix Holt, ” in OtherMothers:BeyondtheMaternalIdeal,ed.EllenBayukRosenmanandClaudiaC.Klaver (Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,2008):55–74,55,56,63,65.
⁴⁹“PetitionforReform,” Holcombe238.
⁵⁰ SeeAnthonyTrollope, OrleyFarm [1862](OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 2008):II:128.
user on 13 July 2023
herself,sheadds, “‘Butthencamemybaby,andtheworldwasallalteredforme.[...] Whyshouldnotthisotherchildalsobehisfather’sheir?’” (II:203).IfVictorian wivesaredeemedmercenarybydemandingproperty,mothersseekingmoney fortheirchildrenarejustifiedbybiblicalanalogy(“Didshelove[ ...]her babe, lessthanRebekahhadlovedJacob?”),evenasVictorian fictionworkshardto restorethebirthrightofEsauandother first-bornsons.⁵¹Subsequentnovelssuch asDickens’ s OurMutualFriend andGaskell’ s WivesandDaughters further acknowledgetheinadequacyoflegalframeworksformaritalpropertybuttake extralegal,collaborativepainstoensurethepatrilinealtransmissionofpropertyto theeldestmaleorhisheir.Attentiontothereformofmarriageandmarital property,inotherwords,initiallyappearstoaidnotonlywivesbutchildren, fromthenumerouspooroffspringofstrugglingworkingmotherstowealthier, first-bornchildrenwhoseinheritanceseeminglyeveryoneworkstoprotect.
Therightsaffordedbymarriageandbirth covertureandprimogeniture divergefurtherinadditionalworksfromthisperiodthatexplorethetwodoctrines throughwomen’ssequentialrelationships.WilkieCollins’ s TheWomaninWhite (1860),forinstance,demonstratessensationaltroubleinLauraFairlie’ s first marriage,whilecelebratingbirthrightinhersecond.Thisnovelillustratesher extremesufferingwhenher firsthusbandgoestodrasticmeasurestostealher separateproperty;bothhis “cruelhand” andherfalseimprisonmentinanasylum testifytotheneedforprotectingawife’seconomicandbodilyrights.⁵²Yether propertyisneverpresentedasintendedforheruse.Maritalreformhereservesthe endsofprimogeniture.Thelastspokenwordsofthenoveljoyfullyalignthe firstbornsonofher(second,happier)marriagewithhiseconomicprerogativeby naminghim “‘theHeirofLimmeridge. ’”⁵³Similarlyassigningunequalmeritto covertureandprimogenitureandalsoaffordingthemdifferentplacesinits narrativearc, Middlemarch protestsagainstCasaubon’sdemandsonhisliving wife,aswellashisposthumouscontroloverDorothea’ s financialagency.Yeteven aftershehasremarriedagainsteveryoneelse’swishesanddespiterepeatedthreats ofdisinheritance,thenovelsupportsherson’scustomarypositionas “theheirof theBrookes.” Repeatedplanstodisinheritherson(“Icancutofftheentail,you know”)lastonlyuntilDorotheahasgivenbirth,whenheruncleandthebrotherin-lawwhosefamilywouldbenefitfromthisdisinheritancedetermineinsteadto “letthingsremainastheyare.” Notonlydoes Middlemarch’sconclusionapplaud thisdecisionasasignofthefamily’ s “reconciliation” butitunderscoresthe
⁵¹Ibid.,II:355.
⁵²WilkieCollins, TheWomaninWhite [1860],ed.JohnSutherland(Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press,1998):304.
⁵³Ibid.,643,originalemphasis.Forawife’sseparatepropertyinthisnovel,seeEstherGodfrey, “‘AbsolutelyMissFairlie’sOwn’:EmasculatingEconomicsin TheWomaninWhite, ” in Economic Women:EssaysonDesireandDispossessioninNineteenth-CenturyBritishCulture,ed.LanaL.Dalley andJillRappoport(Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,2013):162–75.
importanceofmasculinebirthrighttoitsnarrativeresolutionbyexplicitlyconfirmingthatheruncle’ s “estatewasinheritedbyDorothea’ sson.”⁵⁴
Innovelssuchasthese,covertureappearsrestrictive,whilepatrilineal inheritance thatscourgeofAusten’sDashwoodandBennetfamilies begins toseemjust.Butthetwodoctrinestakeanevenmoredivergent,competitive turninotherworksfromthelate1860stomid-1870s,aspropertyreformswere codifiedintolaw.TheMarriedWomen’sPropertyActof1870,asIhavementioned,gavewiveslimitedcontroloverspecificformsofproperty,notablytheir earningsandsmalllegacies.Itcameaboutnottosecureindependentproperty rightsforwivesofthewealthierclassesportrayedbyAustenorCollinsbutto eliminatelegaldistinctionsbetweenpoorandwealthyfamilies,and,likethe DivorceAct,toprotectwomenoftheworkingorlower-middleclassesfrom husbandssensationallyviewedasdisreputable,abusive,andoftenabsentee. (Suchargumentsworkedinpartbyignoringthepossibilitythatwealthier womenmightneedsimilarprotection.⁵⁵)Asifinexchangefortheseprotections, however,women’slargerfortunesatthispointaredescribedasposingproblems forchildren.Nolongerameansofhelpingtheiroffspring,women’seconomic actionsinseveralnovelsbyAnthonyTrollopeaswellasinGeorgeEliot’ s Daniel Deronda appeartothreatenlinesofinheritance. Thenewlegalprecedentofrecognizingawife’sclaimto any propertywithin marriageappears,forsomewriters,tantamounttoawife’sclaiming all property withinmarriage.Althoughcommonlawdoctrinehadpreviouslyensuredthata woman ’spropertywouldbecomeherhusband’suponmarriage,itnevermandatedtheopposite,thataman’spropertywouldbecomehiswife’sduringhis lifetime.Indeed,evenprovisionsforwidowswerenotsecure.After1833,dower became “largelydefeasibleatthewillofthehusband,” andwivesdidn’talways receivethejointureswhichwereintendedtoreplacedoweranddependedupon settlements.⁵⁶ Muchdependeduponahusband’sconsciouslegaleffort:thebewildermentthatmeets OurMutualFriend’sMr.Boffinwhenheattemptstosecure hispropertytoMrs.Boffinsuggeststherarityofsuchaction.Certainly,the1870 MarriedWomen’sPropertyActdidnothingtotransferaman’swealthtoeither
⁵⁴ GeorgeEliot, Middlemarch [1871],ed.RosemaryAshton(London:PenguinBooksLtd.,1994): 836,817,837.
⁵⁵ See,e.g.,FrancesPowerCobbe, “Wife-TortureinEngland” [ContemporaryReview,April1878], reprinted, ProsebyVictorianWomen:AnAnthology,ed.AndreaBroomfieldandSallyMitchell(New YorkandLondon:GarlandPublishing,Inc.,1996):291–333,295,324.FordomesticabuseinVictorian fictioningeneralaswellasspecificallymiddle-orupper-classviolence,seeLisaSurridge, BleakHouses: MaritalViolenceinVictorianFiction (Athens:OhioUniversityPress,2005):e.g.,45–7,53–5,58–61; MarleneTromp, ThePrivateRod:MaritalViolence,Sensation,andtheLawinVictorianBritain (Charlottesville:UniversityPressofVirginia,2000):e.g.,76–8,156–9,207–9.Fordiscussionof womenwhofoughtbackratherthan “cowerunderthehandsofviolentorabusivehusbands,” see MarleneTromp, “’TilDeathDoUsPart:Marriage,Murder,andConfession,” in ReplottingMarriagein Nineteenth-CenturyBritishLiterature,ed.JillGalvanandElsieMichie(Columbus:OhioState UniversityPress,2018):127–44,143.
⁵⁶ SeeStaves27,96,114,130.
by
Library user on 13 July 2023
hiswifeorwidow,althoughitdoesappeartohavehadaneffectonwomen’ s investmentsandothereconomicdecisions.⁵⁷ Despiteitslimitedreach,however, theculturalanxietiesattendingthisActwereasgreatasifithaddonemuchmore. In fictionwrittenafterthe1870Act,we findwomenwhosemarriagessecurethem greatwealthbutwhoseclaimstothatwealthappeartoconflictwiththeclaimsof theirhusbands’ first-bornsons.Wives’ independentpossessionofpropertyeven beginstoberepresentedastheft.IncontrastwithFannyDashwood ’sseemingly selfishbutalsomaternallysolicitouspleathatherhusbandnot “rob” hersonofhis birthright,novelsbyTrollopeandEliotsuggestthatwivesthemselvesarethe robberswhoseselfishnessthreatensthenextgeneration.Alongtheselines,even unmarriedwomenarefoundtobeatfaultforgenerousactsthatothersequate withrobberybecausetheyremovetheirownwealthfromitspotentialgenerationaltransmission.Covertureandprimogenitureagainappeartogether,butto differenteffect:oncewivescanclaimpropertyastheirown,primogeniture becomesasmuchareasontowithholdthatpropertyasareasontograntit.Or, tolookatitanotherway,oncewomenarerecognizedasproductiveeconomic agentshavingarighttomoneyearnedbytheirlabor,theyarepunished(narratively)fortheirreproductivefunction.Atthispoint,mercenarymarriagebecomes problematicnotsimplyforwhatitsuggestsaboutthewifeortheinstitutionof marriagebutbecauseitenablesawifeorwidowtoclaimasher “ own ” property thatthenovelassignstoason.
TheMarriedWomen’sPropertyActof1882would finallygrantwomen independentrightstopropertywithinmarriage,andthoughitcameaboutas muchtostreamlineandreformthemessyEnglishcourtsystemastoaddress women ’seconomicgrievances,⁵⁸ itsevengreaterrecognitionofwomen’ seconomicagencygaverisetoadditionalconfigurationsofthenewrivalriesbetween generationalandlateraltransmission.InOliphant’ s Hester ,forexample,awife’ s wealthnolongerdetractsfromheroffspring’s;instead,herdedicationtopreservingherpropertyforherdaughterisseenasinjurioustoherhusbandandhis financialresponsibilities.Herchoiceofconsanguinealtransmissionoverconcern forconjugaltiescontrastspainfullywithanoldermodelofobligationthatat first challengesand finallyaccedestotheneworderofpropertyandfamilyties.
III.LawandDisorder:LegalDoctrine,FamilyDuty, andOtherNarrativeClaims
Competitionbetweenspousesandchildren wivesandsons,husbandsand daughters isjustoneofthemanywaysinwhich fictionfromthisperiodsets
⁵⁷ Combs, “‘AMeasureofLegalIndependence’” 1031,1033,1039–40,1042.
⁵⁸ Holcombe15,16;Outhwaite157–73.Idiscussthesereformsin “‘Clutch[ing]Gold’:Wives,Mothers, andPropertyLawin TheRingandtheBook, ” VictorianPoetry 60:1(Spring2022):1–26;see18–22.
itsexplorationoftheperceivedbenefitsandthreatsoflegalpropertyreformona largerstagethanmarriageandcoverture.Repeatedly,narrativesshowthat women ’sincreasedeconomicautonomyaffectsmorethanthewoman,wife,or marriagetouchedmostdirectlybylegalchangeandalsoexceedslegaljurisdiction. Byinsistingthatwewriteandteachaboutmarriedwomen’spropertyreformnot onlyorevenprimarilythroughthelensofcoverture, ImaginingWomen’sProperty joinswithotherliterarycriticismaboutwomenandeconomicsthatemphasizes women ’sbroaderlives.⁵⁹ Foundationalfeministscholarshipexploredwomen’ s economicaffairsproductivelythroughsexualeconomies,particularlyheterosexualtransactionsincludingbutnotlimitedtomarriage,⁶⁰ butmarriageitself its forms,history,motivations,mechanisms,exclusions,andeffects hasundergone substantialandimportantrevisioninVictorianstudies.Buildingonearlierwork thattookmarriageasthenarrativemechanismforunderstandingideological changes,overtorhiddendesires,andevenseeminglyunrelatedpointssuchas sympatheticreadingpractices,⁶¹morerecentkinshipstudieshavereconsidered howdifferentallegiances(amongthemconsanguinealandconjugal,exogamous andendogamous,heterosexualandhomosexual,romanticandfamiliar)motivatedmaritalchoicesanddeterminedstructuresofinheritance.⁶²Theyaskwhat “takingmarriageasaliteraryandculturalgiven[has]concealedfromourview” andinsistonseeingthemarriageplot “asmorethanmarriageandmorethan singleplot.”⁶³Stillothershavelookedbeyondmarriagetoshowthatwomen’ s economicactions,in fictionasinlife,cannotbereducedtotheirchoiceof husbands.NancyHenry,forinstance,arguesthat “thehistoryofwomen’ s financiallivesisasimportantastheromanceormarriageplotsthroughwhichtheir storiesareusuallytold,” whileEileenCleerehasshown “thatattentiontothe avunculatemakesalternativemodelsofkinshipvisible,familyrelationshipsthat areeconomicallyratherthanaffectivelymaintained.”⁶⁴ KellyHagerandTalia Schaffer,describingtheuncles,siblings,andfriendsthatcriticsincludingCleere, LeonoreDavidoff,SharonMarcus,andothershaveshowntobecentralto
⁵⁹ ForaterrificdiscussionofVictorianfamiliesthatasksusto “relinquishourassumptionthatthe smallnuclearfamilywasnormative” seeHagerandSchaffer7.
⁶⁰ Forakeytreatmentofmarriage-ploteconomics,see,e.g.,NancyArmstrong, DesireandDomestic Fiction:APoliticalHistoryoftheNovel (NewYorkandOxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1987):50–1. ForVictorianideasof “fallenwomen” ortheeconomicsofprostitution,seeJudithR.Walkowitz, ProstitutionandVictorianSociety:Women,Class,andtheState (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press,1980).
⁶¹See,forinstance,Armstrong4–5;RachelAblow, TheMarriageofMinds:ReadingSympathyinthe VictorianMarriagePlot (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2007):5–7.
⁶²FortheserevisionistapproachestounderstandingVictorianmarriageanditsrepresentations,see Corbett;SharonMarcus, BetweenWomen:Friendship,Desire,andMarriageinVictorianEngland (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress,2007);Michie, Vulgar;Psomiades, “Heterosexual”;Perry, Novel Relations;andSchaffer, Romance’sRival.
⁶³JillGalvanandElsieMichie, “Introduction,” in ReplottingMarriageinNineteenth-CenturyBritish Literature,ed.JillGalvanandElsieMichie(Columbus:OhioStateUniversityPress,2018):1–11,2,5.
⁶⁴ Henry, Women 15;EileenCleere, Avuncularism:Capitalism,Patriarchy,andNineteenth-Century EnglishCulture (Stanford:StanfordUniversityPress,2004):21.
user on 13 July 2023
Victorianexperiencesoffamily,contendthat “Victorianendogamouslifewas profoundlyshapedby figuresweminimizewhenwefocusontheconjugalor nuclearfamily.”⁶⁵ Extendingthesepowerfullinesofscholarshiptoprioritizeboth women ’swide-rangingrelationshipsandtheir financialactions, Imagining Women’sProperty followsthemoneyandotherobjectsofwomen’seconomic deliberations.Byputtingproperty first,wegetaviewofeconomicactionsthatdid notnecessarilyresultfromoroperateintheserviceofmatrimony,however broadlyconceived.Yetdoingsoalsoshowshowthesetransactions gifts,thefts, transfers,refusals constitutetheirownkindsoffamilialandextrafamilialwebs andurgeustothinkmoreexpansivelyaboutthewaysinwhichtheVictorians imaginedkinship,community,andthelimitsoflaw.
ReturningbrieflytoAusten, PrideandPrejudice ,whichhaspromptedimportantreadingsofmarriage-ploteconomics,⁶⁶ alsoshowcasesthesignificanceof siblingrelationships,theirroleinfacilitatingmarriage,andtheirsubsequent interestsinmaritalproperty.Havingearlynotedandbeenattractedby Elizabeth’ s “affectionatebehaviour” toherownsister(249),Darcy,inpursuing Elizabeth,alsoprocuresagoodsiblingforGeorgiana: “theattachmentofthe sisterswasexactlywhatDarcyhadhopedtosee” (253).Elizabethsimilarlylearns toloveDarcyassheseeshimthroughthevantagepointofthisrelationship: “‘He iscertainlyagoodbrother’” (162).Siblinghoodhere,infacilitatingmarriage, appearstoservethefunctionthatfemalefriendshipsdoinSharonMarcus’ s study.Marriagereturnsthefavor,facilitatingsiblingcloseness.Janeand Elizabeth, “inadditionto[thevagueadvantageof]everyothersourceofhappiness,werewithinthirtymilesofeachother” (252).Theimportanceofsiblingties hereaccordswithwhatTaliaSchafferhasshowntobetheimpetusbehind “familiar” marriage;JaneandElizabethsecuretheirconsanguinealkinshipcircles (aswellasconjugalromance)intheirchoiceoflifepartners.⁶⁷ Butthesemarriages haveadditionalvaluefortheiryoungersisters. “Kitty,toherverymaterial advantage,spentthechiefofhertimewithhertwoeldersisters” (252),and eventhedisreputableLydiaprofitsfromJaneandElizabeth’sstrategicuseof theirmaritalallowances.Economicbenefittosiblings,notjustpleasurablecommunity,drivesoratleastfollowsfromthesemarriages,Kittyintheformofa “ very material,” marketableimprovementthatwillaidherownmarriageprospects,and Lydiaandherhusbandintheformofhersisters’ recurring financialaid.Of particularinteresthere,thenovel’sonlycommentaryonthemaritalspendingof thenewwivesconcernsthislessfortunatesister. “Suchrelief[ ...]asitwasinher powertoafford,bythepracticeofwhatmightbecalledeconomyinherown privateexpences,[Elizabeth]frequentlysentthem ” (253);oragain, “ ...whenever theychangedtheirquarters,eitherJaneorherselfweresureofbeingappliedto,for
⁶⁵ HagerandSchaffer14.
⁶⁶ E.g.,Michie, Vulgar 21,30.
⁶⁷ Schaffer, Romance’sRival,e.g.,101–2.
somelittleassistancetowardsdischargingtheirbills” (253).DespiteDarcy’sdislike forandElizabeth’sownambivalenceaboutthiscouple,sheuseshernewwealth not,ashermotheranticipates,tobea “great” lady—“‘Whatpin-money,what jewels,whatcarriagesyouwillhave!’” (247) noreventoenrichherownlineor familyestates,butrathertohelpheryoungestsister.Thefactthatshedoessoout ofher “ownprivateexpences” isimportant.Itreiteratesthatundercovertureshe cannotaccessthelargerstoreofhouseholdwealth;Darcy’sgreatfortuneisnot, legallyorevenpractically,hers.Itremindsusthatshehassignificantadvantages thatwouldnothavebeenavailabletomostwomenthroughthecommonlaw,in theformofspecialmaritalsettlementsandanunusuallyrichandgenerous husband.Andithighlightstheformsofeconomicagencywomenwereunderstoodtoexerciselongbeforelegalchangesgavewivesindependent financial rights.⁶⁸ Significantly,thedrivetoassistasisterwhoissometimesmentioned withcompassionbutalsowith “disgust[...]” (204)alsosuggeststhestrengthof economictiesandfamilyfeelingsorobligationsbeyondmarriage.
Thestrengthofthesetiesfurtherdemonstratestheinadequacyofexistinglegal or financialmechanisms(coverture,settlements,pinmoney)toaccountfor women ’seconomiclives.Nineteenth-century fiction,initsdepictionsoffamilies andcommunities,frequentlyquestionswhetherpropertylawcanaddressthe economicactionswomenmighttakewhentheycontrolresources.Justas Little Dorrit’sturnkeypondershowtokeepwomen’spropertysecurefromanyone tryingtomakea “grab” atit,othernovelspresentfamilydemandsasposing obligationsatleastascompellingforwomen’ s financialchoicesasthosedemarcatedbysuchtraditionallegalinstrumentsasentailmentsorcoverture.Atatime whenwomen’seconomicagencyfellincreasinglyunderscrutiny,narrativedepictionsoftheirwiderfamiliesandrelationaldynamicssuggestthatlawisonlyoneof themanyfactorsshaping financialclaimsandduties.Alongsidethestraightforwardtrajectorysetoutbylegalreforms womenlacked financialrightsandthen gainedthem novelistsfromAustenthroughOliphantremindusthatwomen’ s economicactionsemergeoutofandproducesocialsituationsunimaginedbythe law.Thusinadditiontoemphasizinghowthemovementtoreformwomen’ s propertyaffectedrelationshipsbeyondmarriage, ImaginingWomen’sProperty alsotakesupthoserelationshipstoshowhownovelsmakeacasefortheirown valueindebatesaboutchangingeconomics.Astheyrepeatedlyshowthrough heightenedattentiontowomen’spropertyduringthisperiod,economicrelationshipscomewithsocialcomplicationsthatthelaw unlike fiction isnot flexible orpowerfulenoughtocover.
Trackingthemovementofwomen’sresourcesthroughoutnarrativeswiththe carethatweaffordtocharactersthemselveschangeshowweunderstandsomeof
ourmostfamiliarliterarytextsandalsoforcesustoreconsiderbotheconomic historyandfamilyinthenineteenthcentury.Whenwereadformoney,for example,anintimateexchangebetweenworking-classwomenin OurMutual Friend mattersasmuchasthenovel’swell-knowndepictionofmercenarymarital speculation,whileatestimonialteamultimatelyhasgreater financialconsequences forwomenthanthenovel’sinfamouslyobjectifyingwill.Inthedecadefollowingthe 1856PetitionforMarriedWomen’sPropertyrights,notionsofeconomicsuccessas anindividualpursuitfrequentlygivewaytomodelsofcommunalbenefitin Victorianworksgrapplingwiththepossibilityofwomen’sprivatepropertyand thevulnerabilityofthoseingreatestneed.Whereastheperiod’slegalreformsfocus oneachperson’sseparatepropertyrights,its fictionoffersdifferent,collaborative scenariosthatexploreandmanagelargernetworksofrelationships.⁶⁹ Whetherthis literaryemphasisreflectsrealwomen’shistoricalprivilegingofsharedprofitsand interpersonalpriorities,atactictomakewomen’seconomicagencyappearmore palatable,orastrategyforsuggestingthatwomen,unlikemen,donot,cannot,or shouldnotpursueindividualadvantage,collaborationisbothacentralmethodfor handlingmoneyinthesenovelsandalso forbetterandworse alingeringcultural mandateforwomenandtheirwealtheventoday.
The1870MarriedWomen’sPropertyActprotectedtheincomeandsmall holdingsofworking-classwives.Followingthis firstAct,politicaleffortsturned fromsafeguardingthesepoorerwomentoadvocatingfortherightsofwivesfrom wealthierclasses.Protectingvulnerablewomenwasaneasierconcessionfor legislatorsandliteraryauthorsalikethanconcedingwomen’srighttomake theirowneconomicdecisionsintimesofrelativecomfort,whichisonereason that,despitetheneedforfurtherscholarshiponworkingwomen,thisbookspends moretimeondepictionsofthelatter,turning,intheyearsleadinguptothe1882 Act,tothosewomenmorelikelytobenefitfromsubstantialfamilymoneyandto challengetheirfamilies’ economictraditionsmostsignificantly.AsAmyLouise Ericksonhasnotedofanearlierperiod, “historically,themostimportantcomponentofwealthwasnotwages,butinheritance.”⁷⁰ Workingwomencontributed foodandfarthingstomateriallyassistothersintheirlocalcommunities,⁷¹but theseformsof financialaid,thoughhighlysignificanttorecipients,appeartohave beenlessproblematicforlawmakersthanthesumspotentiallywieldedbywealthierwomen,whoseeconomicactionshadmorevisibleopportunitiestoimpact largercommunities.Readingformoneyallowsustobetterseeandunderstand
⁶⁹ Forcommunalrelationshipsintermsoftheoriesandactionsofcare,seeTaliaSchaffer, CommunitiesofCare:TheSocialEthicsofVictorianFiction (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2021):e.g.,6–7,22.
⁷⁰ Erickson, WomenandProperty 3.Forinheritance’ssignificanceintheracialdistributionof Americanwealth,seeJeffClymer, FamilyMoney:Property,Race,andLiteratureintheNineteenth Century (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2013):10.
⁷¹Forformsofcommunitychildcareinparticular,seeRoss156,135.
thesewomen’schoices,whichareimaginedasfarmorecapaciousthantheir maritaloptions.Thewealthofsiblingsandchildrenbecomesasimportantto traceasthatofsuitors,andevencousinsandfriendsbecomesignificantsources andrecipientsofwomen’ s financialacts.Inthedecadeprecedingthemore comprehensive1882MarriedWomen’sPropertyAct,politicaldebatesbegan openinguptheprospectofmorewomenwithgreater financialagencymaking independentchoices.Fictionfromthisperiodexplorestheconsequencesofthese choices,whileoftenrestrictingthemthroughformsofillness,popularcensure,or, inthecaseofEliot’ s DanielDeronda,afantasyofspiritualpropertythatreinstates thepathsoftransmissionseeminglythreatenedbymarriedwomen’sclaims.
Oneofthestrikingaspectsofwomen’seconomicchoicesinmanyofthese novelsisthat,evenwhenmostsubjecttorebuke,theyremaincenteredonthose theyconsidertobefamily.ThoughthispatternalignswiththehistoricalcontributionsofwomentotheirfamiliesrecordedbyAmyM.Froideaswellasby LeonoreDavidoffandCatherineHall,agappersistsbetweenthosepracticesand therepresentationalstrategiesofscholarlyand fictionalworksalike.⁷²Susan Stavesnotesthathistoriographytendstoportraywomenas “individualscompetingagainstthe ‘family’ interestratherthanintegralandnecessarypartsofthe ‘family.’”⁷³Nineteenth-centuryliterature,too,oftenframeswomen’sinterestsas beingatoddswiththoseoftheirfamilies.Yetforthemostpart,women’sproperty rightsinthesenovelsdon’tleadtheminto flightsofself-indulgentconsumerism, dangerousbusinessventures,oradesiretospurnmatrimonyandreproduction altogether.Fictionalwomenwithmoneyareoftenpresentedaspossessingattractionsbeyondthoseofwealth,andtheydon’tappearanylesslikelythantheir pennilesscounterpartstoloveordesirethepartnerswhoseekthem.⁷⁴ Theysimply donottreatahusband,anheir,ortheirpotentialfutureinstantiationsastheonly oreventhemostimportantrecipientoftheirfortunes.Instead,theydirecttheir love,loyalty,and financialassistancetoamuchbroaderrangeoffamilialrecipients.Brothers,cousins,or,inthecaseofOliphant’ s Hester,adaughterandawhole townofextendedkinandcommunitymembersbenefitfromwomen’ s financial choices,remindingusthatmarriageandreproductionwerenottheonlypossible repositoriesfortheirwealthandthatmaritalpropertyreformwasunderstoodas havingwideimpact.
Inthedecadesafterthe1851censusrevealedadisproportionatelyhighnumber ofwomentomen,literaryauthorsandsocialreformersstruggledwithhowtobest
⁷²AmyM.Froide, NeverMarried:SinglewomeninEarlyModernEngland (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2005):44,75,135;DavidoffandHall, FamilyFortunes 279.
⁷³Staves203.
⁷⁴ Forthewaysinwhicheconomicautonomygavesinglewomeninanearlierperiodthe “ability[...] tochoosetheirstate” seeJudithM.BennettandAmyM.Froide, “Introduction,” in Singlewomeninthe EuropeanPast,1250–1800,ed.JudithM.BennettandAmyM.Froide(Philadelphia:Universityof PennsylvaniaPress,1999):1–37,22–3.
serveorbeservedbythis “surplus” population,offeringeducationalandprofessionalopportunities,AnglicanSisterhoods,andemigrationschemesforthehistorical “problem” ofwhatAmyM.Froidehascalled “never-marriedwomen.”⁷⁵ As IhavesuggestedelsewhereandasSharonMarcus,MarthaVicinus,TaliaSchaffer, andothershaveshown,Victorianwomenfoundnotonlywork,community,and financialsupport,butalsofamily,intimacy,andromanticloveintheirconnectionswithotherwomen.⁷⁶ Theemphasisonsinglewomenandwidowsaswellas wivesinmanyoftheworksIamdiscussinggivesthenovelsspacetoexplorethe choicesoutsideofthemarriagesthatconcludesomeoftheirthreadsbutthatleave manyothercharactersunwed,withlargelyunrestrictedrightstotheirownlives andpropertyaswellasactiveroleswithrespecttoboth.⁷⁷ Inthecontested discourseconcerningwhetherwives’ separatepropertywouldruinmarriageor improveitbyequalizingpartners,Victorian fictionoffersrepresentationsofsocial situationswhichmaritallawcannotcreateorforestall.
Propertyrightsforthe femesole andformarriedwomenfollowingthe1882Act didnotmean,ofcourse,thatallwomenhadpropertytoprotect.The fiction Idiscussherefocusesprimarilyonwomenofmeans,whethermeagerorvast,but certainlymanyotherwomenfoundthedailystruggletosustainlifemoresignificantthanpotentialrightstowealththeywouldneverenjoy.Itcontinuestobea challengeinour field,Ithink,toacknowledgeboththeextremeprivilegeof wealthierwhitewomeninVictorianEnglandandthesignificantinequalities theyalsofaced.⁷⁸ Nordidpropertyrightsnecessarilyprecludequestionable sourcesorusesofthatproperty.Thewealthofwomen,whentheyhadit,was justaslikelyasthatofmentoderivefromorbeusedforimperialistexploitation
⁷⁵ Froide12.For “surpluswomen” seeRappoport, Giving 93;alsoWilliamRathboneGreg, “Why AreWomenRedundant?” [NationalReview,1862],reprintedin TheBroadviewAnthologyofBritish Literature:TheVictorianEra,2nded.(Ontario:BroadviewPress,2012):106–7andFrancesPower Cobbe, “WhatShallWeDowithOurOldMaids?” (Fraser’sMagazine,Nov.1862),reprintedin Prose byVictorianWomen:AnAnthology,ed.AndreaBroomfieldandSallyMitchell(NewYork:Garland, 1996):236–61.
⁷⁶ Forintimacy,eroticism,andromanticlovebetweenwomen,see,forinstance,Rappoport, Giving 104,114;Marcus, Between;MarthaVicinus, IntimateFriends:WomenWhoLovedWomen,1778–1928 (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2004);MarthaVicinus, IndependentWomen:Workand CommunityforSingleWomen,1850–1920 (Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1985):158–62, 187–210;MargaretR.Hunt, “TheSapphicStrain:EnglishLesbiansintheLongEighteenthCentury,” in SinglewomenintheEuropeanPast,1250–1800,ed.JudithM.BennettandAmyM.Froide (Philadelphia:UniversityofPennsylvaniaPress,1999):270–96,271,272,275.AsMargaretR.Hunt pointsout,lesbianrelationshipshadeconomicbenefitscomparedwithheterosexuality,sincefemale partnershipswerenotsubjecttocoverture(289).Forthepossibilityof “careperformativity”—“repeatingactsofcaregiving[that]canproducethefeelingofcaring” andexamplesoftheaffectionandeven lovebetweenwomenthatarisesfromnursing,seeSchaffer, CommunitiesofCare 50–1.
⁷⁷ Forsinglemiddle-classwomen’ s “activeroleinpromotingtheirowneconomicwelfare,” see GreenandOwens, “Gentlewomanly” 512.Fortheimportanceofan “underinvestigatedmiddle” rather than “narrativeculmination,” seeGalvanandMichie5.
⁷⁸“
[T]hepossibilityofmovementbetween,across,andamonggenders” isanimportantconsiderationwhenwediscusssuchconceptsas “ women ’srights.” See,forinstance,LisaHager, “ACasefora TransStudiesTurninVictorianStudies: ‘FemaleHusbands’ oftheNineteenthCentury,” Victorian Review 44.1(2018):37–54,37.Althoughmyanalysistreats “ women ” and “ men ” as fictionand
andtheshoringupofclassprivilege.WomeninEnglandandtheBritishcolonies, forexample,benefitedfromslavery;when£20,000,000wasdistributedascompensationtoBritishcolonialslave-ownersafteremancipation,from1835–45, most “small-scale” awards(lessthan£500)wenttowomen.⁷⁹ Wealththatthe MarriedWomen’sPropertyActswerecalledontoprotectstemmedinpartfrom slaveryanditscompensation.Moreover,nineteenth-centurywomen’ s “capital wascrucialtounderwritingnationalandimperialprojects” throughinvestment ingovernmentdebt.⁸⁰ Womenwere47.2percentofinvestorsinthenationaldebt by1840andwerealsoa “crucialpresenceasinvestorsthroughoutthenineteenth century ” ontheLondonStockExchange,intheEastIndiaCompany,andin “banks,domesticandcolonialrailroads,shipping,docks,foreignbonds,andother globalsecurities.”⁸¹NancyHenryhasdiscussedhowsomeoftheseprojectshad highlycontroversialhistories;theSt.KatharineDocks,forexample,inwhich bothElizabethGaskellandGeorgeEliotinvested, “requiredthede filingofa graveyard[ ...]andthe displacementof11,300residents.”⁸²Inthenovelsthat Idiscusshere,somecharactersconsiderthesourcesoftheirwealth. OurMutual Friend’sMrs.Boffinwishestobenefitanotherchildinremembranceoftheone whosepresumeddeathhasoccasionedherfortune; DanielDeronda’sGwendolen hopestodorightbytheillegitimatechildshefeelshermarriagehaswronged.Yet othersourcesofwealthalsogounchallengedintheseandothernarratives. CharactersseemunconcernedbytheWestIndianderivationofGwendolen’ s mother’sfortuneorthenationaloriginsofthetitularEustacediamonds.The novelsthemselvesarequicktodenouncetheeconomicdecisionsofvariousfemale characters,butwithoutfailtheircriticismisaboutthesewomen’sdivergencefrom genderednormsasmuchasormorethanabouteconomicsorsocialjustice.The pointhereisnotthatwomen’swealth,in fictionorlife,isfreeoffaultorputtogood use,butthatwecanacknowledgetheshortcomingsofcertain financialchoices withoutusingthemasjustificationtowithholdeconomicrights.Sinceothershave, legislationlabelthem,Iwishtoacknowledgethelimitationsofthoselabelsandofthebinarythatthe novelsandlawsreliedonevenwhiletheyweresuggestingarangeofgenderexpressionthatoftenbelied someofVictorianEngland’sstrictestassumptionsaboutthosebinaries.
⁷⁹ StephanieE.Jones-Rogersshowshowslave-owningwomeninantebellumAmericamadeeconomicchoicesthat “createdfreedomforthemselves” intheprocessofdenyingthatfreedomtothe enslaved.See TheyWereHerProperty:WhiteWomenasSlaveOwnersintheAmericanSouth (New Haven:YaleUniversityPress,2019):xvii.ForBritishcompensationtofemaleslave-owners,see NicholasDraper, ThePriceofEmancipation:Slave-Ownership,CompensationandBritishSocietyat theEndofSlavery (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2010):105–6,110,127,133,134–7,183, 184,204,207–9.SeealsoHenry, Women 7andGordonBigelow, “ForgettingCairnes: TheSlavePower (1862)andthePoliticalEconomyofRacism,” in FromPoliticalEconomytoEconomicsthrough Nineteenth-CenturyLiterature:ReclaimingtheSocial,ed.ElaineHadley,AudreyJaffe,andSarah Winter(Cham:PalgraveMacmillan,2019):85–105,85,86.
⁸⁰ Henry, Women,LiteratureandFinance 6.
⁸¹Henry33,GreenandOwens, “Gentlewomanly” 524–5,Henry43,Henry33–45.
⁸²Henry140.SeeHenry139–41,85–7.
on 13 July 2023
historically,deniedwomenrightsinpreciselythatmanner,weshouldbeawareof andcriticalregardingthetermsbywhichtheir financialchoicesareframed, celebrated,orcondemned.
The financialchoicesweseeinthesenovelsresonatewithdebatesabout marriedwomen’spropertyrightsduringthisperiod,butoneofthekeypoints that ImaginingWomen’sProperty makesisthatthosechoiceshaveimplications ofkeeninteresttotheliteraryauthorsunderdiscussionhere farbeyondthe marriedormarriageablewoman.Wehavenotyettakenadequatenoticeofhow intenselytheaftershocksofevenwomen’simaginedpossessionreverberated throughmajorworksoftheperiod,suggestingthedegreetowhichwomen’ s managementofprivatepropertywasseenasthreateningmen’spowertotransmit moneyandtodeterminefamilyties.Womenwithmoneypresentunresolved problemswithinVictoriannarrativesnotsimplybecausetheyareacquisitiveor representtheera’smaterialism,butbecause inthedecadesbetweentheonsetof legaldebatesaboutmarriedwomen’spropertylawreformandthelegislationthat finallygrantedwomenseparateeconomicidentities theysuggestsomeofthe familialanxietiesandhopesattendingwomen’ s financialmanagement.Aswewill see,women ’sclaimstoownershipprovideinsightintotherichrelationships forgedthroughpropertytransactionsandalsoofferusalenstoexamineawide rangeofothersocialmatters,includingtestamentarypractices,wills,andcopyright law(Chapter1);economicandevolutionarymodelsofmutuality(Chapter2);the twindangersofgreedandgenerosity(Chapter3);inheritanceandcustodyrights (Chapter4);andtheeconomicramificationsofloyaltyandfamilyobligation (Chapter5).Exploringthesignificanceofwomen’seconomicactionsacrossthese andotherdomains,Ishowthatmarriedwomen’spropertylegislationwasaboutfar morethaneithermaritalrelationshipsorlegalrights.
IV.Properties
Asmyallusionstosettlements,inheritance,income,jewels,carriages,and “ presentsof fishandgame” havealreadysuggested,Victoriannovelsmeanmany differentthingswhentheytalkaboutproperty.Justasafullerunderstandingof propertyreformnecessarilycomplicatesourconceptionsof “marriedwomen” and “rights,” itremindsusthat “property,” too,isacapaciouscategory.Ifnineteenthcenturynovelsdemonstratethat “marriedwomen’spropertyrights” engagerelationshipsandcustomsbeyondmarriageorlaw,theyalsograpplewiththefactthat suchrelationshipsandcustomswereinastateofconstant fluxduringthisperiod becausepropertywasneitherstaticnorunitary.Weseethisdynamicsenseof propertyinbroaderlegislativeattemptstopindownwhatpropertycoulddo,for whom.The1832and1867ReformActs,forexample,changedclassthresholdsfor property-basedmalesuffrage,whileothermid-centurylawstargetedtheproperty
