Manifestations Of Misogyny In Lady Audley’s Secret

One of the more discernible thematic aspects of Mary Elizabeth Braddon’s Lady Audley’s Secret is its portrayal of gendered performance in Victorian England. The novel’s title men, Robert Audley and George Talboys, both eventually assume roles that are traditionally associated with masculine idealism. Interestingly, similar narratives accompany some of the novel’s female characters, especially through the utilization of Lady Audley as a character centered around performed courtesies, albeit imitative. In Jill Matus’ essay “Disclosure as ‘Cover-Up’: The Discourse of Madness in Lady Audley’s Secret”, expectations for the Victorian women are evaluated so that to provide explanation for the placement of female madness as a cover-up for Lady Audley’s actions. Through a strict scrutiny of these roles, Matus asserts the character of Robert Audley as misogynistic. And while there do exist literary clues to support this claim, an expansion on Matus’s findings may produce a more comprehensive understanding for the roles that social and political institutions in the construction of misogyny and gendered performance. In this paper I will expand upon Matus’s assertion of Robert as misogynistic and self-righteous due to association with those of similar social classes. I will draw upon such prospects of Robert’s character as the homoerotic implications of his relationship with George and subversion of power dynamics between himself and Lady Audley so that to make the case that Robert’s misogyny is deep-rooted in the influence of institutionalized forms of gendered ideals as displayed through his prospects.

The role of class and its forms of performance in Victorian England have been categorized through its discourses as considerably rigid and uniform. That is, there existed discernible ideals for class binaries, with those varying from institutionalized extremes being liable for social ruin. In her essay, Matus maintains Robert’s eventual heteronormative marriage and brotherly union with George as, “a mocking parody of respectable upper-middle-class aspirations” (Matus 337). While it is conceivably progressive to consider Braddon’s intent as one of radical, parodical contestation of class constructions, a deeper reading of the text indicates gendered performance as reflective of social institutions as a more compelling thematic objective. Specifically, preceding the portrayal of Robert and Clara’s marriage, the manner of depicting Robert and George’s shared attributes relationship allows for Braddon to exemplify and criticize notions of Victorian masculinity. Braddon is able to achieve this by demonstrating notions of sameness as integral to preserving patriarchal constructions. It is through Robert’s ability to appreciate George as a similar, appealing subject that he becomes reflective of the rigid expectations and applications of institutionalized masculinity, ones that thoroughly favor consistency and are indisposed to deviants. Readers are introduced to this association through the narrator’s physical depictions of each, in such that George is described as, “…a young man of about five-and-twenty…he had handsome brown eyes, with a feminine smile in them” (Braddon 18), and Robert as a, “…handsome, lazy, care-for-nothing fellow” (Braddon 33). Both Robert and George are described as ‘handsome,’ as are a variety of other men in the novel, indicating at the most elementary level a commonality through their shared identifiers. The word ‘handsome’ in particular carries strong masculine undertones and serves to establish each as embodiments of the patriarchy itself. And while Matus maintains this association as one of shared class, it may be more soundly argued that this may be extended to a shared enjoyment of self-perpetuating Victorian masculinity.

A discernible instance of how this association is attributed to the Robert’s misogyny is presented through the relationship between Robert and George. This bond is left vaguely homoerotic, which, I argue, serves as an intentional rhetorical strategy employed by Braddon so that to exemplify the self-supported nature of the Victorian patriarchy. In this way, a development of Matus’s contention of the relationship between Clara, Robert and George as a caricaturized illustration of Victorian aristocracy can be made to one recognizing the importance of association in its construction of misogyny. And while Matus’s argument does position Robert as a character that exemplifies the misogyny produced taut masculine ideals, this aspect of his character may also be at least partly derived from his homoerotic inclinations with George. Readers are constantly reassured Robert’s fondness of George through his asides, and perhaps most notably when he says, “If poor George were sitting opposite to me…existence might be a little more endurable” (Braddon 179). It is interesting here to consider Robert’s mention of ‘existence. ’ In this sense, existence may be considered as a product of upholding of masculinity through the former’s apparent requirement of mirroring. The absence of this connection causes Robert to feel “strangely embittered” (Braddon 123) toward other people and is only remedied through his occupation of finding George and relationship with Clara, indicating the consequences of the absence of uniformity. But it is primarily through Robert’s ability to relate Clara to George that he is able to grow fond of her. More deeply, Robert is attracted to his female counterpart primarily through her reflection of the masculine ideals as embodied by George, especially through the narrator’s portrayal of Robert’s initial attraction to Clara: “He saw that she was very handsome. She had brown eyes, like George’s” (Braddon 168). In this way, the homoerotic inclinations produced by the pair’s relationship are more than a progressive depiction of homosexuality: they are depictive of the ways through which the patriarchy requires uniformity, and, furthermore, an ability to observe its tenets in others.

One of the other primary ways that Matus distinguishes Robert’s misogyny is through his placement as a foil to Lady Audley. While Lady Audley can be read as a progressive rejection of the traditional, defenseless trope for female characters, Robert serves as her rhetorical opposite. Matus expresses the antithetical nature of their relationship as “[a coupling] in a number of oppositions, the most obvious of which are sleuth / villain and virtuous hero / vicious heroine” (Matus 337). And while these arguments do exemplify Robert’s character as antithetical to Lady Audley’s, I argue that Matus’ focus on foiling the two characters should be expanded precisely to the ways in which they are foiled. Moreover, the prospects of Robert should be placed in such a way that his actions are reflective of the means through which the patriarchy itself seeks to overpower subversive women. The most obvious means through which Robert attempts to undermine the prospects of Lady Audley is through his investigation of her. From the novel’s beginning, Robert is naturally suspicious of Lady Audley, asking, “Isn’t there a secret passage, or an old oak chest, or something of that king, somewhere about the place, Alicia?” (Braddon 62) of her quarters before he has even met her. And while his suspicions end up being substantive, it is the unfounded distrust that suggests that Robert fosters an inherent disdain for women, and especially women with power or agency. Lady Audley is a premier example of this progressive depiction of a woman, having maneuvered from extreme poverty to excessive wealth by means of her own. Expanding upon Matus’ notion of foiling the two characters, Robert can be further be established as the antithesis of Lady Audley through his lack of what she possesses. This, “…handsome, lazy, care-for-nothing fellow” (Braddon 33) is short of the very agency that allows Lady Audley to stand out as a female character. While Lady Audley autonomously improved her socioeconomic positioning, Robert was born into wealth and became passive; where Lady Audley spent a portion of her time providing for her son (in spite of the ambiguity of the extent to which this is done), Robert is shown through his exposition not to hone his craft as a barrister and instead spend his time “…smoking his German pipe, and reading French novels…” (Braddon 33). Robert’s eventual investigation of Lady Audley, then, is only at its surface an attempt to distinguish a discernible ‘good’ and ‘bad ‘guy. Rather, it is a rhetorical means for disguising a manifestation of patriarchal authority suppressing a radical form of female resistance. Lady Audley’s ability to subvert her socially assigned expectations by means of socioeconomic transcendence, identity modification, and hunting down Robert serve as radical means for threatening absolute male authority with an assertion of her own. In this way, Robert is established as a fundamentally misogynistic through his intense resistance to the subverted dynamics of power between himself and Lady Audley.

Through Mary Elizabeth Braddon’s Lady Audley’s Secret Robert Audley and George Talboys, serve as manifestations of notions of Victorian masculine idealism. Traditional notions of masculinity are also applied to the novel’s female characters, which is especially the case of Lady Audley, whose prospects of self-preservation and manipulation of others distinguish her from other female characters originating from the same period. Jill Matus focuses on the concept of madness as it pertains to Lady Audley as a final act of masking her socially deviant behavior. And while Matus does produce compelling notions about gender and its various means of performance, an expansion upon her focus on class divisions to encompass the ways through which these performances are influenced by political and social institutions presents a more developed understanding for Braddon’s progressive criticisms. Specifically, the homoerotic nature of Robert and George’s relationship is indicative of the ways in which patriarchy favors its rigidity and means of uniformity. The relationship between Lady Audley and Robert subverts these institutions by redistributing the power held by men over women. To conclude, Braddon’s ability to focus on the ways through which the patriarchy influences Robert’s behaviors and actions serve as means to construct him as a misogynistic protagonist who seeks to uphold the systems through which he has been institutionally favored.