"Ah! changed and cold, how changed and very cold!
With stiffened smiling lips and cold calm eyes:
Changed, yet the same; much knowing, little wise;
This was the promise of the days of old!
Grown hard and stubborn in the ancient mould,
Grown rigid in the sham of lifelong lies:
We hoped for better things as years would rise.
But it is over as a tale once told.
All fallen the blossom that no fruitage bore,
All lost the present and the future time,
All lost, all lost, the lapse that went before:
So lost till death shut-to the opened door,
So lost from chime to everlasting chime,
So cold and lost for ever evermore."
-Christina Rossetti, "Dead Before Death"
This poem reminds me of my husband. How he treated me poorly! He may as well have been dead before his death! I was glad to be rid of him, but oh, he was something when we married. He turned out to be a cheat and a gambler, continuously sinking no matter what I paid to him! It was enough to keep him away for a time. This poor baby poetess Rossetti! She needn't mourn the death of a good for nothing man! I would rather lose my purse than to endure the torment and mistreatment of a man! Romantic dribble as this should not be published to soil the minds of young girls.
Editor's note: I took some liberties with the dates as Rossetti's poem was written after the publication of David Copperfield, but I believe the poem would inspire a rise from Betsey Trotwood as it resembles somewhat the relationship between her and her husband. Miss Betsey clearly advocates for single women since her marriage was not ideal. However, single women in the Victorian era were seen as a burden to society. After the 1851 census, it was determined that single women were cumbersome to their families, depicted as "faded lonely spinsters, self-sacrificing maiden aunts performing unpaid domestic tasks in the homes of their relatives, or genteel but ignorant governesses, patronized by unfriendly employers" (724-725). Of course, Betsey is none of these things. What allowed her to live so freely in a time where even "Feminists" supported marriage for financial gain? The fact that Miss Betsey has money, and has had it even before her unfortunate marriage, allows her to live as she does, paying off her husband despite his gambling habit and potential second marriage. It is the use of money that allows Miss Betsey to live as she does without her husband at her side. Miss Betsey strays from all expectations of single Victorian women. She is head-strong and self-reliant, in fact supporting several others within the text including her husband, David, and Mr. Dick. Miss Betsey is anything but a "superfluous woman."
Mitchell, Sally. "Single Women." Victorian Britain: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Pub., 1988. 724-25. Print.
Rossetti, Christina. "Dead Before Death." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. 4th ed. Ed. David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Boston: Pearson. 2010. Print.
-- Lauryn Wiseman
With stiffened smiling lips and cold calm eyes:
Changed, yet the same; much knowing, little wise;
This was the promise of the days of old!
Grown hard and stubborn in the ancient mould,
Grown rigid in the sham of lifelong lies:
We hoped for better things as years would rise.
But it is over as a tale once told.
All fallen the blossom that no fruitage bore,
All lost the present and the future time,
All lost, all lost, the lapse that went before:
So lost till death shut-to the opened door,
So lost from chime to everlasting chime,
So cold and lost for ever evermore."
-Christina Rossetti, "Dead Before Death"
This poem reminds me of my husband. How he treated me poorly! He may as well have been dead before his death! I was glad to be rid of him, but oh, he was something when we married. He turned out to be a cheat and a gambler, continuously sinking no matter what I paid to him! It was enough to keep him away for a time. This poor baby poetess Rossetti! She needn't mourn the death of a good for nothing man! I would rather lose my purse than to endure the torment and mistreatment of a man! Romantic dribble as this should not be published to soil the minds of young girls.
Editor's note: I took some liberties with the dates as Rossetti's poem was written after the publication of David Copperfield, but I believe the poem would inspire a rise from Betsey Trotwood as it resembles somewhat the relationship between her and her husband. Miss Betsey clearly advocates for single women since her marriage was not ideal. However, single women in the Victorian era were seen as a burden to society. After the 1851 census, it was determined that single women were cumbersome to their families, depicted as "faded lonely spinsters, self-sacrificing maiden aunts performing unpaid domestic tasks in the homes of their relatives, or genteel but ignorant governesses, patronized by unfriendly employers" (724-725). Of course, Betsey is none of these things. What allowed her to live so freely in a time where even "Feminists" supported marriage for financial gain? The fact that Miss Betsey has money, and has had it even before her unfortunate marriage, allows her to live as she does, paying off her husband despite his gambling habit and potential second marriage. It is the use of money that allows Miss Betsey to live as she does without her husband at her side. Miss Betsey strays from all expectations of single Victorian women. She is head-strong and self-reliant, in fact supporting several others within the text including her husband, David, and Mr. Dick. Miss Betsey is anything but a "superfluous woman."
Mitchell, Sally. "Single Women." Victorian Britain: An Encyclopedia. New York: Garland Pub., 1988. 724-25. Print.
Rossetti, Christina. "Dead Before Death." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. 4th ed. Ed. David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Boston: Pearson. 2010. Print.
-- Lauryn Wiseman
I remember well the conversation I held with Mr. Dick on the subject of David's poor baby mother, Clara.
"Whatever possessed that poor unfortunate Baby, that she must go and be married again," I remarked after David had finished speaking, "I can't conceive."
"Perhaps she fell in love with her second husband," Mr. Dick suggested.
"Fell in love!" I repeated after Mr. Dick. "What do you mean? What business had she to do it?"
"Perhaps," Mr. Dick simpered after thinking a little, "she did it for pleasure.
"Pleasure indeed!" I retorted. "A mighty pleasure for the poor baby to pin her simple faith upon any dog of a fellow, certain to ill-use her in some way or other. What did she propose to herself, I should like to know! She had had one husband. She had seen David Copperfield out of the world, who was always running after wax dolls from his cradle. She had got a baby--oh, there were a pair of babies when she gave birth to this child sitting here, that Friday night!--and what more did she want?"
Of course what David had yet to learn at the time of such conversation was how my reaction to Clara's marriage to Mr. Murdstone was influenced by my own husband's mistreatment of myself. Poor Clara hadn't the wit, tact, or means to remove herself from such a ghastly marriage as I had to release myself from my own. Ah, but the misfortunate soul was relinquished from her fate by untimely death. If only it had clasped itself 'round Murdstone, the wretch. But I am grateful for having known Trot as a result of such misfortune. I only regret not knowing Clara better in her life. Perhaps things may be different if I had supported her marriage to my nephew. But it does not do well to dwell on the past, so I shall set such matters aside.
Editor's note: Here Miss Betsey comments on a conversation which takes place in chapter 13 of David Copperfield. The quotes foreshadow her ultimate reveal that her husband treated her poorly within their marriage. Her personal connection to ill-treatment via a husband makes her anger toward Clara's marriage to Mr. Murdstone make sense. According to Robert DeGraaff, Miss Betsey is a dynamic character in David Copperfield where she initially seems harsh and cold, her exterior eventually yields to a softer core. This rings particularly true upon learning why Betsey Trotwood is so defiant toward marriage and apt to defend the defenseless, such as Mr. Dick or Clara, who are naive in their own ways. DeGraaff also notes that Betsey is not ashamed to speak her mind, which is also demonstrated in the above quote, although she does show remorse for the way she treated Clara when she married the late David Copperfield as well as at the birth of young David.
DeGraaff, Robert M. 'Self-Articulating Characters in "David Copperfield."' The Journal of Narrative Technique 14.3 (1984): 214-222. JSTOR. Web.
Dickens, Charles. David Copperfield. New York: Harper Collins, 1998. Print.
-- Lauryn Wiseman
"Whatever possessed that poor unfortunate Baby, that she must go and be married again," I remarked after David had finished speaking, "I can't conceive."
"Perhaps she fell in love with her second husband," Mr. Dick suggested.
"Fell in love!" I repeated after Mr. Dick. "What do you mean? What business had she to do it?"
"Perhaps," Mr. Dick simpered after thinking a little, "she did it for pleasure.
"Pleasure indeed!" I retorted. "A mighty pleasure for the poor baby to pin her simple faith upon any dog of a fellow, certain to ill-use her in some way or other. What did she propose to herself, I should like to know! She had had one husband. She had seen David Copperfield out of the world, who was always running after wax dolls from his cradle. She had got a baby--oh, there were a pair of babies when she gave birth to this child sitting here, that Friday night!--and what more did she want?"
Of course what David had yet to learn at the time of such conversation was how my reaction to Clara's marriage to Mr. Murdstone was influenced by my own husband's mistreatment of myself. Poor Clara hadn't the wit, tact, or means to remove herself from such a ghastly marriage as I had to release myself from my own. Ah, but the misfortunate soul was relinquished from her fate by untimely death. If only it had clasped itself 'round Murdstone, the wretch. But I am grateful for having known Trot as a result of such misfortune. I only regret not knowing Clara better in her life. Perhaps things may be different if I had supported her marriage to my nephew. But it does not do well to dwell on the past, so I shall set such matters aside.
Editor's note: Here Miss Betsey comments on a conversation which takes place in chapter 13 of David Copperfield. The quotes foreshadow her ultimate reveal that her husband treated her poorly within their marriage. Her personal connection to ill-treatment via a husband makes her anger toward Clara's marriage to Mr. Murdstone make sense. According to Robert DeGraaff, Miss Betsey is a dynamic character in David Copperfield where she initially seems harsh and cold, her exterior eventually yields to a softer core. This rings particularly true upon learning why Betsey Trotwood is so defiant toward marriage and apt to defend the defenseless, such as Mr. Dick or Clara, who are naive in their own ways. DeGraaff also notes that Betsey is not ashamed to speak her mind, which is also demonstrated in the above quote, although she does show remorse for the way she treated Clara when she married the late David Copperfield as well as at the birth of young David.
DeGraaff, Robert M. 'Self-Articulating Characters in "David Copperfield."' The Journal of Narrative Technique 14.3 (1984): 214-222. JSTOR. Web.
Dickens, Charles. David Copperfield. New York: Harper Collins, 1998. Print.
-- Lauryn Wiseman
"It is not surprising that it should be the Anti-Slavery party that pleads for woman, when we consider merely that she does not hold property on equal terms with men; so that, if a husband dies without a will the wife, instead of stepping at once into his place as head of the family, inherits only a part of his fortune, as if she were a child, or ward only, not an equal partner. We will not speak of the innumerable instances, in which profligate or idle men live upon the earnings of industrious wives; or if the wives leave them and take with them the children, to perform the double duty of mother and father, follow from place to place, and threaten to rob them of the children, if deprived of the rights of a husband, as they call them, planting themselves in their poor lodgings, frightening them into paying tribute by taking from them the children, running into debt at the expense of these otherwise so overtasked helots. Though such instances abound, the public opinion of his own sex is against the man, and when cases of extreme tyranny are made known, there is private action in the wife's favor. But if woman be, indeed, the weaker party, she ought to have legal protection, which would make such oppression impossible.
And knowing that there exists, in the world of men, a tone of feeling towards women as towards slaves, such as is expressed in the common phrase, "Tell that to women and children;" that the infinite soul can only work through them in already ascertained limits; that the prerogative of reason, man's highest portion, is allotted to them in a much lower degree; that it is better for them to be engaged in active labor, which is to be furnished and directed by those better able to think, &c. &c.; we need not go further, for who can review the experience of last week, without recalling words which imply, whether in jest or earnest, these views, and views like these? Knowing this, can we wonder that many reformers think that measures are not likely to be taken in behalf of women, unless their wishes could be publicly represented by women?
That can never be necessary, cry the other side. All men are privately influenced by women; each has his wife, sister, or female friends, and is too much biased by these relations to fail of representing their interests. And if this is not enough, let them propose and enforce their wishes with the pen. The beauty of home would be destroyed, the delicacy of the sex be violated, the dignity of halls of legislation destroyed, by an attempt to introduce them there. Such duties are inconsistent with those of a mother"
-Anonymous, The Great Lawsuit. Man versus Men. Woman versus Women.
I absolutely agree with all this author states on the subject of protection for women who find themselves in compromising relationships. It is ghastly that women must endure marriages with dreadful men only to receive nothing upon their husbands' deaths! I could not imagine if I hadn't money to do with as I please upon my separation from my husband. Such jurisdiction would be particularly beneficial to women who find themselves with no other means of escape and no other means once their husbands depart this Earth. Wives are equal to husbands, if not superior. We are expected to keep house and keep mouths full. Men consider us the weaker party, but we are merely shadowed by their egos. Hah! Imagine a self-sufficient man! They need wives to feed them and keep their surroundings tidy. Women can get by on their own just fine without a man's interference. I should be a testament to that!
Editor's note: Although I discovered this article comes from an American magazine, it still seems like something Betsey would read and have plenty to say about. Many of the ways men and women interact described by the author, who was unnamed on the original publication in 1843 but later released an expanded version of the article in which she revealed herself as S. Margaret Fuller, are topics Betsey Trotwood has addressed in some manner in David Copperfield. The way of the world described by Fuller is something that Betsey is against as she remarks numerous times upon the childlike manner of David's late mother. The way Betsey lives her life is a prime example of her distaste of expectations for Victorian women as she defies every aspect of what a woman in that period is expected to be. She is outspoken and, as Catherine Golden denotes, she flips gender roles by becoming the primary caretaker for David, Mr. Dick, and her estranged husband. According to Golden, Miss Betsey's masculine nature provides a window for her to be the true hero of the novel.
Fuller, S. Margaret. "The Great Lawsuit. Man versus Men. Woman versus Women." The Dial. July 1843 : n. pag. Web.
Golden, Catherine J. 'Late-Twentieth-Century Readers in Search of a Dickensian Heroine: Angels, Fallen Sisters, and Eccentric Women'. Modern Language Studies 30.2 (2000): 5-19. JSTOR. Web.
-- Lauryn Wiseman
And knowing that there exists, in the world of men, a tone of feeling towards women as towards slaves, such as is expressed in the common phrase, "Tell that to women and children;" that the infinite soul can only work through them in already ascertained limits; that the prerogative of reason, man's highest portion, is allotted to them in a much lower degree; that it is better for them to be engaged in active labor, which is to be furnished and directed by those better able to think, &c. &c.; we need not go further, for who can review the experience of last week, without recalling words which imply, whether in jest or earnest, these views, and views like these? Knowing this, can we wonder that many reformers think that measures are not likely to be taken in behalf of women, unless their wishes could be publicly represented by women?
That can never be necessary, cry the other side. All men are privately influenced by women; each has his wife, sister, or female friends, and is too much biased by these relations to fail of representing their interests. And if this is not enough, let them propose and enforce their wishes with the pen. The beauty of home would be destroyed, the delicacy of the sex be violated, the dignity of halls of legislation destroyed, by an attempt to introduce them there. Such duties are inconsistent with those of a mother"
-Anonymous, The Great Lawsuit. Man versus Men. Woman versus Women.
I absolutely agree with all this author states on the subject of protection for women who find themselves in compromising relationships. It is ghastly that women must endure marriages with dreadful men only to receive nothing upon their husbands' deaths! I could not imagine if I hadn't money to do with as I please upon my separation from my husband. Such jurisdiction would be particularly beneficial to women who find themselves with no other means of escape and no other means once their husbands depart this Earth. Wives are equal to husbands, if not superior. We are expected to keep house and keep mouths full. Men consider us the weaker party, but we are merely shadowed by their egos. Hah! Imagine a self-sufficient man! They need wives to feed them and keep their surroundings tidy. Women can get by on their own just fine without a man's interference. I should be a testament to that!
Editor's note: Although I discovered this article comes from an American magazine, it still seems like something Betsey would read and have plenty to say about. Many of the ways men and women interact described by the author, who was unnamed on the original publication in 1843 but later released an expanded version of the article in which she revealed herself as S. Margaret Fuller, are topics Betsey Trotwood has addressed in some manner in David Copperfield. The way of the world described by Fuller is something that Betsey is against as she remarks numerous times upon the childlike manner of David's late mother. The way Betsey lives her life is a prime example of her distaste of expectations for Victorian women as she defies every aspect of what a woman in that period is expected to be. She is outspoken and, as Catherine Golden denotes, she flips gender roles by becoming the primary caretaker for David, Mr. Dick, and her estranged husband. According to Golden, Miss Betsey's masculine nature provides a window for her to be the true hero of the novel.
Fuller, S. Margaret. "The Great Lawsuit. Man versus Men. Woman versus Women." The Dial. July 1843 : n. pag. Web.
Golden, Catherine J. 'Late-Twentieth-Century Readers in Search of a Dickensian Heroine: Angels, Fallen Sisters, and Eccentric Women'. Modern Language Studies 30.2 (2000): 5-19. JSTOR. Web.
-- Lauryn Wiseman
(excerpt from) The Blessed Damozel
The blessed damozel leaned out
From the gold bar of Heaven;
Her eyes were deeper than the depth
Of waters stilled at even;
She had three lilies in her hand,
And the stars in her hair were seven.
Her robe, ungirt from clasp to hem,
No wrought flowers did adorn,
But a white rose of Mary's gift,
For service meetly worn;
Her hair that lay along her back
Was yellow like ripe corn.
Herseemed she scarce had been a day
One of God's choristers;
The wonder was not yet quite gone
From that still look of hers;
Albeit, to them she left, her day
Had counted as ten years.
(To one, it is ten years of years.
. . . Yet now, and in this place,
Surely she leaned o'er me — her hair
Fell all about my face. . . .
Nothing: the autumn-fall of leaves.
The whole year sets apace.)
It was the rampart of God's house
That she was standing on;
By God built over the sheer depth
The which is Space begun;
So high, that looking downward thence
She scarce could see the sun.
It lies in Heaven, across the flood
Of ether, as a bridge.
Beneath, the tides of day and night
With flame and darkness ridge
The void, as low as where this earth
Spins like a fretful midge.
The successful Dante Rossetti published this new poem recently, and I do enjoy keeping up with good literature. I read this poem while looking out onto my front lawn, lest a donkey come wandering about. It certainly did give me a good laugh! Would a man really think that a woman would love him so much to not feel the happiness and satisfaction in Heaven? How foolish! They say Rossetti even made a painting to go along with this poem. I would like to see it if it could give me such a laugh as this! As I look around this room and my house, all that I have made for myself with no man, I feel a sense of satisfaction and happiness that only independence could cause. I do love the people in my life, but once it's my time, no Earthly love will make the glory of Heaven unbearable!
Editor's note: Since this was a popular poem in its time and published in 1850, I think Betsey definitely would've gotten the opportunity to read it. I also think that she would've compared herself to the "damozel" from the poem and thought herself above her and more content with what her passions and values are. Betsey is an accomplished woman and the thought of another person consuming her life so much would seem ridiculous and inconvenient.
In the article “Self-Articulating Characters in “David Copperfield,” Betsey is described as the comic relief as well as having “the signs of real humanity” underneath her rigid exterior. Although Betsey does take a liking to David and takes on a parental role with him, she has an unwavering façade that is there to show others that she is in charge and not to be messed with. Dickens makes Betsey almost unrealistic in her dramatic actions to prove her independence. Having the text to back up the source, I believe Betsey would’ve held this personality even in her commonplace book.
DeGraaf, Robert M. "Self-Articulating Characters in 'David Copperfield.'" The Journal of Narrative Critique 14.3 (1984): 214-22. JSTOR. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.
Rossetti, Dante Gabriel. "The Blessed Damozel." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. Vol 2B. 4th ed. Ed. David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Boston: Pearson. 2010. Print.
-- Samantha Takacs
The blessed damozel leaned out
From the gold bar of Heaven;
Her eyes were deeper than the depth
Of waters stilled at even;
She had three lilies in her hand,
And the stars in her hair were seven.
Her robe, ungirt from clasp to hem,
No wrought flowers did adorn,
But a white rose of Mary's gift,
For service meetly worn;
Her hair that lay along her back
Was yellow like ripe corn.
Herseemed she scarce had been a day
One of God's choristers;
The wonder was not yet quite gone
From that still look of hers;
Albeit, to them she left, her day
Had counted as ten years.
(To one, it is ten years of years.
. . . Yet now, and in this place,
Surely she leaned o'er me — her hair
Fell all about my face. . . .
Nothing: the autumn-fall of leaves.
The whole year sets apace.)
It was the rampart of God's house
That she was standing on;
By God built over the sheer depth
The which is Space begun;
So high, that looking downward thence
She scarce could see the sun.
It lies in Heaven, across the flood
Of ether, as a bridge.
Beneath, the tides of day and night
With flame and darkness ridge
The void, as low as where this earth
Spins like a fretful midge.
The successful Dante Rossetti published this new poem recently, and I do enjoy keeping up with good literature. I read this poem while looking out onto my front lawn, lest a donkey come wandering about. It certainly did give me a good laugh! Would a man really think that a woman would love him so much to not feel the happiness and satisfaction in Heaven? How foolish! They say Rossetti even made a painting to go along with this poem. I would like to see it if it could give me such a laugh as this! As I look around this room and my house, all that I have made for myself with no man, I feel a sense of satisfaction and happiness that only independence could cause. I do love the people in my life, but once it's my time, no Earthly love will make the glory of Heaven unbearable!
Editor's note: Since this was a popular poem in its time and published in 1850, I think Betsey definitely would've gotten the opportunity to read it. I also think that she would've compared herself to the "damozel" from the poem and thought herself above her and more content with what her passions and values are. Betsey is an accomplished woman and the thought of another person consuming her life so much would seem ridiculous and inconvenient.
In the article “Self-Articulating Characters in “David Copperfield,” Betsey is described as the comic relief as well as having “the signs of real humanity” underneath her rigid exterior. Although Betsey does take a liking to David and takes on a parental role with him, she has an unwavering façade that is there to show others that she is in charge and not to be messed with. Dickens makes Betsey almost unrealistic in her dramatic actions to prove her independence. Having the text to back up the source, I believe Betsey would’ve held this personality even in her commonplace book.
DeGraaf, Robert M. "Self-Articulating Characters in 'David Copperfield.'" The Journal of Narrative Critique 14.3 (1984): 214-22. JSTOR. Web. 20 Mar. 2015.
Rossetti, Dante Gabriel. "The Blessed Damozel." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. Vol 2B. 4th ed. Ed. David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Boston: Pearson. 2010. Print.
-- Samantha Takacs
Sometimes when I look at Trot, happy and married, I think of a day long ago, when I had become financially ruined and had to tell him the news. My sweet Trot; he was saddened not only because of his resignation from his proctor apprenticeship, but for my future and wellbeing as well.
"We must meet reverses boldly, and not suffer them to frighten us, my dear," I instructed my young nephew. "We must learn to act the play out. We must live misfortune down, Trot!" Trot still looked crestfallen from the news I had just told him, but seemed to be slightly more optimistic after my reassurances.
This was an awful point in my life, when I had to admit to Trot that I had been ruined and that my money was gone. But I didn't want to worry him or make him feel as if there is no hope. He was still young and full of potential, and it wasn't going to be my doing to make him negative and give up on future endevours. In my own experience, I have faced hardships and come out on top despite challenges. Being a woman, I was the property of my husband and had no freedom. Now, I make my own freedom, and even in this time of financial ruin, I still realized that we must keep going. There are worse things to happen, and I still had Trot by my side.
Editor's Note: I believe that this quote, although short, really gives us a view of Betsey's hardworking and determined personality. She says that she's ruined, but she makes sure to reassure David and to stay positive. I think since Betsey has overcome so much hardship and oppression, she sees this as just another obstacle that life is throwing at her that she needs to get through. Since she has David as a makeshift son, she looks out for him as well and makes sure to raise him on the right side of morality. She took it upon herself to raise David to have the same values as her, and although he is a male and therefore has more freedom, she wants him to know that misfortunes are only temporary and it's important to keep moving on in hopes that it will get better (Price). However, her efforts are often underrated and need to be appreciated more. Through this financial fall, she is giving David the opportunity to fend for himself and to take control of his own destiny. Although this was not a wanted circumstance, this helped create David’s character and pushed him further in his progress to become a man.
Dickens, Charles (2014-05-10). David Copperfield (Classic Illustrated Edition) (p. 408). Heritage Illustrated Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Price, Margaret. "'The Redoubtable Betsey Trotwood': A Masculine Female in David Copperfield." Michigan Feminist Studies 14 (2000): n. pag. Michigan Publishing, 14 Jan. 2000. Web.
-- Samantha Takacs
"We must meet reverses boldly, and not suffer them to frighten us, my dear," I instructed my young nephew. "We must learn to act the play out. We must live misfortune down, Trot!" Trot still looked crestfallen from the news I had just told him, but seemed to be slightly more optimistic after my reassurances.
This was an awful point in my life, when I had to admit to Trot that I had been ruined and that my money was gone. But I didn't want to worry him or make him feel as if there is no hope. He was still young and full of potential, and it wasn't going to be my doing to make him negative and give up on future endevours. In my own experience, I have faced hardships and come out on top despite challenges. Being a woman, I was the property of my husband and had no freedom. Now, I make my own freedom, and even in this time of financial ruin, I still realized that we must keep going. There are worse things to happen, and I still had Trot by my side.
Editor's Note: I believe that this quote, although short, really gives us a view of Betsey's hardworking and determined personality. She says that she's ruined, but she makes sure to reassure David and to stay positive. I think since Betsey has overcome so much hardship and oppression, she sees this as just another obstacle that life is throwing at her that she needs to get through. Since she has David as a makeshift son, she looks out for him as well and makes sure to raise him on the right side of morality. She took it upon herself to raise David to have the same values as her, and although he is a male and therefore has more freedom, she wants him to know that misfortunes are only temporary and it's important to keep moving on in hopes that it will get better (Price). However, her efforts are often underrated and need to be appreciated more. Through this financial fall, she is giving David the opportunity to fend for himself and to take control of his own destiny. Although this was not a wanted circumstance, this helped create David’s character and pushed him further in his progress to become a man.
Dickens, Charles (2014-05-10). David Copperfield (Classic Illustrated Edition) (p. 408). Heritage Illustrated Publishing. Kindle Edition.
Price, Margaret. "'The Redoubtable Betsey Trotwood': A Masculine Female in David Copperfield." Michigan Feminist Studies 14 (2000): n. pag. Michigan Publishing, 14 Jan. 2000. Web.
-- Samantha Takacs
Excerpt from “Woman’s Wrongs in Civil Service” published in The Spectator, 1856:
"It is indeed the most frightful waste when women un-sex themselves to compete with the digger in the fields—as they may be seen doing in some of the poorest of countries. Apart from the very obvious difficulties in giving them a free range of the public departments as competing clerks, it is evident that we should not elevate the sex if we succeeded in placing them on a level with the young gentlemen of the Civil Service. The very idea is ludicrous, and the appointment in the Civil Service only makes the joke a fact…
“By our position we must allow that women are not bound to be absolutely logicians, and we cannot complain if our fair correspondent exercises the right to be unreasonable. The fact that women are competent to the highest duties of the state does not prove their fitness for the lowest of the duties… Let any man in junctures of great difficulty, where right and wrong are to be decided on high and simple grounds, ask himself whether he has not perchance found the clearest wisdom and the stoutest counsel from woman; who is by nature wiser than the other half of the sex, because simpler, and therefore less removed from a still higher wisdom."
This newspaper article caught my eye as I was skimming through The Spectator yesterday morning. I do like to keep up with what's happening and I find that The Spectator doesn't hold back like other newspapers do. In this article, they reference women's rights, which is what first grabbed my attention. I have to fight for my rights while men are able to do whatever they please. It's something I have become accustomed to, but I do have hope that women in the future won't be restricted by men. While this article began by saying that women are paid much less than men for doing the same type and amount of work, it's this section that made me discontented. I feel that the author himself must be confused, for he seems to be saying that women are capable of thought and art, yet he's saying that "the very idea is ludicrous" when the idea of women working in the Civil Service is aroused. Why not, I ask? Why not see what women can do, what we are capable of? Then he goes on to say that woman can be wise, but simple, and therefore "removed from a still higher wisdom." Is this man married? If so, I wonder what his wife thinks of this. She must be daft, or he must keep her that way. I do think I will write a letter to this newspaper and let them know that women are capable of professions that are dominated by males.
Editor's note: This article was published in 1856, just six years after David Copperfield, so I felt that it would still be in a relevant time frame. I found this article to be contradicting because it gave credit to women in the same sentences where it downgraded them. I could totally picture Betsey reading this and wanting to write back to the author. It seems like they're starting to understand some things, but remain oblivious to others and I think she wouldn't have a problem pointing that out. It looks like change is being made, but it's changing step by step.
This article also mentions George Sand, pseudonym of Aurore Dudevant, a cross-dressing woman who took on male privileges while holding onto her femininity. Her presence was controversial, and I’m sure Betsey would have some sort of opinion on her, either proud of her for shaking things up, or upset that she needs to have a pseudonym instead of embracing her female identity.
Betsey might’ve agreed more with author John Stuart Mill, who published his essay The Subjection of Women later in 1869. He believed that not allowing women to contribute to society outside of the duties around the home is damaging to society as a whole, and it would be better for everyone to allow them to have a greater presence in predominately male-dominated roles (Smith 192). While the author for The Spectator thought of women as capable for some things, Mill sees that they haven’t yet been given the chance to try, so it’s unknown (199). I can picture Betsey agreeing with Mill on many of his ideas.
Smith, Elizabeth S. "John Stuart Mill's "The Subjection of Women": A Re-Examination." Polity 34.2 (2001): 181-203. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
"Woman's Wrongs in the Civil Service." The Spectator [London] 16 Feb. 1856; 188-89. Web. 20 March 2015.
-- Samantha Takacs
"It is indeed the most frightful waste when women un-sex themselves to compete with the digger in the fields—as they may be seen doing in some of the poorest of countries. Apart from the very obvious difficulties in giving them a free range of the public departments as competing clerks, it is evident that we should not elevate the sex if we succeeded in placing them on a level with the young gentlemen of the Civil Service. The very idea is ludicrous, and the appointment in the Civil Service only makes the joke a fact…
“By our position we must allow that women are not bound to be absolutely logicians, and we cannot complain if our fair correspondent exercises the right to be unreasonable. The fact that women are competent to the highest duties of the state does not prove their fitness for the lowest of the duties… Let any man in junctures of great difficulty, where right and wrong are to be decided on high and simple grounds, ask himself whether he has not perchance found the clearest wisdom and the stoutest counsel from woman; who is by nature wiser than the other half of the sex, because simpler, and therefore less removed from a still higher wisdom."
This newspaper article caught my eye as I was skimming through The Spectator yesterday morning. I do like to keep up with what's happening and I find that The Spectator doesn't hold back like other newspapers do. In this article, they reference women's rights, which is what first grabbed my attention. I have to fight for my rights while men are able to do whatever they please. It's something I have become accustomed to, but I do have hope that women in the future won't be restricted by men. While this article began by saying that women are paid much less than men for doing the same type and amount of work, it's this section that made me discontented. I feel that the author himself must be confused, for he seems to be saying that women are capable of thought and art, yet he's saying that "the very idea is ludicrous" when the idea of women working in the Civil Service is aroused. Why not, I ask? Why not see what women can do, what we are capable of? Then he goes on to say that woman can be wise, but simple, and therefore "removed from a still higher wisdom." Is this man married? If so, I wonder what his wife thinks of this. She must be daft, or he must keep her that way. I do think I will write a letter to this newspaper and let them know that women are capable of professions that are dominated by males.
Editor's note: This article was published in 1856, just six years after David Copperfield, so I felt that it would still be in a relevant time frame. I found this article to be contradicting because it gave credit to women in the same sentences where it downgraded them. I could totally picture Betsey reading this and wanting to write back to the author. It seems like they're starting to understand some things, but remain oblivious to others and I think she wouldn't have a problem pointing that out. It looks like change is being made, but it's changing step by step.
This article also mentions George Sand, pseudonym of Aurore Dudevant, a cross-dressing woman who took on male privileges while holding onto her femininity. Her presence was controversial, and I’m sure Betsey would have some sort of opinion on her, either proud of her for shaking things up, or upset that she needs to have a pseudonym instead of embracing her female identity.
Betsey might’ve agreed more with author John Stuart Mill, who published his essay The Subjection of Women later in 1869. He believed that not allowing women to contribute to society outside of the duties around the home is damaging to society as a whole, and it would be better for everyone to allow them to have a greater presence in predominately male-dominated roles (Smith 192). While the author for The Spectator thought of women as capable for some things, Mill sees that they haven’t yet been given the chance to try, so it’s unknown (199). I can picture Betsey agreeing with Mill on many of his ideas.
Smith, Elizabeth S. "John Stuart Mill's "The Subjection of Women": A Re-Examination." Polity 34.2 (2001): 181-203. JSTOR. Web. 18 Mar. 2015.
"Woman's Wrongs in the Civil Service." The Spectator [London] 16 Feb. 1856; 188-89. Web. 20 March 2015.
-- Samantha Takacs
"Marriage alone is the mother of the family; and the family is the organic unit of civil society, and the sheet-anchor of its good order. Without marriage, there can be no family in the sense in which I am using that term. Think for one moment what society would be without the family. Blot out the relation of marriage. Annul its obligations and duties. Conceive, if possible, of all women forever husbandless, of all men forever wifeless, of all offspring forever bastardized… No Dante could paint such a Hell; nor could its fires be extinguished, save by the slow expiring ashes of universal dissolution.”
-Noah Davis, The North American Review (1884)
As someone who has a family and is happily unmarried, all I can say is: Bah! This is complete codswallop. I’ll tell you what Hell was for me: being stuck in a marriage with an abusive husband and being stuck in it for financial reasons. That’s true Hell… not being free to do as I please and create my own family. Trot is my family, and I wouldn’t trade our relationship for the world.
Editor's Note: I realize this came from an article about divorce in America during the time period, but I feel like it's something that if Betsey were to read it, she'd have a very strong reaction to it and opinion about it. The entire article goes on to describe marriage as something that needs to be reformed – but still paints it as something wholly necessary in order to live a happy life. Though this comes a few years after the publishing of David Copperfield, I feel like this is the reaction Betsey would have had at reading it.
Davis, Noah. “Marriage and Divorce.” The North American Review 139.332
(Jul., 1884): 30-41. Print.
-- Samantha Mayotte
-Noah Davis, The North American Review (1884)
As someone who has a family and is happily unmarried, all I can say is: Bah! This is complete codswallop. I’ll tell you what Hell was for me: being stuck in a marriage with an abusive husband and being stuck in it for financial reasons. That’s true Hell… not being free to do as I please and create my own family. Trot is my family, and I wouldn’t trade our relationship for the world.
Editor's Note: I realize this came from an article about divorce in America during the time period, but I feel like it's something that if Betsey were to read it, she'd have a very strong reaction to it and opinion about it. The entire article goes on to describe marriage as something that needs to be reformed – but still paints it as something wholly necessary in order to live a happy life. Though this comes a few years after the publishing of David Copperfield, I feel like this is the reaction Betsey would have had at reading it.
Davis, Noah. “Marriage and Divorce.” The North American Review 139.332
(Jul., 1884): 30-41. Print.
-- Samantha Mayotte
I recently encountered a writer who said he was theorizing men and women in marriage. He let me read what he had written down. I couldn’t believe what I saw!
“All men, except the brutish, desire to have, in the woman the most nearly connected with them, nor a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears."
Slaves? Bah! What husband looks at his wife and thinks of her as a slave? Oh, a “willing” slave? Why, if marriage is slavery for a wife, then marriage should never be! Glad I left mine! No doubt that Murdstone character saw Clara as a slave when they married, the poor baby. Trot did tell me once that that man made her very unhappy about him. I can tell an enslaved mind when I hear it. God forbid Trot should think of sweet Dora as a slave and imitate that brutal man. Though I don’t want to get in the middle of their marriage, Trot should learn about what I’ve read here. If he is to marry, I want him to be a loving husband, no enslavement and no fears allowed. I know men are capable of needing help from some people like women are (I have Mr. Dick of course! I even took Trot in so he wouldn’t have to live a miserable life with those Murdstones!), but I will not stand to hear of Trot falling into that dreaded influence.
Editor’s Note: Of course, this piece was published after David Copperfield, but if Betsey Trotwood were to read this, she would have kept it to show other single women as an example of the dark sides of marriage. With the word “favourite” included in this quote, this would soften her up when thinking of David in the hope that he would be a husband who wouldn’t mistreat his wife but to look at her as a “favourite” person (she’d be preferring Agnus for him, but still would want Dora to have that feeling as well). Elizabeth S. Smith reviews John S. Mill’s work on women’s subjection and writes that women, as slaves, according to Mill, were said to be inferior to men and are naturally dominated by men (182). To Mill, women were brought up to be submissive (1124); they had to be dependent on their husbands, not independent of them. Betsey knew how much domination Murdstone and his sister used on the submissive Clara, and that can result in a bad marriage when a man takes his superior status over a woman too far. Murdstone could also have threatened Clara to not seek separation, which could be another factor on why she had to tolerate his dominance over her. Mill was an advocate for sexual equality and believed in the right to divorce - perhaps mere separation - and other rights women desire (1113), so Betsey would have liked what he had to say. She’d probably want to collaborate with him on the subject by giving him her ideas about men and marriage.
Sources: Mill, John Stuart. "The Subjection of Women." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. 4th ed. Ed. David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Boston: Pearson. 2010. 1113- 1124. Print.
Smith, Elizabeth S. "John Stuart Mill's "The Subjection of Women": A Re-Examination." Polity 34.2 (2001): 181-203. JSTOR. Web.
-- Sarah Keck
“All men, except the brutish, desire to have, in the woman the most nearly connected with them, nor a forced slave but a willing one, not a slave merely, but a favourite. They have therefore put everything in practice to enslave their minds. The masters of all other slaves rely, for maintaining obedience, on fear; either fear of themselves, or religious fears."
Slaves? Bah! What husband looks at his wife and thinks of her as a slave? Oh, a “willing” slave? Why, if marriage is slavery for a wife, then marriage should never be! Glad I left mine! No doubt that Murdstone character saw Clara as a slave when they married, the poor baby. Trot did tell me once that that man made her very unhappy about him. I can tell an enslaved mind when I hear it. God forbid Trot should think of sweet Dora as a slave and imitate that brutal man. Though I don’t want to get in the middle of their marriage, Trot should learn about what I’ve read here. If he is to marry, I want him to be a loving husband, no enslavement and no fears allowed. I know men are capable of needing help from some people like women are (I have Mr. Dick of course! I even took Trot in so he wouldn’t have to live a miserable life with those Murdstones!), but I will not stand to hear of Trot falling into that dreaded influence.
Editor’s Note: Of course, this piece was published after David Copperfield, but if Betsey Trotwood were to read this, she would have kept it to show other single women as an example of the dark sides of marriage. With the word “favourite” included in this quote, this would soften her up when thinking of David in the hope that he would be a husband who wouldn’t mistreat his wife but to look at her as a “favourite” person (she’d be preferring Agnus for him, but still would want Dora to have that feeling as well). Elizabeth S. Smith reviews John S. Mill’s work on women’s subjection and writes that women, as slaves, according to Mill, were said to be inferior to men and are naturally dominated by men (182). To Mill, women were brought up to be submissive (1124); they had to be dependent on their husbands, not independent of them. Betsey knew how much domination Murdstone and his sister used on the submissive Clara, and that can result in a bad marriage when a man takes his superior status over a woman too far. Murdstone could also have threatened Clara to not seek separation, which could be another factor on why she had to tolerate his dominance over her. Mill was an advocate for sexual equality and believed in the right to divorce - perhaps mere separation - and other rights women desire (1113), so Betsey would have liked what he had to say. She’d probably want to collaborate with him on the subject by giving him her ideas about men and marriage.
Sources: Mill, John Stuart. "The Subjection of Women." The Longman Anthology of British Literature. 4th ed. Ed. David Damrosch and Kevin J.H. Dettmar. Boston: Pearson. 2010. 1113- 1124. Print.
Smith, Elizabeth S. "John Stuart Mill's "The Subjection of Women": A Re-Examination." Polity 34.2 (2001): 181-203. JSTOR. Web.
-- Sarah Keck
I still remember the day I confessed to my nephew, Trot, about who that mysterious man was. From the day that he approached me while going to see Mr. Spenlow and I, having Trot avoid him, to Trot witnessing me arguing with him at my cottage. That man was my husband, my “dead” husband to be precise.
“My dear good aunt!” Trot exclaimed with such surprise.
“I left him,” I proceeded as I laid my hand on the back of my nephew’s, “generously. I may say at this distance of time, Trot, that I left him generously. He had been so cruel to me, that I might have effected a separation on easy terms for myself; but I did not. He soon made ducks and drakes of what I gave him, sank lower and lower, married another woman, I believe, became an adventurer, a gambler, and a cheat. What he is now, you see. But he was a fine-looking man when I married him.”
“I believed him – I was a fool! – to be the soul of honor!”
- David Copperfield, Oxford World’s Classics, Ch. 47, pg. 670
Editor’s Note: It’s finally revealed in David Copperfield what went wrong between Betsey Trotwood and her husband. We see why she wants women to be cautious of marriage, or just not marry at all. She made the mistake Clara made in her marriage (as an example of ignoring one man’s true colors - they fell in love with the outside and ignored the inside). Luckily, Betsey was able to separate from her husband due to the cruelty he inflicted on her. At the time of the novel, the separations were private before 1857 (Anderson 162). During that year, judicial separation was made a term after the Divorce Act was passed (163). It was an option to escape from cruelty – for both husbands and wives – and if the wife was self-supporting, as Betsey was, she qualified for the property protection order, which was only available to wives (Anderson 165). However, Betsey could have had some troubles trying to separate on grounds of cruelty if lawyers believed there to be “faults on both sides” (Anderson 172). She gave him money before they separated and he usually blew it, that could be an example of enabling the husband’s behavior. Then she continues to give him money after the separation. Whether she complained about this to a lawyer or not, it doesn’t seem as if she had any more help from the extortions. Perhaps Betsey’s marriage troubles were written in a way to protest for compensation of judicial separation for mistreated spouses and the way money is used.
Anderson, Olive. "State, Civil Society and Separation in Victorian Marriage." Past & Present 163 (1999): 161-201. JSTOR. Web.
--Sarah Keck
“We wish it also to be borne in mind by the reader, that although the well-being of every man, woman and child in the country would be affected, indirectly, by this Bill, proposing, as it does, to change one of the fundamental laws or society, and all of them, whose wives, husbands, parents or relations, are living apart, directly, - still, as the poorer classes are in general unable to separate, even if they would, and (such is the blessed consistency of our present marriage-law) only the wealthy can afford to purchase the luxurious right of divorce, or mutual separation, it will be the aristocracy, principally, whom this Bill will first affect. And to this we request the more attention, because as they, by their wealth, rank, power and conspicuous station, have an incalculably greater influence over the morals of a society, whether for good or for evil, than any other class in it; any law that directly affects their morality will affect so much the more rapidly that of the whole country.”
- Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, British and Foreign Review Vol. 7 (1838)
“It is good that my husband and I were able to separate due to our wealth. God forbid I should continue to have that man in my house again! And right this fellow is in saying that my class has a great influence over the morals of this society! He doesn’t need to worry about my influences on people being evil. However, I wish people of such a lower class had the advantage of separating from an unfit spouse…”
Editor’s Note: Though this information pertains to separated wives and the custody of children (Custody of Infants Bill), there is some information regarding women having separated from their husbands without children. To some Victorians, it wasn’t ideal for spouses to separate and not live together. Talfourd writes in his review that separation destroys the marriage and that it “commonly brings after it a train of still more immoral and lamentable consequences” (277). One example is that separation “facilitates seductions and adulteries” and without the “protector” (the husband), women could be seduced and adulterated as the “fallen” woman (292). Betsey did have Mr. Dick under her roof, so she wasn’t entirely alone in her marital separation. She could have faced temptation of immorality with him but she never gave in to any of the consequences or she would’ve already been suffering with Martha and Em’ly. Another example is that separation also “perpetuates” between parties “already separated” and that if a man and woman saw each other they could be less than friendly with each other due to how long ago they separated (303). The longer the two of them are separated from each other physically, the more they’re separated from each other socially. Of course, Betsey and her husband were separated for some time, and they’re pretty hostile to each other due to the continued cycle of extorting money. Perhaps there may be no point of the two reconciling depending on who the spouse is and why the marriage is no more. Betsey would have kept this article of information as a reminder for her to not fall into the traps of what separation could do to the man and woman.
British and Foreign Review Vol. 7, 1838. pg. 277, 292, 303. http://www.hathitrust.org/
--Sarah Keck
- Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, British and Foreign Review Vol. 7 (1838)
“It is good that my husband and I were able to separate due to our wealth. God forbid I should continue to have that man in my house again! And right this fellow is in saying that my class has a great influence over the morals of this society! He doesn’t need to worry about my influences on people being evil. However, I wish people of such a lower class had the advantage of separating from an unfit spouse…”
Editor’s Note: Though this information pertains to separated wives and the custody of children (Custody of Infants Bill), there is some information regarding women having separated from their husbands without children. To some Victorians, it wasn’t ideal for spouses to separate and not live together. Talfourd writes in his review that separation destroys the marriage and that it “commonly brings after it a train of still more immoral and lamentable consequences” (277). One example is that separation “facilitates seductions and adulteries” and without the “protector” (the husband), women could be seduced and adulterated as the “fallen” woman (292). Betsey did have Mr. Dick under her roof, so she wasn’t entirely alone in her marital separation. She could have faced temptation of immorality with him but she never gave in to any of the consequences or she would’ve already been suffering with Martha and Em’ly. Another example is that separation also “perpetuates” between parties “already separated” and that if a man and woman saw each other they could be less than friendly with each other due to how long ago they separated (303). The longer the two of them are separated from each other physically, the more they’re separated from each other socially. Of course, Betsey and her husband were separated for some time, and they’re pretty hostile to each other due to the continued cycle of extorting money. Perhaps there may be no point of the two reconciling depending on who the spouse is and why the marriage is no more. Betsey would have kept this article of information as a reminder for her to not fall into the traps of what separation could do to the man and woman.
British and Foreign Review Vol. 7, 1838. pg. 277, 292, 303. http://www.hathitrust.org/
--Sarah Keck
"And she, how is she?" I demanded, wondering why this dimwit wasn't telling me about my goddaughter. Mr. Chillip looked at me like I was barking mad. I fought the urge to roll my eyes. "The baby. How is she?"
"Ma'am," Mr. Chillip said, sounding a little bewildered. "I apprehend you had known. It's a boy."
I was shocked. I didn't know what to feel, or how to react. I had so looked forward to helping to raise my goddaughter that it felt as though I had lost a child of my own. I put my bonnet on, hitting Mr. Chillip with the momentum of the strings, and strode out. I was fuming at the universe for letting this happen to such a sweet child. Men! Men everywhere. It was madness.
Editor's Note: I feel like this is such an important part of Miss Betsey's characterization; at first, we didn't know why she left and were left to assume that she was a horrible person who would never love David like he deserved. At least, I know that's how I felt when I first read this passage. This, contrasted with her previously caring and nurturing nature, provides an interesting contradiction within Betsey’s personality that we don't see explained until much later in the book.
Dickens, Charles. David Copperfield. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1943. Print.
-- Samantha Mayotte
"Ma'am," Mr. Chillip said, sounding a little bewildered. "I apprehend you had known. It's a boy."
I was shocked. I didn't know what to feel, or how to react. I had so looked forward to helping to raise my goddaughter that it felt as though I had lost a child of my own. I put my bonnet on, hitting Mr. Chillip with the momentum of the strings, and strode out. I was fuming at the universe for letting this happen to such a sweet child. Men! Men everywhere. It was madness.
Editor's Note: I feel like this is such an important part of Miss Betsey's characterization; at first, we didn't know why she left and were left to assume that she was a horrible person who would never love David like he deserved. At least, I know that's how I felt when I first read this passage. This, contrasted with her previously caring and nurturing nature, provides an interesting contradiction within Betsey’s personality that we don't see explained until much later in the book.
Dickens, Charles. David Copperfield. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1943. Print.
-- Samantha Mayotte
I was reading Mary Elizabeth Braddon’s “Good Lady Ducayne” the other day and really connected with the main character, though she’s much younger than I am. The point of the story that spoke to me was near the beginning:
“’And do you think it will be very long before you can get me a situation?’ asked Bella, doubtfully.
‘I really cannot say. Have you any particular reason for being so impatient – not a love affair, I hope?’
‘A love affair!’ cried Bella, with flaming cheeks. ‘What utter nonsense. I want a situation because mother is poor, and I hate being a burden to her. I want a salary that I can share with her.’”
I say, good for this Bella woman! Telling an employer exactly what she wants – and not needing a man to help her out. This is what more women should be doing; this epidemic of women marrying men for their money to feel financially secure is absolute rubbish. I do think I like this Bella character already!
Editor’s Note: Though this story, “Good Lady Ducayne,” came out after David Copperfield was published, I think Betsey would have read this and would have been impressed with the main character Bella’s desire to help her mother pay for things without asking for a man’s help. The idea of women doing things themselves and not needing men to get by is something Betsey would be behind 100%.
Braddon, Mary Elizabeth. “Good Lady Ducayne.” Classic Scary Stories. Eds. Molly Cooper, Glen Bledsoe, Karen E. Bledsoe, and Barbara Kiwak. . Los Angeles, CA: Lowell House Juvenile, 1999. Print.
-- Samantha Mayotte
“’And do you think it will be very long before you can get me a situation?’ asked Bella, doubtfully.
‘I really cannot say. Have you any particular reason for being so impatient – not a love affair, I hope?’
‘A love affair!’ cried Bella, with flaming cheeks. ‘What utter nonsense. I want a situation because mother is poor, and I hate being a burden to her. I want a salary that I can share with her.’”
I say, good for this Bella woman! Telling an employer exactly what she wants – and not needing a man to help her out. This is what more women should be doing; this epidemic of women marrying men for their money to feel financially secure is absolute rubbish. I do think I like this Bella character already!
Editor’s Note: Though this story, “Good Lady Ducayne,” came out after David Copperfield was published, I think Betsey would have read this and would have been impressed with the main character Bella’s desire to help her mother pay for things without asking for a man’s help. The idea of women doing things themselves and not needing men to get by is something Betsey would be behind 100%.
Braddon, Mary Elizabeth. “Good Lady Ducayne.” Classic Scary Stories. Eds. Molly Cooper, Glen Bledsoe, Karen E. Bledsoe, and Barbara Kiwak. . Los Angeles, CA: Lowell House Juvenile, 1999. Print.
-- Samantha Mayotte