Skip to main content

The Fair Jilt: Feminism or Misogyny?

 Aphra Behn's The Fair Jilt details young, beautiful Miranda's exploits as she ruins people around her to fit her fancy. At the beginning of the work, Miranda is portrayed as a frivolous girl with simply far too many options to settle down. Cupid supposedly curses her to fall in love with someone she simply cannot have as a punishment. However, this "punishment" barely phases her. She puts in some work and is still kindly denied, so she ruins Henrick's life. He remains composed and does not even attempt to rectify is wrongful imprisonment. When Van Brune is put to death because of her, he is apologetic for failing his assassination rather than devastated that he was about to die. No matter what Miranda did, Prince Tarquin stayed at her side. Miranda was constantly in the wrong, and no one ever seemed to hold it against her. Was she entirely wrong, though? Truthfully, she did not force anyone's fate except for the friar. Was she a ruthless gold digger or a feminist icon? The lens used in analyzing this work can severely affect the story's meaning.

Miranda, in all fairness, is a badass, especially for her time. She might be a terrible person, but she also does whatever is best for herself in a world where everyone is looking out for themselves above anything. This work was published in 1688 London, where women were treated like absolute garbage. Poor women were essentially forced into prostitution and then called whores and sluts by the wealthy people that paid them for sex. Wealthy women were cheated on by their husbands and expected to look the other way. For Miranda to have independent wealth and refuse to settle down was an entirely foreign concept. Grabbing life and forcing it to work to her benefit, even while her methods were extremely unethical, is honestly somewhat impressive. Almost every man in this work was effectively destroyed in her path, and she made it out without much damage to herself. Granted, she nearly faced a much worse fate than the one she ultimately did. Comparatively, though, she did quite well for herself.

Conversely, it is undeniable that Miranda made some terrible choices that negatively impacted every person that she got involved with. All of the men in this story are portrayed as kind men that are desperate to make her happy even if it hurts them; they are selfless and noble. "Francisco" kindly turns her down and chooses to maintain his vocation. Van Brune gave his life in an attempt to make hers better. The prince ignored all of the people that told him she was no good and stuck by her through everything. Miranda is seen as a sort of tyrant that abuses the effect she has on men to get what she wants. Readers are not made aware of any feelings of regret or sorrow that she might feel; she simply uses someone and moves on when they are no longer useful. The men are the victims, even when they are the instruments of their own demise.

How did Behn intend for this to be read? We cannot be sure. However, it is interesting to wonder if this fluidity of meaning was intentional or accidental. I myself change my own mind each time I consider one argument or the other. Is Miranda the hero or the villain? Was the jilt indeed fair or rather patronizing? Did Cupid intend for all of this to happen when he released that arrow?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

If Dr. Primrose had lived through the COVID-19 Pandemic...

 This is how I believe Dr. Primrose from The Vicar of Wakefield would have reacted to the COVID-19 pandemic. This year has by no means been agreeable for our family. My dearest children George, Olivia, and Sophia are quarantined in their respective homes and we are unable to see them. Lovely Arabella has unfortunately contracted the terrible virus, and she has been isolated so as not to affect the children. While I shall never wish ill will so serious as death upon another human, I am not entirely upset that Squire Thornhill has been affected as well; unlike Arabella, his situation looks to be quite possibly fatal. If the virus removes him from this world, my poor Olivia will be relieved of her current hardship of marriage. My two youngest are safe with my wife and I. While the hardships that we are enduring at present are quite difficult, I have no doubts that we shall escape this pandemic with a stronger appreciation for our vitalities and privileges. We shall overcome this yet!...

Cotton-Eyed Bartleby

Herman Melville's "Bartleby the Scrivener" is secretly about Cotton-Eyed Joe. We often talk about how poems resemble songs, so why can't the plots of short stories do the same? In the case of "Bartleby", I think that he as a person can easily be likened to our dear old pal CE Joe. We don't know where he came from, we don't know where he went (in the biblical sense). He has an air of mystery about him. He messes with the narrator's personal life. I know that this is silly, but I think it's fun to relate things that you don't necessarily enjoy to things that you do. If anyone can think of other parallels between the two, please feel free to comment them below.

Crickets and Kelp

This week in class, we discussed Kawabata's "The Grasshopper and the Bell Cricket". Last week, we discussed a poem about kelp. In both cases, relationships/people are compared to these mundane creatures. This begs the question: how do you know if you're a cricket or kelp? Essentially, a cricket is something truly special; it's the end all be all person that you've been searching for and are lucky to have. Kelp means you allow someone to take what they want from you, leave, and come back as they please. Basically, kelp=doormat. But, how do you know if you're being treated like this? How do you know when you're a kelp when you think that you've been giving yourself freely but you've really been "being gathered" in a way? And what if you spend all your life thinking you're a cricket but you're actually a grasshopper? Or vice versa? And which would be worse? What if you really are a cricket and you end up with a grasshopper that t...