Hannah Webster Foster’s book is called The Coquette. But the coquette is not clear. Eliza Wharton is not a coquette, despite being called one by Foster and other characters in the story. Eliza is allowed to show more masculine qualities as she is no longer defining herself as a woman. Foster attempts to reverse gender roles and challenge modern views about women’s role in public. Foster uses Eliza to show how society regulates women’s public behavior. Eliza’s coquettish actions, which are deemed by her female peers as coquettish, and Major Sanford’s coquettish behavior are not reconciled. Instead they are used as a reason why women cannot have their individual freedoms defined by patriarchy. Eliza’s lust for freedom includes sexual freedom and access to material gain. She also wants a good public appearance. Eliza’s coquetry was attacked not for her virtues but to disguise the fear of heterosexuality, marriage and gender roles in our modern world. The role-reversals created in the story help Eliza achieve “power” in an otherwise masculine world.
The Coquette’s most significant role reversal occurs when Eliza gains control of the masculine. Eliza Wharton is one of many women who struggle with self-definition in The Coquette. Eliza Wharton, despite not being a Republican mother, is destined to become a coquette. She has thrown away any thoughts of marriage or family. [i] Eliza speaks of her domestic duties, saying, “I am afraid to make a connection. This will limit me to my domestic duties …(Foster 23,”.
Eliza doesn’t want to be male, but she wants to have the power of a man. According to the book “Consent Coquetry & Consequences”, she is called coquettish by her friends because of her plot to elude marriage expectations. Eliza believes that marriage is the tomb for friendship. Foster (19-20) says that all former acquaintances, including the most tender of friendships, are either forgotten or neglected. According to the author “Can your unstable daughter ever acquire wisdom? Laura Korobkin in her book, Luxury and False Ideas in The Coquette: “Eliza is a strong champion of freedom and autonomy. She has resisted the oppressive forces of bourgeoisie marriages and conformist advice given by her social cohort. Boyer, who is infatuated with Sanford’s daughter, throws himself into the idea that love and marriage are possible.
Eliza, the main character of the film, is the only one who has control over their emotions. Eliza is a coquette because she rejects feminine norms. The definition of a “coquette” is that she has no means to do so. The Salem Chronicle’s article “A Modern Coquettes account” is satirical but gives an accurate definition of coquettes. According to the article: “If a gentleman is not inclined to be both a swindler and a cuckold he should never apply to anyone more dedicated to his service.” Eliza attempts to better herself by marriage, but does not play both Boyer as well as Major Sanford. She suffers inwardly when it comes to choosing the “right’ suitor. The coquette’s sentimental behavior of selecting the right man contradicts her.
Eliza Wharton redefines the role of women in modern society. She is no longer the Republican mother nor the coquette. In The Coquette a man is “bewitching”, and he wrecks Eliza’s reputation, her relationships, and even her heart. Sanford, knowing the impact a woman can have on men, plans to win Eliza’s sex game. Sanford isn’t the only male coquet of his era. According to Gillian Brown, there are as many male as female coquets and they’re more harmful to society because their sphere is bigger and they’re less exposed to criticism.
At this time, flirtatious and playful women were coquettes. Major Sanford, who is a rake in the eyes of the women and men alike, is still invited to parties. Korobkin claims that Foster censures Eliza’s Society for allowing her apparent fortune override any doubts about his character. Eliza also becomes the victim of a chorus condemning Sanford. Eliza’s desire to hold the same power as Sanford in public is thwarted by her being branded a coquette. Sanford, a man of great wealth and material means, is more concerned with “show” than “equipage”. Eliza is restricted to the strict rules of prudence.
Eliza’s attempts to make a good impression are ridiculed. Sanford is described as masculine because of his overextension of wealth and foppish clothing. Eliza’s attempts to look wealthy are criticized when she prepares to meet Boyer and says “I must start to fix my Phiz and see if I could make one up that would look madamish.” Sanford may appear as a broken coquette after he has married the heiress in order to avoid being poor, but Eliza is left a beggar, pregnant and alone.
Eliza loves Major Sanford for his masculinity, compared to Boyer. Eliza is more attracted to Sanford because of his clothing, materiality and ability to improve her image. Eliza has a masculine advantage over Boyer, even though she rejects him. Sanford’s masculinity is what makes her want to be with him. Coquettes are women who seduce men for ulterior motives. Eliza is attracted to the wealth of men, but not the title. Eliza is attracted to Sanford because of her desire for the financial freedom he offers. In a note to Lucy, Eliza declares that Major.
Eliza’s desire for money is obvious. She wants Sanford to have his fortune. Eliza does not go after Sanford to get wealth or to turn him into a cuckold. Sanford makes Eliza beggar. Korobkin claims that Sanford’s wealth and privilege are deceptive because they don’t exist. However, his wealth isn’t questioned simply because he’s a man. Eliza is called a couteau because of her desire to acquire material goods. However, it’s not just about material things. It’s also about masculine power. Men who were promiscuous weren’t judged because they were in it to make money, but instead had sexual nature as an excuse.
Eliza is a volatile person, so she flirts not to gain money, but to have fun. Eliza’s first marriage, arranged by her father, is the most coquettish. The marriage was arranged by her parents to try to improve the financial status of their daughter. Eliza writes, “Mr. Eliza is not emotionally attached to Haly, but his wallet. She is not in love with Mr. Haly, but she feels a duty to marry him.
According to Gillian Browns’ “Consent Coquetry And Consequences”, her consent to “alliance”, was not a sign of ‘passion for Mr. Haly.’ It was simply her complying with her parents will. Eliza becomes the competent nurse for Mr. Haly during his illness. Eliza’s only attempt to save wealth is at this moment when she assumes the Republican Mother role. She is able, when Mr. Haly passes away, to shed the Republican Mother role and pursue her own wealth quest in the masculine realm (Rosenman). While society expects her to mourn Mr. Haly’s death, she actually celebrates the liberation she feels from his “paternal home”.
Eliza followed her parents’ wishes, but did so knowing that it would be a “rick” for her future happiness. Eliza remained more willing to stay in the relationship because she was aware of the “first time meeting, and his declining state” with Mr. Haly. Her prediction proves successful. Eliza’s newfound public power is a result of her overt rejection to patriarchal authority (Brown). Maj. Sanders chases Eliza in order to make money, but then drops her when he finds a woman who is wealthier. Further, he does not show any remorse about hurting Eliza or his wife when they married.
In “A Modern Coquette’s Account of Herself”, the author states, “I would be able to say: My Life!” Sanford is able to seduce Eliza and remain “happy”, married to his spouse, while simultaneously winking at a man in the company. Eliza’s unwillingness to be a “lady” or coquette of her time, creates an image of a modern lady in the society. Maj. Sanders is the stereotypical masculine male of his time. Eliza is very happy to play with Boyer as well as Maj. Sanford. But she does not follow the first coquetry rule. Boyer is the female protagonist in Foster’s The Coquette. Eliza’s female colleagues may have urged her to marry Boyer because of this. His virtue and thoughtfulness in every decision he makes make him the best woman of his society. Perhaps even more so than Mrs. Richman.
Boyer, on the other hand, is driven by social norms and emotions. Sanford, however acts based on his impulses and desires. Boyer sees women as objects of both conquest and affection. Eliza’s focus is on control, not affection. Boyer is afraid to lose his target when he sees Sanford and Eliza in the garden. Boyer starts to cry as soon as he learns that Sanford is talking with Eliza (Richards) in her mother’s garden. Eliza is not only the reason he leaves, but also that he was “duped by a coquetting trick”. A broken-hearted man says, “I allowed my heart to be free and the effeminate relief from tears helped me to lighten the burden I was under (Foster 67).
He doesn’t confront Eliza directly with the issue, but writes a note explaining his behavior. The letter ends the relationship. Richards says that it is almost like he is not strong enough to face the problem. Sanford doesn’t seem concerned at all about Boyer’s interference. Sanford, however, is not intimidated by Boyer and is in fact the dominant man in Eliza’s world. Maj. Sanford thinks he is in control of Eliza’s feelings. Eliza’s sexual freedom is exercised in Boyer’s relationship. She may love him but wants to have sexual freedom outside of her relationship. Sanford also has this power. Eliza’s need for luxury has been extended to sexual pleasure. Eliza’s marriage attempts failed, she enters a sexual relationship because Sanford represents her dream to be in control of her material pleasures. In the patriarchal society, her sexual promiscuity brings her happiness (Korobkin).
Eliza’s role as the Coquette is to flirt and control men’s feelings. But it is clear that Eliza holds the power or masculinity. She is in control of Boyer as well as Maj. Sanford. Both men believe they are coquetting the woman for her beauty and affection. Foster allows Eliza to make a mess of her own ideals, which leads to Eliza’s death. Foster gives the impression that “New Woman”, as she is called, cannot live in a modern society. Eliza’s “luxury, materialism and desire to be treated as an aristocrat by her inferiors and served, her love of endless social “hilarity”, her hatred of anything which interrupts her enjoyment or that even suggests middle-class responsibility are what give her male power (Korobkin). In his letter, Major Sanford calls Eliza “gay and volatile” who is “apparently oblivious to anything but the present.”
Eliza’s volatile behavior is what has earned her the title of coquette. Her male counterpart, however, is better suited to this term. Sanford is just as “appearantly careless” of anything but the present pleasure, as is a woman. He is only interested in Eliza because of sex. Eliza’s masculinity is defined by Eliza, not his. She has gained power by her new “immorality” in sexuality, as her lust for money has expanded to include sexual pleasure. Eliza gains new life from her power over the men in her life. Meanwhile, Eliza’s friends become victims of the stereotypes about women at this time. Her quest to be independent is what ultimately brings her down. She ignores social norms and tries to assert her authority over the society. Yet, she dies alone. The male character of the novel is defined by her lack of concern for the consequences associated with the “coquette’s” lifestyle. Eliza may be able to escape from the role of Republican mother but she is still blamed for being a coquette. She is ostracized by her friends for not following social norms. Her desire to be masculine, even though she succeeded, was what led her to death.
Foster uses role reversals to challenge gender norms, marriage institutions, and women’s power in patriarchy. The characters are all ultimately defeated, even though they succeed in their new roles. Foster portrays Eliza’s attraction to masculine features, as not a push for freedom of speech and independence, but as a battle for sensuality. Foster does this in order to determine whether women are able to escape from the domestic sphere, or if they will remain victims of patriarchy. Foster creates the novel to examine masculinist views of femininity. However, it doesn’t allow for female transcendence. Eliza Wharton got the masculine authority she craved but her refusal to marry and have a Republican mother killed her as well as her reputation. Although she may have escaped patriarchy’s effects, some would say she still suffered from its consequences.
Jennifer Harris’s “Writing Vice Hannah Webster Foster And The Coquette” provides more information on Republican Motherhood. This article gives the historical background to Eliza’s “crime”.
Ellen Bayuk Rosenman’s book “Fear or Fashion, or How the Coquette earned her bad name” provides more information about the roles the Victorian-era coquette played.
Gillian Brown’s “Consent Coquetry & Consequences”, published in 1992, is a good place to learn more about Eliza’s brief liberation from patriarchal bonds.
References
Original: In addition to
Paraphrased: Moreover
Foster, Hannah Webster. The Coquette: Authoritative sources, contexts and contextual texts, critical analysis. Norton Critical edition. Ed. Jennifer Harris, Bryan Waterman. W.W. Norton published the work in New York in 2013. Print.
Anonymous. “A modern Coquette’s account of her own self.” Ed. Jennifer Harris, Bryan Waterman. Norton, 2013.
Brown, Gillian. “From consent, coquetry, to consequences.” Ed. Jennifer Harris, Bryan Waterman. Norton, 2013.
Richards, Jeffrey H., Ed., “Theater, Sexuality, National Virtue, In Foster’s Fictions.” Jennifer Harris, Bryan Waterman. Norton, 2013.
Harris, Jennifer. Canadian Review of American Studies Vol. 39, no. 39, no. 4, 2009., pp. 363-381doi:10.3138/cras.39.4.363.
Korobkin Laura H., “Can Your Volatile daughter Ever Acquire your Wisdom?”: Luxury and False Idealisms in “The Coquette”, Early American Literature vol. 41, no. 1, 2006., pp. 79-107doi:10.1353/eal.2006.0006.
Rosenman, Ellen B. “Fear of Fashion” or, How Coquettes Got Their Bad Name. of Kentucky, Lexington), vol. 15, no. 3, 2002., pp. 12.