From Motherhood and Marriage to Symbolist Theater and
Revolutionary Politics:
French and Spanish Women’s Theatre, 1890’s to 1930’s
By
Eugenia Charoni
A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Cincinnati
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
In the Department of Romance Languages and Literatures
Of the College of Arts and Sciences
Committee Chair: Dr. Pérez-Simón, Ph.D.
University of Cincinnati
May 3rd 2013.
© Copyright by Eugenia Charoni, 2013
From Motherhood and Marriage to Symbolist Theater and Revolutionary Politics:
French and Spanish Women’s Theatre, 1890’s to 1930’s
Eugenia Charoni
Doctor of Philosophy
Department of Romance Languages and Literatures
University of Cincinnati
Abstract
The objective of this dissertation is to discuss the evolution of French and Spanish
women’s theater from the 1890’s through the 1930’s and examine the impact of social, political
and ideological context on female characters’ actions, attitudes and choices. In a corpus of ten
plays French and Spanish female playwrights introduce a New Woman, whose coexistence with
the Traditional Woman escalates strong conflicts between them and society. Semiotics of drama
and the feminist theories of Virginia Woolf, Simone de Beauvoir and Hélène Cixous contributed
to the study of the plays and allowed the tracing of connections and analogies between the
stylistic, ideological and thematic approaches of French and Spanish playwrights.
Motherhood, marriage, employment, ethical values and gender differentiation compose
the core of female characters’ lives in the analyzed plays and at times create insurmountable
challenges. By examining these challenges within the social, political and ideological context
and discussing how female playwrights depict them on stage along with their affiliation in
various ideological or literary movements (feminism, symbolism, syndicalism, Theater of Ideas,
Malthusianism, Freethinkers, communism), I conclude that French and Spanish women’s theater
from 1890’s to 1930’s had two main characteristics. First it advocated the emergence of the New
2
Woman. Second it was transformed from pure entertainment to an aesthetic, educative and
informative experience, introduced new dynamics, invited the audience to reflect upon the
presented themes related to women’s issues and suggested possible solutions that would or could
later be transferred to real life, supporting female emancipation and evolution.
3
4
Acknowledgements
This dissertation would have not been possible without the support and unconditional
love of my husband Kevin Austin. It is thanks to his daily encouragement, superb patience and
deep faith on me that I was able to complete this project. I want to thank him for everything he
has done to and express my eternal gratitude for being part of my life. Of course I would have
not been here if my parents, Dionydios and Panagiota Charoni, had not supported me in all the
ways they could, to pursue advanced studies at he University of Athens, Greece. Their faith and
vision enabled me with strength and determination to go beyond my limits.
I would like to express my gratitude to the advisor of my doctoral committee, Dr. Andrés
Pérez-Simón for his invaluable guidance, patience and time reading my work and listening to my
concerns. I could not but feeling deeply grateful and lucky for his constant feedback that made
this work better. Many thanks to the other members of my committee, Dr. María-Paz Moreno
and Dr. Thérèse Migraine-George for their thoughtful suggestions, comments and overall
direction.
My last words are for my children, Olivia Juliette and Alexander William Austin. They
were born during my doctoral studies period. More than the normal fatigue of motherhood, their
presence in my life brought joy, faith and belief. Their future is reflected on my current success
and this is what kept me, keeps me and will keep me motivated in pursuing other endeavors in
my personal and professional life.
5
Table of contents
Introduction
8
Chapter I: Late 19th century to 1930’s in context
33
1.1. Women in French and Spanish society
34
1.2. French and Spanish women’s theater
62
Chapter II: Women on stage: stylistic, thematic and ideological evolution
77
2.1.The symbolist theater of Rachilde and feminist theater of María de la O.
78
Lejárraga
2.1.1 Rachilde’s L’araigné de cristal
2.1.2 María de la O.Lejárraga’s Mamá
2.2. Ideological and political engagement
100
2.2.1 Vera Starkoff’s L’amour libre
2.2.2. Nelly Roussel’s Pourquoi elles vont à l’église
2.2.3 María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto
Chapter III: Mothers beyond the motherhood’s traditional role
122
3.1. Reexamining motherhood
123
3.1.1. Rachilde’s L’araigné de cristal
3.1.2. María de la O. Lejárraga’s Mamá
3.1.3 Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa
3.2. The question of illegitimate children
142
6
3.2.1. Vera Starkoff’s L’amour libre
3.2.2. Concha Espina’s El jayón
3.2.3. Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa
3. 3. Working mothers
162
3.3.1. Marie Léneru’s La triomphatrice
3.3.2. Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa
3.3.3. María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto
Chapter IV: Married women between gender conflicts, identity crisis and
182
self-fulfillment
4.1. Life within marriage’s limits
183
4.1.1. Halma Angélico’s Al margen de la ciudad
4.1.2. Marguerite Yourcenar’s Le dialogue dans le marécage
4.1.3. María de la O. Lejárraga’s Mamá
4.1.4. Marie Léneru’s La triomphatrice
4.2. Marriage as prompt for personal evolution
218
4.2.1. Nelly Roussel’s Pourquoi elles vont à l’église
4.2.2. María de la O. Lejárraga’s Mamá
Conclusion
231
Appendix: Plot of plays
237
Works Cited
245
7
Introduction
8
The beginning of twentieth century finds French and Spanish female playwrights
challenged to make their voices heard among the plethora of men writers and against the social
restrictions of the time. In both countries the broadly accepted patriarchal society with the
dominance of the masculine presence in every aspect of life (artistic, politic, economic,
educational) allows little or no space for women to express their opinions and show their talents.
Alex Hughes in his 1900-1969: Writing the Void essay refers specifically to the situation of
women in France saying that
if the late 1960s and the early of mid 1970s represent a revolutionary epoch, after
and as a result of which the rights and lives of French women and the contours of
the condition féminine would never be the same again, the preceding years of the
century were significantly less marked by radical, gender-related socio-cultural
change. (147)
“The preceding years” to which Hughes refers and specifically from 1890’s until 1930’s in
France and Spain compose the time frame of this dissertation. This is the time during which
women in both countries try to have a more active role in society, by taking advantage of some
slow but significant changes in the political and social scene (emergence of feminist movement,
right to vote, divorce, study and work).
In Spain the changes start during the reign of Alfonso XIII (1886 – 1931) and reach their
peak at the years of the Segunda República (1931 -1936). Felicidad González Santamera
comments that “la mujer, que durante la centuria anterior [i.e. siglo XIX] había estado confinada
en el ámbito doméstico, accede durante esta época el trabajo remunerado. Esto va a traer consigo,
9
desde 1914, un auge del sindicalismo y del asociacionismo femenino” (2503). González
Santamera also points out the importance of education for this change, adding that “el
analfabetismo femenino desciende del 71% en 1900 al 47.5% en 1930” (2503). It is
understandable that such changes did not happen instantly and without reactions. French and
Spanish female playwrights portrayed in their work the challenges of this transitional phase in
women’s history.
Therefore, the study of such period does not only reveal the common struggles,
challenges and preoccupations of women of that time but it also portrays the impact of the
ongoing social changes on them. Despite their different countries of origin (and developmental
level each one has), women’s life would still be defined by motherhood and marriage but it
would be also shaped by current ideological and social tendencies. This resulted to a different
type of woman who, still a mother and wife, would be involved in politics, run her own business,
study or act independently using her own judgment and opinion.
By talking about the different developmental level of France and Spain I am referring to
various economic, technologic and cultural progress each country had made. It is commonly
accepted that France was ahead of Spain in many areas, an idea mentioned for example in the
writers of the Generation of ’98 such as i.e. Azorín, or in recent studies. For example, in his book
Spain, A History, Raymond Carr states that “the model to be imitated (i.e. by Spain at the end of
the nineteenth century), from banking to architecture and the arts, was France of the Third
Republic (1870-1940)” (217).
The diverse economic, technologic and cultural level of development between the two
countries could possibly be an obstacle to the study of French and Spanish female playwrights’
work. One might consider that French theater had progressed more in terms of genres, themes
10
and styles compared to the Spanish one and since apparently there is no common point of
reference between the two, there is subsequently no need for further research. However it is this
difference that creates a unified background for this study. Despite the technological, economical
and cultural gap between the two countries, women’s issues and attitudes towards motherhood,
marriage, education, employment and intellectual growth were extremely related and on this
relation I base my research.
The topics of education, professional growth, social and political engagement, motherhood
and marriage interest me because each one or a combination of them could shape a woman’s
identity and therefore impact the whole society. The French and Spanish playwrights that
compose the core of this dissertation along with the female characters of their plays are
pioneers, revolutionary and extremely brave for their time. They are pioneers because they do
not only intend to entertain but also to introduce a stylistically renovated theater (Rachilde,
Marie Lénéru, María de la O. Lejárraga, Marguerite Yourcenar). They are revolutionary because
their theater reflects an active political and ideological engagement with the society (Nelly
Roussel, Vera Starkoff, María Teresa León). Finally, they are brave because they point out social
themes – taboos, such as motherhood out of marriage or the desire of unhappy married women to
find love out of marriage (Pilar Millán Astray, Halma Angélico).
For the aforementioned women playwrights, theater functions not only as the mean to
promote their plays for obvious personal interest and recognition but it also introduces to the
public a new type of woman. This new female individual has determination, eloquence,
intelligence and sensibility to talk on behalf of all women, to women and men. Viv Gardner
observes that “this New Woman did exist in the 1890s and 1900s. She is the composite product
of the accelerating women’s movement, a forerunner to the – equally frequently caricatured –
11
suffragette” (74). What surprises is that the new type of woman does not abandon her traditional
roles of mother and wife to promote radical changes. Motherhood and marriage still remain part
of her life but they do not isolate her from society nor completely define her identity. They rather
become the means to allow her being more active socially and reflecting on her potential to make
her voice heard. The French and Spanish women playwrights rely on the theater’s public, social,
active and communicative character to introduce this new woman and set the tone for a better
understanding of her identity and needs.
Therefore the study of female French and Spanish female playwrights’ work from 1890’
until 1930’s is imperative in order to examine two main areas: first the role of women’s theater
on the society and second the female character’s depiction on stage through the traditional roles
of mother and wife, combined with the ongoing educational, social and professional changes.
The plays of María de la O. Lejárraga (1874- 1974) are a good example of the above
observations as they illustrate
the potential power of woman in various heroines, who cherish their liberty and
their right to take their place independently in a society that begins to cede them
at least some professional equality […] The woman is never the feminist in the
sense that she is part of an organization to fight for women’s rights. […] At any
rate, the heroine plays exerts herself and is active because she herself wants to be,
not because she is blazing a path for the future of mankind. (O’Connor 33-34)
My analysis is comparative as I describe the social, political and ideological context since the
late nineteenth century until 1930’s in France and Spain regarding women’s condition and
12
theater. I portray the way education, employment, motherhood, marriage, political and
ideological tendencies are depicted in selected plays in relation to the new type of woman and I
examine the role that ideological movements (feminism, symbolism, syndicalism,
Malthusianism) played on the female playwrights’ stylistic and thematic approaches, combined
with their own beliefs and principles.
Literature review
In general, women studies have been very popular in recent years by mainly focusing on
female poets and novelists. Certainly there are studies referring to French or Spanish women’s
theater, but none discusses both sides in relation to education, employment, women’s legal rights,
motherhood or marriage. Moreover, there are not comparative studies on French and Spanish
women playwrights from late nineteenth century to 1930’s. The work of Phyllis Zatlin Crosscultural Approaches to Theatre: the Spanish-French Connection is probably an exception to the
above. Being a comparative study for contemporary French and Spanish theater it focuses on
language exchanges, play adaptations and performances in each country along with their
acceptance by the public during the last decades of the twentieth century. Although a valuable
analysis, it is not a work about French and Spanish women’s theater during the timeframe I study,
neither a discussion on women’s situation related to education, employment, social engagement,
motherhood and marriage. My study covers this gap and explores these issues.
As I mentioned above single studies on French or Spanish women’s theater do exist and
they are certainly valuable to my research. For the French part, A History Of Women’s Writing In
France edited by Sonya Stephens, offers a chronological presentation of female literary
13
production in the French letters starting in the Middle Ages until today, with certain historical
and social references in each chapter. Cecilia Beach’s Staging Politics and Gender: French
Women’s Drama 1880-1923 opens up with an informative introduction about the history of
feminist theater in France and discusses pioneer female playwrights’ impact on it. Moreover
Elinor Accampo’s Blessed Motherhood, Bitter Fruit: Nelly Roussel and the Politics of Female
Pain in Third Republic France analyzes the work of Nelly Roussel, an important feminist
playwright included in my research, and it also presents the situation of women in the beginning
of twentieth century along with their struggle for the foundation of feminism.
Regarding the Spanish women’s theater the work of Nieva de la Paz and Patricia O’Connor
is very important. Pilar Nieva de la Paz in her book Autoras dramáticas españolas entre 1918 y
1936 examines the female presence in Spanish theater in early twentieth century, focusing on the
social condition of women as well as the preoccupations and main themes of female playwrights.
In addition, she comments on the life and work of some of the most important women dramatists
(Halma Angélico, Concha Espina, María Teresa León, Pilar Millán), examining their acceptance
by the public and their overall success.
Furthermore, various articles of de la Paz Pilar Nieva deliver significant information about
female playwrights. For example her article “Las autoras teatrales españolas frente al público y
la crítica (1918-1936)” is a good source to understand the problems that many female dramatists
were facing regarding the publication and performance of their plays on the Spanish stage.
Among other information, in the same article Nieva de la Paz Paz borrows Cristóbal de Castro’s
illustrious description about women’s challenges saying that “ante de tanta dificultad para
estrenar sus obras, nos les queda (i.e. a las autoras) sino un camino: publicarlas. Puesto que el
empresario no busca a las autoras, las autoras, por medio del libro, van en busca del empresario”
14
(135).
Patricia O’Connor also refers to Castro’s following opinion in her book Dramaturgas
españolas de hoy: Una introducción to point out the negative attitude of the people of theater
towards the women dramatists:
los hombres de teatro, empresarios, autores, actores, - consideran a las autoras,
como Schopenhauer, “sexu sequor”. Pase a todas las conquistas sociales, políticas,
y económicas del feminismo, ellos persisten en que la mujer es, como autora,
algo inferior, por no decir algo imposible. Las admiran como actriz o como
empresaria, mas como autora, la rechazan. (13)
On the same book, O’Connor dedicates a chapter to examine the situation of Spanish women at
the beginning of the twentieth century. According to her, women had minimal chances to
perform outside of their house, following a strict tradition with Greek-Roman, Islamic, Jewish
and Christian roots. Theater, being a public space and considered “poblado de individuos
inestables, inmorales, y de poca categoría social” (O’Connor Dramaturgas 18) was apparently a
forbidden area for them and therefore, they could not get involved with it easily. Jane de Gay
agrees with this condition commenting that “since the theatre was considered disreputable, few
women were able to gain the experience in theater to write plays. The novel and poetry were
considered more suitable media for women writers in many cultures” (28-9).
Given the opposing circumstances and the narrow context, women did not have many
options other than performing within the limits of motherhood and family. However, various
French and Spanish female playwrights trespass these limits and introduce on stage female
15
characters, actively engaged in the society ideologically, professionally and intellectually, while
they are still mothers and wives. At the same time, these female characters demand changes on
their legal rights within and out the domestic sphere, they reexamine their roles of motherhood or
wife and confront men by expressing superior intellectual, ideological and professional growth.
Additional work of O’Connor focuses on María de la O. Lejárraga (1874 -1974, better
known as María Martínez Sierra), one of the most important Spanish dramatists of the early
twentieth century. I analyze O’Lejárraga’s play Mamá (1913) focusing on motherhood, woman’s
condition within marriage and the impact of social changes on these two areas. Women in the
Theater of Gregorio Martinez Sierra (1966), Gregorio and María Martinez Sierra (1977), its
Spanish translation Gregorio y María Martinez Sierra: Crónica de una colaboración (1987) and
Mito y realidad de una dramaturga española: María Martinez Sierra (2003) by Patricia
O’Connor are other important sources for this part of my analysis.
Other valuable information about women’s theater in Spain is found in the work of Carmen
Ramirez Gómez Mujeres escritoras en la prensa andaluza del siglo XX (1900- 1950). Ramirez
Gómez after a historical review on Spanish women’s condition, similar to O’Connor’s and Nieva
de la Paz’s, presents in alphabetical order women writers (not only playwrights) of 1900 – 1950.
Among other she mentions that
los caracteres socioeconómicos favorecían la adscripción de las mujeres a las
esferas tradicionalmente reservadas a su sexo: sus labores, el trabajo domestico,
propio y/o ajeno, las tareas del campo, el taller de costura, y en algunos casos, el
aula, la redacción de un periódico, o la tribuna de alguna asociación. (24)
16
Her work is similar to Cecilia Beach’s French Women Playwrights of the Twentieth Century: A
Checklist (although in this last one there is not detailed presentation of each author’s work).
Important is also the contribution of Javier Huerta Calvo with his book Historia del Teatro
Español. Specifically the chapter “El teatro femenino” written by Felicidad González Santamera
is a brief but very precise presentation of Spanish women’s theater from the beginning of the
twentieth century until 1939. The reference to the feminist movement founded in Madrid in 1926
with members Halma Angélico and María de la O Lejárraga (among others) is important as it
coincides with the respective movement in France, starting at the end of nineteenth century with
Marya Cheliga (1859-1927). The same chapter also classifies the theatrical production by
women in its genres (children’s theater, commercial, ideological and social).
Moreover the article of John C. Wilcox “Women playwrights in early twentieth-century
Spain (1898-1936): gynocentric perspectives on national decline and change” is a brief but well
organized reference to women’s theater in Spain. Wilcox has divided his presentation in three
sections: patriarchal decline vs female strength, response to national problem of illegitimacy and
social protest and denunciation. In these sections he includes important female playwrights such
as María de la O Lejárraga, Halma Angélico and María Teresa León, briefly analyzing their most
important works and pointing out, among others, the topics of motherhood, marriage, education,
employment and legal rights’ changes.
17
Corpus of Plays
The following plays of French and Spanish women playwrights compose the corpus of my
dissertation:
French
1. Rachilde 1860 – 1953): L’araigné de cristal (1894)
2. Vera Starkoff (1867 – 1923): L’amour libre (1902)
3. Nelly Roussel (1878 – 1922): Pourquoi elles vont à l’église (1910)
4. Marie Léneru (1874 – 1918): La triomphatrice (1914)
5. Marguerite Yourcenar (1903 – 1987): Le dialogue dans le marécage (1932)
Spanish
1. María de la O. Lejárraga (1874 - 1974): Mamá (1912)
2. Concha Espina (1877-1955): El jayón (1918)
3. Pilar Millán Astray (1879 – 1949): El juramento de la Primorosa (1924)
4. María Teresa León (1903 – 1988): Huelga en el puerto (1933)
5. Halma Angélico (1904-1990): Al margen de la ciudad (1934)
Research Questions
Given the information of the aforementioned existed literature and based on the analysis of
the selected plays, in my research I discuss the following questions:
18
1) How do French and Spanish female playwrights address motherhood, marriage, educational,
professional and women’s legal rights’ questions in the analyzed plays?
2) How is the new type of woman depicted in the plays?
3) Does this depiction reflect social attitudes? Which ones?
4) Does the actual historical, social and ideological context influence French and Spanish
female playwrights to compose their plays and how?
5) What are the similarities and differences between the French and Spanish female playwrights
regarding the way they portray their female characters within the socio-intellectual-political
context?
6) After all, how do French and Spanish women playwrights use theater to promote their
ideological, stylistic and thematic approaches?
Chapter Outline
I organize my dissertation in four chapters and I complete it with a Conclusion. In the
first chapter I examine the historical background and socio-politic context from late nineteenth
century to 1930’s. I discuss women’s condition in the society and their presence in the theatrical
production. In the second chapter I examine the stylistic, thematic and ideological evolution on
the theater of Rachilde (1860 – 1953), María Lejárraga (1874 – 1974), Vera Starkoff (1867 –
1923), Nelly Roussel (1878 – 1922), Marie Léneru (1874 – 1918) and María Teresa León (1903
– 1988). In the third chapter I discuss the impact of social-economical-political context on
motherhood, illegitimate children and women’s professional activity. I analyze selected plays of
Rachilde (1860 – 1953), María Lejárraga (1874 – 1974), Pilar Millán Astray (1879 – 1949),
19
Concha Espina (1877 -1955), Vera Starkoff (1867 – 1923), María Teresa León (1903 – 1988)
and Marie Léneru (1874 – 1918). In the fourth chapter I study married women’s challenges
between gender conflicts, identity crisis and self-fulfillment. I rely my study on the plays of
María Lejárraga (1874 – 1974), Marie Léneru (1874 – 1918), Nelly Roussel (1878 – 1922),
Halma Angélico (1904-1990) and Marguerite Yourcenar (1903 – 1987). In the conclusion, I
summarize the findings of the analysis of the previous chapters, as this was lead by the research
questions.
Chapter I
I divide Chapter I in two parts: In the first, I discuss and compare women’s situation in
France and Spain focusing on their legal rights, education and employment. In the second, I
examine female playwrights’ involvement into the theatrical production within the ideological,
social, stylistic and thematic context of the time. The emergence of feminist movement and its
extension to women’s theater was a considerable factor for the early steps of female
emancipation.
Cecilia Beach points out the importance of Marya Cheliga (1859 – 1927) to the French
feminist movement. Aware of the exclusion of women playwrights from theater, Cheliga
established Théâtre Féministe to encourage them to promote their work and make their presence
visible in French society. Thanks to her initiative Nelly Roussel’s (1878 – 1922) Vera Starkoff’s
(1867-1923) and Marie Lenéru’s (1874-1918) plays were produced on the Parisian stage,
introducing themes about woman’s rights against the patriarchal dominated society, motherhood,
marriage, illegitimate children and employment.
20
Various critics have studied women’s acceptance in French and Spanish theater and the
reasons behind this attitude. Among them, Diana Holmes in her book French Women’s Writing
1848 – 1994 comments that “women have been prevented from writing by lack of education,
lack of economic independence, and other more subtle inhibiting pressures” (xii), an equal view
shared by Virginia Woolf in her book A Room of One’s Own. Similarly Patricia O’Connor in her
book Dramaturgas españolas de hoy also accepts that “Woolf y otras también han señalado la
ausencia de una independencia económica y de un espacio tranquilo suyo en donde reflexionar e
inventar” (190). Diana Holmes equally accepts that the limited employment opportunities would
restrict women in the house “to become the principal symbol of their husband’s or father’s
wealth and respectability” (8).
Women’s condition changed for a short period of time in 1914, at the beginning of World
War I. “Female employment had already begun to shift from the declining textile industry
towards light engineering and the tertiary sector together with improved educational
opportunities” (Holmes 108). However, World War I dramatically changed the balance of
women and men in France, because it resulted the loss of 1,300,000 French men. Marriage and
maternity would be the means to reestablish demographic imbalance. Women had to return to
their traditional roles of mother and wife, a common condition that lasted until after World War
II. During this time, gradual changes would be introduced, thanks to the ongoing educational
opportunities for women. By 1929-30 about 37 per cent of the student body was female students
with career-oriented studies in Law and Medicine (Holmes French 114).
In Spain things were not different. “The cultural identity of women was not formulated
through paid work but through the assumption of services inherent to the figure of a wife and
mother” (Nash 28). Spanish women were basically defined by their roles as mothers and wives.
21
Once married, they would lose the right to vote, a right established by Primo de Rivera while in
office (1923 -1930) to single women or widows older than 23 years. The reason was that “se
consideraba impensable que una mujer pudiese oponerse con su voto a la voluntad del cabeza de
familia” (Nieva Autoras 45). During the Segunda República (1931-1936) considerable changes
are established. Spanish women would be equal at work with men, would have the right to vote
and their legal rights would be improved. Nieva de la Paz comments this last achievement as
follows: “la posición legal de la mujer en la familia se mejoró, al menos teóricamente, gracias al
establecimiento de reformas tales como el matrimonio civil, el reconocimiento de la igualdad
entre hijos legítimos e ilegítimos, la investigación de la paternidad y el divorcio” (Autoras 48).
Women’s presence in theater was not ideal either. Journalism was the area in which French
and Spanish women were more active, as not high intellectual capability was required to write an
article in a newspaper. However, when female playwrights were able to produce their plays, in
most cases they would adopt pseudonyms for easier access to the male dominated theatrical
circles. Rachilde and María de la O. Lejárraga are only two examples of this norm. The only
exception to unconditional female presence on stage was acting, although actresses were mostly
associated with powerful men and considered women of loose moral values.
The late nineteenth century allowed French female playwrights to evolve and produce their
plays on stage, promoting new techniques, themes and styles. The feminist movement along with
other ideological and literary movements (symbolism, Malthusianism, Freethinkers) contributed
to this progress. In Spain a similar evolution is noted toward the second decade of the twentieth
century because the feminist movement arrived in the Iberian Peninsula later than in France.
María de la O. Lejárraga was one of the most avid feminist playwrights, with active presence in
the feminist movement but also in politics. Other playwrights express a more revolutionary
22
attitude (Vera Starkoff, Nelly Roussel, María Teresa León) linked with politics and social
engagement. Their approach suggests a new look to women’s theater. On one hand, they present
dynamic, strong women. On the other, they invite the audience to reflect upon women’s role in
the society and reconsider the perceptions established until then about male and female roles.
Chapter II
Two parts compose the second chapter. In the first I analyze selected works by Rachilde
and María de la O. Lejárraga. I explain how the symbolist theater of Rachilde and Feminist
Theater suggest a different look on women’s theater, stylistically, thematically and ideologically.
With her metaphysical and symbolic approach, Rachilde opens up the way to the avant-garde
tendencies in the beginning of twentieth century. Frantisek Deak in his book Symbolist Theater:
The Formation of an Avant-Garde explains that “the avant-garde movements shared with
symbolism an interest in metaphysics and mysticism” (3). Rachilde focuses on reverting malefemale roles, exploring a person’s unconscious world and depicting individuals’ struggling with
power and sexuality from a female perspective.
María de la O. Lejárraga’s Feminist Theater introduces to the Spanish audience a feminist
female figure, which combines the traditional values of motherhood and marriage with
dynamism, freedom of speech and self-esteem. After all, O. Lejárraga does not surpass Spanish
society’s values on family, marriage, motherhood, religion or ethic values, but she bridges the
new with the traditional to support a better understanding of the female presence in society.
In the second part I examine Vera Starkoff’s, Nelly’s Roussel’s and María Teresa León’s
ideological and political engagement and its impact in their theater. Vera Starkoff advocates free
23
relationship for a man and woman, away from marriage and motherhood. Influenced by the
feminist movement and the efforts of French women for emancipation, Starkoff’s female heroine
suggests that a woman can be a good mother, raise her child alone and still maintain a balanced,
integral personality.
Nelly Roussel expresses her objection to the hypocritical freethinkers, advocating equality
among men while excluding women. Being a very active feminist herself and attached to the
Neo-Malthusian movement (1900- 1920), Roussel is in favor of women’s right to choose
contraception. She opposes the argument that a different option would depopulate a country and
argues that it would impose motherhood as a choice to all women, limiting their freedom and
after all threatening the whole civilized world.
María Teresa León, in a revolutionary play with a collective protagonist and generic
characters, portrays fearless female individuals, who beyond being traditional mothers and wives
participate in public protests, demanding changes for their family and society. León’s
engagement in the political scene of Spain through various intellectual associations influences
her work and invites the Spanish audience to experience the same revolutionary feelings
expressed by her female characters.
Chapter III
The third chapter focuses on the depiction of motherhood, the question of illegitimate
children and mothers’ employment. Motherhood is reexamined in selected plays of Rachilde,
María de la O. Lejárraga and Pilar Millán Astray. In all these playwrights the mothers are strong
women who implicitly or explicitly project on stage the changes of the society and the conflict
24
between male – female. Rachilde through her ambiguous anti-feminism reverts the gender roles,
and calls for a deeper view of a mother’s traditional role on her child’s life. María de la O.
Lejárraga suggests a new model of mother, far from the conservative and traditional one. Being a
superficial person initially, lacking closeness to and understanding of her children’s needs, is
transformed into a strong person, a Spanish feminist mother, who will do anything to protect her
kids while saving her marriage. Her change reflects implicitly the power of maternal instinct and
explicitly the emergence of a new Spanish type of woman, shaped by the feminist movement.
The question of illegitimate children is studied in selected plays of Vera Starkoff, Concha
Espina and Pilar Millán Astray. Vera Starkoff portrays a young woman, who despite the adverse
conditions keeps her child, finds a job and still feels happy for her choices. Instead of seeking
revenge, she relies on the public’s punishment to the man who abandoned her and who is now an
aspiring politician. Concha Espina shares the story of a mother who switches her handicapped
child with her husband’s illegitimate one, lying that it is hers. Her attitude denounces the social
pressure to a wife and mother to bring into the world healthy and strong children and heirs.
Pilar Millán Astray depicts the efforts of a business oriented, hard working single mother
who maintains her nurturing, caring and loving attitude and protects her illegitimate child. This
mother is a true heroine, who despite her adverse personal experiences, manages to successfully
operate her own business, establish an affectionate relationship with her daughter and become an
illustrious example for the whole society thanks to her integral and solid personality.
25
Chapter IV
Chapter IV is divided in two parts and discusses married women’s gender conflicts,
identity crisis and self-fulfillment. The first part discusses various female characters’ condition
within the limits of marriage. Four playwrights’ plays compose the corpus of this part. Halma
Angélico, Marguerite Yourcenar, María de la O. Lejárraga and Marie Léneru depict married
women within the opposing social context of female emancipation. Conventional marriages
conflict with the free life of single and independent female characters. Social ethics and
traditional values question the new type of woman, one with deep understanding of her own
needs and desires, who takes into consideration her inner calls to personal satisfaction.
Successful women reconsider their life within marriage and question their role as wife and
person in general. In all these female characters, French and Spanish playwrights combine,
contradict and oppose the old with the new, the traditional with the progressive, the conventional
with the revolutionary. They invite the audience to reflect on female nature within marriage and
reconsider possible reactions that, although striking, have a valid motive.
The second part of the chapter discusses the possibilities of married women for personal
evolution. Nelly Roussel’s and María de la O. Lejárraga’s plays suggest a better look at
marriage’s function. Married women’s restricted role within marriage does not necessarily
condemn them in silence and inaction. It could become the negative reinforcement to express a
revolutionary, adverse or opposing attitude that would lead to a better life.
26
Conclusions
The main results of my research have a considerable limitation: because of the selective
character of the works analyzed, possibly not all French and Spanish women’s plays in the
beginning of the twentieth century portray a new type of woman, nor do all female playwrights
show such an active engagement in the political and social life of their country. My intention is
to avoid generalizations as I only focus on the work of selected writers. However the fact that
women’s condition and placement in society started changing considerably in the early twentieth
century, it is an indicator of the emergence of a new type of woman, which will take a more
concrete shape towards the second half of the century.
Comparing and contrasting the depiction of French and Spanish women in terms of
motherhood, marriage, employment, political and social engagement in the plays analyzed, I
conclude that
a)
The traditional roles of mother and wife have not changed in their function. Women still
get married and become mothers. What has changed is the way women identify
themselves through these roles and the way that men perceive them.
b)
Social and political changes have clearly influenced women’s attitude in terms o
ideology, self-consciousness and understanding of their needs. This influence is depicted
in the female characters of the analyzed plays.
c)
In both countries, social and political changes inaugurate the emergence of a new type of
woman, more active and engaged, although in different time frames. These changes
influenced various female playwrights, shaped their style, themes and ideological
approach. Therefore, their female characters portray these tendencies and invite the
27
public to reflect upon these.
Methodology
To analyze the plays I rely on two theoretical approaches: semiotics of drama and
feminist theories. “Semiotics can best be defined as a science dedicated to the study of the
production of meaning of society. As such, it is equally concerned with process of signification
and with those of communication” (Elam 1). Semiotics in drama analyze objects’ and language’s
function as sign-systems and codes. They signify and communicate actual messages that are
conveyed to the viewer either directly or indirectly. With the study of, among others, dialogue,
character, dramatic personae, stage directions, space and time a play deploys significant
dynamics that lead to a deeper comprehension of the play. The text is certainly a work of
literature but it is also the means to establish a communicative relationship with the public. As
Veltrusky states “drama is a work of literature in its own right: it does not need anything but
simple reading to enter the consciousness of the public” (qtd. in Quinn 119).
The internal structure of the dramatic text is critical to its reception by the audience.
Taking this into account, a play has to show significant capability to communicate to the
individual reader initially and to the public later a series of messages, through signs and symbols.
It is very important to look for these characteristics in the plays discussed here. The dialogue in
Hauptext (main text) and Nebentext (side text) is the basic tool for effective communication and
transmission of information and, as such, its role is “to establish character, space and action”
(Aston and Savona 52). Although dramatic dialogue differs from the everyday dialogue, “it still
evokes a dialogue and it evokes it by similarity” (Veltrusky 17). Because of this, “the linguistic
28
sign-system of the dramatic text actively points to the characters and world of the dramatic
universe in the “here and now” and functions as the means of creating action through speech
(Aston and Savona 53).
Furthermore sign-systems can critically direct the analysis of a play. Tadeusz Kowzan’s
classification of sign-systems in thirteen categories and their further categorization in four larger
groups based on the actor’s central role in performance (auditory and visual signs generated by
the actor vs auditory and visual signs generated by systems outside the actor) is indicative of the
importance that, among others, setting, lighting, music, costumes, gestures, spoken text and
intonation play in the accurate transmission of the playwrights’ message. Because of the various
interpretations that sign-systems can have, theater is characterized by social and communicative
dimension, which Aston and Savona comment as follows:
Theater establishes its network of codified sign-systems by virtue of the
cultural codes, which govern behavior, speech, dress, make-up, etc., in society
at large. […] Given that the social field is constituted by systems of relations
between individuals and/or groups, and that theatrical representation (whether
mimetic or abstracted in varying degrees) is concerned to mirror social
interaction, it follows that the spectator will “read” the theatrical in terms of the
social. (111-2)
Sue-Ellen Case equally asserts, “cultural encoding is the imprint of ideology upon the sign – the
set of values, beliefs and ways of seeing that control the connotations of the sign in the culture at
large” (144). After all, semiotics can direct my analysis of the corpus’s plays and point out their
29
social and ideological character.
Since the corpus of my research is formed by plays of women playwrights, a question
arises about whether or not there is a difference between “feminist theater” and “women’s
theater”. Lizbeth Goodman explains that women’s theater is a general term and feminist theater
is a political one. She adds that “the term “feminist theater” is […] best defined in a flexible way,
as the theater which aims to achieve positive re-evaluation of women’s roles and/or to effect
social change, and which is informed in this project by broadly feminist ideas” (199).
Given the political aspect of theater, Jill Dolan’s division of feminism in relation to
theater is useful to understand the motives of women for writing theater. Dolan’s three categories
of liberal, cultural and materialist feminism can point out to French and Spanish women
playwrights’ objective. All three categories are interrelated as they all derive from the opposition
of men – women (Austin 137). I would add that this opposition creates a dynamic that invites
female and male viewers of a play to interpret theater from different perspectives, because of
their differing genders. Dolan’s study for the feminist spectator “suggests that the female
spectator must become a “resistant reader”, reading against the grain (or surface meaning) of the
performance” (Bennet 266). Her approach demands a closer attention to the representation of
gender in theater, as this can be produced in a parodic style, with variable positions that lead in
different interpretations.
Therefore, in the plays I examine the identity of women within a cultural or political
grouping and the nature of the gender identity. Since by tradition the male subject is the one with
whom everyone must identify, women most likely identify themselves through men or male roles.
Women’s theater comes to reevaluate this tension as now women surpass the masculine
dominance and suggest a reexamination of their identity. The main characters in the plays I
30
analyze are women but at times their behavior, reaction and ideological disposition reflect certain
masculinity. The new type of woman moves away from the traditional, quiet and at times mute
individual, as she positions herself dynamically in the society, similar to the same way men have
been doing for centuries.
From my analysis I will not exclude three other basic feminist theories, those of Virginia
Woolf (1882-1941), Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986) and Hélène Cixous (1937). I consider
them fundamental because each one of them gives a different perspective of women’s identity.
Woolf in her essay A Room of One’s Own (1929) links women and money and the importance of
having their own space. On the one hand, she relates freedom and property, viewed from a
Marxist perspective. On the other, she explains society’s denial of women’s independent rights
over property as a resistance to women’s freedom.
Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex (1949) argues that throughout history
women have been reduced to objects for men. Because men have imagined women as the
“Other”, women have been denied subjectivity. In this claim, Beauvoir echoes Virginia Woolf’s
statement in A Room of One’s Own that women serve ‘as looking-glasses possessing the magic
and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man twice its natural size (Leitch 1404).
The essay of Hélène Cixous The Laugh of the Medusa (1975) assumes that “woman must write
her self: must write about women and bring women to writing, from which they have been
driven away as violently as from their bodies […]. Woman must put herself into the text – as into
the world and into history – by her own movement (Leitch 2039).
Cixous uses the term écriture féminine (female writing) to argue that many male writers
used figures of femininity to bring out what had been marginalized from traditional philosophical
discourse. Furthermore her reference to the use of mirror signifies the mean to maintain intact the
31
image of a woman over the time. Men kept women silent since their early years, away from any
development, evolution and new culture. The only mean women had to look upon themselves
was the mirror, that maintained the reflection of a youth that they had wrongly believed it was
still intact. This theory is applicable to Rachilde’s play L’araigné de crystal. As men wished for
women to be kept silent, Mother wishes the same for her son. By reversing the roles, Rachilde
expresses a strong preference to female gender. The Mother implicitly wants her son to maintain
his “ill-mannered”, fragmented body, as this was depicted in the broken mirror, so she condemns
him to lethargy or “eternal rest’ and controls him for the rest of his life.
Based on the above theoretical context, I want to examine how French and Spanish
female playwrights from 1890’s to 1930’s approached the challenge of being women and writing
about women against a phallocentric society.
32
Late 19th century to 1930’s in context
33
1.1. Women in French and Spanish society
The beginning of the twentieth century inaugurates a new era in women’s condition in
France and Spain. Slow changes in education, employment and civil rights (divorce, right to vote,
compensated employment) allow women to get involved in social life. Living in a masculine
world and facing the prejudices of patriarchal society, women now face the new challenge of
balancing family, marriage, work and education successfully without losing their femininity
while still proving their capability for high performance in the social arena. Female identity, as
the women’s traditional roles of mother and wife, had been shaped in previous centuries, is
called now to adjust to the new situation. As a result, a crisis of gender roles evolves around
women questioning their social behavior, intellectual growth and physical ability to compete in a
male-ruled world.
Under these circumstances women visualize their lives differently. They desire financial
independence, equal opportunities in education that will grant them access to better paid jobs and
the right to choose for themselves what they want. Up to a certain point women in the early
decades of the twentieth century manage to reach their emancipation, but not fully. It was during
World War I that women in France and Spain were able to show their potential in taking over
jobs assigned to men, bargain for better compensation and obtain the chance to succeed. The end
of the war paused this progress and women were expected to return to the domestic sphere to
help in both the augmentation of the decreased population affected by the war and the taking care
of families.
The contradictory and unstable condition of women in the beginning of the twentieth
century formed a new female individual called “New Woman”. This term is not an intellectual
34
definition to describe the changing female condition. It is rather a depiction of a new era in
women’s history and a milestone in their rights, evolution and integrity. Mary Louise Roberts in
her book Disruptive Acts shares the following words of French drama critic Jane Misme to
answer the question “who was the “New Woman” in the beginning of the twentieth century?”
“[…] while the traditional woman has not yet disappeared, she has been challenged by another,
baptized the New Woman. The two are in conflict and the world is fighting over them” (19).
Theodore Zeldin says that the jeune fille moderne (the young modern girl) appeared in France
early. “Already in 1864 the Goncourt brothers had written the first novel about her, Renée
Mauperin, in which they had attempted a realistic portrait of the “modern young girl, such as the
artistic and boyish education of the last thirty years has made her” (352).
Several other scholars refer to the “New Woman” of the early twentieth century. James
McMillan comments “the appearance of a new woman, [was] epitomized by the heroine in
Victor Marguerite’s novel La Garçonne, [and] is cited as evidence of the collapse of the pre-war
period. Changes in fashion, greater freedom of movement and enhanced opportunities for
making contact with men all seemed to testify the emancipation of the bourgeois woman” (99).
Alex Hughes in his essay “1900-1969 writing the void” explains that the garçonne emblematized
the image of freedom or a sexually independent woman, an image criticized later in the late
1920’s by several newspaper articles and literary works that would alert against “the rise of the
New Woman and /or cautioning against sex-role transgression” (148-9). Similarly Pilar Nieva de
la Paz in her article “Mujer, sociedad y política en el teatro de las escritoras españolas del primer
tercio del siglo 1900-1936” also refers to the contradictory reactions of the emergence of the
“New Woman” in the Spanish society along with its impact on women’s literary production. She
explains that “uno de los debates periodísticas e intelectuales de mayor actualidad en estos años,
35
el relativo a la polémica oposición entre el emergente tipo de la “Nueva Mujer” y el tradicional
modelo decimonónico del “Ángel del Hogar” tuvo, sin ir más lejos, una importante repercusión
en la caracterización de los personajes femeninos y en la estructuración argumental de las piezas
de las autoras” (90).
Jane Misme’s aforementioned description of the “New Woman” calls for further analysis
of two important issues: first the conflict between the “traditional” and “new woman” and second
the society’s reaction toward the two contradicting females. These two issues are the ones that
direct this study as they compose the core of the plays I discuss in the next chapters. However in
this first chapter the focus is on the historical evidence regarding the female condition in France
and Spain from the last decade of the nineteenth century until middle 1930’s.
This historical review is important for two reasons: First, it provides information based
on real facts, necessary to illustrate the slow progress of the female condition at the time. Second,
because the plays analyzed in the next chapters are strongly associated with the actual historic
evolution of women’s emancipation and they reflect the social, economic and political influences
of the time. The historical review concentrates on the areas of education, work and legal rights,
reflecting women’s struggle for improvement in French and Spanish society. The same areas are
also depicted on the plays I study. The female characters are not only mothers and married
women, but also working women, some of them educated and others with strong personalities
who demand equal rights to those of men. In their total these French and Spanish theatrical
characters portray the New Woman’s personality, along with the challenges and reactions that
came with it. The traditional woman is not absent from the plays, nor could not be. She is there
to emphasize the conflict between the old and the new but also to remind of the continuing
obstacles against change.
36
Before I proceed to the comparative presentation of French and Spanish women’s situation
in work, education and legal rights, it is important to mention that the time I study France is
under the Third Republic (1871 – 1940), while Spain is in Restoration (1874 – 1931) and then
the Second Republic (1931 – 1936).
Work
By the last decade of the 19th century France witnessed “a physical separation between
home and work, which had not existed in the proto-industrial family economy”. (McMillan 15).
This meant that married women would stay at home while their husbands would work to provide
them with the goods necessary to support their household. This dichotomy between home and
work for women in the working and middle classes magnified “their role primarily in terms of
their family responsibilities” (McMillan 39). The exception to this norm was in case of poverty,
when, in order to maintain a necessary level of life for their family, women would be engaged in
work outside of the domestic sphere. Under these circumstances the working-class women
introduce a new attitude towards the productive norms and the family structure.
Deborah Simonton asserts that during the period 1880 – 1980 three important life-cycle
changes took place in the European workforce regarding women.
First, very young girls were removed from the workplace by legislation, which
ensured that they were less likely to work overtly and were most likely to be at
school until their teens. Second, the number of single adult women increased in the
workforce as middle-class girls and women came to see work as appropriate and
37
joined the fray. Third, there was a greater tendency for married women to stay at
work or to return once children had grown (191).
Joan W. Scott in his essay “The Woman Worker” argues that women were employed outside the
house in the period before industrialization. He explains that
married and single women sold goods at markets, earned cash as
petty traders and itinerant peddlers, hired themselves out as casual laborers,
nurses or laundresses, made pottery, silk, lace, clothing, metal goods, and
hardware, wove cloth and printed calico in workshops. If work conflicted
with childcare, mothers sent their babies to wet nurses or other caretakers
rather than give up employment. (403)
What changes now in women’s employment is the fact that women are considered contributors
to the family’s overall income. Although this income was not comparable to what the men would
earn, women did not get discouraged from looking for employment beyond the domestic sphere
while they were married with children. The level of their persistence is reflected in “an
invaluable study carried out by the Board of Trade into the conditions of working-class life in the
early twentieth century [in which it was] discovered that women contributed 8.6 – 14.5% of total
family income” (McMillan 40). The agricultural female labor force or the family business
employment spread all around France in the previous centuries could not be considered official
employment, as it was defined within the borders of the family and unpaid. On the contrary the
working-class women are employed within an urban setting, outside of their homes and are
compensated.
38
In Spain middle class women could have access to liberal jobs (secretaries, journalism,
clerks, teachers), which would allow them to improve their status financially and socially.
Geraldine M. Scanlon in her book La polémica feminista affirms that only the middle class
women were the ones interested in improving women’s condition by demanding equal
acceptance in the job market (64). The Aristocratic class women for obvious reasons would not
work and would not participate in the struggle for equal rights. The women of the lower class
were considered inferior, “una fuerza laboral barata” (Scanlon 64) and therefore working was
allowed with minimum pay and under the worst conditions.
State and church, the two institutions that would control legislation and morals, played a
significant role in women’s employment in both countries. In France “the Republican politicians
[of the Third Republic] remained patriarchal “feminists”. They desired suitable liberal wives for
bourgeois husbands, mothers for future republican children” (Magraw 218). Similarly “Church
maintained a traditional view of woman’s role” (Zeldin 353) defined within domesticity,
marriage and motherhood. Republicans were envisioning progress based on a better education,
free of religious prejudice and superstition. The antic-catholic educational laws of Julles Ferry
(1832- 1893) in 1882 were pointing to a religion-free instruction. The Church, on the other hand,
saw women as the mean to gain control over the masculine population and therefore recover its
political and class aspirations. It is not surprising that both institutions used women to promote
men’s interests without considering them capable of equally performing in the workforce.
In Spain women were described with religious connotations such as “ángel del hogar”,
“sacerdotisa de la familia/ del matrimonio”, asserting that “el matrimonio es un altar”, “la familia
es un templo o santuario”, “sus deberes es son una elevada/gloriosa/nobilísima misión”, “su
culto”, “sus sacratísimos deberes”, “su sacratísimo ministerio” (Scanlon 59). In addition “the
39
cultural identity of women was not formulated through paid work but through the assumption of
services inherent to the figure of a wife and mother” (Nash 28). Spanish women were defined by
their roles as mothers and wives. A woman’s role was considered a superior task that demanded
dedication, indulgence and sacrifice for the family’s sake. The general opinion was that a woman
was better married in an unhappy marriage than single and obligated to work. When a married
woman had to work, the husband’s reputation was affected, considered unable to support his
family and thus not able to maintain his leading role as the provider of the household.
It was in 1869 that Fernando de Castro (1814-1874) through his educational reform
suggested that all women should receive a practical education, which they would later be able to
apply to their family (Scanlon 32). The reasons behind this proposal were political, as women
would be the first ones to influence the male members of their family and therefore keep away
the religious blindness that the Church wanted to maintain. In such case, the Church would lose
access to the lower classes and therefore any hope to express political views. Moreover, Castro’s
educational reform would improve Spain’s image among the other European countries,
promoting equal rights for women and men and overall showing a nation interested in progress.
No matter how important women were to France’s and Spain’s political strategies,
employment was still considered an secondary issue for the majority of the public. By the end of
the nineteenth century, French middle class women were occupying various positions in the
expanding industrial economy, boosted by technological advances, such as the telephone and the
typewriter. McMillan observes that women occupied positions such as “clerks, shorthand typists,
secretaries, cashiers, port-office workers, telephonists, shop assistants in the luxury stores, credit
houses, government departments, railways companies that [they] came to represent an
increasingly large proportion of the total number of employees” (56). The active participation of
40
women in the workforce was not without a negative part. Before World War I, women in France
were exploited working in textile factories, the clothing industry, as shop assistants and domestic
workers or servants. In all these cases working conditions were miserable. Women workers were
receiving the minimum wage, living under poor hygienic conditions and lacking quality of life.
Despite the hard conditions in French middle class working women, who in most cases
were young and unmarried, became aware of their potential to perform outside of the house. It is
the time that moral values become looser and the young bourgeois girls introduce a new lifestyle,
characterized by changes in fashion, freedom of movement and non-traditional relationships with
men. This attitude is representative of a new characteristic of the New Woman, as it was
described above. McMillan considers the date of 12 July 1922 a milestone because of the
publication of Victor Marguerite’s avant-garde novel La garçonne. His heroine epitomizes the
radical changes in women’s behavior at that time and points out to the collapse of the moral
values that had shaped young bourgeois girls’ identity during the years before World War I. The
same date of 12 July 1922 is also important in France because the French Senate denied women
the right to vote.
It is really surprising the fact that despite the progress in women’s condition and their
engagement in the workforce, suffrage would still remain a privilege of men. The conservative
and puritan views of the Third Republic considered voting unnecessary for women. In the eyes
of lawmakers women were intellectually inferior to judge properly and make the right choice of
a political leader. More surprising was the fact that Spanish women were given the right to vote
in 1929 under Primo de Rivera. This decision might initially imply that Spain was more
progressive compared to France. However it mostly reflects the political exploitation of women
by Primo de Rivera’s government. In order for him to show the progressive steps taken to
41
improve Spain’s image abroad and believing that women were less vulnerable politically to his
radical opponents, Spanish lawmakers changed the legislation and allowed women to vote. This
topic along with other women’s legal rights will be discussed in the next pages.
In Spain, middle class women were allowed to work, but in professions that would not
jeopardize men’s opportunities. Primary education, theater, journalism were areas of low “risk”
for the men’s professional success. Higher education, medicine, law, diplomacy, engineering,
science, architecture were prohibited areas, as they were believed opposite to the feminine nature
of a woman. Emilia Pardo Bazán (1851 -1921) and Concepción Arenal (1820 – 1893) at the end
of the nineteenth century advocated women’s access to the “prohibited professions”, although
their different views fostered a strong controversy between them.
Concepción Arenal for example considered that law was a profession not suitable for
women, as this would cause conflict between their kind, sensible intentions and legal task. She
specifically justified her position saying that “…el derecho [….] sería una fuente constante de
conflictos entre el corazón de la mujer y su deber” (Scanlon 75). Emilia Pardo Bazán objected
Concepción Arenal’s opinion saying that Arenal’s position is simply “lirismos de un corazón que,
sin advertirlo, soñaba a la mujer con aureola, nimbo y vara de azucenas en la mano” (Scanlon
75). Later Arenal reinstated her view accepting that her initial position was influenced by the
prejudice and bias against women’s ability and capability to remain neutral in their judgment
while practicing law. She accepted that “era probable que las mujeres administrasen la justicia
más conscientemente que los hombres, debido a sus superiores cualidades morales” (Scanlon 75).
Similarly to France, Spanish working class women were exploited and lived under poor
human conditions, were forced to work in factories, mines, in harsh agricultural jobs, as
washerwomen for minimum remuneration. Although in many cases they would work longer
42
hours and produce the same amount of work as a man, their salaries were extremely low. Women
working as domestic servants or nannies were not in a better situation. Jobs related to fashion
and the clothing sector had equally miserable conditions: long hours, low pay and little free
personal time. In addition, due to the lack of adequate training and education, Spanish women’s
quality of service in the clothing industry was considered inferior to that of the other European
women. As Concepción Arenal observed the rich would prefer foreign fashion designers rather
than the Spanish ones, because the latter would be judged not by the quality of their work but by
their gender. Such a preference would lead to disastrous financial results, resulting in lower
wages and even worse, women losing their jobs (Scanlon 84).
The other challenge in the case of Spanish women was that if they were obliged to work
outside of the house long hours, they were not relieved from taking care of their own houses and
families when they had finished their work. In that case it was very difficult for a married woman
to be able to perform inside and outside the house. The husband would not sympathize with his
working wife and by no means would offer to help with the housework or care of the children. It
was not only because men themselves would similarly work long hours, but also mostly due to
the very conservative social norms for men and women. Women would be logically discouraged
from working outside the house and would prefer to be married and take care of their house only,
accepting this way the public’s opinion that marriage was the ideal profession for them.
It is interesting to briefly mention that men would express their interest in terminating
women’s employment, with the intention to liberate them from the bourgeois exploitation of the
factories. Their position did not mean to improve working women’s condition. Men were acting
for their own benefit looking to make women domestic slaves under their surveillance. Scanlon
explains that “estos hombres querían liberar a la mujer de la explotación burguesa en la fabrica
43
tan solo para hacer de ella una esclava domestica, pero la esclavitud domestica hubiera sido
incluso preferible a algunos de los trabajos a los que se dedicaba la mujer” (82). Under these
circumstances women did not have a real choice other than staying at home working for their
men or being exploited in the workforce by their male supervisors.
Of course there were always the opposite opinions of various politicians, such as that of
Luis Jimenez de Asúa (1889 – 1970), who was advocating that a woman could be married and
work at the same time. His rationale was that a household has to be built upon mutual rules,
responsibility and rights. “El nuevo hogar tiene que edificarse a base de mutuo trabajo, del
reciproco reconocimiento de derechos y deberes y de la consciente responsabilidad de la pareja
en su intimidad hogareña y en su misión de concretos habitantes de la humanidad” (Scanlon 80).
Although his opinion seems to be very progressive for his time, it was not enough to change the
perception of women by the public.
Overall, the challenge combining family and work was most likely less demanding for the
younger, single women, who in this case would be considered luckier. It is thanks to these young
women that slow changes start happening in France. Luckily, the same changes start slowly
appearing in Spain during the last decades of the nineteenth century. Anxious about the narrow
and sterile role they were occupying in society, Spanish women started comparing themselves
with the women of other countries, mostly with those of England and the United States. At the
same time some women started declaring that “era preferible la dignidad de la autosuficiencia
que la humillación de la dependencia” (Scanlon 63), while others would prefer to work under
bad conditions in the factories for the sake of companionship rather than staying at home and
being the domestic slave of a husband.
The foundation of syndicates in Spain was critical to the improvement of women’s
44
working conditions, as it drew attention to their requests for better life. The most notable ones
were the Federación Sindical de Obreras, founded by Maria Domenech de Canellas and
counting five unions in 1912 (Scanlon 97), and the Sindicato de la Immaculada founded by
María de Echarri. Similar actions would be taken in France. On 11 May 1917 the first strike by
two women working in the clothing industry is launched. They demanded an “English Week”
“without any reduction in their weekly wage packets” (McMillan 146). In the days after, the
strike broadly spread resulting in numerous negotiations between the Ministry of the Interior, the
workers’ and the bosses’ delegations. After several days of negotiation the “English Week”, the
increasing of salary and the peaceful return to work were the achievements of this first strike of
French women.
World War I would surprisingly change the image of women regarding their ability to
work outside the house. Prewar time in France, known mostly as La Belle Époque (1890 -1914)
introduced several changes in the life of middle class women. The war marked the turning point
for women’s condition in France. In a country empty of its men, women were called to be the
“devoted, dutiful servant of the community” (McMillan 101). This marking point was not easy
for all of them. Housewives who had never worked outside of their house were called to face the
harsh reality of high food prices and look for a way to feed the remaining members of their
family. Women became the “men” of the house, since they had to be the providers for the rest of
the family and had to leave behind their traditional domestic roles. Theodore Zeldin comments
that women’s participation in the workforce in France is not surprising as “France before the war
[…] had a far higher percentage of its women at work than most European countries” (351)
working in agriculture.
World War I dramatically changed the balance of women and men in France as it resulted
45
in the loss of 1,300,000 men. A big effort was addressed to reconcile marriage and maternity
with the demographic imbalance, a matter that defined women’s condition until after World War
II. Women were forced to return to their domestic place to perform as mothers and wives.
Although this obligation was indeed a real obstacle to women’s efforts for emancipation, it did
not entirely stop all from continuing to be socially active. Zeldin comments that after the World
War I, French women still continued working but with the significant change of moving out of
the factories. A notable change also was that many middle-class married women continued
working to compensate for their vanishing private incomes. Regarding this McMillan observes
that between 1906 and 1936 “the proportion of the married women in the population who
engaged in [the sectors of industrial workers and white-collar workers) increased by 74%” (158).
It is for this reason that the evolution of feminism in France was based considerably on the
concerns of the middle class workingwomen and their struggle to improve their working
conditions.
French women’s employment after World War I was affected also by the Depression of
1930’s. The high numbers of unemployment were embarrassing for the government when
compared with other countries. It is for this reason that a campaign against women’s
employment started spreading all over France, supported by media and controlled by politicians.
If women were able to have a job under those hard times or if they were given the chance to
compete equally with men in the workforce, then the unemployment rate for men would be
higher and that would imply that the government was unable to control this problem. Diana
Holmes refers to the mainstream articles’ argument of the time that “to prohibit women from
working would reduce unemployment, raise salaries, increase the birth rate, reduce infant
mortality, improve family life” (115). Obviously such a campaign could not do anything else
46
other than, in general, discouraging women from demanding to be competitive in the social arena
and perform jobs that men did too.
In Spain women of middle working class were employed in the factories during World War
I. Due to the increasing prices of goods, their salaries were not enough to support their families, a
fact that caused protests in various Spanish cities. In her essay “Women’s politics” Pamela Beth
Radcliff points out that price hikes or new taxes sparked women consumer’s riots. She explains
that there was a combination of men and women participants, but the women would figure
prominently. In other cases children would be involved too or men would join the protest later.
However, women’s mobilization to ask for changes in consumer issues would be unrelated to
their employment status. As Radcliff asserts that
during the turn-of-the-century cycle of riots, the average female participant
(like the average working-class woman) was a housewife, with the occasional
appearance of women wage workers. However these cases set a precedent
that continued as more women entered the workforce. [In the years after
World War I] the consumer riot became an increasingly female-defined event,
differentiated from what were becoming the prevalent forms of working-class
male political activity, in particular trade union strikes and demonstrations.
(309)
As it will be explained later in Chapter 3, María Teresa León’s play Huelga en el puerto (1933),
is the adaptation of women’s riot against the increasing living costs and the shortage of goods. It
portrays a collective protagonist who, being a mother and wife, demands change for her family
47
and society. The play implies that this riot is also a female political action although remote from
any political expediency. It demonstrates women’s concerns to support their families and
improve the living conditions of the people around them and proves their potential to effectively
achieve their goals in a male dominated world.
Beyond the low salaries women would receive, the working conditions were not ideal
either. First, actions to improve this issue were taken in 1900, with major consideration for
mothers of infants, allowing them time, while at work, to be with their children in that early stage
of their life. Various other laws in the years following World War I meant to improve the
working conditions and reduce working times. Sundays off were legalized in 1925 and in 1927 a
period of rest for at least 12 hours between two consecutive shifts was established as obligatory.
Women’s working conditions in France and Spain would continue changing after World
War II. The fact that some of them were involved in syndicalism and fought for equal
compensation and professional opportunities reflects the image of the New Woman. In addition,
the expansion of feminism set the foundation for a better future, one in which each woman
would be free to control her life independently.
Education
Education has always been important for the evolution of the individual and society. It is
the area that reflects the mental, intellectual and moral growth of a person and the one on which
the success of a whole nation depends. Because of the education’s contribution to society’s
stability French and Spanish women’s education at the end of the nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries was of particular interest. Politicians and the Church were the ones that were shaping
48
and controlling the educational reforms and the ones who would impose the rules on curriculum
and instruction. In France the Third Republic was eager to establish the moral unity of the nation
and education was the mean toward it. Subsequently “the feminists attached enormous
importance to securing for women the right to participate in the educational system at all levels
on the same terms as men” (McMillan 46).
The constant opposition between State and Church was seen by feminists as a way to
progress in women’s educational rights. Politicians were afraid of the overwhelming influence of
convents on young girls and how this would impact their children’s education and attitude
towards Church. Therefore a reform should be suggested to prevent such a negative influence.
The first attempt to reform women’s education in France was with Victor Duruy (1811 – 1894),
who as Minister of Education at the time of Napoleon’s III reign (1852- 1870), suggested
“secondary courses for girls to be given by male teachers from the Sorbonne and the lycées”
(McMillan 49). His reform was not successful. Clergy objected accusing this educational model
for prompting the inappropriate encounter of young girls with men given that the classes were
held in public buildings and not at schools.
Women’s education was improved with Camille Sée’s (1847 – 1919) reform on December
21st 1880 and with the creation of lycées and colleges for girls. Once again this change was not
the result of the feminist movement’s influence but as mentioned previously it was rather an anticlerical move to separate entirely State and Church in order to “laicize the state and to
consolidate the republican régime” (McMillan 50). Jules Ferry (1832- 1893) the primary initiator
of this reform was advocating against clergy’s influence on young girl’s education. His goal was
to increase the numbers of women involved with science, which would subsequently impact
women’s presence in the work force and their role within the marriage’s borders.
49
According to Zeldin Camille Sée’s reform was important because it established a regular
secondary education for girls but it was not equal to the boys’ because “the girls were given only
certificates issued by their own school at the end of their course, not the state baccalauréat”
(Zeldin 344). However this reform was not in any case meant to equalize girls’ and boys’
education. The goal “was merely to broaden the cultural horizons of girls in order to make them
less susceptible to “superstition” and more capable of taking an intelligent interest in the
intellectual preoccupations of their husbands” (McMillan 51).
Overall “progress in the field of women’s education over the period 1870 – 1914 was
undoubtedly real, but it was also slow and undynamic” (McMillan 53). The influence of the
Catholic Church was not the only factor to impede women’s education. Parents’ support was
poor as in most cases they were envisioning their daughters accomplished in domestic skills and
married with children. In addition poor families were depending on the help of young daughters.
This practically was impacting daily attendance at school and in most cases it would discourage
the girls from taking schoolwork seriously or even returning to school the next day.
In Spain during all the nineteenth century the main consideration about women’s education
focused on producing individuals able to perform well on domestic tasks of home. This is why
“en el plan y reglamento de le educación de 1825 las asignaturas domesticas todavía constituían
la parte esencial de la educación de una niña, pero la enseñanza de la lectura y escritura estaba
considerada como muy precisa” (Scanlon 15).
It was Concepción Arenal (1820 – 1893) and Sofia Tartilan (? – 1888) who in the last decades of
the nineteenth century recognized the importance of education on women’s lives. They were
suggesting that a woman with a solid education could become a better spouse, mother and citizen.
In addition they were emphasizing the impact of education on women’s rights with dignity and
50
respect, which would shape an individual with a solid foundation and values.
At the same time Emilia Pardo Bazán (1851 – 1921) was critisizing the idea that equal
educational opportunities for men and women would be possible. She would add that such a
radical change would be impossible as impossible would be the disappearance of the social
classes. Her argument was that in a patriarchal society women could not be anything else other
than obeying spouses and nurturing mothers. She explained that “no puede, en rigor, la
educación general de la mujer, llamarse tal educación, sino doma, pues se propone por fin la
obediencia, la pasividad y la sumisión” (Scanlon 29).
As it happened in France women’s education in Spain was not unrelated to religious and
political interests. At the same time that Jules Ferry initiated his educational reform in France,
Fernando de Castro (1814 – 1974) did respectively the same in Spain. On 21 February 1869 de
Castro advocated the importance for a change on women’s education in order for Spain to be
considered a developed nation among the other ones. Under his guidance in 1870 they are
created the Escuela de Institutrices and La Asociación para la Enseñanza de la Mujer. The latter
was very important to women’s education, because influential male scholars with advanced
degrees and progressive ideology were teaching the classes.
However the motive for such a change was to create a woman able to perform at home and
apply practical knowledge to her children’s education. Behind this ideology were hiding the
opposing interests between Church and State. As Geraldine Scanlon opinions in her book La
polémica feminista, clergy could easily manipulate women without a rigid and practical
education (32). Politicians knew that women would influence society through their sons and
husbands. If these women were not educated properly, they would still be ignorant and would
obey blindly to Church. Because of this opinion the debate for women’s educational reform was
51
rigorous. Religious officials and writers (such as for example Julio Alarcón y Meléndez (1843 –
1921) saw the State’s efforts for women’s educational reform not as a way to reach women’s
emancipation but church’s emancipation. Whichever was the reason behind this debate, Spanish
women at the end of the nineteenth century were able to receive a better education. The first
results started showing with the graduation of the first schoolteachers, one of the first professions
that women would allowed to study in Escuela de las Institutrices.
The first decades of the twentieth century are characterized by a big debate: co-education
or separate education. The question here might still sound religious, as it happened in France.
Young boys and girls could not be under the same roof, while in public, because their frequent
encounter could distract them from their studies and therefore lead them to sinful paths. However
in the Spanish case the question had to do with the foundation of society and the inferior role that
women were holding. Men and women had totally different responsibilities in society and as
such, their education had to remain separate. The general idea was that women could not study
what was opposite to their nature. Their studies should relate to the maintenance and
improvement of the domestic area. Therefore religion, morals, domestic economy and cooking
should be the primary areas of a woman’s educational focus, while culture, geography, literature,
languages, math or natural sciences could also be part of the curriculum but with lesser
importance.
In 1909 the creation of Escuela de los Estudios Superiores del Magisterio started providing
inspectors in schools to monitor the quality of education. The same institution introduced coeducation, which had aroused so much debate in previous years. In 1915 the creation of
Residencia Femenina, following the model of Residencia de Estudiantes and later on the
Residencia de Señoritas with director Maria de Maetzu (1882 – 1948), were considerable
52
progress. These institutions would foster conferences, lectures, intellectual stimulation and
provide support to any young woman wishing to pursue higher education.
The problem of higher education in Spain and the access to it by women was the same as in
France. Between 1919-1920 there were only 439 women studying in the Spanish universities,
which equates to 2 women per 100 students. A notable observation here is that Emilia Pardo
Bazán was the first Spanish woman to become a university professor. The prejudice and bias
against women’s ability to do superior studies, other than becoming a schoolteacher, did not
cease. Margarita Nelken (1894 – 1968), one of the most important Spanish women socialists,
commented that in the first years of 1920’s a woman should have very serious reasons to study
something different than teaching (Scanlon 57).
Conditions on female education would change during the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera
(1923 – 1930). Considerable was the increasing number of the women completing their
secondary education. In addition there were new plans for the university campus of Madrid with
special consideration on the future female students’ needs. Things would improve during the
years of the Second Republic (1931 – 1936). Schools were mixed and co-education was not
questioned. Special care was taken for women workers with the construction of night schools.
Domestic and religious subjectivity was abolished and young girls were allowed to attend school.
These changes contributed to the considerable drop of the analphabetism, enabling women to
look for jobs with better salaries and conditions.
Legal rights
After education and employment, legal rights was the area in which French and Spanish
53
women were the most affected. The right to vote, to divorce, to open a bank account, to demand
equal treatment within marriage or the same salary as men were negated until the early decades
of the twentieth century. As it was explained previously, the lack of a solid education was a basic
reason that women in France and Spain were not allowed to compete equally with men in the
public arena. Marriage was the future for every woman and performing well within the limits of
the domestic sphere was all that it was required from her. There was no need to express her
political views, her opposition to her husband’s behavior or even possess money on her own,
because simply she was not supposed to be on her own.
In France of the later nineteenth century, the Civil Code’s laws controlled women’s rights.
Women were required to obey to their husbands, to follow them wherever they decided to live, to
ask their permission to work and to accept the absolute parental control over the children. During
the later years of the century major changes take place. Women could open a savings account
without their husbands’ approval and they could control family property. McMillan describes as
following these important changes:
in 1881 women for the first time obtained the right to open a savings bank
account without the assistance of their husbands, while a law in 1886
extended this right to make the husbands’ consent unnecessary. A major step
forward came from single or separated women in 1893 when they were
granted full legal capacity. In 1897, all women became eligible as witnesses
to civil action. The law of 13 July 1907 allowed married women to dispose
freely of their own salaries, earnings and also to seize part of their husbands’ salaries
if they did not contribute enough of their income to the upkeep of the household […]
54
in 1909, women got the right to initiate an action concerned with family property and
to be consulted before the alienation of family property of their husbands. […]
Another law in 1912 carried this process a stage further by instituting a regime of
“liberty under surveillance” for delinquents who would duly be handed back to their
families if they proved cooperative. (26)
This progress was accompanied by a bigger achievement in 1884 with the legalization of divorce.
The right to divorce became legal in 1792. It was abolished in 1816 and then it was officially and
finally reestablished under the Third Republic in 1884. In the previous centuries getting divorced
would be impossible, as the Napoleonic Code would allow the abolishment of a marriage only in
the event of adultery, cruelty or grave injury. In most cases women were not in the position to
prove the malfunction of their marriage, so they could not easily file for a divorce. Progress is
notable at the beginning of the twentieth century. Theodore Zeldin reports that in France
there were 7,363 divorces in 1900, 15,450 in 1913, 29,156 in 1920, 32,557 in 1921
but the figure was stable at around 20,000 between 1923 and 1939. 5.4 per cent of
marriages thus broke down, though the figure in Paris was 11 per cent. By 1930,
450,000 families had been split up by divorce. (358)
These numbers are indicative of a certain progress, which clearly reflects an improvement on
women’s right to free themselves from unhappy marriages. Behind these figures the mean reality
was that still a woman could not easily prove that her husband was committing adultery, any
kind of moral cruelty or abuse. In addition, not all women would file for divorce fearing the
55
negative public opinion against a divorced woman and the impact of it the rest of her life.
Republican legislators and the Church were once again opposing a more flexible divorce process.
For them, divorce was a threat to their puritan and conservative views upon which they had
envisioned the foundation of a rigid French society.
In Spain divorce was not an easy achievement either. Unlike French women, Spanish
women were not legally allowed to divorce before 1932, under the Second Republic’s legislation.
Although it took long for the peninsula to legalize the abolishment of the marriage, the laws
about divorce were considered more progressive than the ones of the other countries. Article 43
of the constitution stated that a divorce could be obtained only by the woman’s simple will,
without a statement of reason or for fair cause alleged by the spouse (Scanlon 265).
As it had happened in France, State and Church were both opposing the legislation of
divorce. Politicians were arguing that such a right would result to the loss of a woman’s “pudor”,
a woman’s modesty. The religious representatives were seeing “le ley del divorcio [como] una
ofensa para la fé catolica” (Scanlon 267). Behind both arguments of the State and Church the
reasons for objecting the legalization of divorce were political. The Church would lose its control
over the public and private life and the State would not be able to deny women’s other requests
for civil rights. Given this, women could easily invade areas that were until that moment
dominated by men. Such a movement would obviously impact the balance of the Spanish society
and the steps taken toward progress.
The Church was having a huge impact on women’s beliefs. Influenced by the priests’
preaching women were afraid that in case of a divorce they would not be allowed to receive the
holy sacraments, and if they would be remarried, their children would be considered illegitimate.
Similarly, the opposing parties of the right wing, the united parties of the Confederación
56
Española de Derechas Autónomas and the extreme leftists were expressing their opposite points
of view. Among the most interested positions were those of the invasion in the individual’s
private rights and the incapability of the state to solve the problem of a failed marriage. Behind
these apparently superficial arguments the sole motive was to differentiate from the republican’s
views and justify their existence in the political arena.
It is important to mention here the reaction of Spanish women about the divorce legislation.
Margarita Nelken attacked the Church by saying that if the catholic religion did not permit the
divorce, then Catholics should be the ones who would not be allowed to divorce, not the rest of
Spaniards (Scanlon 267). Clearly such a statement suggests a dichotomy in the strictly catholic
Spanish society but it also reveals that Nelken, along with other Spanish women, was fearless
speaking out her opinion. She was also against the financial support that a woman would be
given after a divorce. Her argument was that
era un privilegio humillante que presuponía la inferioridad de la mujer.
Si los sexos iban a gozar de igualdad tenía que ser una igualdad de deberes
tanto como de derechos, y la primera obligación de todo ser humano, hombre
y mujer, era mantenerse a sí mismo. (Scanlon 272)
If the right to divorce was difficult to approve, the right to vote was not any easier. Divorce in
France was legalized earlier than Spain but the same did not happen with the right to vote. In
France women were allowed to vote in 1944, but in Spain it was in 1931 during the beginning
year of the Second Republic (1931 – 1936). The different time in women’s suffrage between
France and Spain is surprising but not inexplicable. France maintained its conservative social
57
character during the overall political stability of Third Republic (1870-1940), the longest that the
country had since L’Ancien Régime (fifteen to eighteenth century). On the contrary in Spain the
political stage was full of rapid changes, which the 1898 disaster made more intense. Anarchists,
communists, leftists, extreme rights and republicans were demanding immediate answers to
Spain’s decadence, while intellectuals were advocating the need of regeneration.
Within this context and given the bad economic and political shape of Spain compared to
Europe, Primo de Rivera wished to rebuild the country and introduce new ideas, comparable and
competitive to the ones of other countries. Considering women’s political views less susceptible
to political radicalism, Primo de Rivera gave them the right to vote, although with some
restrictions of age and marital status. Once a woman was married was not allowed to vote. On
the contrary there were no restrictions for single women or widows older than 23 years. The
reason behind this differentiation, according to Nieva was that a woman was unable to express
her different political point of view once married and therefore “se consideraba impensable que
una mujer pudiese oponerse con su voto a la voluntad del cabeza de familia” (Autoras 45). Later
on in the beginning of the Second Republic, the new constitution on December 9th 1931 gave all
women the right to vote, without considering age or marital status.
The right to vote was an important step to women’s emancipation because it would allow
them to enter the political stage and from there demand, propose or impose new legislation
related to women’s rights. Voting would also prove that women were mature enough to judge on
their own and also look for their own active participation in politics. This last observation is
valuable to the current study as several French and Spanish playwrights (María Teresa León,
Vera Starkoff, Nelly Roussel) were active politically in the early twentieth century when the
right to vote was not assured. Of course the reaction to women’s right to suffrage did not stop
58
causing negative comments. In Spain, women voted for first time in 1933. The results were in
favor of the right wing, a win for which the majority of politicians and public accused women
and their inability to choose correctly.
Margarita Nelken (1894 – 1968) and the radical socialist Victoria Kent (1898 – 1987) were
both against women’s right to vote. It sounds surprising but their rationale was not beyond the
reality. They both assumed that Spanish women were not mature enough to vote and their
decision would be mostly influenced by the Church’s conservatism. In addition they were seeing
the “exploitation” of women in the event of a doubtful political result. What they saw was that
men would accuse women of poor judgment, trying to lighten up their own false judgments of all
the previous centuries.
Unlike Nelken and Kent, Clara Campoamor (1888 – 1972) was an advocate for the
feminine vote. She was arguing that if Spain wanted to claim being equal to other countries, it
should firstly accept that women and men have the same rights and should be treated equally.
Overall the common opinion was that women were driven by emotions and not by reflections,
that they were lacking intelligence or that their different political views could negatively impact
their marriage or cause disputes. These were some other arguments against female suffrage. Not
by accident, the same arguments used to prohibit a woman from taking men’s jobs were again
used to prevent her from voting.
Similarly in France, public opinion, the Church and the legislation were against women’s
voting. As mentioned previously French women were given the right to vote in 1944, eleven
years later than the Spanish women. Although French women were relatively ahead in education
and employment compared to the Spanish women, this did not make any difference in a more
early feminine suffrage. Zeldin observes that a French senator described the Latin race woman as
59
an individual who does not think critically nor can feel the same way the Anglo-Saxon or
Germanic race women do (360). It is for this reason that unlike English women, French women
could not be trusted with this responsibility. Additional objections, such as it was not acceptable
allowing men and women freely behind the polling booths or giving the prostitutes the right to
vote, would complicate more the process. However, with all these arguments, the real truth was
elsewhere. As it was observed previously in the case of Spain, women were considered deeply
influenced by the Church and therefore they were susceptible to conservative ideologies. This
meant that “…[women], being more frequent church-goers than men, would vote for the clerical
parties and so threaten the existence of the lay republic” (Zeldin 360).
Suffrage and divorce were considered important achievements on women’s emancipation
but there were not the only areas in which women were looking for a change. World War I
allowed French women to have access to the workforce, make money and act as the “men” in the
family. In no way this should be considered a stable condition after the end of the war. As
mentioned in the previous pages French married women did not have the full paternal rights on
their own children. A change occurs in 1915 as a law that year “did permit women to assume full
paternal powers in cases where their husbands were demonstrably incapable of acting for
themselves, but this was emphatically a temporary measure effective only for the duration of the
war” (McMillan 129). Later in 1917 another law allowed women to be guardians of the orphans.
Again this was a temporary change that, as it happened with the employment opportunities, was
effective only during the war period. According to McMillan
married women were not to receive full legal capacity in France until the law of 18
February 1938, and even then wives were still subject to important legal constrictions,
60
since the husband remained the head of the family and could still veto his wife’s
employment and benefit from the property arrangements under the different types of
community. It was not until the law of 13 July 1965 that French women obtained real
legal emancipation. (129)
In Spain the law was not in favor of a single mother regarding the paternity of a child out of
marriage. The woman could not ask for any guardianship of her child from the father of the child
unless the child was conceived under sexual abuse. But even in that case, the woman could not
prove this. The law would not allow a paternity test. Married women were the ones who would
also be always responsible for any negative outcome in the marriage. As in France, a Spanish
married woman was expected to follow her husband wherever he wanted to live, she had to
adopt his nationality and the husband was the legal representative of the woman. The woman
also needed her husband’s approval to work.
Women’s wages was another area that suffered too. According to Zeldin “equal pay for
women came officially in 1946” (359). At the end of the nineteenth century women were paid
half of what the men would be. As described above during the World War I things changed but
only on a temporary basis. The figures that Zeldin gives illustrate the temporary change during
the war: “in 1913 they [i.e. women’s wages] were 45 percent lower, in 1917 only 18 percent, but
in 1921 they were 31 percent lower […] in the teaching profession equal pay was accepted in
1927, and equal maxima in 1932” (359). In Spain the respective salary of a teacher was equally
low. As Scanlon explains
Dolores Moncerdá de Macía dice que solo el carácter modesto y paciente de
61
la mujer la dejan contemplar la perspectiva de pasar los mejores años de su vida
enterrada en un pueblo, cobrando un sueldo miserable y teniendo que vérselas con los
padres que ponen objeciones a que sus hijas pierdan el tiempo aprendiendo a leer, a
escribir y a hacer cuentas aritméticas. (65)
Teaching was not the only profession in which women in Spain, as in France, were paid
insufficiently. Beyond the bias of the woman’s inferiority to perform the same jobs as men,
education as it was discussed previously was not adequate to support women’s entrance in the
masculine workforce. At the end of the nineteenth century women working in the clothing
industry in Spain would only receive fifteen percent of the final sell price to the public (Scanlon
84). Respectively in France at the turn of the century “the maximum wage of a woman employed
in industry did not reach even fifty percent of the maximum obtained by a male worker
(McMillan 60).
The changes in women’s education, employment and legal rights in France and Spain were
significant enough to set the base for more substantial reforms in the years following World War
II. The aforementioned evolution was detectible to the working class women, the ones who were
actively involved in the workforce either by choice or necessity. As we will see in the next pages,
the same need for change and equal treatment with men was expressed by the woman
playwrights, who as the workingwomen in France and Spain, were criticized by the public not
because of the work but because of their gender.
62
1.2. French and Spanish women’s theater
Theater has a unique power, unlike other literary genres: it communicates directly to the
spectator ideas, preoccupations or problems of a whole society in order to problematize, educate
or simply point out certain attitudes, that they would not be otherwise be witness to. Women’s
theater towards the end of the nineteenth century and in the first decades of the twentieth century
in France and Spain meant to serve the aforementioned purpose and contributed in making
women’s presence visible to public.
In France, women’s theater during the nineteenth century was not as prolific as other
genres, like journalism. In this field, after 1830 and until the early twentieth century women were
considerably prolific because of the explosive invasion of the magazines, press, printed books
and pamphlets and the less restrictive laws. It was the area that allowed them to find their voices
through writing, to express themselves or share their views with the public.
Respectively, in Spain the beginning of the twentieth century showed growth in literary
production but with mostly male representatives (García Lorca, Unamuno, Machado, ValleInclán, Alberti, to mention a few). However the area of journalism was the one where women
had many chances to be heard, the same way that it happened in France during the previous
century. Catherine Davis comments that
the marked increase in popular newspapers, and magazines and, above all,
commercial publishers, resulting in numerous series of novellas or short
stories produced cheaply for mass consumption, provided great opportunities
for women writers.[…] Women could place their work more easily and, more
important, were paid for it. As twenty-six year old journalist Margarita Nelken stated
63
in 1922 “I am particularly proud of myself because I am one of the few Spanish
writers who live solely from the pen, without an official salary. (109)
The writer that Margarita Nelken describes here is what Davis calls “a new type of woman writer,
[a] professional woman of independent means, who was busily occupied working, travelling and
writing” (109). The presence of women in press in both countries is surely an important
evolution to feminine writing. Such an evolution might also imply that women could easily show
their work in other areas than journalism. Unfortunately that was not the case, as women were
not considered, in Spain at least, as intellectually high as men, hence their work was not
comparable to men’s or even worse, was not promoted. Theater was the area that suffered the
most in both countries for the reasons presented further down.
French women playwrights by the end of the nineteenth century produced plays and saw
them performed or published but in many cases “they needed to have a male support already
associated with the theatre” (Lloyd 138). Marya Chéliga while at the International Congress of
Women in London in 1899 pointed out “the necessity for female playwrights to assume male
pseudonyms (just as did so many nineteenth century female novelists) in order to get their work
staged” (Elaine 239). Similarly in Spain women playwrights could use a pseudonym to maintain
their anonymity or they would work closely with a male playwright in order to be protected or
promote their work on stage. María de la O. Lejárraga (1874 – 1974), an avid feminist and an
important playwright in the beginning of the twentieth century, used as a pseudonym her
husband’s name, Gregorio Martínez Sierra, with which she is broadly known. This was a
common attitude of female writers as Patricia O’Connor explains in her book Dramaturgas
españolas de hoy:
64
algunas mujeres determinadas eligieron un pseudónimo para guardar el anonimato,
aun en el siglo XX. Otras colaboraron con dramaturgos que podrían protegerlas y
cuya influencia les abría puertas. Con estas prácticas, las españolas, siempre en la
retaguardia social, siguieron el modelo de las mujeres inglesas y francesas de los
siglos dieciocho y diecinueve. (21)
It was near the end of the nineteenth century that women’s theater in France grows – specifically
in 1897. Cecilia Beach points out the importance of Marya Chéliga (1859 – 1927) for this change
as also to the emergence of the French feminist movement. She explains that thanks to the
imposing figure of Marya Chéliga, a feminist playwright and leader of the feminist theater
organization founded in 1897, French women playwrights could see their plays performed on the
Parisian stage (Beach French 19). She adds that Chéliga, aware of the exclusion of women
playwrights from theater, wanted to encourage them to promote their work and make their
presence visible in French society. Therefore she founded the Théâtre Féministe, a theater meant
to show not only the work of female playwrights but also to support the debate of their ideas and
different points of view.
Unfortunately financial problems caused the Théâtre Féministe to cease its performances in
1898. Chéliga a few years after she recognized the innovation that her Théâtre Féministe brought
to the French stage expressed her certainty that the foundation for women’s theater was set.
Cecilia Beach in her book Staging Politics and Gender reports Chéligas’ comments regarding
the future of the French female playwrights as follows: “[Cheliga] felt that an undergoing theater
like the Théâtre Féministe should be short-lived and looked forward to a time when women
would not have to create a separate theater in order to have their voices heard” (Berlanstein 23).
65
According to Diana Holmes, “playwriting demanded access to the public, masculine
domain of theater management and finance, and the only women to achieve celebrity in the
French theatre […] were actresses, of whom the most famous was Sarah Bernhardt (1844 –
1923)” (19). Lenard Berlanstein adds that
because of the overwhelming predominance of men in powerful theatrical
positions and the habit of thinking about women as week and dependent, it
was common to portray actresses as clay in the hands of influential men. […]
women’s career decisions did lie almost entirely in the hands of men, because
men monopolized positions as government officials overseeing the theaters,
as directors, and as playwrights, who had the right to cast roles in their plays.
Women had run theaters in the eighteenth century and would do so again at
the end of the nineteenth, but none did so in the intervening period, during
which the required licenses were given only to men. (26)
Actresses were welcome to theater not always as result of their talent, but because they were
seen as a mean to please men. The social imagination would associate actresses as mistresses of
powerful men. Therefore the public would reject female playwrights. As a result of this, they
would face unbearable obstacles if they wanted to present their work on stage. Regarding this
differentiation Chéliga commented that “the stigma of the actress no longer exists: scorn has
given way to admiration. Woman, as a performer, reigns over the theater. However, as a
dramatist, she still has to fight against what often prove to be insurmountable difficulties”
(Elaine 238).
66
Although the public had associated women in theater with loose morals, lack of intimacy
and “a threat to domestic virtue” (Berlanstein 162), this aspect started changing under the Third
Republic. The new regime
permitted – even necessitated- the rehabilitation of theater women. It was
partly because the class and ideological structures that had undergirded the
representation of theater women as mistresses to elite men became irrelevant
to national life [under the new regime]. (Berlanstein 160)
The same negative opinion about women in theater was spread in Spain. Theater, being a public
space and considered “poblado de individuos inestables, inmorales, y de poca categoría social”
(O’Connor Dramaturgas 18) was apparently a forbidden area for them and they could not get
involved with it easily. Despite the restrictive attitude towards women’s theater, according to
Nieva in Spain between 1918 and 1936 there were 37 female playwrights who saw their plays on
stage (Las autoras dramáticas epsañolas frente al público 129).
Although this number seems high given the opposing circumstances, it should not be
considered an easy achievement. Theater is associated with public exposure and therefore critics’
reviews and acceptance are important for the success or not of a play and its writer. This could
not be the exception to Spanish women’s theater where, in most cases, the journalists would
initially treat a female playwright kindly due to her female nature but they would finish with
strict comments or even attacks against her. The traditional image of a woman, of a sensible,
naïve, simple, tender person who was ideal only to raise her children and become a good wife,
would not stop haunting the female playwrights. These traits were the ones that the critics would
67
use to describe the quality of a play. As Nieva de la Paz comments, the critics in order to sound
less negative in their comments they would look for “cualidades femeninas, frecuentemente
elogiadas en las reseñas, tales como la delicadeza, el cuidado del detalle, el buen tono, la
sinceridad” (Autoras 134).
What it is notable in the case of Spanish women’s theater is that playwrights, whose plays
would be presented in the commercial theater, were more vulnerable to negative criticism than
the ones who would choose to present their plays in private events. Pilar Millán Astray and
Dolores Ramos de la Vega were criticized deeply for their plays and in several cases were
attacked for their “poor” (according to the critics) qualifications in writing drama. The public and
critics would not always agree about the quality or the value of a play written by a woman,
especially in the case that the play would be more commercialized and eventually would have
appeal to the public.
There is a possible explanation for this contradictory attitude in Spanish women’s theater
and it is linked with the whole negative opinion about women during those times. The masculine
dominated critics’ world could not accept that a woman would be able to convey messages and
draw the public’s attention more than a man. Women should be still isolated and not “openly
exposed” - especially if they had to talk about taboo topics, such as illegitimate children,
unhappy married women or show a vibrant, strong New Woman, who would fearlessly confront
men.
As it was mentioned previously about France, the wide opinion about women’s presence in
theater was favorable for the actresses but not for the playwrights. Patricia O’Connor in her book
Dramaturgas españolas de hoy: Una introducción refers to Cristobal de Castro’s opinion to
point out the negative attitude of the theater people towards the women dramatists:
68
los hombres de teatro, empresarios, autores, actores, - consideran a las
autoras, como Schopenhauer, “sexu sequor”. Pase a todas las conquistas
sociales, políticas, y económicas del feminismo, ellos persisten en que la
mujer es, como autora, algo inferior, por no decir algo imposible. Las admiran
como actriz o como empresaria, mas como autora, la rechazan. (13)
The admiration to which de Castro refers is again synonym to the feminine nature. An actress on
stage can impersonate various female characters that most likely male playwrights have
composed. She will not jeopardize men’s fame nor promote any of her ideas because on stage it
is not she but a fictional character. The tender, sensitive, naïve and above all delicate image of a
woman, is what an actress maintains on stage. On the contrary the sophisticated, independent
and socially engaged female playwright, who through her plays wants to reach the public and
make them aware of women’s problems, cannot be accepted without obstacles or, as it was
pointed previously, strong criticism.
The genres that Spanish women playwrights produce in theater are variable depending on
the period. In the beginning of the twentieth century there is an abundance of children’s theater,
which is associated obviously with maternity and woman’s role as primary educator of children.
It is reminded here that one of the professions that became openly accessible to women in Spain
in the early twentieth century was that of the schoolteacher, for the same aforementioned reason.
The support of the Catholic Church, the institution that was controlling women’s ideology and
attitude, was favorable of such involvement. The commercial theater was the one that in the first
decades of the twentieth century helped enormously in promoting women’s plays. Due to its
69
nature and broad impact to the public, this type of theater became the reason for negative
criticism. Its importance lays not only on the fact that women playwrights become “visible”
through their work but also because this theater would arouse discussion and elicit answers or
solutions to women’s issues. In a certain way commercial theater could also be called
“ideological theater” being the mean to spread the increasing feminine demand for change.
It is for this reason that theater at this period of time is more important than novel or poetry.
Especially the “novela rosa” is the genre that gave women the chance to be literarily productive
but it was also the genre that with its style, themes and approach would keep them within the
feminine world of the ideal marriage, family and motherhood, perpetuating the long-held public
opinion about woman’s inferior nature. In addition the engagement with the commercial theater
needs to be seen as the result of the ongoing change on woman’s image beyond Spain. As it was
explained in the first part of this chapter, the new type of woman, the New Woman, inaugurates a
cross-cultural and political debate in Europe and the United States, from which Spain would not
be absent.
The ongoing discussion for changes on women’s status was promoted in theater and the
feminist movement in Spain and France supported it considerably. I say considerably because as
I explained above French and Spanish politicians were seeing in women the reflection of the
whole society. Improving women’s rights would improve the future citizens of the nation and
therefore would help the nation be comparable or competitive to other nations. The feminist
movement indeed marked women’s theater evolution in Spain and France, although not at the
same time. In France the first feminist theater appears in 1897 with Marya Chéliga. Despite its
one-year short duration, it set the foundation for considerable work for the next years. Its
reception by the critics was positive, and the plays presented by well known at that time female
70
playwrights, among them Maria Deraismes (1828 – 1894), who beyond a writer was an advocate
on women’s rights, would indeed point out women’s issues.
It needs to be mentioned here that although Chéliga’s theater was successful, was criticized
as sexist not by a man but by a woman. J. Marniere, a playwright and theater critic, surprisingly
asserted that the Théâtre Féministe was “… a sort of reverse sexism in representing all men as
villains and all women as martyrs or saints” (Beach Staging 22). Her opinion is not irrational
because there are male martyrs (or saints) and also villainous women. Her criticism points to the
existing chasm between men and women but also portrays how much women at the time were
seeing men as their enemies. This case could be compared to the opposing opinions of Spanish
Margarita Nelken and Victoria Kent with that of Clara Campoamor regarding the feminine
suffrage. They both saw how difficult it was for women at the time to demand radical changes in
their status, when they themselves were not sure if they were ready for this or if they could really
confront men’s rejection and strong criticism.
After the end of the Théâtre Féministe, more female playwrights came to the French stage
to discuss women’s problems in public. Nelly Roussel (1878 – 1922) and Véra Starkoff (18671923) although they did not follow Chéliga’s example to create their own feminist theater by
being both feminists, they “became involved in the theatrical activities of the Université
Populaire in order to make their voices heard” (Beach Staging 23). Having the same goal as
Chéliga, Nelly Roussel and Véra Starkoff justified that the power of theater resides on its direct
disposition to the public, making it the means to prompt society to see women’s existence along
with their problems from a different point of view.
In Spain there was not exactly a “feminist theater” as the one that Chéliga founded but
there was a similar association created by notable Spanish female playwrights, aiming to support
71
women’s presence in the literary production and theater. Lyceum Club was founded in Madrid in
1926, eight years after the creation of the Association of Spanish Women, in 1918. The
importance of Lyceum Club is comparable to Chéliga’s feminist theater because they both
wanted to promote feminine voices, among others, in literary fields that they were considered
prohibited or inappropriate for women. The fact that Halma Angélico, María de la O Lejárraga,
and María Teresa León were members of this association illustrates not only their political
engagement to defend women’s rights but also justifies the topics they presented in their plays,
related to motherhood, marriage, education, employment, social and moral equity.
It is important to mention here that in both countries the feminist movement, although not
emerging at the same time, did face the same challenges and obstacles until its full evolution. For
this, a brief review of the feminist movement in both countries is essential to outline its
emergence, trajectory and overall character. This will help to better understand the nature of the
movement in its whole and also enable the comparing or contrasting of its developmental phases
and, after all, its impact on female playwrights in France and Spain.
In France in 1866 Maria Deraismes (1828 – 1894) along with Léon Richer (1824 – 1911)
founded the Société de la Revendication du Droit des Femmes, considered as “the first important
feminist theory of the modern period” (McMillan 81). Later in 1878 during the international
exhibition in Paris the first international congress on women’s rights brought together women
from eleven countries and gave them the chance to discuss, compare and contrast common issues
and possible solutions to them. In 1890 Marya Chéliga-Loevy formed the group of Union
Universelle des Femmes and the Avant-Courrière and also founded the Théâtre Féministe. What
really supported the goals of the French feminist movement was the launching of the newspaper
La Fronde. Marguerite Durand (1864-1936), an ex-actress at the Comédie Française and
72
journalist, was the primary contributor to the creation of this important newspaper for French
feminism, in such a level that it “came to be regarded as the feminine equivalent of Le Temps”
(McMillan 83), one of the most important daily newspapers in Paris from 1861 to 1942.
Before the beginning of the World War I there were several feminist federations (National
Council of French Women, French Union for Women’s Suffrage) that counted thousands of
women members aiming to concentrate on women’s legal rights. French feminism in its first
years had the rising hopes of the Third Republic for a stable political present with a bright future,
free from the radicalism and clericalism of the past. Passing the time feminists ceased to show
their attachment to the Third Republic’s ideology but they did not stop making friends among
leading politicians in order to promote their positions about women’s rights changes.
In addition the French feminists seek to embrace the needs of the French society, an
orientation that developed a brand called “social feminism”, linked also with philanthropy
through which feminists opted to track the problem of prostitution. Overall “French feminists
spread their efforts in many areas – legal reform employment, education, protective legislation
for working women, public health and, above all, moral reform” (McMillan 89). These views
were transferred to stage by several female playwrights such as Vera Starkoff or Nelly Roussel,
whose affiliation to the French feminist movement is well known and whose selected works are
discussed in the next chapters.
World War I helped, to a certain point, French women, in the sense that their contribution
to the military efforts gave them the chance to prove that they were able to do more than was it
was believed until that moment. Feminists also expected that this change would be permanent
leading to possible alterations of legislation. The most important discussion was about women’s
suffrage. Despite the initial positive atmosphere, the Senate rejected in 1928 any further debates
73
about this issue. The feminist movement at this time faced another challenge. The war had
contributed to the reduction of the population and now the demand was for the reconstruction of
the whole nation by bearing children and building the family foundation. Women had to get back
to their traditional roles of motherhood and marriage, forgetting about emancipation and equal
legal rights. Under these circumstances feminism became synonym of single women or women
who had abandoned their feminine aspect. These connotations were reinforced by the opinion
that feminism was a foreign influence and as such it did not have any place in French society.
In Spain the feminist movement arrived late, compared to France. Although vivid
discussions about women’s recurrent position started evolving since the beginning of the
nineteenth century, it was in 1918 that the Asociación de Mujeres Españolas was formed
demanding feminine suffrage. Its goal was the same with that of French Union for Women’s
Suffrage in 1909. Geraldine Scanlon identifies four main reasons for the late arrival of feminism
in Spain. First it was the freethinking tradition that the French Revolution and Industrial
Revolution introduced to countries that they were industrialized, compared to Spain, such as
England, Germany and United States. The second was that feminism was associated with “un
mostruo híbrido desatado por los enemigos de la fe y de España con el fin expreso de destruir la
vida familiar, social y nacional española (7). The third reason was that feminism outside of Spain
was a middle-class movement that due to industrialization had became economically strong and
therefore could enter in the political scene and demand changes. Such a class did not exist in
Spain, as the bourgeois were pairing with the traditionally strong groups to acquire more power
and the lower classes, disillusioned by failure of the 1868 Revolution to bring democracy to the
country, were forming their own organizations. The fourth reason was the strong political and
social tensions in Spain prevented the emergence of feminism.
74
As shown above, feminists in France were seeking the cooperation or support of influential
politicians or other members of society. The feminist movement in Spain was attached to the left
wing, which implied a society of anarchy and socialism. This was not compatible with the
ideology of the right wing. Both political sides used feminism to promote their proper political
goals but not support women’s emancipation. Years later Margarita Nelken pointed out that
Spanish feminism had failed because of the different political views and interests of feminists.
Scanlon also comments that “no sólo eran mutuamente antagonistas las feministas de derecha e
izquierda, sino que eran implacablemente hostiles a cualquier organización feminista que
intentara mantener una postura centrista y apolítica” (199).
In 1913 the journal El Pensamiento Femenino (as La Fronde in France) opted to encourage
women to be more active socially without losing their femininity by the use of vulgar language
and maintaining their moral, tender, joyous and caring nature. The journal, with its humanitarian
and charitable character, came to an end in 1917 and La Voz de Mujer, founded by Celsia Regis,
followed. Regis wanted to bring all women who had worked for women’s rights together. On
October 20th, 1918, her vision gave birth to the Asociación National de Mujeres Españolas,
known as ANME, in the office of the businesswoman doña María Espinosa de los Monteros. Its
character was not antic-clerical or radical but it was looking for the change of Civil Code, the
suppression of the legalized prostitution, the right for women to be able to work in liberal
professions (teachers, clerks, secretaries), the promotion of education and the right for women to
publish their literary work.
Several other feminist federations followed in the next years with one of the most
important being the Lyceum Club. Part of this association was the Asociación Femenina de
Cultura Cívica with founding members Pura Ucelay and María de la O Lejárraja. As Felicidad
75
González Santamera explains, the Asociación Femenina de Cultura Cívica “pretendía una
asociación menos elitista, más sencilla, donde tuviesen cabida las jóvenes que no habían tenido
acceso a la cultura” (2504). What it is very important is that this association became the base for
the creation of the Club Teatral Anfistora, where in 1933 Federico García Lorca would present
Amor de don Perlimplín con Belisa en su jardín, a new version of La zapatera prodigiosa and
Así que pasen cinco años.
Feminism and women’s theater both advocated the change of women’s condition. The
communicative character of theater made feminist ideology known to a broader audience of
social classes with different educational, ideological and political background. The fact that
women decided to step forward and present their work on stage was thes result of an ongoing
change in feminine attitude, reinforced by the gradual changes in society, and the New Woman’s
appearance in the social arena. How female playwrights portrayed these changes on stage and
what their female characters had to say will be discussed in the next chapters with the close
reading of selected French and Spanish plays from 1890’s to 1930’s.
76
Chapter II
Women on stage: stylistic, thematic and ideological evolution
77
2.1. The symbolist theater of Rachilde and Feminist Theater of María de la O. Lejárraga.
Rachilde’s L’araigné de cristal, María de la O’Lejárraga’s Mamá.
At the end of the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries two female playwrights
considerably changed the route of French and Spanish women’s theater. Rachilde and María de
la O. Lejárraga not only introduced new stylistic, thematic and ideological elements but also
encouraged other prospective female playwrights to come forward and perform their plays. In a
time that women’s presence in theater was associated with negative connotations and very few
female playwrights were successful performing their plays on stage, Rachilde and María de la O.
Lejárraga were able to go against the current. Each one of them was indisputably influenced by
the literary and ideological tendencies of their time, which eventually shaped the nature and
character of their plays.
Rachilde was a pioneer implementing symbolism on stage and creating the path for the
twentieth century avant-garde movement (Hawthorne 160). María de la O. Lejárraga was an avid
feminist, whose active participation in various feminist organizations in the early 1920’s brought
attention to women’s demand for improved legal rights, equal opportunities in employment and
overall a better life inside and outside the domestic sphere. A notable observation for these two
playwrights, a result of the public attitude toward feminine presence on stage and letters in
general, is the different name they both used to promote their work in the male dominated
literary circles of their time.
Rachilde was born Marguerite Eymery but she “adopted her male nom de plume to
authorize her writing in a family in which the unspoken assumption was that writing was a
masculine activity” (Kiebuzinska 28). Because of her family’s opposing views of the feminine
78
presence in writing, Rachilde used her male pseudonym as her new identity for the rest of her life.
Therefore, she adopted a masculine attitude that was expressed by her male clothing and
ambiguous gender identity in her writings. María de la O. Lejárraga became known as María
Martínez- Sierra, her husband’s last name, a common occurrence in early twentieth century
Spain. If the change of their names could be a small example of their strong personalities, it is
not a surprise that Rachilde and María de la O. Lejárraga both made a huge impact on theater and
other genres they served.
Symbolism and feminism are the main movements on which this chapter focuses in order
to discuss Rachilde’s and de la O. Lejárraga’s importance. Although feminism was strongly
present in France at the end of nineteenth century, the time in which Rachilde wrote most of her
plays, she officially declared that she was an anti-feminist. Diana Holmes in her book Rachilde
comments that Rachilde’s opposition to feminism was for ideological and personal reasons.
Ideologically the French writer “refused to have her lifestyle or behavior determined by the
family or the gender into which she was born and invented a personae of the werewolf and the
hybrid female “home de letters” to signify her right to self-determination” (76).
Her personal reasons were shaped by the patriarchal, nuclear family in which she was
raised. Her father would have preferred to have a son and in Rachilde he was seeing the boy that
he always wanted to have. Being the only child of the family Rachilde tried to please her father
by acting as a boy. In her essay Why I am not a feminist (1928) “she recalls her most heartfelt
wish as a child: “I ask from the good Lord to change me into a boy because my parents will
never love me as long as I’m a girl” (Holmes French 71). It surprises her reference to both her
parents’ gender preference, which reveals the family’s foundation on the dominance of male
subject.
79
The two worlds that her father and mother respectively represented led to a gender
differentiation, which Rachilde from her early age was able to distinguish. “The father inevitably
represents autonomy, agency, the possibility of separating from a mother identified with home,
sameness and immobility” (Holmes Rachilde 78). Because after all masculinity was superior to
femininity, as per her family’s image, Rachilde wanted to be part of a masculine world to
subsequently prove her intellectual and personal superiority. However, despite her declared antifeminist position, Rachilde’s female characters are strong, imposing individuals and they portray
a dynamically changed French woman at the end of nineteenth century. According to Holmes
“the Rachildean heroine has been read both as a sensationally feminist figure who, “asserts,
against the spirit of age, that [a woman] can live differently” and as merely a “vengeful female”
whose “temporary triumph” is always “subject to the reinstatement of paternal power in the last
act” (Rachilde 113-4).
Rachilde’s contribution to French women’s theater lies on “her practical and intellectual
involvement in the contemporary avant-garde” (Holmes Rachilde 203) and on the depiction of
individuals’ struggling with power and sexuality from a female perspective. Rachilde’s antifeminist disposition, whose origins were briefly explained above, and the influence of symbolism
can explain these attitudes. The focus of this chapter is on the presence and impact of symbolism
on Rachilde’s plays.
With Baudelaire as predecessor, symbolism extends in literature for about three decades,
from 1885 until the first years of the twentieth century. Frantisek Deak in his book Symbolist
Theater: The Formation of an Avant-Garde comments that “the avant-garde movements shared
with symbolism an interest in metaphysics and mysticism” (3). He adds that
80
the symbolist theater in France took place in the early and mid 1890s – a period
that is often called “the privileged moment of symbolism”, since it was during this
time that symbolism achieved its highest point of productivity and popularity.
Two theaters appear as the most important symbolist theaters of the 1890s:
Théâtre d’Art, with seven productions between November 1890 and March 1892
and the Théâtre de l’Oeuvre, with thirty-three productions between October 1893
and June 1897. (4)
Rachilde is closely related with these two theaters. In 1890 she supported the eighteen-year old
poet Paul Fort to establish the Théâtre d’Art. According to Holmes
Rachilde helped Fort to commission and choose plays, mainly from the network
of writers associated with the Mercure and with symbolism, provided favorable
reviews of Théâtre d’Art productions, and herself contributed two plays, one of
these La Voix du Sang. [...] When Fort gave up and returned to his poetry in 1892,
the symbolist theater project was taken up by Aurélien Lugné-Poe in 1892, and
his Théâtre de l’Oeuvre from 1893 to 1897, when Lugné-Poe abandoned
symbolism. Here again Rachilde lent support and advise, and provided a play
L’araigné de cristal. (Rachilde 205)
In 1880’s and 1890’s theater was the most popular form of entertainment in France, mostly in
Paris, “as developments in mass transportation brought more and more people to the city in
search of distractions” (Hawthorne 160). Symbolist theater through its developers and supporters
81
suggested new techniques such as “synesthesia by combining music, lighting, and perfume as
part of the performance” (Hawthorne 161), incorporation of art through later famous painters
(Gauguin, Toulouse-Lautrec) and the promotion of different works from Scandinavian
playwrights (Ibsen and Strindberg) or others (Wilde and Maeterlinck).
Beyond the on stage performances, Symbolist theater was formed by other “various events
that included poetry readings as well as plays” (Hawthorne 162). Deak also comments that “one
production, or one evening at the symbolist theater, often consisted of several works: different
combinations of full-length plays, one-act plays, and the recitation of poetry” (5). Rachilde was
actively involved in shaping these performances by either being a playwright herself or
reviewing plays before they were adopted on stage. The fact that she facilitated the entrance of
Scandinavian playwrights in the French stage was a huge contribution. The male pseudonym of
Rachilde was actually of Scandinavian origin. She claimed that it “was that of a Swedish
gentleman who had contacted her through a séance, a fabrication that served as a screen making
it possible for [her] mother to accept the fact that the decadent stories published under the name
of Rachilde were not really her daughter’s” (Kiebuzinska 29).
If the choice of her pseudonym was by accident or not it is not clear. What is clear is that
she brought to the French stage Ibsen’s and Strindberg’s plays and adopted modern theatrical
developments introduced by Richard Wagner (1813- 1883) during his staying in Bayreuth (187176) regarding the auditorium darkening and the change of stage’s design. Theatergoing would
now resemble a cinematographic experience, where the focus of the audience would be on the
stage and on the actor’s performance and not on the people sitting around. In this sense, the
audience would be indulged in “a state of reverie in which they could self-consciously
contemplate analogies and glimpse the ideas suggested by the artist, as well as contemplate the
82
features that comprised the works and their theoretical implications” (Deak 177). It is for these
reasons that Hawthorne observes, “Rachilde used the symbolist drama as a vehicle for the
exploration of psychic issues in the same way that cinematographers would later use the medium
of film” (165).
Rachilde’s La voix du sang was her first play to be performed in the symbolist theater of
Paul Fort’s, known as Théâtre d’Art, in 1890. Although this play was “a version of naturalist
genre with an ironic or twisted moral”, a roserie as the best term should be, and had nothing to
do with symbolism, the audience came to see Rachilde’s play, who at the time was already a
recognized writer. Her fame and overall acceptance by the audience was a strong contribution to
the newly composed symbolist theater.
Madame la mort, a combination of symbolism and drama, was performed in 1891.
Reviews about the play were not favorable/ positive, as critics pointed out to the play’s rather
confusing collection of styles, ideas and themes. After all, Rachilde “attempt[ed] to fuse two
genres – the old-fashioned domestic drama and allegory – into a symbolist drama” (Deak 148). It
is this negative criticism that reveals the depth of Rachilde’s capability to create something
different in the French theater. The synthetic character of the play certainly does not support the
idea of a pure symbolic performance. It facilitates though the audience’s smooth exposure to the
idea of symbolic and supports the overall contemporary theater’s transformation from mere
entertainment to an aesthetic experience by the introduction of new elements.
Linked to the aesthetic experience was the delivery of literary text and acting, components
that indisputably characterize the symbolist theater but also Rachilde’s main symbolic play
L’araigné de cristal. Deak comments “symbolists were unwilling to subordinate the text to the
existing theatrical conventions. One can say that the refusal to turn the literary text into a
83
theatrical scenario, and the insistence on staging the very literariness of the work, is one of the
characteristics of symbolist theater” (168). The depersonalization of the character and the lack of
external means such a gestures, body language and changing the tone of the voice, were
characteristic of symbolist plays.
After all, the relationship between text and performance changes drastically. Actors’
performance and dramatic text move away from theater’s traditional function, aiming to convey
a message based on their continuous collaboration. From the end of nineteenth century and in the
beginning of twentieth century, avant-garde theater critics argued that theater performance
should be seen as an autonomous work and untied to the dramatic text, enriched by variously
independent forms of art (music, light, painting). The role of the spectator changes to a co-player,
the one who creates the theater and who interprets the dramatic text independently. Erika
Fischer-Lichte in her article “Reversing the hierarchy between text and performance” comments
that
at the beginning of the twentieth century […] the idea was articulated and propagated
that the performance is primary, that it realizes itself in a process that takes place
between actors and spectators and, thus, provides meaning that are not to be found
elsewhere, let alone in the dramatic text, although the performance might take
recourse to it as one of its many raw materials. (278)
In the symbolist theater the actors were on stage but they were not performing according to the
romantic and realistic guidelines of acting, based on delivering the most accurate personification
of the character and having the audience be identified with it. In a symbolist play, the voice and
movement of the actor were not necessarily corresponding to the actual text but they would
84
rather be signals referring to symbolic meanings. Because poetry was part of the symbolic
theater repertoire, “the recitational acting style was probably adjusted from play to play, but the
monotonous and dehumanized voice which conceptualized the particular role remained a
constant principle of staging, not only at Théâtre d’Art but in symbolist acting in general” (Deak
173).
Rachilde continued performing her work in the Théâtre d’Art successor, the Théâtre de
l’oeuvre of Lugné-Poe. Her play L’araigné de cristal was presented in 1894. It is one act play
with pure symbolist features. The lack of narration, the stage directions that paint a somber,
almost depressive atmosphere in order to reveal the characters’ psychological world and the
ambiguous relationship of the Mother with her son Sylvius, compose a symbolist play with
avant-garde elements. These were introduced to the French theater of the late nineteenth century
through Ibsen, Strindberg, and Rachilde’s involvement.
Traditional critics saw in both Ibsen and Strindberg a gap between theater and drama
mostly because of the depersonalization of characters and lack of structural text. However, these
elements, detectable also on Rachilde’s plays, are the ones that prepare the avant-garde
tendencies of the twentieth century. Daek argues “Strindberg through his psychologism, dramatic
characters and overall radical attitudes was, as Ibsen, an excellent choice for an avant-garde
theater at the turn of the century” (214).
As already mentioned Rachilde practically offered a lot to the symbolist theater by being a
reviewer of the plays submitted for performance, offering her guidance to its founders and using
her name as “a drawing card” (Hawthorne 162). Artistically she also contributed enormously
thanks to the plays she performed and mostly because of the innovative character of them that
opened the doors to the new modernist tendencies of the twentieth century. The play that reflects
85
these tendencies and best supports the idea of Rachilde to the avant-garde movements through
her symbolism is L’araigné de cristal.
In this short play Rachilde with the fragmental identity of her main character, Silvius,
points out to various avant-garde artists’ works such as Picasso’s paintings, Samuel Beckett’s
plays, the Theater of Absurd and André Bretton’s or Guillaume Apollinaire’s poetry. The main
subject of discussion between Silvius and his Mother evolves around a mirror, whose ambiguous
significance portrays the duality of the human psyche. The Terror- stricken Son sees the
reflection of himself in a mirror lying against the wall when he was ten years old. When the
mirror breaks by the penetration of the gardener’s drill, his self-image converts into a frightening
portrait, which will hunt him for the rest of his life.
The symbolic use of a mirror throughout the play creates an ambiguous end. The Son runs
over a mirror in the off-stage space and possibly dies from pieces that cut his throat. Although
for his Mother the mirror is simply the tool for a person to see himself, Silvius sees it as the
reason that shaped his whole identity in the very early years of his life. Unable to function
properly, he always feels threatened by the mirrors as they reflect his fragmental esoteric world.
This element can clearly project on postmodern psychoanalytic theories and the complexity of a
person’s psychological status. To emphasize the importance of mirror in her play and direct the
audience’s focus on it, Rachilde on purpose sets the scene on a late evening under the dim light
of a full moon.
The moon also suggests a double interpretation. One obviously refers to the presence of
nature on stage offering its dim light. Most likely, the moon here is associated with death. The
Son indeed is a lifeless person who in vain tries to reconstruct his fragmental past. We could also
argue that the moon could signify a hidden eroticism through the Mother’s sensual description
86
against her Son’s lifeless image.
In the stage directions the Mother is described with “lively eyes, a tender mouth, a young
face … sensual voice” (273). The Son on the contrary despite his twenty years is “thin… his
complexion is wan, his eyes are fixed… he has even features which recall his mother’s beauty, a
little like a dead man who resembles his own portrait. Heavy, slow voice” (273). The description
of the two characters point to the symbolist motifs of Rachilde’s writing: “the horror of women
as the embodiment of sexuality, the morbid interest in aberrant psychological states, the
connection of fear with a mystical world, the obsession with death, the dangerous enchantment
of mirrors” (Lively 271).
At the same time these elements could also be the predecessors of the future avant-garde
existential features of despair, angst, negation, fear, the Other and the Look. The Son is divided
in two worlds, he is acting as an Other person, trying to restore his fragmental Look while is
taken by various negative feelings. Various critics have interpreted the Son’s negative attitude as
the result of Rachilde’s gender and power contradiction (Lively 271), the influence of
“transgender or opposition to normative societal roles” (Stankiewitcz 65) or the maternal
betrayal she experienced in the beginning of her writing career that made her to choose acting as
a man and go against her mother’s destructive force, whose presence “was a trap” (Kiebuzinska
33).
I suggest that the Son’s depressing world could further relate to the drill’s destructive
effects on the reflected to the mirror image. Rachilde breaks the young man reflection with a drill.
Symbolically the drill can be seen as the phallic object that penetrates the image of the Son and
decomposes his existence. This explanation justifies Rachilde’s feminist disposition in her works
“that she could not help being part of [it although] she pretended to mock” (Lively 271) defining
87
herself as an anti-feminist. In an avant-garde approach, the drill could reflect on the invasion of
machines in the man’s world, which results to an imbalanced, fragmental and disoriented
personality, consumed by a haunting fear of loneness and unable to function and communicate
properly with other individuals.
The coldness and impersonal character of the Son’s identity can be also detected in his
name. Rachilde introduces him as “Terror-stricken”, a description that obviously describes his
psychological status. Later in the play we find out that his name is Silvius that Kiebuzinska
associates “with sylvite, a mineral component of colorless cubes or crystalline masses” (33).
Because of its fragile nature, sylvite can easily break, the same way that Silvius’s reflection
breaks because of the drill. If we accept such an approach, then we could further argue that
Rachilde projects here to the “colorless” individuals of avant-garde movements, whose lifeless
looking and colorless features were associated with internal preoccupation and psychological
distraught.
If Rachilde opened the way to the avant-garde movements of the twentieth century while
serving the symbolist theater and expressing her ambiguous anti-feminism through the depiction
of strong females and weak male characters, María de la O.Lejárraga supported the feminist
movement in Spain by being a leading member of it and promoting its values through her plays.
As already mentioned, María de la O.Lejárraga became known as María Martínez- Sierra, using
her husband’s Gregorio Martínez- Sierra’s last name to promote her work and survive among the
male dominated literary circles.
Feminism in Spain, in a more organized format, arrived in early 1920’s, almost thirty years
later than France. In theater, themes associated with it such as divorce, equal employment
opportunities, women’s rights in the conjugal life or presence in the political arena were
88
addressed in Jacinto Benavente’s plays (1866 – 1954). Patricia O’Connor in her book Women in
the Theater of Gregorio Martínez- Sierra observes that Benavente with his feminist disposition
and depiction of strong and independent women “continues the general trend of admiration for
women that was apparent in his predecessors, for women in his plays are characteristically strong
and ambitious” (24).
Various critics, literary historians and journalists have proven that María de la O’Lejárraga
was the author of Gregorio Martínez- Sierra’s work. O’Connor’s related book Mito y realidad de
una dramaturga española: María Martínez Sierra explains that María de la O’Lejárraga,
although married to Gregorio Martínez- Sierra, lived separated from him for many years. They
maintained a literary relationship, with María sending him the plays he would produce on stage
outside of Spain, during his tours in the United States and South America. Cipriano Rivas Cherif
(1891- 1967), a Spanish playwright and director commented that María de la O’Lejárraga’s and
Gregorio Martínez- Sierra’s relationship was not a simple collaboration, explaining that “el
verdadero autor de las novelas, poesías, traducciones y atrículos atribuidos a Gregorio MartínezSierra [fue] María de la O’Lejárraga” (O’Connor Mito 59). He also adds that “escribía María y
firmaba Gregorio” (O’Connor Mito 59).
The “firma”, the “signature” to which Rivas Cherif refers here was probably the bottom
line of this collaboration and most likely the key for María to promote her writing. The truth is
that most of the plays of Martínez- Sierra’s focus on female characters, using a feminist approach
to depict mothers, wives and working women in the early decades of twentieth century Spain.
Keeping in mind that María de la O’Lejárraga was the actual author of Gregorio MartínezSierra’s work, it is not a surprise that the nature of the plays is feminist, given her active
involvement in various feminist associations and her election to the parliament through the
89
Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party in 1933.
In addition, Gregorio himself was an admirer of women and as such, he expressed his
support to women’s issues by making the Spanish public aware of them. It has to be mentioned
too that Gregorio spent his life between María de la O’Lejárraga and Catalina Bárcena, a young
actress born in Cuba of Spanish parents, with whom he had his only child. María was the writer
of the plays that Gregorio would produce, and Catalina was the actress who would perform them
on his theater company. Such a relationship inevitably influenced his views on women and
therefore the character of the plays he would produce.
María’s involvement with the feminist movement starts in around 1915, when she
expressed her interest by writing various essays about the modern women’s rights and
responsibilities. (O’Connor Mito 40). Some of these essays are Cartas a la mujeres de España
(1916), Feminismo, feminidad, españolismo (1917) and La mujer moderna (1920). O’Connor
argues that the separation of María de la O Lejárraja from Gregorio Martínez- Sierra around that
time, because of his affair with and absolute devotion to Catalina Bárcena, prompted María to
express an interest in the feminist movement (O’Connor Mito 26). Her interest was further
supported by the expansion of various feminist organizations in the following years in Spain
such as the Asociación National de Mujeres Españolas (founded in 1918) or its related federation
Lyceum Club, which promoted more the new ideology. María de la O Lejárraja became even
more involved by founding (along with Pura Ucelay) the Asociación Femenina de Cultura
Cívica. In 1931, she was elected president of the organization, composed “de unas mil quinientas
mujeres de todas capas sociales, [con propósito a] educar a hombres y mujeres por igual, para
enfrentarse con los retos del mundo moderno” (O’Connor Mito 41).
The feminist views of María de la O Lejárraja were depicted in the plays she was writing
90
and promoting under her husband’s last name. The ongoing debate of the time about the new
type of woman and the traditional “Ángel del Hogar” influenced various female writers in the
depiction of their female characters. Pilar Nieva de la Paz in her article “Mujer, sociedad y
política en el teatro de las escritoras españolas del primer tercio del siglo 1900- 1936” states that
uno de los debates periodísticos e intelectuales de mayor actualidad en estos años, el
relativo a la polémica oposición entre el emergente tipo del la “Nueva Mujer” y el
tradicional modelo decimonónico del “Ángel del Hogar” tuvo, sin ir más lejos, una
importante repercusión en la caracterización de los personajes femeninos y en la
estructuración argumental de las piezas de las autoras. (90)
María de la O Lejárraja’s ideal woman is the one who does not reject her femininity to adopt a
masculine attitude, as did Rachilde or even Emilia Pardo Bazán in the previous century. Rachilde
claimed that she was an antifeminist although through her masculine behavior and appearance
wished to prove her value as a woman. Because women’s exterior appearance, dress code and
hairdo could be associated with superficiality and lack of a strong personality, Rachilde rejected
her feminine attire to impose herself as an equal to a man. Her choice to the male dress code
signifies the abolition of the wall between a man and a woman and allows her to take the first
steps toward her emancipation.
On the contrary, O’Lejárraja’s heroine is still a married woman, a mother and one who
advocates each woman’s capability to perform inside and outside of the domestic sphere in
collaboration with her husband and family. What defines María de la O Lejárraja’s feminist
approach is the Spanish identity she gives by presenting women who are “more passionate than
91
organized, more individual than group-oriented” (O’Connor Gregorio 121).
Passion and individualism are features that we observe in Mercedes’ character in the play
Mamá discussed in this chapter. The play’s theme is inspired by Ibsen’s House of Dolls (1879)
that both Gregorio Martínez-Sierra and María de la O Lejárraja admired. In a similar way that
Rachilde introduced the work of Ibsen in the French stage at the end of nineteenth century, the
theatrical couple did the same in Spain years after, when in 1917 they staged the aforementioned
play. However the innovation that Rachilde wished to introduce to the French stage through
Ibsen’s work was not followed in Spain as
[Gregorio] Martínez –Sierra rejected Ibsen’s emancipation of the heroine. Instead he
gives a typically Spanish solution to the problem. The Spanish heroine cannot be
happy in a freedom that takes her away from her home. Rather than break ties, she
binds them more firmly about herself. She demands equal rights with her husband,
but she does so in order to acquit herself better of her responsibilities toward home
and children. (Husson 15)
Gregorio Martínez-Sierra and María de la O Lejárraja’s approach introduced a different type of
woman on stage. It is a combination of the new woman of the early twentieth century with the
old, traditional characteristics of the previous years. Without losing her identity or breaking out
of the social context, the new type of woman in O Lejárraja’s plays maintain a positive attitude
and wishes to solve the mistakes of the past, so she and her family enjoy a better future.
Feminism in general terms was asking from a woman to be independent, act like a man, reject
family and be a member of a group of women of similar ideological orientation. This model was
92
foreign to the deeply traditional Spain, where marriage, motherhood and religion were
fundamental elements of the society. Therefore in no way such a revolutionary feminine model
would have been embraced by the public which would come to see Gregorio Martínez-Sierra’s
and María de la O Lejárraja’s plays.
After all, the theatrical couple had to follow a middle line in the play Mamá. Mercedes is
transformed into a feminist “in denying that she is the plaything of her husband and in
demanding an equal voice in making decisions. She does not leave her husband but convinces
him of his mistake in seeing her as a pretty doll to be kept petted and pampered” (O’Connor
Gregorio 131). At the end of the play, in Act III, she confronts her husband Santiago for the first
time, pointing out the mistakes they both made in the marriage.
Mercedes: (con cariño) …Tú has pagado mis cuentas siempre, me has reñido por
ellas casi siempre, pero el secreto de tu libro de caja ha sido inviolablemente tuyo. La
verdad no había pensado nunca en ello, pero ahora que estoy en vena de pensar, se
me ocurre: si desde el primer día hubiésemos llevado la contabilidad a medias, puede
que a mí también me hubiera dado por la economía. ¿No te parece?
Santiago: (Un poco turbado). Mercedes …
Mercedes: (Con emoción y dulzura) ¡Acaso has hecho mal en tenerme tan cerca del
corazón y no haberme dejado entrar en tu vida más que de visita! (Pausa, después de
la cual, Santiago habla con amargura, como recriminándose.)
Santiago: Es verdad…todos tenemos culpa de todo. Nos creemos infalibles, y somos
inconscientes. Nuestra rectitud ajustada a reglas es comodidad. Nuestra inflexibilidad
moral. Orgullo… Es verdad (Mirándola con remordimiento) […]. Tienes razón. He
93
sido un necio y bien merecido me tengo el mal que me sucede. (100 -101)
As it can be noticed in the above text, Santiago and Mercedes identify the reason of their failure
as a married couple. Mercedes with very gentle attitude as the stage directions indicate (cariño,
emoción, dulzura), and Santiago with an equally understandable intention (habla con amargura,
mirándola con remordimiento) discuss in a civilized manner how they can make things better for
them as individuals and for their family. Passion, sentiment and logic direct their discussion and
offer a new model of feminist approach in the Spanish audience.
In the above dialogue Mercedes refers to her equal opportunities she should have to
manage the finances of the household, the same way as Santiago has been doing constantly. Her
request points to an involved woman in all aspects of the household, even the most delicate one,
money. Virginia Woolf in her essay A Room of One’s Own (1929) links women and money. She
argues that if women were given the right to own money, then they would have produce more in
the professional sphere:
we might have looked forward without undue confidence to a pleasant and
honorable lifetime professions. We might have been exploring or writing. Mooning
about the venerable places of the earth. Sitting contemplative on the steps of the
Parthenon, or going at ten to an office and coming home comfortably at half-past
hour to write a little poetry. (21)
On one hand, Woolf relates freedom and property, viewed from a Marxist perspective. On the
other, she explains society’s denial of women’s independent rights over property as a resistance
94
to women’s freedom.
María de la O Lejárraja’s woman could also reflect on the revolutionary and politically
engaged female, a different aspect of herself she develops in the early years of Second Republic
(1931 – 1936). Nuria Cruz-Cámara in her article “La doctrina socialista y el público en Una
mujer por caminos de España de María Martínez Sierra” comments that O’Lejárraja was active
in the political life of Spain result of her strong involvement in the feminist movement. “Con el
advenimiento de la Segunda República en 1931, Martínez Sierra se implicó de lleno en la vida
política del país como propagandista del Partido Socialista Obrero Español, (Spanish Socialist
Worker’s Party) con el que logró como escaño de diputada por el distrito de Granada en las
elecciones de noviembre de 1933” (793). Her involvement in this party reveals her interest in
advocating equal opportunities in the workforce, which would mostly focus on women. CruzCámara refers to Alda Blanco’s opinion about O Lejárraja’s political engagement and its
influence by her feminist views: “… la narración de su vida pública está estructurada a través de
su aguda conciencia feminista” (Cruz-Cámara 793). It is not by accident after all that Mercedes
asks for an equal opportunity to manage her household’s finances.
Beyond the fact that Mercedes represents the Spanish feminist woman who is strong but
still kind and feminine, a closer look to the men of the play Mamá would show that there is a
change in the male attitude too toward the female presence. The male characters, except for
Alfonso, the Don Juan behaved young man, or Marcedes’ father Don Fernando, act with a
positive, kind and supportive behavior to the women. O’Connor observes that in the Spanish
society of the upper classes, which compose the social context of this play,
boys lacked a masculine model and grew up into what is called señoritos, or men
95
without character, energy, or direction. They often turned to Don Juanism because it
made them feel masculine and strong …[this type of man] is hardly an ideal husband
for a young girl who has been educated in a convent by nuns. (Women 107)
In Mamá education and work are combined with marriage and family, while the characters
portray the Spanish upper class society along with their challenges and problems. It is these
elements that O’Lejárraja elaborates to promote the Spanish version of feminist woman.
Therefore it does not surprise that Santiago for example differs from the traditional
dominant character, with the oppressive attitude and superiority feeling toward his wife. He
might be the one who supports his family financially by being a successful businessman, but
without his wife Mercedes, his social image would suffer. On the other hand José María, the son,
follows his father’s steps in the professional field and in no way he attempts to act as Don Juan.
In addition, he shows respect to both his parents, which reflects to the importance of family
values for the creation of a balanced individual. Cecilia, the daughter, is the typical young
woman educated in a convent by nuns, whose knowledge of the real world is minimal. It is up to
her family to help her step out of her comfort zone in order to become a strong and independent
woman.
The foundation of this upper class family and the differences of the characters compose the
base for O’Lejárraja to portray her feminist views on Mercedes’ personality. She will be the one
who will bridge the differences of her family, show the right way to her children and still save
her marriage while she becomes happy. Her own well being depends on the traditional values of
family, motherhood and marriage. She is not a passive observer of her family’s problems nor
does she remain silent awaiting her husband’s reactions. She moves forward and takes initiative
96
as the new strong and independent feminist woman would do.
The elements of O’Lejárraja’s feminist approach surely create a contrast between the male
and female characters but they have to be examined always within the social context of the early
decades of twentieth century. As O’Connor comments
The heroine is symbolical of the changing times that resulted in beneficial progress
for women. It was becoming more and more common for woman to demand an
education equal to man’s and to compete with him in business and professional life.
….A superior woman in consistently contrasted with a man of average or less-thanaverage character and abilities, so it is easy for her to seem especially strong.
(Women 125)
The gradual awakening of Mercedes in Mamá could remind of the gradual changes of Spanish
society regarding women’s rights. As explained in Chapter I, feminism did not arrive in Spain at
the same time as in France. Spanish intellectual women were aware of the progressing changing
attitudes toward female emancipation in other countries, but in the deeply traditional and
religious based peninsular country, these changes would not come until later. Mercedes, as a
representative Spanish woman of upper class, gradually realizes the strength hiding inside her
and decides to act appropriately.
An important remark in Mercedes’ case is that her social class fostered her feminist attitude
in the play. Could she have been able to express such a behavior if she was from a middle or
lower social class? It is a question linked with the way a man was raised in these classes and
related to the economic conditions of the family. O Lejárraja’s argues that weak men in the
97
middle and upper class Spanish society were the result of their “pampering and spoiling […] by
the female members of their families. Furthermore, the weakness in the men and the strength in
the women are accepted as natural in the family and in society in general” (Gregorio 108).
“Weakness” and “strength” do not necessarily refer to the physical abilities
thatdifferentiate men and women but they describe mental, intellectual and ethical superiority.
These features compose an integral individual, who can face any challenges and under adverse
circumstances is able to maintain a balanced attitude and suggest objective solutions. This is the
person that O’Lejárraja proposes in the character of Mercedes. Confronting Santiago, Mercedes
describes exactly her inferiority in their marriage, because he was always the only strong one and
she was the weak.
Mujer… Eso es lo que yo no he sido nunca para ti, tu mujer. Yo sí que he sido tu
juguete, tu distracción, el animalejo bonito, al que se acaricia y se riñe. No he
pensado nunca. ¿Acaso me has dejado tú que piense? ... El hombre piensa solo,
decide solo, se basta a sí mismo, es el amo, es el rey … la mujer a sus trapos y a sus
risas … ¡Ah!, me has querido mucho, pero me has despreciado mucho más. No he
tenido juicio …, tampoco me has dejado responsabilidad. (Act III, 98-99)
Mercedes’ description depicts a married woman and mother whose role is restricted in
facilitating other’s needs but not hers. She does not have a voice because of her gender and
cannot demand one because her husband has not given her the chance to do so. But what if
Mercedes had asked her husband for equal rights and what if she had raised her voice against
him? What if all women had done the same and demanded equal treatment within the domestic
98
sphere? “Estoy en mi casa, estoy en mi puesto. ¡Ni tú, ni nadie es capaz de quitarme lo que es
mío!” (Act III, 99), says Mercedes whose tone of voice is raised as the exclamation points
indicate.
Could Mercedes be an example for other women to follow? This sure can be the case not
only for the upper classes, where education could possibly make things easier, but also for the
lower ones. As we will see in the second part of this chapter, women of lower classes were acting
stronger than men because of the need to support their families financially. This is the case of the
female characters in María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto, whose reaction to poverty and
hunger urges them to rebel against the patrons. What was often happening in the Spanish society
was that
the economic situation [was] a discouraging one for a young man without influence.
For every position, there are dozen applicants, and the person who is chosen is more
often the person who knows someone than the person best qualified … In the lowest
classes, it is often the woman who is the sole support of the family. She knows that
she has to feed her children somehow, and she does this in any way she can, often
taking in washing or ironing or doing other domestic work. (O’Connor Women 1078)
After all Rachilde and O’Lejárraja both depict women who are strong and superior to men, result
of the social changes and the influence of the feminist movement. Although Rachilde did not
accept feminism as the reason to advocate women’s equal rights, by actingas a man and inverting
the male and female roles in her plays, her women show similarities to those of O’Lejárraja, by
99
being strong, free minded and able to take initiatives.
The importance of these playwrights lies on the fact that they did not recycle or copy their
precedents but suggested a new approach to the French and Spanish stage. Their theater brought
the attention to current problems of society and pointed out the need for change. The audience
would not simply come to see a play for pure entertainment. They would be exposed to different
approaches of certain social issues, related mostly to the traditional values of family, motherhood
and marriage. Certainly Rachilde and O’Lejárraja audience had different education, cultural
experiences and social background and therefore the diffusion of the new ideas or trends they
suggested would not be the same. It was however their innovation and openness presenting
already known themes and contexts in a different way that would arouse discussion and foster
reflection.
2.2. Ideological and political engagement: Vera Starkoff’s L’amour libre, Nelly Roussel’s
Pourquoi elles vont à l’église, and María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto.
Several female playwrights were ideologically and politically engaged beyond their
literary activities. A result of this was the production of dynamic plays, in which characters and
dramatic text carried on stage the playwright’s revolutionary disposition and invited the audience
to reflect upon the presented themes. Vera Starkoff, Nelly Roussel and María Teresa León were
affiliated with political and ideological movements, whose influence was portrayed in their
female characters. In their three plays analyzed here, female protagonists decide to break
conventional norms and revolt against oppressing situations in a relationship, marriage or unfair
social context.
100
Vera Starkoff is the pseudonym of Tauba Efron, a Russian born author who in 1889
immigrated to Paris to avoid persecution from the Russian government for her revolutionary
actions against it. Her opposition to exploitation, violence, anticlericalism and antimilitarism,
along with her feminist affiliation with Union Fraternelle des Femmes (UFF) and being a
journalist in the feminist newspaper La Fronde, shaped her writings and depiction of women on
stage. Inspired by Tolstoy, Pushkin, Ibsen and Zola and attracted by L’Université Populaire’s
freedom of speech and exchange of ideas, Starkoff saw in theater the means to share with an
audience her political, feminist, social and syndicalist views “such as solidarity, anti-clericalism,
the refusal of paternal authority, free love, work ethic [as well as] major feminist themes of the
early twentieth century” (Beach Staging 72).
In her play L’amour libre (1902) Starkoff “stages the debate about l’union libre, a
mutual agreement between consenting adults to be living parents free from the institution of
marriage and the constraints of motherhood, and defends the rights of unwed mothers and
illegitimate children” (Beach Staging 24). The themes of the play itself are certainly intriguing,
considering the conservative French society of late nineteenth century. Starkoff, making use of
the fostering environment of L’Université Populaire, dares to bring on stage women’s issues,
overlooked by politicians, legislation and society. She promotes feminism, equal rights between
people and the need for social reforms not by attacking or criticizing but by debating and
discussing possible solutions.
Her revolutionary ideology on a woman’s position about marriage and illegitimate
children suggests an individualwho acts out of her own needs, going against the social norms of
the time. “Mieux vaut pour une femme assumer seule sa maternité que de passer sous les
fourches caudines de l’hypocrisie bourgeoise” (294), comments Monique Surel-Tupin in her
101
introduction to Starkoff’s plays in the book Au temps de l’anarchie, un théâtre de combat 18801914. Starkoff’s theater is an active tool to engage the audience and foster discussion on the
themes presented. Her ability to communicate effectively her ideas and talk about important
issues is helped by a “forme théâtrale quoditienne et vivante” (Surel-Tupin 295).
Starkoff’s lively theatrical approach introduces a vibrant dramatic text with working class
characters, who attend the Université Popularie to discuss and debate their different points of
view. Theater in this case functions as a social institution as it was embracing the whole family
in order to entertain and educate. As Cecilia Beach mentions“theater fulfilled various goals of
the Université Populaire: it provided a healthy alternative to the cabaret sand an occasion for the
whole family to participate in an event that was both entertaining and educational (Staging 17).
Under this new goal, theater was considered an extension of the real world, presenting realistic
themes that would give the audience the chance to reflect upon them or see them from a different
prospective.
Therefore, society and theater would be interrelated. As Pfister comments “G. Gurvitvch
has perceived an “affinité frapante entre la societé et le théâtre". This affinity is reflected in the
metaphor describing the world as a stage, a view that is not confined to literature alone, but
which is widespread in folk and popular culture” (26). Because the traditional function of
dramatic text is to establish a communication between a sender (the playwright) and a receiver
(the audience), text exposition based on dialogue plays a significant role for the author to
effectively reach the audience. Dialogical exposition “consists in placing alongside the bearer of
expository information a dialogue partner, whose sole function is to stimulate the transmission of
information by asking questions and making comments, and who disappears from the play once
this function has been fulfilled” (Pfister 92).
102
In Starkoff’s L’amour libre the main characters’ dialogue, Blanche’s and Ruinet’s, is
prompted by other characters’ points of view, who enter and exit the stage expressing their
approaches to marriage, illegitimate children, legislation and union libre. Each one of these
characters is engaged into a vibrant dialogue, whose simplicity and authenticity could compare to
that of an informal dialogue, between friends. Starkoff’s approach is effective to bring on stage
her ideological concerns and attract middle class audience. Surel-Tupin observes that Starkoff’s
theater “n’exigeait pas la présence de comédiens professionnels et permettait aux fidéles de
l’Université Populaire d’untiliser le théâtre comme moyen d’action” (295).
The fact that most of the characters are masculine indicates Starkoff’s intention to bring
attention to men’s point of view about women’s issues. The opposing opinions of Ratule and
Cropest about l’amour libre present a two-sided approach to a man’s responsibility to an
illegitimate child. Cropest argues about morality and justice while Ratule is the Don Juan type of
man, a seducer who cares about his carnal satisfaction only. Freedom and dishonesty compose
the two opposing axes of their discussion: “libre ne veut pas dire malhonnête” Cropest argues in
Scene II (303). With these two words Starkoff brings on stage her ideological position, related to
feminism, morality and justice. As a declared “militante feministe” she brings on stage the model
of a woman capable to take care of herself and, if needed, raise her illegitimate child alone. Her
view opposes the strict religious and social norms of the bourgeois French society but it is
compatible with the demand for change on women’s legal rights and role in the society.
The main female character, Blanche, states clearly that she does not need anything: “Je
n’ai besoin de rien!” she exclaims to Ruinet in Scene III (304) when he talks to her about the
importance of love on a person’s life. Blanche is hurt from the relationship that left her with an
illegitimate child, but her decision is to break through the devastating sentiments and leave the
103
past behind. The dynamism of her character certainly reflects Starkoff’s advocacy for a better
understanding of the meaning of marriage when there is no love involved. In an article she
published in La Fronde in 1903 she talked about family’s new identity, one that moves away
from the traditional patriarchy. “Le foyer domestique alimenté par l’amour du progress et non en
guerre avec l’humanité” (qtd in Beach Staging 70) she explains, pointing out the importance of
two people’s union based on respect of their rights and needs.
Starkoff intentionally interrupts the discussion of Blanche and Ruiner to bring on stage
additional characters, whose function is to stimulate the transition of the dialogical exposition
and furnish the audience with different opinions. This way, the French playwright gives the
audience the chance to better reflect on the previous characters’ opinions, to be exposed to new
points of view and decide after all with whom they will agree. Scene III closes with the stage
directions announcing the entrance of M. and Mme Gaillard, Cropest and Ratule. Ruinet stays on
stage while Blanche accompanies the couple and leaves. M. and Mme Gaillard enter from the
back door and Cropest comes from the conference room. Their movement toward stage creates
an angle at the end of which they all get together to discuss. Ratule is the one who does not fit
into this schema. He does not walk beside Cropest, but he follows him on their entrance on stage.
The arrangement of this physical movement creates an ideological juxtaposition between
the characters. M., Mme. Gaillard and Cropest agree that women are important because they
educate the children to become good citizens. However Ratule’s ideological position about
women in society is deeply different than the other characters’. Therefore, his entrance on stage
behind Cropest, the one with progressive ideas, portrays an ideological opposition and possible
conflict. The dialogical exposition that follows verifies this arrangement. Cropest helps his wife
with their children, taking turns with her. Gaillard advocates the importance of women’s access
104
in education and Mme Gaillard is an avid feminist (a porte-parole of Starkoff perhaps) who
confronts Ratule telling him: “si vous étiez tous comme mon mari et le camarade Gropest, les
femmes seraient nombreuses ici” (306).
The spatial relationships within a locale and the juxtaposition that a dialogue creates are
important elements to understand the relationship between the characters themselves. As Pfister
explains “the presence of several figures on stage at the same time who communicate
dialogically with one another implies a form of spatial relationship of distance or proximity, and
the opposition of left and right can be interpreted semantically in terms of conflict or consensus”
(257-258). In Scene IV when all aforementioned characters meet and discuss, distance and
proximity, conflict and consensus are detected into their between relationship and ideological
disposition.
Toward the end of Scene IV, Blanche returns to the stage. She remains silent and reflects
on her dialogue with Ruinet in the previous scene. Her entrance facilitates the ongoing dialogical
exposition because it supports Mme Gaillard’s opinion that young girls frequent the Université
Populaire.
Ratule: Passe encore les femmes mariées, mais les jeunes filles!
Mme Gaillard: Nous en avons, des jeunes filles, elles viennent même très régulièrement.
(306)
This variety of ages amongst the female participants in the Université Populaire is not accidental.
Starkoff wants to show that the feminist movement and the request for changing women’s legal
rights was coming from the majority of women, married and not. Her reference depicts the
105
awaking of the French society toward women’s emancipation. Certainly in 1903 France young
women who were living in the big cities and were employed, were freer to conduct a more
independent life compared to the married ones, whose role was restricted only within the
marriage’s limits. However the case of Mme Gaillard and her husband show certain mobility in
the society, which will eventually foster further changes.
Starkoff’s theater could also be seen as extension of the anarchist tendencies of the end of
nineteenth century. Looking to break up with the main social norms that the bourgeoisie had
imposed and with the intention to avoid producing plays for simply entertaining the audience, the
anarchist theater “montre la varieté des appellations données par les auteurs à leurs pièces: drame
réaliste, drame social, drame ouvrier, étude révolutionnaire, comédie sociale etc” (Granier 1).
Within this variety of themes, the “drame ouvrier” is the one that derives from the anarchist
theater. Starkoff’s theater can be named a “drame ouvrier” with its main characters, as shown in
L’amour libre, being workers. The importance of this new theatrical approach from Starkoff is
that transfers on stage the preoccupations of a whole social group, aiming to educate the
audience and support discussion. The “drame ouvrier” shares common features with the
anarchist theater not only thematically but also technically. They both foster a balanced,
objective representation of social topics on stage and invite further reflection upon them.
Under this aspect, various social questions about gender role and responsibilities, female
emancipation, political and economical conflict can certainly cause a rupture. However the fact
that none of these questions overpower the others or the playwright options to express an opinion
for or against a certain topic offer new dynamics to the French stage. Starkoff’s play L’amour
libre follows the new norm. Her characters voice the opposing social opinions about women’s
condition, illegitimate children, love within and out of marriage as well as political and economic
106
conflicts. Ratule is macho while M. and Mme Gaillard is the progressive couple, sharing
domestic chores and believing in women’s important role inside and outside the domestic sphere.
Based on the same discussion about women’s role and rights Nelly Roussel suggests a
different view on the way female emancipation can happen. In her play Pourquoi elles vont à
l’église her heroine Mme Bourdieu feels bored and abandoned while her husband M. Bourdieu
spends all his free time in activities associated with the movement of Société de Libre Pensée,
where he is a member. Roussel was an avid feminism and attached to Neo- Malthusianism and
Freethinkers movements. Her plays, lectures and articles aimed to bring onto the French society
women’s issues within and out the domestic sphere. Motherhood and marriage were two of her
major concerns and Roussel discussed both these themes in her short plays produced in the
Université Populaire, the same way Starkoff did at the time.
Motherhood and controlled childbearing composed the basic ideas of Neo-Malthusian
doctrine. Its members “maintained […] that it was necessary to limit the number of births in
order to improve the living conditions of the working class” (Beach Staging 56). Roussel saw in
Neo-Malthusianism a way to apply her feminist ideology and support women’s revolt against
social oppression by refusing to have children. She
believed that women must take control of their own lives both in the political and
domestic spheres. […]. She maintained that the first step toward political,
economic, and social emancipation for women was to obtain absolute
reproductive freedom. [She also believed] that motherhood was a form of labor
that should receive economic compensation. (Beach Staging 58)
107
She overall “argued that women have the right to pursue self-fulfillment- happiness as
individuals- regardless of their social, marital, or maternal status, and they also have the right to
avoid pain” (Accampo 1).
Her revolutionary and progressive ideology as she promoted it in her plays, did not intend
to merely educate the audience but also agitate it. Her female characters arouse compassion and
called for more attention to their problems. Through her feminist and Neo-Malthusianist
ideology Roussel expressed her anticlericalism and anti-republican feelings. The Third Republic
and the Church were promoting hope, freedom, equality and moral stability that would prevent
the return to the monarchy. Roussel’s feminist and Neo-Malthusianist activism intensified by her
Freethinkers movement attachment opposed to vague and unlike to be fulfilled values of State
and Church. Specifically the Freethinkers doctrine or La Libre Pensée, aimed
to secularize all sectors of French society. [Therefore Roussel] explains that the
feminist movement and the freethinkers’ movement should work together against
a common enemy: the church. She claims that all religions are instruments of
oppression and are responsible for the inferior status of women. (Beach Staging
61)
Mme Bourdieu in Pourquoi elles vont à l’église with her decision to go to church abolishes the
importance of religion as the mean to salvation and spiritual attainment. In this one act play,
churchgoing becomes a social event, the reason for women to get out of their houses to socialize,
have fun and show off their new clothes. Roussel through the character of Mme Rosier explains
in lucid language why she goes to church and why Mme Bourdieu should go too: “Ce n’est pas
108
pour la religion que l’on va ç l’église. On y va pour faire toilette, pour voir du monde, pour
écouter la musique, pour se distraire, enfin” (Roussel 366).
In a strong and shocking attitude at the same time Roussel does not hesitate to say the
truth in a society that suffers by hypocrisy, lack of solid moral values and fresh ideas.
Bourgeoisie was trapped in a seek-and-hide model of life, where religion was part of existence in
theory, but in fact everything was a mockery. As another bored and trapped within the domestic
sphere Mme Bovary, Roussel’s heroine decides to go to church, leaving behind her middle-class,
moderate house and ignoring her fake husband’s freethinkers ideology. In a certain way she
revolts, although she does not abandon her husband nor looks for an affair. The open end of the
play could certainly allow a further interpretation of the denouement but it is unlike that Roussel
wished for her heroine to move out of the house. In a symbolic way, Mme Bourdieu’s decision
invites and encourages other women to take action in order to attack the problems around them.
The opening scene and the stage directions indicate the context of Mme Bourdieu’s life
and therefore introduce us to her life style. “D’un côté, la porte d’entrée, de l’autre, la porte de la
cuisine” (Roussel 365) paint two opposing worlds that compose this woman’s daily routine: one
is the kitchen and the other is the outside world. The audience sees neither as the action takes
place in the dining room. The lack of more diverse stage space could be the result of two factors:
first the play’s short length (it is an one act comedy) and second the limited stage
accommodations of the Université Populaire. Roussel’s intention was not to produce a complex
and perplexing play but deliver a simplified piece that would directly address its message.
According to Beach’s comments regarding the theatrical productions in the Université Populaire
109
due to financial constraints and the resulting logistic limitations, few Université
Populaires actually had a theater. Most simply had one or two lecture rooms, a
library and a discussion room. Fortunately, the existence of an actual stage was by
no means a prerequisite to organizing theatrical events. Many of the plays
performed […] did not require special facilities. (50)
Despite the simplified form of the play, dialogue and eloquent language are dominant features
that deliver dynamically Roussel’s message. The extra-dialogic identification of characters aims
to create a contrast. The physical appearance of Mme Bourdieu “jeune femme de mise simple et
correcte” (Roussel 365) implies that the audience will experience a woman of low profile, who
will unlikely dare to make any changes in her boring life. The end of the play shows a different
woman, who indeed decides to step forward. At the same time, Mme Rosier “gaie, exubérant, en
grande toilette” (Roussel 365) represents the new type of French woman at the beginning of
twentieth century, a more independent and brave individual who invites other women to follow
her. She could possibly reflect on any feminist female of the time but her role in the play is to
escalate passion and denounce the Catholic Church’s role on French women’s lives. Not by
accident, her name “Rosier” could derive from the word “rose”, that in French means either the
flower rose or the color pink. In both cases, her vibrant personality is evident by her amused
attitude and open-minded position about religion and churchgoing.
Mme Bourdier is the typical housewife who would take care of her household, preparing
meals, cleaning her house and expecting her family to eat together around the table she has set.
Simone de Beauvoir in her book The Other Sex describes the duties of a housekeeping wife as
follows: “she takes care of the house for her husband but she also wants him to spend all he earns
110
for furnishings and en electric refrigerator. She desires to make him happy, but she approves of
his activities only in so far as they fall within the frame of happiness she has set up” (455). M.
Bourdieu’s activities do not comply with his wife’s happiness. He preaches freethinkers’
doctrine, according to which there is no discrimination based on a person’s gender. Men and
women should be equal in all aspects of life. His hypocrisy is unparalleled. Inside the house he
refuses to even discuss with his wife what is going on in the “outside world”.
M. Bourdieu: (mangeant, et les yeux fixés sur sin journal). - Rien …, ou du moins,
rien qui t’intéresse. Nous n’avons parlé aue de choses sérieuses.
Mme Bourdieu: Quelles choses?
M. Bourdieu: (même jeu). – Rien qui t’interésse, te dis-je. Politique, propagande,
enfin, pas des affaires de femmes. (Roussel 368)
His macho behavior clearly cannot contribute to this wife’s happiness, as per de Beauvoir. It is
for this reason that Mme Bourdieu decides to go to church against her husband’s non-religious
moral codes, which he promotes in the Libre Pensée association. “Il n’y a pas moyen de les sortir
des jupons de leurs curés” (368), M. Bourdieu adds about women, directly attacking their
dependence on clergy. For him women belong in their home and their only task is to take care of
their families. As for the man “quand on rentre chez soi, c’est pour manger tranquillement la
soupe, sans s’nquiéter d’autre chose. – Moi, c’est ainsi que je comprends la vie de famille” (369).
His ideology about family and woman’s role is the one that has shaped Mme Bourdieu’s
behavior. She stays alone because her husband has taught her that there is nothing else for her to
do other than doing chores and taking care of him. It seems that Mme Bourdieu does not have
111
her own voice because she has always functioned “within the discourse of man”, as Hélène
Cixous writes in her essay “The Laugh of the Medusa”.
If a woman has always functioned “within” the discourse of man, a signifier that
has always referred back to the opposite signifier, which annihilates its specific
energy and diminishes or stifles its very different sounds, it is time for her to
dislocate this “within”, to explode it, turn it around, and seize it. To make it hers,
containing it, taking it in her own mouth, biting that tongue with her own teeth to
invent for herself a language to get inside of. (887)
Mme Bourdieu demolishes her husband’s negative discourse about women’s role by turning
around and making it hers his doctrine of Libre Pensée. After she reads the newspaper he left
behind she becomes aware of husband’s hypocrisy and she decides it is time to dislocate the
“within” discourse of man, explode it and use it for her own benefit.
Il faut que, en dehors des manifestations qui s’adressent au grand public, chacun
de nous, dans sa petite sphère, n’imposant rien, mais discutant, raisonnant et
persuadant, prépare le triomphe de la moral laïque, la morale de l’avenir, basée
sur le respect de l’individualité humaine, librement épanouie. (Roussel 371)
are the words that escalate Mme Bourdieu’s awaking and compose the short play’s climax.
“Discutant”, “raisonnant”, “persuadant”, “respect de l’individualité humaine” are key words in
Roussel’s revolutionary ideology. Freedom and equality between a man and a woman are core
112
elements in her activism that calls for “a modest revolt against both the boredom and the sexual
double standard of the freethinkers movement” (Beach Staging 64).
It is surprising the fact that M. and Mme Bourdieu do not have children. In the stage
directions of Scene I Roussel describes her heroine as a young woman who is alone at home. If a
child was around, possibly Mme Bourdieu would not have felt that alone or even bored. The
most important, if indeed a child was part of the play, Mme Bourdieu would have not made her
“modest revolt”, possibly for her child’s sake. Roussel also probably depicts a childless couple as
part of her Neo-Malthusianism ideology and the controlled childbearing.
Whichever the reason for such a setting is, the short one act comedy Pourquoi elles vont
à l’église attacks issues of the early twentieth century French society, asking from women to take
action to achieve respect and personal joy. Roussel’s goal writing theater was not to produce
plays superior in language, setting, costume and acting. The quality of her work lies on “the
Truth of the message, the ideological content and the contact with the audience. [After all she]
wrote for a specific audience, at a specific moment” (Beach Staging 65-6), the same way that at
Vera Starkoff did.
Roussel and Starkoff have been characterized as “militant” because their ideological
disposition called for mobilization and awaking of the audience. María Teresa León was another
militant writer whose work and active involvement in the events of the Second Republic Spain
reveals a syndicalist action and strong political interest. Revolutionary as the other two French
playwrights studied in this part, María Teresa León writes Huelga en el puerto based of the
ongoing conflict of syndicates in late 1931 and early 1932 in Sevilla between the Confederación
Nacional del Trabajo known as CNT and the Sindicato de Transportes de la Unión Sindical,
linked with the Communist Party. The importance of the play lies in its strongly political
113
atmosphere, empowered by the dynamic presence of women and their role in initiating the strike.
The title of the play informs about its content and it certainly shows Leon’s intention to bring on
stage her political views associated to the Communist Party, of which she was member with her
second husband, the poet Rafael Alberti. León “joined [the Party] in 1934, participated in the
first and second Congress of Soviet Writers held in Moscow, and directed the review Octubre”
(Davies 112).
León’s political involvement was certainly not a common activity for a woman in
Spain“Women in modern Spain have been consistently marginalized from the formal political
sphere. The result […] is that women have played a very small role in the conventional life of the
nation” (Loré Enders and Radcliff 227). Women would continue being excluded from the
country’s political activities until the 1970’s with an exception during the Second Republic
(1931- 1936), when various organizations at the time enabled women’s participation in the
political sphere. Mujeres Libres, associated with the anarchosyndicalist CNT, and the Mujeres
Antifascistas, linked to the Communist Party, allowed thousands of women to contribute to the
Republican cause by doing everything from sewing bandages to taking over “male jobs” (Loré
Enders and Radcliff 227). In addition, the Spanish feminist movement did not focus on the
improvement of women’s political rights much, but rather tried to promote rights in the social
order more than in the political sphere.
The somber context for women’s active engagement in politics did not impede León from
writing in 1933 a clearly political play - addressing the struggle of proletariat and the rough
living conditions of the working class at the time. Innovative and challenging at the same time,
her play coincides with Ramón J. Sender’s theory presented in his book Teatro de masas in 1931.
Influenced by the theater of Piscator, the Russian revolutionary theater and the Yiddish theater,
114
Sender suggests a different direction for the Spanish stage, one that would be based on social and
political themes and would attract an audience coming from the working classes and proletarians
rather than the bourgeoisie.
Miguel Bilbatúa comments that Sender’s rationale for this change is found in the social
force during the early years of the Second Republic. “[Lo que] irrumpe en la vida española no es
tanto una burguesía adulta cuanto un proletariado cada vez más organizado y consciente de su
fuerza” (23). Sender was also arguing that “el espectador burgués pertenece a un tiempo pasado.
Es, pues, necesario buscar un nuevo espectador, y este no puede encontrarse más que en la clase
ascendente: el proletariado” (qtd in Bilbatúa 26-7). Compatible with the ongoing events of
Spanish society, only the proletariat had thematically and ideologically something new to offer
on stage and connect with a more broad audience. “El teatro proletario es la única modalidad que
responde a las intimas características de nuestra época” (qtd in Bilbatúa 26), Sender would also
point out.
Maria Teresa León expresses her agreement with a different direction for the Spanish
theater with Huelga en el puerto. Indicative of her progressive and revolutionary views, it will be
during 1937-1938 when her political ideology will be infused in the creation of Teatro de Arte y
Propaganda, to which she will be director. Manuel Aznar Soler in his article “Mª Teresa León y
el teatro español durante la Guerra Civil” describes León’s contribution to Spanish theater and
her political engagement as follows:
directora del Teatro de Arte y Propaganda, instalado en el Teatro de la Zarzuela,
en donde, durante la temporada 1937-1938 se estrenó el teatro político antifascista
de mayor calidad dramatúrgica y escénica que pudo verse en aquel Madrid «leal»;
115
fundadora también de una Escuela aneja al Teatro de la Zarzuela, en donde
organizó diversos cursillos de dirección escénica; impulsora y activista de Las
Guerrillas del Teatro, que desarrollaron una intensa labor de agitación y
propaganda en los frentes y en la retaguardia; teórica, ensayista y buena
conocedora a través de sus viajes en compañía de Alberti del teatro europeo
(Piscator, Meyerhold, Tairov), la actividad teatral de María Teresa León a lo largo
de la guerra civil fue intensa y fecunda. (37)
After 1930 “her work is indicative of the shift away from avant-garde prose […] to more
ideologically loaded social and political fiction” (Davies 112), a tendency that was also evident
in the renewed interest in social drama, because of the rough political conditions in Spain at the
time. Result of this new orientation is Huelga en el puerto, a “verdadero canto a los ideales
revolucionarios marxistas” (Nieva Autoras 147). León’s membership with the Communist Party
and her study of soviet writers lead to a new view of the Spanish proletariat’s problems. Their
depiction on stage also reflects León’s understanding of new modern theatrical theories,
introduced to her mostly by Brecht’s, Meyerhold’s and Piscator’s work. In the one act short play
Huelga en el puerto the plurality of characters, the effective use of the on-stage space, light and
sound blend with the rapid, short and at times abrupt dialogues to portray the tension of an
ongoing agitation that will eventually escalate “la huelga”, the strike.
The opening stage directions inform about a dark scene. Soon a bright light in the right
part of the scene will replace the darkness. The spectator focuses only on that corner of the stage
where “el telegrafista” informs with isolated words what is going to follow: “Huelga. – Entiendo.
– Huelga 24 horas. – 7.500 obreros. - Entiendo. - Entiendo. - Entiendo. - Entiendo …” (León 57).
116
The repetitive character of “telegrafista’s” vocabulary intends to convey briefly but accurately
the plot’s main theme. There is a strike in 24 hours in which 7,500 workers participate. The word
“entiendo”, “I understand” is repeated five times to accentuate the character’s role as receiver of
important information. Throughout the play he will be the one bringing on stage the pulse of the
events’ evolution by his short informative interventions. He becomes the narrator or the reader of
an ongoing revolutionary preparation, to which he will become part at the end of the play.
This character’s presence in the play is not accidental. María Teresa León chooses an
ideologically impartial character to report the increasing tension of a social burst. The rough
social conditions, the inequity and exploitation of the proletariat will gradually reveal a somber
context to which a strike seems to be the only reasonable or natural outcome. It is for this reason
that the end of the play presents the “telegrafista” also participating in the strike. His exposure to
the reality throughout the play awakes his conscience and prompts him to leave behind his
impartiality. For León this character’s reaction shows the effects that the society’s mobilization
could have, after people become informed of the working class’ adverse living conditions. The
play itself shows a shift at its end and suggests a positive view toward the future. The words that
illustrate this intention are “esperanza y combate” (León 79), in the closing stage directions.
“Hope and combat” do not contradict each other but they rather support each other to the extent
that improvement will occur if optimism and a willingness to fight against oppressive situations
direct people’s actions in society.
León does not underestimate the power of women proletariat to mobilize and eventually
lead tan organized strike to success. Women in the play contribute to the social turmoil in a lucid
and effective way. Despite their difference of age, each of them stays united towards their final
goal: to protest for their right to live a decent life. In a prophetic tone, indicative of their key role
117
in the play, the old women react to the men workers’ request to move away because “en el
Puerto de Sevilla, sólo se permiten hombres” (León 65). “Ya veréis, ya veréis” reply the women,
implicitly expressing their future involvement in the strike’s progress.
The women in the play, identified by their professions or simply by their gender (Mujer
una, Mujer dos), laconically but concretely inform about the strike’s reasons. The dialogue
between them is accentuated by constant punctuation, sign of emotion, tension and ongoing
movement that demands fast action. Workingwomen describe the hardness of their daily life, to
which the only solution is revolt. It will be the death of one of them that will become the symbol
for the organized strike. “La muerte de esta madre simbólica, luchando valientemente por el pan
de sus hijos, reagrupa a los obreros que convocan entonces una movilización general” (Nieva
Autoras 178). After the fatal incident, men (and even children) come closer and united raise their
voice against the “Gobernador” and guards calling them “Cobardes”.
The symbolic death of a woman composes the climax of the short play and ideologically
shows León’s revolutionary intention and affiliation to the Marxist ideology. “¡Huelga general
por solidaridad proletaria!” screams a voice (una voz) and “todos a una”, “all in one voice”
repeat “¡Huelga!”. It is in this moment that the telegrafista realizes the importance of
proletariat’s reaction and decides to join them. “¡Yo también soy de los vuestros!”, he exclaims.
Previously the Patrono’s ideological disposition against Communism and the effort to maintain
the “capitalismo individual” explicitly reveals León’s attachment to the Communist Party. From
one side the Patronos and the other side los obreros. The gap between the two opposing groups
will not close, at least not soon.
“Patrono Uno” talks about Spain’s national future being based on the international
capitalism’s investment in the country that “por ahora hay que proteger, sea como sea, el libre
118
uso de las riquezas del capitalismo individual” (León 69). The individualism to which he refers is
also intensified by another patrono’s utterance who claims: “Hay que machacarlos. Nuestras
mujeres ya no pueden ni salir a la calle, y nuestros hijos….” (León 68). His reference to women
and children does not draw the other Patronos’ attention, an indication of their cold-hearted
attitude toward the most sensitive part of population or even their own families. For them what it
is important is to crush the strike and all the ideologically affiliated obreros to Russia, a country
that “otro patrón” describes “desgraciadísimo país de la ordinariez y del hambre” (León 68).
León’s short play effectively combines ideological and technical elements to deliver a
renovated form of theater in early 1930’s Spain. Ideologically Huelga en el puerto address the
problems of a different social group and brings into attention the struggle of women to deal with
the challenge of the daily survival in an unjust and ruthless society. The way she problematizes
injustice and social tension on stage does not cause emotional attachment of the spectator with
the action. Presenting the events and the rationale of them from different points of view (“los
patrones” are concerned about Spain’s future and the individual capitalism, women about their
struggle to survive and families’ well being, “los obreros” about syndicalism and the impact of a
possible crush of a strike on their lives) León manages to engage the audience in a critical
judgment, self-reflection and assessment of the presented facts. Brecht’s Epic Theater and its
educational role on the audience influence her approach and suggest a different theatrical
experience, away from melodrama’s shallow and at times manipulative plots.
Technically speaking, León manages to bring on stage the polyphony of a mixed group of
different ages, genders, social classes and professions, effectively using sound and light to
support the group’s action and extend the on-stage space. Voices and sounds following the
characters’ short utterances create an off-stage space and introduce more characters’ implicit
119
actions. “Se oyen maldiciones en inglés”, “una piedra rompe el cristal donde se supone la
ventana… silbido de la policía”, “grupo de mujeres hablan” are few of the stage directions that
indicate another invisible to the audience space. Indeed the use of sound elements is important to
a play according to the following explanation of José Luis García Barrientos:
la música y los efectos sonoros, en el grado quizás más excéntrico, pueden
significar espacio. Los sonidos que llegan de fuera de la escena son en muchas
ocasiones el procedimiento más eficaz para sugerir, para hacer presente, un
espacio invisible contiguo al que vemos… en cuanto a la música, las asociaciones
rítmicas o melódicas o la elección de un instrumento pueden server para evocar
un lugar. (134)
Light multiplies the on-stage space and it intensifies the dramatic space. Darkness alternates with
brightness to introduce a new scene, group of people or action. García Barrientos talks about
‘luminotecnia”, the technique of effective use of light, commenting that its significance lies on
“la virtualidad de sus propiedades de intensidad, color, distribución y movimiento. En [la]
capacidad para crear “ambientes”, para suscitar estados de ánimo, para subrayar o aislar
“ambientes” del espacio: un objeto, un actor, un gesto etc” (136).
The “telegrafista’s” role as a narrator would not be effective without the alternation of
light. His contribution is important to the plot but his physical presence on stage would be
problematic if León had not used the on and off lighting to make him visible and invisible to the
audience. In various occasions partial illumination of important characters only implicitly
indicates León’s intervention to focalize the spectator’s interest in one element. In the scene
120
where the patronos gather the gradual lighting of the stage concentrates only on isolated
characters, depending on the order they appear and on their contribution to the plot.
Each time a new character is engaged in the dialogue, the light brightens his figure. When
the scene changes, there is “oscuridad” and then again the light focuses on the next character.
The stage directions describe precisely the light’s alternation: “En el ángulo opuesto, iluminada
solo su figura, un hombre” (León 66), “la escena se ilumina más. Aparece una mesa y el hombre
arregla los picos del tapete” (León 67), “se ilumina más el ángulo y aparecen varios patronos
sentados alrededor de la mesa”(León 68), “…vuelve a iluminarse la lucecita del telegrafista”
(León 70), “del ángulo opuesto al telegrafista, con la escena toda ilumindada …”(León 70). In
addition, the opposing movement of characters while on stage implicitly reveals León’s
revolutionary ideology. The opposing groups of “Patronos” and “Obreros” enter the stage from
different directions from each other. Such an arrangement implies a spatial relationship between
them “and the opposition of left and right can be interpreted semantically in terms of conflict or
consensus” (Pfister 257-8).
Vera Starkoff, Nelly Roussel and María Teresa León bring on stage various ideological
approaches in order to inform their audience and prompt reflection. Theater becomes the means
to introduce their affiliation to various doctrines, but not the tool to necessarily impose their
ideology to the spectator. The Université Populaire of Vera Starkoff and Nelly Roussel and the
social-proletariat theater of María Teresa León implicitly address social problems without
suggesting a solution to them. The dialogical and highly communicative form of the plays
studied above call for reconsideration of theater’s function and role in social awakening. Being
revolutionary and innovative, the themes that all three female playwrights present, aim to foster
reflection and debate by evoking meaningful argumentation and further examination.
121
Chapter III
Mothers beyond the motherhood’s traditional role
122
3.1. Reexamining motherhood: Rachilde’s L’araigné de cristal, María de la O. Lejárraga’s
Mamá, and Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa.
As it has been broadly described, a mother’s traditional role is taking care of her children
and supporting them in any way possible: physical, mental, educational and psychological.
Given the importance of motherhood in a woman’s life, there is no doubt that most women after
they become mothers prioritize their children’s needs and follow their maternal instincts. I said
“most women” because not all women have innate feelings for caring a child and subsequently
not all of them will evolve in their motherhood role. As Simon de Beauvoir observes in her book
The Second Sex “others [i.e. women], not repelled by maternity, are too much preoccupied with
love-life or career to undertake it. Or they fear the burden a child would be for them and their
husbands” (493).
French and Spanish female playwrights depicted women’s status during motherhood in
an effort to call the attention to the implications maternity has on their physical, emotional,
psychological and social development.
It is in maternity the woman fulfills her physiological destiny. It is her natural
“calling”, since her whole organic structure is adapted for the perpetuation of the
species… becoming a mother in her turn, the woman in a sense takes the place of
her own mother: it means complete emancipation for her. (Beauvoir 484, 493)
Subsequently, motherhood is a turning point in a woman’s life. However, there are times that
although a mother is fully aware of her maternal responsibilities, for personal, social or other
123
reasons she does not act the way a traditional mother would. This is the case of the female
characters of Mother, Primorosa and Mercedes in the plays analyzed here. Each of these mothers
represents a different maternal model, formed by various factors.
L’araigné de cristal of Rachilde, although it dates in 1894, is an important work that
illustrates a mother’s role in her son’s condition. In this play the traditional loving and nurturing
figure of a mother who consoles her child is absent. Therefore, the son lives under his mother’s
shadow and is called “l’Epouvanté = the terror-stricken”. The son’s devastating psychological
status contradicts his mother’s strong presence. “The young man is a half-dead creature next to
this vibrant mother. […] His features are described by the author as a weak reflection of his
mother’s beauty”, Noonan describes in her essay “Voicing the feminine: French women
playwrights of the twentieth century”. In the beginning of the play the stage directions inform us
about the son’s features as follows:
Terror-Stricken, her son aged 20. He is thin, as if floating in his loose shirt
of pure white twill. His complexion is wan, his eyes are fixed. His straight black
hair gleams on his forehead. He has even features which recall his mother’s
beauty, a little like a dead man who resembles his own portrait. Heavy, slow voice.
(274)
The mother’s presence in this play is a rather metaphysical one, through which we explore the
unconscious world of her son. Such a representation is the result of the symbolist theater that
Rachilde introduces dynamically in late nineteenth century French stage. Frazer Lively explains
that the “symbolists wanted a theater of the soul, in which a mystical inner life would transcend
124
the corporeal world. They believed that realistic sets and even the bodies and voices of live
actors could interfere with achieving a state of reverie” (269). Therefore Rachilde prepares the
way for the emergence of avant-garde tendencies in the beginning of twentieth century and
depicts individuals’ struggling with power and sexuality from a female perspective.
As already explained in Chapter II, Frantisek Deak in his book Symbolist Theater: The
Formation of an Avant-Garde comments that “the avant-garde movements shared with
symbolism an interest in metaphysics and mysticism” (3), characteristics that distinguish many
of Rachilde’s plays. In addition he observes that new attitudes of symbolists such as the lack of
subordination of text to the existing theatrical conventions or the character’s depersonalization,
open the doors to avant-garde means of theatrical performance and production. In Rachilde her
attitude toward themes, structure and overall delivery of a play thematically can be considered as
result of the French feminist movement, emerging at the time she writes, and stylistically as
influence of symbolism.
The influences of feminism and symbolism are detectable in L’araigné de cristal. The
strong female presence of Mother and the symbolic abolition of the male presence through the
son’s fragmental reflection in the mirror, suggest a better examination of motherhood. The son is
a horrified individual whose existence is shared between reality and dream. His mother detects
his suffering, the result of a failed relationship, and offers to console him by bringing him
women and young girls. She asserts that “woman ought to be the sole preoccupation of man”, a
somewhat absolute point of view that implies that a woman’s role on a man’s life is one for
distraction and pleasure. Rachilde has been known for her antifeminism and the aforementioned
opinion supports that. However the fact that the mother in this play is portrayed stronger than the
son contradicts Rachilde’s opposition to feminist ideology. Women are not inferior to men, but
125
superior to them. Lively observes “ [Rachilde] in her plays, her concerns about gender and power
make it clear that she could not help being part of the [feminist] debate she pretended to mock”
(271).
Mother and Son in L’araigné de cristal talk but they do not really understand each other.
Each one sees things in black and white, colors that compose the main lighting of the stage.
Mother believes that women are “honest” or “sluts” and that her son has confused the reality
with the dream. Silvius, the son, sees in the mirrors a dual world: one that reflects reality and one
that deconstructs his image and reveals its horrific components:
Mirrors, Mother, are abysses where the virtue of women and the serenity
of men founder together” he observes to exclaim later on that, “Infernal
mirrors! But they torment us from all sides! The rise from the oceans, the
rivers, the streams! ... mirrors are informers, and they transform a simple
unpleasantness into infinite despair. (276)
With this contradictory description of world Rachilde aims to reverse the traditional roles of a
man and woman in order to depict a woman’s superiority over a man. The son is powerless. He
cannot find any peace in his life. His mother controls him entirely. He looks for her help, hoping
that she would somehow be able to understand him. This is not what happens, as he ends up
obeying to her once again with fatal consequences. Mother’s dominant figure haunts him in both,
his real and subconscious worlds. His mother very superficially listens to his confessions about
the painful experience he had in front of the mirror at the tender age of ten. She expresses fear
for what he tells her but she doubts that what she hears it has really happened. “Oh! Silvius! You
126
frighten me. You are not just telling me stories? You…honestly think about such things?” (275),
she asks him when he completes narrating his experience with the broken mirror when he was
ten years old.
The Mother lacks sensitivity and maternal instincts. Her only preoccupation is to control
her son and satisfy his needs, material or sexual, by either paying his bills or bringing to him
young women and girls. However she seems distant from his emotional needs and unable to
nurture him or understand his suffering. Motherhood in this case has been converted into an
expression of dominance and power. In a culminating way throughout the play, Silvius attempts
in vain to escape his mother’s overpowering presence in his life. Trying to explain the effect
mirrors have had in his life, his mother gets very agitated and orders him to provide her with
light to brighten up the dark room. “(Exasperated). Coward! Am I not even more frightened than
you are! Will you obey me now!” she shouts to her son causing him to react immediately in an
unpredictable way: (Getting up again, beside himself) All right, fine! I will go get your light!
(276), he says to his Mother.
The rising tone of his voice, expressed by the use of the exclamation point, indicates that
the son is literally “beside himself”. In symbolist theater monotonous and dehumanized voice
was one of the main elements to conceptualize the character and support the performing act.
Pfister explains that there are two ways to study a figure’s characterization through language, the
explicit self-presentation and the implicit-self presentation (124). Son’s changing voice applies to
the
implicit, unconscious or involuntary forms of verbal self-presentation, [as] a
dramatic figure may be characterized on the basis of voice-quality alone. Thus,
we generally associate a high piercing voice with resolution or fanaticism and a
127
soft-spoken person with a dreamy or sensitive disposition. (125)
It is after all clear that Silvius is not living in the real world anymore because his fear has taken
over him. He wants to protest to his mother but is unable to do so. Instead, he is obedient to her.
The silence established by the characters’ soft voices throughout the play is abruptly interrupted
by the “resonant sound of a shattering crystal, and the dismal howl of a man whose throat is
cut…” (277). The sound that comes from the off-stage setting is a technique to indicate the
existence of a different environment, invisible to the audience and therefore imaginary. Pfister
explains that “[…] noises and voices off which can be heard in the auditorium – […] are
techniques used by the playwrights to specify and define both the immediate and more distant
environment and are extremely important for the way the plot develops” (270).
In this case, Silvius leaves the on-stage setting to move to an off-stage one with dramatic
consequences for his life. The Mother becomes the instigator of his collision with the sharp
mirror. He confronts his fear, the mirror, once again but with probably fatal results this time. His
fragmental self-image cut in pieces at the age of ten, when he faced the broken mirror, was never
put together, although his mother tried to re-establish it with her superficial way. However, it is
not clear to the audience if Silvius dies or not. The ambiguous end with which Rachilde
concludes her play offers an open form composition of the dramatic text. According to Pfister
such an end “is determined from a negative perspective” (242) but it is also common in plays of
the modern period. After all an open ending drama “can be [first] the result of a changed view of
what a plot should be, namely that it is no longer based on a single constellation of crisis or
conflict [and secondly] delegates the responsibility for [a resolution] to the audience” (Pfister 97).
Furthermore the structural openness of the play could be seen as “an ensemble of
128
individual sentences that are relatively autonomous and isolated from one another” (Pfister 243).
Such an explanation should be linked with the unstable and incomprehensible communication of
the Mother and Silvius. Their obviously distant relationship, as described above, does not
support a meaningful dialogue and after all there is no meeting point of their points of view and
reconciliation, which an ended form structure could have portrayed. The lack of communication
is also reinforced by the abundant moments of silence that as Pfister explains “they often serve to
focus attention on the impossibility of speech” (145). After all, throughout the dramatic text,
both characters follow a parallel dialectic path that creates a chasm between and subsequently
leads to an open end.
It is unknown what Mother’s reaction to her son’s accident is, as the open form structure
of the play does not inform about Silvius’ whereabouts. The play starts and ends in front of an
opening door of a drawing room, in which the two characters are situated according to the stage
directions. The open door offers a feeling of freedom, as both of the characters could walk
through it at the end of the play, having left behind their problems. In a symbolic way Rachilde
uses this door for Silvius to confront his fears. He walks through it at the end of the play to bring
a light but he collides with the mirror. Could he have avoided such an incident? Probably yes if
his mother was more supportive, encouraging and nurturing. Silvius probably would have not
been “beside himself” but able to control his movements and therefore avoid the collision with
the mirror.
The unchangeable psychological status of Silvius and the evolving fear of Mother were
intensified by the darkness of the stage throughout the play. The dim lighting of the moon was
not enough to support the reconciliation between the two characters. The lack of additional light
diminished the openness of the stage that an open door and three open windows over a terrace
129
full of honeysuckle informed in the stage directions. The nighttime is an additional component of
negative feelings and constant fear, linked also with the main symbolist theater features of
mysticism and esotericism. The very bright summer night could in other plays foster a romantic
and idyllic scene, but in this play it contributes to the culminating despair of the characters. On
the other side, it supports the impression that the characters live between reality and a dream.
The moon illuminates the space where the characters sit. The back remains
dark” inform the stage directions. The lighting over the characters’ space aims
to focus on their expressions and eliminate distraction. It is a way for the
symbolists to emphasize “the internal battle of the individual, the milking of
emotion, the buildup of pathos, and the climatic closure before the final curtain.
(Lively 271-2)
Rachilde, by applying all the characteristics of symbolism in her play, manages to abolish the
traditional maternal figure and transform the Mother into a female individual who is indifferent
to her child’s sensibility and emotionally fragmented world. Shocking as it is, the Mother in
L’araigné de cristal belongs to the category of women who although mothers, fail to fully
develop their maternal instincts and evolve through them.
Moreover, the son’s fragmental identity throughout his whole life signified the
abolishment of a male’s power and the dominant presence of women in his life. The Mother
could possibly have reestablished this image and support her son’s effort for a coherent, unified
identity but she acted differently. She demolishes the image of his body and whole identity,
suppresses his voice and condemns him to silence. Mother’s attitude fits Hélène Cixous
130
observation about women’s effort to overpass their body’s imprisonment imposed to them by
men since their early years of life:
now women return from afar, from always: from “without”, from the heath where
witches are kept alive, from below, from beyond “culture”. From their childhood,
which men have been trying desperately to make them forget, condemning it to
“eternal rest”. The little girls and their “ill-mannered” bodies immured, well
preserved, intact unto themselves, in the mirror. (877)
Cixous’ mirror signifies the means to maintain intact the image of a woman over the time. Men
kept women silent since their early years, away from any development, evolution and new
culture. The only mean women had to look upon themselves was the mirror, that maintained the
reflection of a youth that they had wrongly believed was still intact. As men wished for women
to be kept silent, Mother wishes the same for her son. By reversing the roles, Rachilde expresses
a strong preference for the female gender. The Mother implicitly wants her son to maintain his
“ill-mannered”, fragmented body, as this was depicted in the broken mirror, so she condemns
him to lethargy or “eternal rest’ and control him for the rest of his life.
The mother’s controversial and untraditional role in this play could be seen as a reflection
of Rachilde’s dislike of motherhood. Lively comments that Rachilde “although she had one
daughter, she disliked motherhood and gave her energy in the Mercure of France, which Vallette
founded in 1890 [and it was] the premier avant-garde journal out of the hundreds of small
periodicals circulating in Paris ” (270). In addition, in a letter she exchanged with the feminist
Yvonne Leroy, Rachilde endorsed what was then the orthodox creed of women’s natural,
131
biologically based inferiority…. “You are too sensible, Madame, not to admit that the serious
question of motherhood is what counts in your emancipation, that it represents the future, and
that it seems to have no place in your debates” (Lively 73).
Unlike the untraditional mother figure in Rachilde’s L’araigné de cristal, Mercedes in
María de la O. Lejárraga’s “Mamá ” is a mother who evolves during the play and transforms into
a caring, protective and loving maternal figure. Margaret Husson states that “Mamá” has for its
theme the awakening of a frivolous, pleasure-loving woman to the role of motherhood when
confronted with a crisis in the life of her daughter” (15). Mercedes is indeed a wife and a mother
of two full-grown children, Cecilia and José María. Her life consists of endless movements
between social events, beauty salons and uncontrollable money spending. Her husband Santiago
informs her about the fragile financial shape of their family and he wonders if she will ever
change the way she behaves.
¿No te fatiga a ti también un poco esa vida que llevas, ese movimiento continuo, ese
ruido, esa prisa sin motivo ni fundamento? ¿No sientes la necesidad de pararte un
instante, y de hacer cuentas, no sólo de dinero, de toda la vida? ¿No te piden el
cuerpo y el alma un poco de quietud y de silencio? ¿Qué buscas, qué piensas
encontrar en ese vértigo?. (57)
Mercedes indeed conducts a dizzy life that does not have any essential meaning. She lives in her
own world, result of her boredom for being left alone. She fails to be with her family for the first
time after many years and have lunch with them, because she is busy running errands. Santiago
criticizes her absence: “me disgusta y me parece mal que el primer día que tienes a tu hija en
132
casa no hayas comido con todos a la mesa… ya sé que vas a repetirme que no has tenido tiempo,
que has vuelto tarde a casa… ¡peor que peor!” (Acto I, 26). Mercedes justifies her absence with
a superficial explanation that reflects her hollow personality and lack of maternal consciousness.
¿Te figurarás tú que he salido por gusto? Es que he tenido qué sé yo cuántas
cosas que hacer. Primero he ido de compras… no me riñas, eras cosas de toda
precisión, por lo mismo que ha venido la niña ya para quedarse, y para el baile
de esta noche. A última hora siempre falta algo. Luego he ido a la modista,
también para la niña. No la voy a llevarla hecha una facha. Allí … bueno, allí
me entretuve un poquito de más. ¡Ya ve que lo confieso! […] Luego fui a casa
de unas amigas a elegir personaje para unos cuadros vivos que estamos
preparando… no es para diversión, no. Es para una fiesta que queremos dar
para reunir fondos y pensionar a un chico… (Act I, 26-7)
Mercedes’ long explanation reflects a confused, superficial and remote mother figure, which
cares about the “aparecer” and not the “ser”. She refers to her daughter who is eighteen years old
now as “niña”. In general terms this word implies affection and tenderness from a mother toward
her daughter, considering her children still babies and not adults. Santiago himself later on also
refers to Cecilia as “niña”.
However Mercedes’ overall activities of the day show a mechanical and not conscious
interest in her daughter. Her “niña” needs to fit into high society’s standards regarding dress code
and appearance. Cecilia was in a convent as we later on learn and she is not familiar with or
comfortable with her mother’s luxurious and feminine style. “No sé qué adorno, y yo, como no
133
entiendo mucho, le he dicho que ponga lo que quiera” she explains to her mother, referring to the
dress fitting she had with the dressmaker. Mercedes wants to introduce Cecilia to society. She
cares about her dresses and good looking but she fails to be closer to her as a mother, welcome
her with a family dinner at home and spend some time with her after such a long absence.
Mercedes’ maternal instincts have been muted for several years because she was simply
not living with her children. As Patricia O’Connor comments in her book Women in the theater
of Gregorio Martinez Sierra that “for many years Mercedes has had little responsibility as a
mother or wife. For diversion she has gambled” (60). The results of this activity will shake her
life and change the route of her maternal behavior. Mercedes’s son José María, lies to his father
to pay off his mother’s debt. Santiago does not believe him. He confronts Mercedes accusing her
of bad parenting and having an unacceptable influence on her children’s life.
In this part Ibsen’s Doll’s House, based on which Mamá is composed, has been alterted.
The Martinez Sierras wished to emphasize the importance that family has for Mercedes and for
the Spanish society in general. Nora, the main character in Ibsen’s play is alone, trying to hide
the truth for the forgery she conducted years ago. She represents the model of a strong woman,
who uses her own capability to get through the problems she faces. In Mamá, Mercedes is not
acting alone, as she shares her disturbing debt problem with her father initially and her son later.
Her father could help her, perhaps, but his personality is tied mostly with that of a bon-viveur
and Don Juan, who is not close to family values. After all, the play focuses on the importance of
familial solidarity on a person’s life. If José María had not been involved, Mercedes’ change for
the better would have not occurred.
After all the dramatic text is hierarchically arranged around a series of subordinated events,
which offer a closed form composition. María de la O’Lejárraja does not move away from the
134
Aristotelian concepts of unity and totality. In a culminating sequence of events and through the
use of simple, daily vocabulary, structured dialogues and informative stage directions about the
dramatis personae’s psychological and emotional status, the Spanish playwright combines space
and time to deliver a balanced plot and overall transparent dramatic text.
It is the effective use of the culminating events that support Mercedes’ awakening from her
lethargy. She becomes the responsible mother she has to be at the moment she realizes that her
role as a mother is at risk. In no ways, unlike Ibsen’s Nora, will sacrifice her children’s presence
in her life to save her reputation or hide her outstanding debt. Her reaction is even stronger when
Alfonso, the young seducer, flirts with Cecilia. It is the strongest wake-up call for a mother
whose maternal instincts were dormant. “Es usted una mujer” Alfonso tells her with “afectación
de piedad” (93). His intention to make her feel useless and inferior because she is a woman
obviously reflects the general opinion of the time about women. The distinction between man
and woman that Alfonso uses to cease Mercedes’ reaction does not do anything else other than
escalating more fire from her. “¡Y usted un miserable!” she shouts to his face and she demands
that he leaves her house. The dramatic change on Mercedes’ behavior comes from two sources:
first her maternal instincts and second her strength as a woman who has a voice for her own. She
is the feminist new type of woman, who according to what O’Connor states,
she undergoes a metamorphosis and emerges no longer the social butterfly, but
rather the mother who is intent on defending her daughter. She minces no words with
the blackguard Alfonso, and when Santiago delivers his ultimatum that she will have
to be separated form the children, her defense is absolutely eloquent. Under no
circumstances will she leave her children, for it is now that they most need a mother.
135
(Women 61)
“No quiero que tus hijos vivan ni un día más a tu lado” demands Santiago from her to add “tú
vivirás sin ellos, como has vivido hasta ahora”. Mercedes, crying, denies such an option saying
that “yo no puedo apartarme de mis hijos, tú no tienes derecho a separarme de ellos, porque me
necesitan”. These words come from a mother who senses the danger of separating from her
children. What a transformation for Mercedes, who until that moment was living in her own
world, without being able to share any feelings with her family. “Yo sabré defenderlos a costa de
mi vida” she ascertains Santiago. The use of “yo”, “tú” and “ellos” describe the family that
Mercedes risks to lose.
O’Lejárraja successfully portrays Mercedes’s immense change through her vividly related
to action dramatic speech. Her utterances support her intention to change the situation, be herself
for the first time and act the way she wants to because she knows what she wants to do. We
could argue that in this scene, “speech and action are identical [and as such the dramatic figure]
remains completely immersed in the situation that he [or she] hopes to change by speaking
(Pfister 119).
Moreover and although “yo” and “tú” refer to two different persons (Mercedes and
Santiago respectively) they do not contradict each other. Mercedes will be the mother she always
had to be and Santiago will be the father he has always been. Both will work together as a couple
to sustain their family. She will be the mother to protect her children, but not the silent woman,
inactive in her husband’s decisions. She requests equity in her right as a mother and as woman.
“¿Y mi derecho, no es tan respetable como el de los demás? ¡Mi pobre derecho de mujer,
siempre pisoteado por los que dicen que me quieren tanto!” (98). Mercedes has suffered
136
enormously knowing that she was unable to speak out for herself. She blames herself for not
having showed to Santiago that she was a more dynamic personality, different than the
submissive woman of the time. “El hombre piensa solo, decide solo, se basta a sí mismo, es el
amo, es el rey … la mujer a sus trapos, y a sus risas” (99).
Her transformation reaches its highest point as she clarifies that “estoy en mi casa, estoy
en mi puesto. ¡Ni tú, ni nadie es capaz de quitarme lo que es mío!” (99). Mercedes associates her
identity with her house. She will never stop being “un ángel del hogar”, but she will stop being
dormant. In this feature, critics have detected a new type of maternal figure that María de la O.
Lejárraga introduces. “Mercedes is not truly a Spanish mother, in that she has been nurtured in a
different background and was either deprived of or spared the conservative Spanish upbringing”
(O’Connor, Women 78). This is absolutely true. Mercedes lost her mother when she was very
young and was raised by her father, while travelling around different countries and living in
luxurious hotels. The sense of traditional family in a house was never part of her life when she
was growing up and subsequently, she was not prepared to form her own family following
traditional standards.
The new type of mother Mercedes represents is the one who fights with all her strength to
protect her daughter against a man who wants to seduce and abandon her. She is not afraid of her
femininity and she raises her voice against the dominant male. In addition, she imposes herself in
the household as an equal member of the family and not as a decorative component or a toy for
her husband. Under these circumstances this type of mother does not wait until the man of the
house acts, she acts and reacts immediately when sensing danger. O’Connor in her book Mito y
realidad de una dramaturga española: María Martínez Sierra calls this mother “moderna”. She
is modern because she obviously acts in a revolutionary way but she is still traditional because
137
for her, family, children and house define her existence. “Es moderna al negar que sea un juguete
para su marido y al exigir la más absoluta igualdad en la toma de decisiones. No abandona a su
marido, pero le convence de su error al verla solo como una linda muñeca a la que hay que mirar
y acariciar” (145). Mercedes is “una feminista doméstica” as per O’Connor, a term that balances
well the traditional and progressive elements of the woman in early twentieth century Spain.
The same progressive and traditional elements compose Primorosa’s personality, the
mother in Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa. In this case, Primorosa is a single
mother who raised her daughter Paloma. Unaware of her mother’s reason to support all women
who have been exploited and abandoned by men, Paloma finds out she is an illegitimate child
later in the play. Primorosa has not revealed the truth to her for two possible reasons: first she is
ashamed of her past and wants her daughter to admire on her the strong woman she currently is.
Second, because she does not want to destroy the happy family she now has with Manolo and
subsequently jeopardizes her daughter’s sentimental world.
Through her plays, Pilar Millán Astray is known to have introduced to Spain a woman
who is hard working, strong and conservative. As Salvador A. Oropesa states in his article “Pilar
Millán Astray: El conservadurismo español en las guerras culturales de la dictadura de Primor de
Rivera y la II República”,
Pilar Millán Astray fue una de las escritoras que mejor detectó la revolución
sexual de los años veinte y los cambios irreversibles que se habían producido en
la sociedad, sobre todo entre las mujeres […] condena el abuso sexual, sobre todo
el físico y lo que hoy conocemos como acoso sexual. Creía en el derecho de la
138
mujer al trabajo y a un salario digno y la necesidad de la mujer de saber leer y
escribir. (168)
A product of this revolutionary background is Primorosa. Beyond being a very successful
woman, she is a supportive mother who only cares about her daughter’s happiness. However she
does not hesitate to sacrifice this happiness in order to be fair. Justice is her priority. As a mother
she wants the best for her daughter, a good marriage with a good man. However she is against
this idea because Cayetano has abandoned his previous relationship that brought into the world a
child. Pepe el Flamenco while trying to change Primarosa’s mind tells her:
-
¡Amos, No sea usté tan cruel, señora Lola! El barrio entero está removío. Los
-
hombres dicen que es demasiá exageración. Las madres quieren ponerla en un
altar ….
- Sólo ellas puén comprenderme … (Act II, Scene III, 43)
The understanding that Primorosa talks about refers to the way that a mother feels when she
senses a danger approaching her children. Although Cayetano has expressed regret for his
irresponsible behavior toward Soledad, his previous relationship and their illegitimate daughter,
Primorosa does not consider allowing him to marry Paloma. “Mi hija hará lo que a su madre le
dé la real gana, y ya puedes tomar soleta y dejar pa espliego” (Act II, Scene I, 35), she declares
to him. Obviously Paloma does not have an opinion.
Primorosa is the dominant figure of the house, the one who decides what is best for all.
Manolo, her husband, does what she wants him to do, as she explained to Ignacio: “Manolo
139
piensa igual que yo. Es inútil pedir su opinión. Demasiado lo sabe usté, señor Inacio!” (Act II,
Scene I, 35). Subsequently, her daughter, a very calm and innocent young lady, will most likely
obey her mother. When Cayetano asks her to run away with him, marry him and come back to
ask her parents’ blessing, she refers several times to her parents. “Pobrecitos mios”, “padres
queridos” she shouts, trying to find a way to balance her love between her family and Cayetano.
It seems that for Paloma, as for her mother Primorosa, family has priority and any
unethical act is punishable. “¡Qué disgusto tan grande para ellos!” she tells to Cayetano and
adds: ¡Pero esta vida no es vida!” She describes herself as “atolondrada”, saying that she does
not know what is happening to her. Paloma’s personality is the result of a balanced family and a
nurturing mother. Despite Primorosa’s authoritarian presence at home, Paloma does not feel
oppressed. If she was unhappy with the way her mother acts, she would have followed Cayetano
immediately.
The qualities of Paloma’s personality reflect Primorosa’s maternal skills. In a symbolic
way Primorosa wants to give her daughter the values she carries and inspire her to conduct a
similarly integral life. “Everything will be changed once woman gives woman to the other
woman”, asserts Cixous and adds: “The mother, too, is a metaphor. It is necessary and sufficient
that the best of herself be given to woman by another woman for her to be able to love herself
and return in love the body that was “born” to her” (881). After all, the mother figure is
considered “as source of goods” and Primorosa’s maternal figure fits into this description.
The considerable difference between Primorosa, Mercedes and Mother is that
motherhood has not fully developed in a timely manner. Mercedes is ready to act as a mother
when she realizes that she will lose her children and when she senses that a dishonest man will
lure her daughter. Mother in Rachilde’s play has never understood the meaning of maternity and
140
she is not shaken when her son expresses his endless fears to her. It is not that she does not take
care of her son but she cannot connect with him and console him. Primorosa is already alert and
aware of the sentimental deception a failed relationship can cause to a woman. Having a similar
experience herself, she does not waste her time to discuss the problem. She acts immediately and
is ready to attack the person who hurts her daughter.
What defines these mothers as individuals is how they perceive themselves toward
motherhood and how much influenced they have been by the social norms of their time. We
could argue that all three mothers discussed above represent both the traditional and the new type
of woman. On one hand, they are mothers who care about their children in various ways. Their
maternal affection and interest are not expressed similarly by all of them, but in general terms,
they all desire their children’s well being. On the other hand, they portray a new type of mother,
one who is dynamic, eloquent and fearless. It is an individual who is acting as a man, one who
takes full responsibility of her actions and confronts the adverse reactions with courage and
determination.
Motherhood after all in the plays of Rachilde, María de la O. Lejárraga and Pilar Millán
Astray reflects a female, strong individual whose overturning power surpresses the masculine
presence. Certain literary and ideological movements, such as symbolism and feminism,
influence the depiction of mother figures by these playwrights. Although we cannot argue that in
late nineteenth and early twentieth century all the mothers in France and Spain resembled
Primorosa, Mother and Mercedes, we could ascertain that the ongoing social changes prompted
the reexamination of motherhood and its impact on gender roles.
141
3.2. The question of illegitimate children: Vera Starkoff’s L’amour libre, Concha Espina’s
El jayón, and Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa.
Since early times women have been facing the problem of being single mothers, left
alone to raise their children while being despised for having a child outside of marriage.
Although women have been criticized or even condemned for having a child without being
married, men are less vulnerable to the public opinion on this issue for two reasons. First,
because paternity does not cause visible changes in the body, hence nobody can detect if a man
has been the father of an illegitimate child. On the contrary, a woman sees her body changing
constantly during the nine months of pregnancy and her physical appearance is, in many cases,
affected permanently after the delivery. Second, a man is believed to have all the rights to
conduct numerous relationships without being criticized and this is because of the patriarchal
preconception of natural male superiority. Even in cases of wrongdoing, men would still be
considered right because of their supposed moral and intellectual superiority.
Geraldine M. Scanlon in her book La polémica feminista describes Spanish women’s
legal position in the beginning of the twentieth century innegative terms. Either being single or
married, women were expected to obey men. Before their marriage, young women had to obey
their fathers, and after marriage, their husbands. Scanlon comments that
el derecho del hombre a la obediencia de su mujer estaba fundado en su supuesta
superioridad moral e intelectual, y aunque no se negaba que había casos en los
que se abusaba brutalmente de ese derecho, se le quitaba importancia por ser
excepciones desgraciadas, pero insignificantes, que no demostraban nada más que
142
“en todos los estados de la vida hay felices y desgraciados … como hay enfermos
y sanos, ricos y pobres. (127)
In addition referring to article 321 of Civil Code, Scanlon observes that “el artículo refleja muy
claramente la opinión general de que las chicas no debían abandonar el hogar paterno a no ser
para casarse, es decir, pasar de la tutela del padre a la del marido” (125). In any case unmarried
or married women had to act according to men’s directions. Little was left for them to act
following their own will. Subsequently, things would have been even harder when a child was
born outside of marriage.
In Spain, the law did not protect maternity out of marriage. The mother did not have any
right to ask from the child’s father to recognize the child nor ask for financial help. Scanlon
explains that “la mujer carecía de medios legales para obligar al padre a reconocer a su hijo, pues
la ley prohibía la investigación de la paternidad” (125). In addition she clarifies that the only case
that a father was obligated to recognize his illegitimate child was the following: “1) cuando
exista escrito suyo indubitado en que expresamente reconozca su paternidad. 2) Cuando el hijo
se halle en la posesión continua del estado del hijo natural del padre demandado, justificada por
actos directos del mismo padre o de su familia” (126).
Similarly in France in the first decades of the twentieth century single mothers and their
illegitimate children were seen suspiciously. Despite the evolving female emancipation and the
considerable positive impact of the feminist movement
the prejudice against the illegitimate child had not been eliminated in the
bourgeois milieu and such offspring might not always be grateful to the mothers
143
who had brought them into the world. The happy ones were those who enjoyed
their jobs and considered that their independence allowed them to achieve more,
but even if they had to cope with the lack of companionship and support in their
domestic lives. (McMillan 125)
Given these adverse reactions, French and Spanish women playwrights transferred to the stage
the problems arising from having illegitimate children. Looking for a better understanding of
motherhood out of marriage, the plays of Pilar Millán Astray El juramento de la Primorosa
(1924), Concha Espina El jayón (1916) and Vera Starkoff L’amour libre (1902), approach from
different perspectives the question of illegitimate children and reflect various aspects of morality,
prejudice, social norms and individual strength.
The main female characters of these plays are mothers of children born outside of
marriage. Each one of these women has a different story and a different reason for being a single
mother or raising an illegitimate child. Beauvoir describes the reason behind illegitimate
motherhood. Although she refers to the early twentieth century France, her rationale is applicable
to more or less all women, despite time or country:
illegitimate motherhood is still so frightful a fault that many prefer suicide or
infanticide to the status of unmarried mother: which means that no penalty could
prevent them from “getting rid” of the unborn baby. The common story is one of
the seduction, in which a more or less ignorant girl is led on by her irresponsible
lover until the almost inevitable happens, with concealment from family, friends,
144
and employer a necessity, and an abortion the dreaded but only conceivable
means of escape. (488)
Despite the fact that what de Beauvoir describes above is what happens in most cases, the female
characters of the plays discussed here do not choose suicide or infanticide. This is not accidental
as Pilar Millán Astray, Concha Espina and Vera Starkoff introduce a new female individual who
is not frightened of being a single mother, instead they are raising a child alone against a biased
society while being successful at the same time.
In Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa, Primorosa is the mother of an
illegitimate girl that she raised alone after Fernando, the biological father, abandoned her to
marry another woman. At that point Primorosa “llena de pena y de vergüenza” shared the news
with her mother who recommended to Primorosa to kill Fernando with a knife at the day of his
marriage. The young woman fainted while at church and holding the knife. Later that day she
delivered her daughter Paloma and she swore to protect the first woman who would ask for her
help for being the victim of a similar failed relationship.
The knife in the scene has a double function. It is obviously the mean to take Fernando’s
life but it is also the reason that stops Primorosa from committing a crime. In a figurative
explanation the knife also serves to cut her ties with her past. After this incident at church,
Primorosa takes control of her own life. She becomes stronger and she focuses on her daughter’s
wellbeing, as well as hers. The function of the knife here adheres to Prisfter’s explanation that
“certain objects introduced [to the dramatic text tend] to move the plot forward” (273). In
addition the knife is presented in the dramatic text through the speech in two ways: directly (as a
145
concrete object) and indirectly (symbolically or metaphorically) as the mean to alternate the
sequence of the plot.
Could Primorosa have acted differently? Could she have approached Fernando again and
insisted that he recognized his child? Given the legal status of women at the time of the play,
Primorosa obviously did not have many chances of success. Scanlon clarifies that “la ley está
específicamente dirigida a proteger al hombre y contiene la clara inferencia de que la mujer que
tenga un hijo ilegítimo será considerada promiscua, y por tanto, no merecerá compensación legal
alguna” (126).
Based on the information presented at the play, Primorosa had two choices: either killing
Fernando and ending up in prison with the worst consequences for her and her child, or not going
after him, keeping the child and continuing with her life. Could she have considered an abortion?
It is doubtful because the traits of her personality demand for justice, clarity and order. An
abortion would mean to take an innocent, unborn child’s life. Not having Paloma in her life
would have most likely changed her whole character.
Primorosa becomes stronger, integral and determined after being the victim of such an
injustice. “Entonces juré, apretándote sobre mi pecho y mirando el cadáver de mi madre, que la
primera mujer que se me acercara pidiéndome protección en igual caso que el mío, la defendería
hasta la muerte…” (Acto II, Escena III 49), she confesses to Paloma for the first time and she
explains the reason for being against the continuation of her relationship with Cayetano.
Primorosa’s emotional status after being deceived by Cayetano was bad. Losing her
mother at the same time and having a baby in her arms without support tormented her and shook
her world. Surprisingly another man crossed her path and became the legal father of her daughter.
Manolo is the ideal man who loves her and Paloma. As Primorosa shares with Don Miguelito
146
“Manolo nos adora, vivimos como tres ángeles. Yo trabajo porque quiero, me tira el oficio. Él
gana mucho con el almacén de comestibles que tiene en la plaza de la Cebá. No me puedo quejar
de mi suerte” (Acto Primero, Escena IV, 22). Later on in the same scene and act Don Miguelito
describes Primorosa as “dulce oveja y brava leona a un tiempo” but she corrects him saying that
“que mansa está la leona”. In Primorosa’s words we detect a change in her strong personality.
She denies being strong and brave anymore and this because of the stability that her current
personal and professional life has.
Her illegitimate child did not become an obstacle and did not cause rejection by other
men. On the contrary Don Miguel and Manolo helped her to step ahead. Significant is the use of
the names of these two men. Don Miguel is the guardian angel for Primorosa, the same way that
Miguel is the archangel in the Bible. Manolo obviously derives from Emmanuel, which is the
name of Jesus. Good-natured men, unlike the other men of the play, helped Primorosa to
overcome a painful past. The signification of the names here is important because it reveals the
character’s personality, “bear on the informational function of dramatis personae” (Aston and
Sanova 45) and after all support the dramatic text.
Meanwhile Pilar Millán Astray suggests a two-sided masculine image. One is that of the
traditional superiorly acting individual, who takes advantage of the supposed male dominate
presence on earth. As Pepe el Flamenco says to Primorosa “desde que el mundo es mundo, hay
hombres que engañan a mujeres” (Acto II, Escena III, 43). The second image is that of a
supportive man who cares about the women around him and would do everything to defend them.
Don Miguelito describes what women mean to him as following: “es lo más bello que Dios creó
sobre la tierra. ¡Su obra maestra! Vivir para amarlas, arruinarse por sus caprichos, verter hasta la
147
última gota de nuestra sangre por defenderlas. ¡Todo por ellas y para ellas!” (Acto II, Escena III,
37).
The fact that in the play there are these two types of men implies the ongoing change in
the mentality of the Spanish society regarding women’s presence and rights. Similarly,
Primorosa is the stronger woman in all on the play again because she represents the evolving
attitude of women of her time toward patriarchy and superiority of male. At the same time Pilar
Millán Astray offers a blend of activism and theory. She deconstructs the absolute male figure as
sign of dominance that through impregnation controls the female and then continues to his next
target. The play was staged at the time that the feminist movement in Spain was still evolving.
For this, it can be seen as a porte-parole of the ongoing efforts of feminism in theater. As SueEllen Case in her essay Towards a new poetics explains
the feminist in theatre can create the laboratory in which the single most
effective mode of repression – gender – can be exposed, dismantled and
removed. The same laboratory may produce the representation of a subject who
is liberated from the repressions of the past and capable of signaling a new age
for both women and men. (147-8)
This new age of women and men is reflected in the characters of Primorosa, her daughter (who
eventually inherits her mother’s values and strength), Don Miguel and Manolo.
Concha Espina’s El jayón deals with the problem of illegitimate children but from a
different perspective. The illegitimate child is of a married man, Andrés, with a woman with
whom he had an affair at the time he was getting married to his current wife, Marcela. Marcela
148
finds the illegitimate newborn baby in the porch of their house and she decides to raise it as hers.
Having a same age baby with Andrés, Marcela does not protest against her husband’s affair. On
the contrary, she takes advantage of the situation and she names his illegitimate child hers
because her biological child is handicapped. She explains to her friend Luisa how she was lead to
this decision:
yo sola conocí la desgracia de mi criatura. Tenían los niños tres meses
cada uno. Eran como mellizos de semejantes y únicamente yo los
diferenciaba, cuando un día palpé en el pecho de Serafín las costillas
viciosas, los huesos retorcidos… nublé de espanto…llamé al médico. Le
examinó con señales de compadecerse mucho y sin decir el mal que tenía,
va y me pregunta: -Este niño, ¿cuál es? Yo conocí que iba a sentenciar
para siempre, y como la comedianta que representa una mentira, salté y
repuse: - Éste es el jayón. (Acto II, Escena V, 1774)
Marcela, distraught by having delivered an unhealthy baby and under the pressure to be the
mother of a healthy, strong child, commits a crime. The illegitimate child is named Serafín and
the handicapped biological child is Jesús. The choice of names is not accidental. They both carry
religious connotations. Jesús ends up dying in a snowstorm, being sacrificed, as Jesus did, for the
sin of his mother, Marcela. Serafín as another angel will live to remind to everyone the
innocence of being an illegitimate child. Concha Espina’s characterization technique of certain
dramatic figures is implicit, supported mainly by the use of symbolic names.
Concha Espina’s feminine characters suffer from a profound melancholy, a sentiment
149
common in her life as well. Juan Cano Ballesta in his article “La mujer en la novela de Concha
Espina” sates that “… melancolías y reconcentraciones, […] son características de casi todas las
grandes figuras femeninas que forman el eje de las novelas de Concha Espina. […] su
predisposición a la tristeza se acentúa con el dolorosos desengaño que sufrió en Chile a raíz de su
matrimonio” (51). He also observes that “… la obra de Concha Espina es esencialmente
femenina, […], la figura central, […], es casi siempre una mujer, y una mujer que no ha logrado
conseguir la felicidad en este valle de lágrimas” (54).
Furthermore he states that in many of her novels (La niña de Luzmela is a good example)
the theme of illegitimate children is abundant, “los hijos illegítimos abundan en la obra de
Concha Espina (54). In El jayón Concha Espina links the unfortunate moment of a woman
having a child out of marriage with the pressure of a mother bringing into the world a healthy
and strong child, one who would continue the lineage of the family and prove a woman’s fertile
capability.
Marcela’s story is rather shocking, to think of a mother giving up her sick child to get a
healthy one. However this attitude is the result of the current social pressure for a wife and
mother to bring into the world healthy and strong babies and heirs. As Catherine Davies states in
her book Spanish Women’s Writing 1849 – 1996
an individual woman’s identity was defined by her capacity to reproduce in socially
controlled circumstances, that is, as the monogamous partner in a sanctified
(unbreakable) heterosexual union in which she bore children in order to perpetuate
the legitimate line of her male partner. Her children would inherit the father’s and
mother’s wealth and property. (23)
150
Marcela indeed brings into the world a child and hence she would perpetuate the line of her
husband but this child was not healthy. Although there are not indications from the play that her
husband Andrés is abusive or violent to her, which means that Marcela would have felt much
more responsible of having delivered a deformed child, it is possible that the social context
around her had a big impact on the way she was feeling about herself and her child.
The fact that the play takes place in a rural area and not in the city supports this point of
view. The stage directions in the beginning of the play inform about a scene “en una aldea
montaraz, de Santander en època actual”. The characters of the play are all people of a village,
whose main occupation is working on the land, taking care of their cattle and forming a family.
Espina’s “naturalist technique in the portrayal of the dramatic landscape” (Davies 114)
reflects not only her ties with her native Cantabria in north of Spain but also her intention to
depict women’s lives in a rural setting, away from the evolving lifestyle of a city. In a similar
way Federico Garcia Lorca would paint women’s life in southern Spain in the first decades of the
twentieth century in his rural trilogy Blood Wedding (1932), Yerma (1934) and The House of
Bernanda Alba (1936). Motherhood and marriage along with isolation, happiness within
marriage, deception, jealousy and friendship, passion and frustration are themes that Lorca
develops in these three plays in conjunction to the vibrant presence of nature and its elements. In
both cases of playwrights, the rural setting allows to better witness the challenges of a woman
living in a small Spanish village in the early twentieth century, where the lack of educational and
employment opportunities would inevitably oblige her to focus only on looking forward to a
prosperous marriage and bearing offspring.
Marcela gives in the first act information about her educational background. Talking with
151
Andrés, she says that she detects grief and sorrow on him “una pesadumbre”, that she cannot
explain. Andrés insists that she elaborates more her thoughts but then Marcela replies that “No
he ido a la escuela tanto como tú, no entiendo de finuras ni de sabidurías” (Act I, Scene I). Her
brief explanation is enough to acquire substantial information about her. She is only 21 years old,
a housewife, living in a remote village, married to a man who is 29 years old, and her limited
education is not sufficient to look for a different life. Could she want a different life and what
that would be? Given the social context in which Marcela was raised and currently lives, she
would most likely not wish anything else other than having a happy marriage and many healthy
kids. Not being able to achieve this, her world is tormented and sad.
Sadness and melancholy are the main sentiments, not only on Marcela’s character but
also on Concha Espina’s works, as they reflect the conflict between the interior and exterior
world of a person. Elizabeth Rojas Auda in her book Visión y ceguera de Concha Espina: su
obra comprometida observes that [a Concha Espina] le interesa el alma” (33). This interest is
expressed in many parts of the dialogue in the play, when Marcela tells to Andrés:
-“¡Casi nunca te ríes ni te alegras!”
-Se me habrá pegado a la cara la neblina del monte, la tristeza del país… Yo no lo
puedo remediar! (Acto I, Escena III, 1768)
His “tristeza del país” refers probably to the problems of Spain at the early twentieth century. His
words could possibly recall the preoccupations of the “Generación del 98” and argue that Concha
Espina at this point is thoughtful of her country’s fragile condition and deep social, political and
152
economic problems. However a closer study of Espina’s work would eliminate such an
association, a fact that Rojas Auda also explains as follows:
A Concha Espina no le interesan los mismos problemas que a los escritores de la
Generación del 98. A diferencia de ellos, la autora expresa una profunda
admiración por su herencia española, por su fe católica, y limita su crítica sólo
para aquellos elementos que la escritora percibe son de influencias extranjeras y
destructivos del carácter español. (32)
If Conca Espina’s work does not relate with the “Generación del 98”, it could allude to Emilia
Pardo Bazán’s play La suerte (1904). The main reason is that this latter play also takes place in
a rural setting and specifically in Galicia, Pardo Bazán’s homeland. In addition, in La suerte
“characters tend to exhibit attributes that are determined by social, racial or national origin”
(Lee Bretz 43), the same way as Espina does in El jayón. Social and physical conditions
determine the characters’ behavior and support the dramatic space. In both plays unfortunate
events such as violence and death determine the denouement but the playwrights choose not to
represent them on stage. This attitude is against the neo-romantic drama tendencies of the time
and “its emphasis on action and violent emotional scenes” (Lee Bretz 44).
Furthermore all main characters of the play, Andrés, Marcela and Irene are sad. Irene is
the biological mother of Andrés’ child, Serafín, which Marcela has been raising as hers after she
“falsified” his identity with that of her handicap son. Being a peaceful person as per her name’s
meaning deriving from the Greek word “Ειρήνη= peace”, Irene is a very unfortunate woman
who lacks the basics to even feed herself. “No tengo trabajo, ni qué comer” shares with Marcela,
153
while she tries to enter the latter’s house and see from more closely the two children. Knowing
that one is hers but illegitimate, she remains silent.
Her story is deeply disturbing. She left the child at the door of the house where the man
who impregnated her lived. After she lost her mother, Irene is left alone. Her only consolation at
the moment is a closer look at her child, who under other circumstances, familiar or social,
would have been with her. These three characters form a triangle of unhappiness, as they are all
linked by the same problem: an illegitimate child.
It is important to mention that Concha Espina situates her three main characters’ somber
world witihin an obscure nature and a melancholic landscape. The weather is almost always bad,
cloudy, cold with little sun that is not enough to light up the characters’ emotional world. The
main incident, the death of Jesús, happens during a snowstorm. The excessive low temperatures
and reduced visibility force Andrés to remain on the shelter in the mountain with his two sons
and not attempt to return back to the village. Jesús, el “yajón” being already sick for an extended
period of time, becomes sicker and eventually dies.
The explicit descriptions of nature in the play along with its lyrical elements are
reflections of the characters’ emotional world. Rojas Auda comments that
en la obra de Concha Espina encontramos sus personajes en un punto u otro del
relato dentro de un paisaje. El paisaje es sentido, ante todo, como un reflejo del
estado anímico de los personajes. Este es dotado de carácter, de alma, de
personalidad, todo ello muy característico del romanticismo. La representación
que la escritora hace de la naturaleza nos deja traslucir la asimilación realizada de
las técnicas adoptadas por sus predecesores del siglo XIX. (34-5)
154
The locale and events create a semantic correspondence between the dramatic text and the
figures, which is reflected on their speech. Marcela is very worried about the weather conditions
looking at the dark sky and the sensing the upcoming threatening snowfall. The spatial context
composed by the two different locales (the village and the mountain) creates an antithesis that
accentuates her already disturbed psychological status. The nature in this context function
metaphorically and “in some way [is] in sympathy with man, a notion that represented a
widespread topos in European literature and was particularly feature of Shakespeare’s plays”
(Pfister 261).
Nevertheless, the strong presence of nature does not imply that El jayón is a mere
naturalistic play. As Mary Lee Bretz writes in her article “The Theater of Emilia Pardo Bazán
and Concha Espina”, “the primary force of El jayón is the classical depiction of fate. Naturalism
occupies a secondary position, explaining the moderate use of local dialect, the mimetic
representation of scenery and costuming, and the survival of the fittest theme in the secondary
plot” (45). After all, the play through its classic-tragic and naturalist approach reflects the
tormented world of thee people, whose fate is united through an illegitimate child.
In L’amour libre Starkoff narrates the experience of a young woman, Blanche, who after
having a relationship with a law student and current aspiring politician is left with an illegitimate
child. The action takes place in the Université Populaire, which is the common characteristic of
all her plays. Cecilia Beach comments in her book Staging Politics and Gender that “Starkoff’s
published plays were written for and about the Université Populaire” (70). She explains that “for
Starkoff the Université Populaire, and particularly the people’s theater, allow the proletariat to
155
fight against the usurpation of Art and Science in order to supplement their economic
emancipation with a richer intellectual life and a new, social morality” (71).
The social morality that Starkoff is talking about applies to the problem of illegitimate
children and its consequences on the individual and society. “Blanche’s main combat is against
the injustice of the laws that can harm the innocent children” (Beach Staging 74). Throughout the
play the dialogue reflects well the opposing French public opinion of the time about single
mothers, illegitimacy and marriage. Université Populaire fosters such a debate and Starkoff being
a revolutionary personality herself, discusses these topics on stage through the characters of her
play: Blanche, Ruinet, Ratule, Cropest and Mme Gaillard. Both Ruinet and Ratule express their
indifference to an unexpected pregnancy.
Behind the meaning of “amour libre = free love”, which is the topic of discussion for the
night at Université Populaire, they only see sexual pleasure. Ratule specifically says that “on a
du plaisir ensemble, c’est bon, puis on s’en va chacun de son côté, bonsoir” (Scene III, 303).
Cropest reacts associating such a free relationship with that of animals, “comme les chiens, quoi?
… comme la bête”. In his question about an unpredicted pregnancy, Ratule exclaims that this is
not his job and he demands that the woman take care of the whole situation and therefore the
illegitimate child. “Et bien, c’est son affaire, qu’elle se débrouille!” (303).
The verbal style of the utterances’ exchange serves the characterization process of the
figures but also conveys two opposing views of the same issue. A positive or negative reaction to
one utterance with the next, a statement and its confirmation, negation or its qualification, are
techniques that Prister considers important to support the dramatic text and deliver significant
information about a dramatis personae’s quality.
156
Furthermore, the contradictory opinion that Ratule and Cropset have about marriage and
free relationship reflects the severe criticism of these two issues since the middle of nineteenth
century. Marriage was associated with business, as in most cases a couple would end up married
not for love but by arrangement. Therefore, the common life of a man and a woman under
marriage resembled that of a prisoner. This is the opinion that Madeline Vernet, one of the first
anarchists, expressed in 1907: “le marriage est une prison, l’amour un épanouissement, le
mariage c’est la prostitution de l’amour (Ebstein 293). Similarly Beach comments that
since the mid-nineteenth century, marriage had come under hard criticism by
socialists, anarchists, and utopianists. For them, marriage was a capitalist
socioeconomic contract, which they equated with slavery. The preferred
alternative was l’union libre, a mutual agreement between consenting adults to be
living parents. (Staging 73)
Meanwhile Simone de Beauvoir’s opinion is that “it is for their [i.e. both sexes] welfare that the
situation must be altered by prohibiting marriage as a “career” for woman…woman leans heavily
upon man because she is not allowed to rely on herself. He will free himself in freeing her – that
is to say, in giving her something to do in the world” (482). Given these opinions, the
constitution of union libre seems to be the most suitable replacement of an arranged, unhappy
and above all failed marriage. L’union libre as expected could not be easily become a norm in a
deeply catholic country as France. The Church would not obviously allow such a progressive
arrangement to happen, as it would eventually lose control of women, the most important
157
audience of their moral teachings. If this happened, the chances for the Church to control any
part of the French society would be minimal.
Blanche, as it happened in the case of Primorosa and Irene in Spain, was not supported
legally to file for a paternity test. As James McMillan states in his book Housewife or Harlot
about the situation of an illegitimate child in late nineteenth and early twentieth century France
“no affiliation suit was permitted to establish if a child had been fathered by a particular man,
whereas no such veto applied to attempts to discover maternity” (17). In addition “paternity suits
were forbidden in France until 1912” (Beach “Women’s” 82). The only place where Blanche
could talk about her delicate issue to other people, without being criticized and condemned, was
the Université Populaire. This is why Starkoff chooses this institution for her play to take place.
The Université Populaire, known for the chance presenters and audiences had to discuss
about taboo topics, such as that of illegitimate children, enabled the freedom of speech and
exchange of ideas. Its founder George Deherme envisioned educating workers “in order to
produce a new man of a new, freer society [and] to regenerate the individual to improve the
social state” (Beach “Women’s” 78). This is why the main characters of L’amour libre are
workers: a mason, an embroiderer, and a carpenter with his wife. Blanche is a working class
single mother who, trying to continue her life with her illegitimate child while avoiding social
criticism or rejection frequents the Université Populaire. It is the place where nobody asks about
her personal life and if one knows what she goes through, he or she will be understanding but not
judgmental.
Blanche’s name literally means “white” and it could be associated with purity or
innocence. From her explanations, she was seduced and abandoned by a wealthy law student,
who did not show any interest helping her with their illegitimate child. Starkoff ironically defines
158
the man who fathered Blanche’s child as a law student and currently an aspiring politician. She
aims to illustrate the lawmakers’ indifference to establish legal actions against a responsible man
for his children out of marriage. This way she focuses on the message she wants to pass with her
play: “lute contre les lois sur la bâtardise, l’usage de la mère inconnue, l’impossibilité de la
recherche en paternité” (Ebstein 295).
Gradually, Starkoff presents her main ideas in scene V, where Blanche and Ruinet talk
about Blanche’s past. She shares the same bitter sentiments as Primorosa did when she was
abandoned while pregnant. Like the Spanish character, Blanche wishes to take revenge: “Mon
premier movement fut de me venger” (Scene V 308) says. As in the case of Primorosa, the man
who seduced her was involved with another woman. Blanche with her superior and innocent
personality decided not to ruin an innocent woman’s life. She does not reveal anything to her and
she delivers her illegitimate child without any remorse. She explains clearly how the law in
France at the early twentieth century would have favored the man and ignored the mother:
Quelques fois l’homme reconnaît l’enfant et se débarrasse de la mère! Il ajoute à
son nom de père, mère inconnue ! … Ah non, je n’ai pas voulu être la mère
inconnue ! J’ai mieux aimé garder mon enfant ! Mon enfant, c’est toute ma joie,
toute ma vie ! (Après un silence). J’aime mon enfant et j’ai renoncé à l’amour.
(309)
Despite the legal inequity, Blanche is happy to have her illegitimate child by her side. She feels
compete, although she is facing financial problems and is a single mother. The father of her child
is now an aspiring politician who frequents the Université Populaire and delivers fake promises
159
about passing a law for obligatory paternity tests. Starkoff at this point criticizes the politicians
of her time expressing her political engagement and revolutionary intention.
Blanche, unlike Primorosa, does not become the woman symbol of her community. She
is content with the workers’ reaction when they hear the empty promises about legislation of
paternity tests by the man who abandoned her and his illegitimate child. In a certain way, the
workers’ reaction shows a progressive change in the social attitude about single mothers but also
condemns political wooden language and lack of practical solutions. Blanche is for sure a strong
woman, with superior self-control and human instincts. Going after her child’s father will lead
nowhere, she is aware of this. Attacking his current wife is not a solution either. She is content
with how fate can turn things around and take revenge for injustice and cruelty on people. Even
when Ruiner suggests her to intervene and revenge for her, Blanche kindly rejects his offer. She
does not look for a man to protect her or act on behalf of her. Her child’s love is enough to give
her the strength she needs to continue with her life and hope for a better future.
After all, for Primorosa, Irene, Marcela and Blanche having a child out of marriage does
not become an obstacle in their lives. For each one of these characters carrying an illegitimate
child enables them to see their lives differently. However a notable observation in all three plays
is the role of men by the main females characters’ side to defend pregnancy out of marriage. Don
Miguelito and Manolo support Primorosa. Andrés defends Irene and Ruinet takes Blanche’s side.
Could the writers of the plays have omitted the male presence and restrict their characters to
being female in order to better illustrate the frustration of being a single mother without social
prejudice or legal protection? It could have been a possible choice but the plays themselves
would lack a realistic depiction of the issue and a clearer representation of both sexes’ reaction.
160
In all cases the female playwrights choose men to advocate the problem of illegitimate
children for two reasons. First Vera Starkoff, Concha Espina and Pilar Millán Astray probably
considered male characters’ authority more acceptable by the audience to talk about such
delicate issues. In such a case women’s theater in the plays discussed here uses the traditional
male subject as a mean to promote awareness about feminine problems. Men condemn
patriarchal established doctrines about marriage and maternity. They support women and through
their attitude they call for reconsideration of established norms. Secondly, men’s positive attitude
toward illegitimate children along with their disposition to help a single mother, would better
illustrate the ongoing change of the public view and reflect the impact of the feminist movement
in the beginning of the twentieth century.
Sue- Ellen Case describes how the feminist approach on stage combines activism and
theoretical practice and offers a better understanding on women’s problems. She explains that
“with the deconstruction of the forms of representation, and dialogue and modes of perception
characteristic of patriarchal culture, the stage can be prepared for the entrance of the female
subject, whose voice, sexuality and image have yet to be dramatized within the dominant culture”
(147).
Indeed, the female playwrights have given priority to women’s decisions and rights. The
absolutism of the male presence in a conventional, unhappy marriage has been demolished by
female determination and strength. Women get a voice after they have experienced grief,
deception, and abandonment by male partners. The feminist aspect of the plays relies on the
depiction of a stronger female individual in the early twentieth century France and Spain, a
woman who after a failed relationship and having illegitimate child does not loose her courage
but continues her life becoming a example for other women to follow.
161
3. 3. Working mothers: Marie Léneru’s La triomphatrice, Pilar Millán Astray’s El
juramento de la Primorosa, and María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto.
Being a mother and working outside the home is not a new challenge. As explained in
Chapter I, already from the end of nineteenth century women from Spain and France were
working in factories, the textile industry, as domestic workers or as secretaries in various
businesses. World War I gave women the chance to work in areas previously dominated by men.
Although it was for a short period of time, their contribution to the needs of society at that time
allowed them to prove their qualifications beyond the domestic sphere.
French and Spanish female playwrights, aware of the rapid changes in the workforce
regarding women’s employment, portrayed the challenges, successes and preoccupations of
several ordinary women. Marie Léneru’s La triomphatrice (1914), Pilar Millán Astray’s El
juramento de la Primorosa (1924), María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto (1933), depict
female characters that are strong, independent and determinative. Being working mothers, they
look for a way to balance life inside and outside the house. It is for this reason that many of these
women are challenged by their ability to exist in “both worlds” without losing their own identity.
Marie Léneru’s female characters are intelligent and self-directed women. They face
conflicts that call on them to take their life into their hands and make their own decisions. As
Nancy Sloan Goldberg in her article “Women, war and H.G. Wells: The pacifism of French
playwright Marie Léneru” comments “the main characters in all of Léneru’s dramas were strong
women who contemplated their situations with seriousness and purpose and then transformed
those reflections into action” (165).
162
The main character in the play discussed here is an established woman of letters, Claude
Bersier. Divided between her personal life and the demands of her career, Claude represents
women of the time before the start of World War I. It was when the feminist movement in
France was very active with feminine suffrage and employment issues. Despite being deaf and
blind as a result of a childhood illness, Léneru “created strong vibrant characters and challenging
moral dilemmas” (Hawthorne 147). Her disability did not stop her from talking to her audience
about what women were experiencing in the workplace. In a way, she was an exemplary model
of a woman who achieved so much in her career as a playwright, a field that was mostly offlimits for women.
Being representative of “the theater of ideas” Léneru was aiming with her plays to place a
“debate on stage in which an insoluble problem was created to test the basically likeable and
rational characters” (Hawthorne 150). La triomphatrice or The Woman Triumphant poses the
question of what a woman’s existence as a writer will be in a workplace dominated by men.
Claude Bersier’s appearance, as described in the opening scene, reflects the New Woman of the
time, with her stylish outfit and fashionable hairstyle. Surrounded by “a forest of books” in her
“large office [that] it should convey immensity through height and depth” Claude seems to be the
queen of the universe. She sits “behind ministerial table” like a man would, and she rules the
world around her.
The space and its representation are of special interest in Léneru’s play. The use of
objects (table, books, chair) creates a realistic context, within which the dramatic figures move. It
has however another function. It shows the level of the characters’ relationship to the objects and
the influence these might have on their life. In La triomphatrice the objects decorate the on-stage
space but they also show that Claude’s world is ruled by their existence because they support a
163
series of external conditions, out of her control. She is a very strong “woman of letters”. The
physical space reflects her higher position but it also oppresses her, forcing her to live under
pressure, uncertainty and constant questioning.
By using objects to reflect the circumstances affecting a dramatic figure it is
possible to demonstrate its dependence on the condition of its immediate
environment, social atmosphere and its physical and psychological disposition –
i.e. that a figure is no longer acting autonomously as a transcendental self but
under the pressure of external conditions. (Pfister 265)
In addition, the stage is representative of Claude’s professional status. At the same time this
imposing setting defines the dramatic space where the characters act. The whole play is defined
by the unity of space and time. The space is closed, which implies that Claude is metaphorically
trapped. She works in her office trying to write, but she has become the center of interest of
many others, who surround her constantly. However Claude is not there by herself. She does not
seem to have a moment to reflect while alone and she constantly has to please others.
Léneru intentionally portrays her main character as a strong person, making a detailed
description of her outfit and hairstyle. The play was presented in 1914, a time when French
women had considerably stepped forward with their emancipation, with notable changes in their
clothing and hairstyle. Claude is apparently one of these women. A remarkably successful writer,
respected in literary circles dominated by men, she seems to have achieved everything. It is for
this reason that a new aspiring female writer, Mrs. Haller, approaches her to look for advice
about how to become similarly successful in her newly launched writing career. Already from
164
Scene I, Claude shares the challenges she goes through in her professional life and the impact
these have in her own identity. She tells Mrs. Haller: “when you do this job, it won’t fascinate
you any more… my poor child, you have to do what you must, I am the man and the woman here”
(152).
Her words draw attention to “I am the man and the woman here”. Claude indeed lives in
a world of men, being a woman but behaving like a man. The stage directions of Scene I inform
about the background of Claude’s life. The contradictory image of a fashionable, modern woman
wearing a short black “princess” style dress does not match her surrounding imposing
atmosphere of a large office and a ministerial table. Later in Scene II while she is talking with
Mrs. Haller and Flahaut, she seems really perplexed. She confesses, “I am doing this because I
hardly have any choice”. Her words represent the pressure of a woman to do things beyond her
own choice.
Léneru intentionally portrays a woman who, although successful, still fights with the
social status quo because she hardly has any choice. Being a “woman of letters” in the beginning
of the twentieth century in France was not a wide acceptable “label”. As explained in Chapter I,
higher education was not open to all women and professional writing was widely reserved for
men. Professionally, women would not have access to university jobs to become professors or
publish books. The only exception was the area of journalism because probably journalism was
an area of lesser intellectuality. On the contrary being a “woman of letters” required a much
higher level of performance, which not many women would be given the chance to reach due to
the lack fo advanced education.
Claude “is the master, the leader of the young generation” as Brémont says in Scene III
while talking with Flahaut. Being a leader is obviously a heavy-duty responsibility regardless if
165
one is a man or a woman. Claude’s nature is based on her feminine side, starting with her dress
code and hairstyle to her preferences in flowers and thoroughbred animals. In Scene IV Flahaut
tells her that these preferences are the ones that harm her and adds: “If you were one of the boys,
if you addressed me informally, if you dressed as a man, and if you smoked like George Sand…”.
Then, one would add, Claude could be closer to the androgynous type of woman introduced in
the late 19the century by Madeleine Pelletier (1874- 1939).
Dressed as a man and differentiating herself from the feminist movement, Pelletier was a
doctor, avid activist and one of the first feminists. She considered feminism a way to end
women’s oppression and challenged her contemporaries with her behavior. “I will show off [my
breasts] when men adopt a special sort of trouser that shows off theirs…” (Gildea 388), is one of
her well-known phrases to express her opposition to women’s feminine appearance defined by
their clothing and hairstyle.
Claude is not dressed like Pelletier but she smokes like George Sand. Would that be
enough to make her entrance into the male world easier? Flahaut pictures Claude’s divided world
in the articles he has written for her. “Claude Bersier and Style”, Claude Bersier and Women”,
“Claude Bersier and Man”. Her life is a constant conflict between a woman’s world and a man’s
world because she wants to survive professionally in a men’s profession. Is this the only reason
for this? According to Cixous “men have committed the greatest crime against women…they
have led them to hate women, to be their own enemies…they have constructed the infamous
logic of “anti-love” (Cixous 30)1. Cixous’ “anti-love” is detectable on Claude’s life. She acts like
a man showing a rough, masculine attitude because she wants to prove to her environment that
she can reach the high standards that men have established leading to success and happiness.
1 Men have turned women against themselves by creating ideas within which women much fit in order to
be loved and recognized. In their effort to do so, women have become overly critical and judhemental
toward themselves and have created an unpleasant environment within which they live. 166
Therefore, she is not the tender, quiet and easygoing woman of her time but she is always ctirical
and judjemental of her ability to compete in the masculine world.
In Scene 6 Claude confronts her husband about their dysfunctional marriage. Claude
accepts that Henri hardly finds her attractive because her personality horrifies him. This
horrifying personality refers to Claude’s higher intellectual capability. Lénéru in her “Theater of
Ideas” brings to the fore the role of the intelligent woman” (Holmes French 64). Her husband
Henri and her lover Sorrèze both feel threatened by her superiority and success. Henri stays
without loving her. Claude makes more money than him and he resents her success. He could
divorce her but his masculine pride does not allow him to. In Act I, Scene 6 he tells her: “you are
the head of the house, your daughter owes you everything”. Henri’s negative reaction toward
Claude can be explained by the comment of Diana Holmes. In her book French Women’s
Writing: 1848 – 1994, Holmes mentions that “The Petit Parisien [had] published moral tales in
which working wives lost their husbands’ love by earning more than they, and Petit écho de la
mode preached genteel resignation to hardship” (115). It is possible, after all, that Henri feels
inferior to his wife, as she is the successful and earns more than he.
Claude is the “man” of the house, the one who has been financially supporting her family.
Her femininity has been suppressed by being fully functioning as the provider of the goods in her
home, a traditionally masculine duty. The closeness of the stage is compatible with the closeness
of dramatic space. Claude confesses to Henri that she has been silent a long time. “I was living in
silence of old women”, she says in Scene 6. She wanted to tell him that she was suffocating in
their marriage. Henri refuses to hear any of her opinions. “Your duty was to remain with your
daughter”, he tells her. Claude should have ignored her need to breathe freely and forced herself
to stay in a conventional marriage for her daughter’s sake.
167
Henri is contradicting himself. He does not want to give divorce to Claude because of his
“masculine pride” but he thinks that Claude should stay with him because of their daughter. The
question is if he wants Claude in his life or not. His complex attitude is the result of Claude’s
professional superiority. Henri does not like to be overshadowed by Claude’s success. As
Beauvoir states “men and women alike hate to be under the orders of a woman. They always
show more confidence in a man. To be a woman is, if not a defect, at least a peculiarity” (135).
Beauvoir’s opinion ties with Cixous’ term of “anti-love”. Women do not like women and if so,
why should men like them?
Claude’s lover, Sorrèze, an equally successful writer and a married man, sees Claude as
the woman who has changed his life. He admits that he cannot rule her, as no man could rule her.
“I rule you only through love: if you were inferior, I would rule through pride and self-interest”
he tells her in Act I, Scene 6. But Claude is not inferior to him. She is not inferior to anybody.
She is the one who, from her “ministerial table” rules everybody around her.
What happens now with her daughter, Denise? Does Claude rule her as well? Her
motherhood side has been affected by her professional activities. She takes care of her daughter’s
dowry, an important necessity of the time for a young lady to be married but it seems that there is
a distance between her and her daughter. Denise is a cheerful young lady, with aspirations to
become a writer, just like her mother. In Act II, Scene I when the two women are together the
stage directions portray an affectionate moment between them. “Claude is seated, she is tightly
hugging her daughter, who is seated at her feet looking up at her”.
The corporal signs of expression indicate here a relationship of a superior mother toward
her inferior daughter. Claude is sitting on a chair but Denise is at her feet. Literally this is a scene
of a mother loving her child. The scenic presentation of the story conveys an open form of
168
information that the dramatic figures deliver with their corporal arrangement. In this open form
“the audience itself becomes a witness to the events as they are presented in concrete, visual
form which it can then interpret according to its own views” (Pfister 204).
Lenéru creates a setting with the bodies of the two women reflecting a controlling
relationship, that later on in the play will escalate tension and Denise’s moving out from house.
The two women have a close and at the same time distant relationship. Claude loves her daughter
and Denise loves her mother. Claude “tightly” hugs her. The adverb “tightly” connotes that she
loves Denise and wants to protect her from entering into the professional world, where she is but
she also wants to hold her away from it and in a certain way, control her future. She tells her “we
working women, we are under such suspicion…if I had been like the others, I would have loved
you less” (162).
However Claude is not like other working mothers. She works from home and she can be
with her daughter a lot. She states this clearly: “I was at home more than the mothers of the other
girls, and perhaps, because I was serious and attentive, I enjoyed mine more than other distracted
mothers” (ACT II, Scene I). She cares about her future and financial security, a requirement for a
good marriage. However Denise suffers under her mother’s presence: “I am not brilliant like you”
she tells her mother in Act II, Scene I. Claude refuses to accept that Denise feels this way. Her
daughter has always been the reason to warm her heart and not listen to anybody else, when she
should listen to her voice.
The tension between the two women bursts when Denise confesses that “my mother is
my rival” (ACT II, Scene 4). This strong criticism shakes Claude and she promises to change and
as she states “I’ll make myself quite small” (Act II, Scene 4). The successful woman needs to
reconsider her role as mother and lower her magnitude to satisfy her child’s needs. Afraid that
169
her daughter does not love her, as she confesses to Flahaut she reconsiders her whole existence.
In ACT III, Scene 3 she madly says to him:
Everything turns against me, husband, child, love, friends, everything holds a
grudge and accuses me. I have used up all my strength I wanted to pull out of
myself, and the strength that other people admire there, I’ve expended myself for
this world like saints do for the other. I was proud, I didn’t value my happiness
any less that their eternity. (167)
She continues by changing her tone and sarcastically shouts: “My happiness! Well, there it is, a
complete fiasco” (ACT III, Scene 4). Is it a complete fiasco being a successful woman? Claude
and subsequently Marie Léneru question us about what happens to be a universal concern and
problem even in our days. How can a woman be successful in her private and professional life
without losing balance? Who is behind this challenging situation? Is it only her or her
surroundings? Claude haunts herself and as explained before, she competes against herself. This
results in a contradictory perception she has for herself and her ability to communicate with the
people who surround her.
In Pilar Millán Astray’s El juramento de la Primorosa things are clearer. Primorosa is
strong and intelligent as Claude but unlike her, she does not compete with herself to prove to
everyone her value. Pilar Millán Astray portrays a woman who is the center of attention because
of her integrity, kindness and dominant personality. She is called “maestra’, the same way that
Claude is called “maître” but with a considerable difference. Primorosa is the only one in her
field and does not professionally compete with men, which is what happens with Claude. This
170
aspect obviously removes a lot of pressure from her and allows concentrating more on her
private life, personal balance and even becoming the protector of mistreated women.
The stage directions in the beginning of all three acts introduce a well-organized world,
where everything is clean and nicely taken care of. Primorosas’ hairdressing salon is described as
follows: “Los paños blancos de las mesitas, las cortinas de las dos puertas laterales, y en todos
los detalles, tiene que resplandecer el aseo y la limpieza” (Acto Primero). Similarly, her house
where the third act takes place is clean and reflects Primorosa’s personality: “Comedor en la casa
de la Primorosa. En el fondo, una reja con plantas, en cada lateral, una puerta. Repartidas por la
escena, sillas, mecedoras, aparador. En el centro, la mesa. Todo muy limpio y aseado (Acto
Tercero). In this case, the locale in a non-verbal, explicit way delivers important information
about the character of Primorosa and satisfies one if the suggested techniques of characterization
as per Pfister (185).
The openness of the stage implies a constant communication with the outside world. The
doors and the windows as part of the decoration support the openness of the space but at the
same time introduce us to the daily life of people in Madrid. This allows the presence of various
characters on stage at the same time. Primorosa is the central one and around her there are
several others who represent various aspects of the daily life but also support her. Their actions,
problems and observations interfere with Primorosa’s respective preoccupations and allow her to
deploy her charismatic personality as a talented businesswoman, caring mother and good friend.
This setting is representative of the spatial relationship within one locale and the juxtapositions
that this creates. Actually “the presence of several figures in stage at the same time who
communicate dialogically with one another implies some form of spatial relationship of distance
or proximity” (Pfister 257).
171
A very strong woman with high morals and fearless to express herself talking openly,
Primorosa reminds us of the feminine character in Benito Pérez Galdós’ novel El 19 de marzo y
el 2 de mayo. María de los Ángeles Rodríguez Sánchez in her article “Una escritora, autora de
comedias populares: Pilar Millán Astray y Terreros (1879 – 1949)” states that
Para dar más fuerza a su protagonista, Pillar Millán, la hace descender
directamente de la primorosa galdosiana que aparece en el episodio del Dos de
Mayo. Efectivamente primorosa era “una mujer del pueblo, gruesa, garbosa, de
ojos vivos, lengua expedita y expeditísimas manos” que tomó parte activa en los
acontecimientos que se desarrollaron en Madrid en aquellos días históricos. (240)
In addition, Primorosa represents in whole the female characters of Pillar Millán Astray’s plays.
She combines successfully the traditional type of woman with the New Woman of the beginning
of the twentieth century. From one side we have a woman, who is conservative and respects the
values related to family, honor and marriage. From the other, we experience a dynamic
individual who competes outside the domestic sphere, showing a fearless, dominant attitude and
an imposing, influential personality. Claudia Echazarreta in her article “Entre una rosa y una
pícara: La (re) presentación de la mujer en le teatro contemporáneo entre Millán Astray y Paloma
Pedrero” explains that “lo que más buscó Millán Astray en sus obras fue inculcar los valores
morales en la sociedad a través de la “familia, el amor, el matrimonio y la maternidad. Ella supo
combinar lo convencional con lo vanguardista” (4).
It is for these reasons that Primorosa is the representative type of the New Woman of the
early twentieth century. Don Miguelito, the close family friend and godfather of Primorosa’s
172
daughter Paloma, ascertains that Primorosa is an exemplary woman for all Spaniards and the one
who although seems dormant at times, she will always react in any case of injustice. His words
are these: “¡La Primorosa no morirá jamás en España! La raza que parece dormida, de pronto se
alza fiera ante la injusticia (Acto II, Escena III, 49). His similar words conclude the play and
emphasize the importance of Primorosa as a symbolic figure: “Brindo con vino español por la
Primorosa, quien es la voz de nuestra raza, hidalga e inmortal. El símbolo de nuestra misión en la
tierra. Alzad conmigo vuestras copas por ella y por España” (Acto IV, Escena V, 69).
Beyond the fact that Primorosa is an integral mother and wife, her work ethic also merits
high marks. As she states, she was working since her very early years to support herself and her
mother. Along with this, she was having a relationship with the man who later became the father
of her child, but she never married. This experience, despite the bitterness and deception that
caused her, empowered her with will and determination to continue alone, raising her child and
progressing in her professional life. Although it is not clear from the play if Primorosa was
having her little daughter with her in the hairdressing salon while she was working, which is
what Claude described doing, it is possible that Paloma spent a considerable amount of time with
her mother while growing up. A result of this closeness is that the two women are inseparable
even when Primorosa asks Paloma to leave Cayetano.
Primorosa, although a very progressive woman for her time (working, earning money,
building a business, being a single mother), did not neglect the value of a good partner in her life.
She married Manolo, a good man who accepted her daughter as his, gave her his name and
became the ideal husband and father. Primorosa describes Manolo as a man who practically does
not have any opinion. “Manolo piensa igual que yo” explains, implying that she is the only one
who runs the house. These adversary roles accentuate the imposing and dominant personality of
173
Primorosa in the play. Her feminine strength has overshadowed every masculine presence
around her, both in her professional and personal life.
Meanwhile Primorosa’s lifestyle is far away from what Simone de Beauvoir described in
her book The Second Sex. According to Beauvoir “we opened the factories, the offices, the
faculties to woman, but we continue to hold that marriage is for her a most honorable career,
freeing her from the need of any other participation in the collective life” (136). This description,
which certainly refers to the vastly majority of women not only of the early twentieth century,
does not apply to Primorosa, who did not see marriage as her lifeboat. It also does not apply to
Claude, whose marriage was basically a business arrangement.
Behind the meaning of getting married for these two successful women, is the need of
being loved. Marriage was not the mean of their life, did not become the way to ensure their
happiness but it was rather the link to a complete social profile that would guarantee the
completion of a balanced life. Certainly, for both women their current marriage is facing various
challenges, especially when they have to balance their professional engagement and commitment.
Unlike most women of the early twentieth century, Claude and Primorosa see marriage
not as the means to define their life. Work is the feature that shapes their personality and helps
them to surpass the challenges of their personal life and the one that grants them a voice. As
Cixous explains in her essay “The Laugh of Medusa”
it is by writing, from and toward women, and by taking up the challenge of
speech which has been governed by the phallus, that women will confirm women
in a place other than that which is reserved in and by the symbolic, that is, in a
place other than silence. Women should break out of the snare of silence. They
174
should not be conned into accepting a domain, which is the margin or the harem.
(881)
In both cases Cixous’ words apply to Claude and Primorosa. Claude with her writing and
Primorosa with her free speech, “break out of the snare of silence”. The question now is if
Claude or Primorosa would be the same strong women and mothers if they were not active
outside of the domestic sphere. It is doubtful because they would not have been given the chance
to interact with other members of the society and prove their ability to compete with them. In
addition, the changing times in which they live attribute tremendously to their outspoken attitude.
Primorosa claims to be the protector of unfairly treated women, while Claude using her pen
diminishes all male writers around her.
As Cixous proposes, Primorosa uses her speech to raise her voice against men’s foul play
on women’s lives. “¡Alguna vez se ha de empezar a ver que tenemos derecho a no ser
engañadas! La Primorosa puso ayer la primera piedra” (Acto II, Escena III, 43), she declares
being furious to learn about her daughter’s future husband’s unethical behavior regarding his
previous relationship. Claude uses her writing because this enables her to find a way to exist and
subsequently dominate every one around her. Talking to her lover Sorrèze, she explains that
If I worked, if I had talent, it’s because I found in that a more forceful way to exist,
call it, if you like, a selfish love of art. If it excited me to be more than other
women, superior in body, soul and mind, it was to be worth more love than them,
it was to tear something stronger, something more despairing out of you…” (Act I,
Scene 7, 160)
175
If Primorosa and Claude are imposing female characters because of their successful careers and
personalities, the women in the play of María Teresa León’s Huelga en el puerto deserve
attention for their engagement in political life and their efforts to demand changes during rough
economic times, ruled by the lack of decent living conditions for women and their families.
María Teresa León does not give a name to any of her characters. She describes them either with
general terms such as “la vieja”, “la mujer”, “mujer dos”, “mujer tres”, “las mujeres”, “patrono
uno”, “patrono dos”, “el pobre”, “un obrero joven, “otro joven” or based on their professions, “la
frutera”, “la criada”, “la mujer del capacho”, “la portera”, “el telegrafista”, “un trabajador”, “el
Gobernador”.
The Spanish playwright chooses a collective protagonist in her play. Her characters form
part of the tormented years of 1931 and 1932 in Sevilla along with the protests between the
Confederación Nacional del Trabajo known as CNT and the Sindicato de Transportes de la
Unión Sindical, linked with the Communist Party. Her play though is more than a reflection of
the difficult times that Spain was going through the first years of the Segunda República (19311936). It brings into stage a group of dynamic people, men and women, who united protest
against the injustice of political forces. The fact that women and men are united to achieve a
common goal presents a different approach to what we experienced in the previous two plays.
In Huelga en el puerto the anonymous women are the ones who set the tone for a
revolutionary action. Unlike with Primorosa and Claude the women of María Teresa León’s play
live under very challenging financial conditions, lack the basic goods to feed their families and
are distraught by the fact that their children will not have the chance to live a better life. “No
podemos comprar ni pan ni aceituna” exclaims “Mujer Tres.” “Somos obreros parados, esto es,
176
no sabemos dónde llevar los brazos y las piernas. Y el médico: “Que los niños tomen naranjas”.
¿De dónde las sacaremos?”, complains “La Mujer del Capacho” in a very bad emotional
condition that María Teresa León describes as “encloquecida” or “going mad”.
It is important to comment on the names of characters in this play. For most of them,
María Teresa León follows an implicit characterization technique in order to emphasize the
contrast between one figure or group of figures and others. Manfred Pfister in his book The
Theory of Analysis and Drama explains that the implicit-authorial characterization creates
contrasts and correspondences which “can be perceived and articulated by the figures themselves,
so as to stimulate the receiver into making contrastive comparison for him- or herself” (195). He
adds, “the figures are contrasted with each other and are thus characterized implicitly, in such a
way as to establish a clear pattern of situational or thematic correspondences” (195). He finally
observes that such an implicit characterization of figures helps “to establish their individuality by
comparing the different ways they react to it” (195).
Given these explanations we can argue that the generic characters of María Teresa León
facilitate the communication of play’s themes about social awakening, women’s participation in
revolutionary actions and the class differences associated with professions or titles. The “Mujer
Tres” for example represents all women of the working and lower class but she also connects
ideologically with the women identified only by their names (“La Mujer del Capacho” etc). The
way each one of them reacts certainly reflects an individual attitude but it also establishes a norm
by comparing the similar way the other “generic female characters” react. There is after all a
correspondence between the situation and the theme of argument, which eventually fosters
stimulation and reflection by the receiver, which is obviously the audience.
177
Furthermore the female characters in this play come from the working class. They are
women who work in factories, in the open markets or are maids. All of them, beyond the
challenges in their professional life that does not provide them with the basics to even feed
themselves, have to deal with the fear of remaining alone at home to fight against hunger, cold
and solitude. This last sentiment is the most distraught one as “Mujer Seis” says: “Y los hijos se
marcharán al mar, a la mina o al puerto. Me da miedo que crezca, que mire los geráneos del patio.
Se irá, aunque venga a comer por las noches” (76). However “Mujer Siete” has a different
opinion:
Yo te digo que no tienes razón. Escúchame. Yo soy obrera. Hay que saber ser la
mujer del obrero, la madre del obrero. Los hombres luchas, la madre del obrero.
Los hombres luchan, pero para guardar los que consigan, eso será para
vosotras…..la fatiga tendrá un premio. Una vida mejor está en el horizonte. (76)
What Mujer Siete talks about is the revolutionary nature of the women, who with the use of
speech that Cixous mentions in her “Laugh of Medusa”, will wake up and escalate revolutionary
actions.
The revolutionary nature of the women in this play describes the respective revolutionary
intention of the theater of María Teresa León. It reflects the historical moment and the Spanish
women’s engagement in the social, political and economic changes of the society. In Huelga en
el puerto one could argue that since the characters belong to the working class, the nature of the
play should be proletarian and not revolutionary. Since they are the syndicates that organize and
direct the strike in the port, the whole play portrays the specific movements toward this end.
178
Miguel Bilbatúa discusses the revolutionary aspect of the Spanish theater in the early 1930’s and
it differentiates it from the proletarian theater. He explains that
la diferencia entre “revolucionario” y “proletario” ya se advierte a simple vista. El
primer concepto tiene un sentido más amplio y corresponde a una sociedad no
clasista, como la proletaria, sino sencillamente popular. Lo “revolucionario” en
arte sugiere el “pueblo” en lo social. (25)
Given this explanation, Huelga en el puerto is a revolutionary play, which addresses proletarian
issues, as it focuses on the problems of the “pueblo”, (the people). Women’s role in this aspect is
important, as they are the ones who carry out the revolution. Their revolution carries a double
meaning: it goes against the oppressing political and social conditions’ results (hunger, low
wages, unemployment, poor health) and against the image of a silent woman, who confined in
the domestic sphere accepts what is given without any reaction. “Las mujeres quieren ir a ver el
Gobernador” says an “Obrero Joven” in the middle of the play, announcing the ongoing
dissatisfaction of women and their unstoppable will to demand a change.
Unlike Primorosa and Claude, the collective female protagonist in Huelga en el puerto
does not have any type of commodity in her life. Basic daily needs and the fear of losing her
family prompts her insurgence. Living in a hard working world, women in María Teresa León’s
play do not compete against the male presence nor look for revenge. The reason for their
revolution is the practical need to survive in a world that does not guarantee them decent living
conditions. Their bodies become the weapons to demand change. When their voices cannot be
179
heard anymore, they fearlessly advance against the authorities, preceded by the Gobernador,
using their bodies to deconstruct the male dominance.
The stage directions of the culminating scene where the women face the authorities in the
port are deeply descriptive, boost of movement and convey the tension of the moment with their
vibrant language. The sound elements of the children’s voices shouting “¡Madre!”, “¡Madre!”
(77), accentuate the dramatic aspects of the scene. The mixed group of young children, men and
women creates polyphony but also depicts the catholic involvement of all ages in this dramatic
space. The openness of the stage creates a certain feeling of freedom but the opposing
movements of the women against the men (Gobernador and his guards) create a contrast. “Las
mujeres avanzan hacia ellos….. como la fatalidad, las mujeres siguen avanzando, seguras, tensas
de odio. Los guardias civiles y el Gobernador estarán inmóviles. Un toque agudo de atención y
una descarga. Una madre cae. Silencio infinito” (77). Jeanie K. Forte comments that
the very placement of the female body in the context of the performance art
positions a woman and her sexuality as speaking subject, an action which cuts
across numerous sign-systems, not just the discourse of language. The semiotic
havoc created by such a strategy combines physical presence, real time and real
women in dissonance with their representations threatening the patriarchal
structure with the revolutionary text of their actual bodies. (239-40)
Women in the scene discussed above use their bodies to go against the patriarchal structure of
the government. One woman, who is also a mother, dies and automatically her death escalates
the revolution. The female body here is beyond any sexual implication. It rather becomes a
180
heroic symbol of resistance and sign of determination. Claudes’ body was associated with
pleasure and femininity, while Primorosa’s feminine aspect was suppressed from the moment the
man she thought to be her companion for life, deceived her.
In all the plays discussed here working mothers go against the current with considerable
differences. They come from different social classes, have different educational backgrounds and
their family life differs greatly. Their common characteristic, the fact that they are all mothers,
unites them and makes them responsible for the future. Their professional and social engagement
allows their strong personalities to assist them in achieving their goals. Certainly to do so it is not
easy but the impact they have on the people around them is what makes their actions deserve
attention, respect and praise.
181
Chapter IV
Married women between gender conflicts,
identity crisis
and
self-fulfillment
182
4.1. Life within marriage’s limits: Halma Angélico’s Al margen de la ciudad, Marguerite
Yourcenar’s Le dialogue dans le marécage, María de la O. Lejárraga’s Mamá, and Marie
Léneru’s La triomphatrice.
As already discussed, marriage had for centuries been considered the natural outcome for
any woman, guided by the assumption that the female nature and duties fit only within the role of
motherhood and the conjugal life. In most cases, motherhood completed the profile of a married
woman. Depending upon the condition of conjugal life, marriage could lead to happiness,
frustration or personal conflicts. The plays discussed in this part present married women who,
having children or not, were challenged to live within an unhappy marriage. Each of them finds a
way to approach the problems of marital life by either surpassing their previous limitations,
confronting her husband or reflecting upon possible solutions.
In 1934 Halma Angélico (pseudonym of María Francisca Clar Margarit) writes Al
margen de la ciudad, “drama psicológico de gran intensidad centrado en lo que Cristóbal de
Castro llamó “la tragedia biológica de la mujer” (González Santamera 2514). The main
characters, Elena and Alidra, are two women with opposing personalities and different
backgrounds, who throughout the play express mutual support and solidarity. Elena is the
married, unhappy one whose strict religious and moral values do not allow her to express her
sentiments to the man she truly loves. Her case is similar to other women’s of the time, who were
forced to be married to a man they did not love, either because of family or economic reasons.
Nieva de la Paz in her article “Mujer, sociedad y política en el teatro de las escritoras españolas
del primer tercio del siglo (1900-1936)” explains this situation as follows: “forzadas por
presiones familiares o por la urgencia de la necesidad económica (huérfanas, viudas con hijos,
183
etc.) las mujeres se veían a menudo abocadas a matrimonios no deseados que les acarreaban
generalmente una profunda infelicidad” (94). Alidra represents the New Woman, a liberated and
independently acting female who lives outside of boundaries and rules. Both of them experience
interior and exterior conflicts. Elena’s conservative mentality and incapacity to express her
feelings clashes with Alidra’s unconventional spirit of freedom and independence. The dramatic
space defined by the dominant male presence opposes their efforts to change their way of
thinking and acting.
Angélico creates two opposing poles between her female and male characters. Although
at times some of the male characters seem to understand the female’s psychological status
(Mario, Cristino, Jesús) at the end each one of them sees Elena and Alidra as the means to satisfy
their own needs and desires. “Tomás the oldest is the capitalist [… and his brothers] represent
the good and the bad in Spain’s ineffectual male dreamers, writers, artists and lovers” (Wilcox 8).
For her husband’s brothers Elena is the sister, mother, friend, or the object of an unfulfilled love.
Surprisingly she is not an important part in her husband’s life. Estranged from him a long time
ago, she suffers from loneliness and abandonment, sentiments that the absence of motherhood
intensifies greatly. Her role in a house situated “al margen de la ciudad” is to take care of
everybody except herself.
The action takes place in a modern setting, uncommon for the theater of the time, in a
factory located in the suburbs of a city, as the stage directions indicate: “La acción en una fábrica,
al borde de un camino. La vivienda sobre las naves de un taller” (Al margen 19). The space as it
is defined above could have two possible meanings. First the remote physical space, away from
any civilized context, which eventually contributes to the psychological isolation,
marginalization of the characters and allows them to reflect better on their condition. Leoncio,
184
who tries to conquer Elena in vain, implicitly explains the effects of the isolate location on his
family’s ideology.
Cristino: Nosotros estamos cansados de tanto trabajar durante el día y cuando
llega la noche o tenemos una tregua para esparcimiento, las arideces o mordaces
intenciones de un diario que defiende tales o cuales idologías no nos interesan.
Leoncio: Además, tan al margen de todo lo que no sea nosotros mismos vivimos,
que para nada creemos ya en las verdades que nos dictan otros. ¡tenemos las
nuestras! (Al margen 22)
The second meaning could be a critique toward the efforts of Spain to compete other
indisturtilized countries ignoring the impact on the individuals’ behavior. Wilcox observes that
“in Al margen de la ciudad, Halma Angélico critiques the national issue of capitalism as a tool of
regeneration, as well as addressing the gynocentric issues of the loveless and barren marriage
and the conflict between woman as “ángel del hogar” and autonomous and self-actualizing
subject” (9). Tomás’ abrupt personality and indifference to his wife could be the result of his
dedication to professional success, as imposed by the capitalistic efforts of Spain in early 1930’s.
In the first years of the Civil War, Angélico embraced a radical ideology through her affiliation
with the syndicate CNT (Confederación Nacional del Trabajo). It is possible that her indirect
attack of capitalism in this play expresses her ideological disposition that became later more
radical, although not anarchist, as Felicidad González Santamera comments: “con el estallido de
la guerra Halma Angélico radicalizó su postura: se afilió a la CNT, aunque no parece que tuviese
una clara ideología anarquista” (2515).
185
Furthermore, Angélico brings to stage women’s issues related to marriage, motherhood
and personal happiness, a result of her attachment to A.N.M.E. (Asociación Nacional de Mujeres
Españolas) of which she was vice-president in 1935, and “Lyceum Club”, where she was the last
president. She places her main female character Elena in the center of a group of men, composed
of her husband and his brothers, who are her only family as she is an orphan. The coexistence of
all characters under the same roof is not flawless. The differences of male characters create a
certain tension that only Elena’s presence can ease. This masculine group seems to depend upon
her. “Elena va de un lado al otro sirviendo y atendiendo a su gente (Primer Tiempo 19). Mario,
the youngest from the brothers says: “Elena es todo para nosotros: madre, hermana, mujer y
amiga … Todo lo pone …” (Al margen 26). Later on he confronts Tomás, when the latter
suggests to Leoncio to get married because this way he will have a woman, like him.
Tomás: ¿Y por qué tú no te casas? … Tendrás mujer como yo.
Mario: Sí, como él: que te tuviera lista la ropa, te pudiese bien condimentado el
“coci”, te ayudase a sacar cuentas y a economizar. (28)
According to Mario’s description, Elena’s contribution to the family is indisputable. However,
her husband Tomás, absorbed in his business, underestimates her qualities. He is “un hombre
práctico, frío, y preocupado únicamente por el trabajo y los beneficios” (Nieva Autoras 235), one
who neglects her and does not hesitate to humiliate her in front of others.
Elena: Hay que ser artista para ello. Y sólo un artista sabe recoger lo que las vidas
sa van dejando… Yo lo ignoré todo, pero todo lo siento en mí…
186
Tomás: ¿También quieres saber tú de eso? … Bien dicen que “quien con cojos
anda …” y que “un loco …” Cuánto más, siendo varios … Estaremos contagiados
pronto … (Al margen 25)
Although she lives in an unhappy marriage, Elena does not think of any potential change in her
life and is unable to talk back to her husband. “Mujer condicionada por su educación y
circunstancias, dispuesta a soportar el fracaso de su matrimonio en nombre del buen parecer”
(Nieva Autoras 236), is trapped in a situation from which she cannot escape. She symbolizes “el
silencio colectivo al que se ha sometido a la mujer. Su silencio de mujer recatada saber ocupar su
subterráneo sitio y deja que la voluntad masculina dicte (Duno 47) “Nosotras debemos siempre
callar lo que sentimos” (Al margen 54) she says later to Alidra. Her loneliness is intensified by
the conjugal abandonment, but could possibly be less harsh if she was a mother. Unfortunately
Elena has failed to have a child with Tomás and this is why she feels even more inferior and
empty. When Leoncio brings up this issue, she reacts with despair and evident pain.
Leoncio: … Siempre soñaste con llegar a ser madre. Me acuerdo. De niña, tus
juegos eran eso: mecer a tus muñecas…
Elena: ¡Ah, calla, calla, no sigas arañando en mi dolor y fracaso! … ¡ No seas tan
infame!... (Al margen 52)
Her reaction is justified because of the importance of motherhood in a married woman’s life. “La
maternidad concede pues todos los derechos a la mujer. Sin ella, ésta no es nada” (Nieva Autoras
118). Simon de Beauvoir in her book The Second Sex shares the general opinion that motherhood
187
is a way for a woman’s “supposed” self-realization, but she openly questions its validity
throughout her work:
in which she is relieved of devoting herself to any other end. If a wife is not a
complete individual, she becomes such as mother: the child is her happiness and
her justification. Through the child she is supposed to find self-realization
sexually and socially. Through childbearing, then, the institution of marriage gets
its meaning and attains its purpose. (482-3)
Elena cannot become a “complete individual” through marriage or childbearing. She is therefore
condemned to live in an unhappy marriage and tortured by the unfulfilled love for a man, her
brother in law Leoncio. Her moral and religious upbringing does not allow her to think of such a
possibility despite Leoncio’s persistency and suggestions to flee together to the unknown, away
from the suffocating environment of their house. Évelyne Ricci in her article “Halma Angélico:
L’Avant-garde ou féminin?” comments that
Halma Angélico fait des femmes qui sont au couer de son théâtre des
personnages peu conventionnels et peu individualisés. […] Ces femmes sont
guidés par leurs sentiments dont Halma Angélico fait le moteur de ses intrigues
sentiments amoureux, sentiments religieux ou familiaux, ils gouvernent la vie de
ses personnages. (169)
188
Elena cannot accept that she is in love with Leoncio, and is unable to balance the conflicts she
feels between religion, family and moral values. Her conservative personality contradicts that of
Leoncio, whose character is the exact opposite of Elena’s husband, Tomás. The sense of freedom
and independence combined with his audacious approach toward her bring on stage an intense
erotic scene, a clearly innovative element in Angélico’s theater. At the end of the Segundo
Tiempo (a term that is another innovative element) Elena and Alidra are in the swimming pool.
While Alidra is in the water, Elena is staying alone waiting for her. At that moment Leoncio
appears and kisses her. The scene is very strong and it intensifies Elena’s conflict between her
interior sentimental and exterior realistic world. The stage directions describe a surprised Elena
who decides for a few moments to surrender to her passion for Leoncio.
Elena sorprendida por Leoncio, queda sujeta por él, que ahoga la respuesta entre
sus labios. Lucha y forcejea Elena, prisionera entre aquellos brazos que son
amados, hasta que, poco a poco, bien se adivina que pierden fuerzas
voluntariamente, subyugada a su amor, hasta creerse pronta a ceder por la pasión,
que a su pesar, la envuelve y siente. (66)
Angélico’s innovation is also evident in this part. In the stage directions she advises how the
scene could be better delivered. “Esta escena, de intentísima feminidad y emoción, depende en
absoluto de los actores” (67). Nieva de la Paz comments that
la valentía de la expresión de [la] autora tanto en el nivel dialógico como en su
utilización de los códigos escénicos, sus ideas feministas, y su anti-
189
convencionalidad formal (extensión inusitada de la pieza, lirismo acentuado de su
lenguaje, escenario poco frecuente y atrevidos comportamientos de sus
personajes) permiten relacionar esta obra y su atora con algunas de las tendencias
vanguardistas del teatro del momento. (Autoras 237)
In the above scene Elena’s sentiments flourish in the presence of the man she loves. The
vocabulary is free of any type of taboos and as Nieva de la Paz comments is “un lenguaje
rupturista [que] combina atrevimiento de expresión con un acentuado lirismo” (Autoras 236).
“Sorprendida” becomes “sujeta” although “lucha y forcejea” to simply end up “prisionera” while
her arms “pierden fuerzas voluntariamente” because of the her “amor” y “pasión. It is after all
that Angélico “trabaja más en las almas que en el decorado” and “luchan en su obra la vida
exterior, armada de problemas sensuales, rica en potencias y sentidos, y la vida interior,
fortalecida de problemas espirituales, opulenta de meditaciones e idearios” (Castro 12-3).
Elena’s complex personality is divided between duty and passion, and is challenged more
by the presence of Alidra. This young woman brings all the energy and life to a house where all
seems dull and boring. She appears in the scene under the light of the moon. The previously dark
and rigid rectangular room becomes brighter under the moonlight but also the beauty and
freshness of the young woman. An inevitable, vibrant change will follow in the next scenes that
will cause “l’irruption […] de la passion et de la sensualité” (Ricci 176). The freshness of
Alidra’s presence revitalizes Elena’s unhappy life because through the young woman she
envisions the happiness of a loving relationship and the joy of motherhood. This way “vivirá a
través de Alidra la rebelión, la pasión, la maternidad” (Nieva Autoras 237). Her choice to live a
life of freedom full of love, passion and maternal instincts could be considered a different way of
190
revolt as de la Paz explains: “Aunque el adulterio no se consuma […] físicamente, sí existe una
cierta rebelión contra la supuesta sacralidad de un vínculo basado a menudo en la necesidad o en
la hipocresía social” (Nieva Autoras 115).
Alidra will be encouraged to get closer to Leoncio by Elena, which will result with the
conception of a child. When Alidra announces that she wants to leave and return to her free life,
Elena is desperate. She begs Leoncio to stop her because she considers the unborn child hers and
fears that her existence as a woman and mother will never been fulfilled if Alidra goes away:
¡Es el hijo que quiméricamente mecí en noches eternas, estremecida de ternuras
remotas, entre mis brazos vacíos!… Ese es mi hijo… El que va a nacer del
inconsciente instinto de una alocada criatura encontrada al azar y de la
incontinencia exacerbada de un hombre que amé, si no del todo malvado, aturdido
siempre …Es el hijo de mi espíritu consciente, despierto, tremante de celos y de
doloroso placer, mientras su concepción forzada se laboraba…Es mi grito de
madre frustrada quien te lo reclama … La razón de mi vivir late en sus entrañas
… ¿Me oyes, Leoncio? … ¡Oyeme ! Con ella volverá a ti mi casto amor de
hermana … (Al margen 84-5)
Elena’s despair to feel happy through an alternative way of motherhood is a common problem
presented in various plays by female playwrights. Nieva de la Paz, mentions the cases of Isabel
Oyarzábal in Diálogos con el dolor (1926) or El tercer mundo (1934) by Pilar de Valderrama, in
which “en repetidas ocasiones la adopción y la maternidad sustitutiva se presentan como fórmula
ideal para paliar los problemas [de las mujeres], dando sentido a una “vacía” existencia femenina”
191
(“Mujer” 95). Elena indeed experiences an empty feminine existence, from which she wishes to
find relief by choosing a less radical and revolutionary way than leaving her husband and
running away with Leoncio.
The fact that Elena does not choose to abandon her unhappy marriage does not
necessarily imply that she is a weak or incompetent woman. The strength of her resistance and
perseverance to her ideals contrary her own happiness proves a high level of mental maturity and
the importance of values to her. She is the traditional woman who prefers to remain silent but at
the same time she is strong because men depend on her. In addition, the fact that men in the play
are depicted as intellectually superior (poet, painter, businessman, athlete, world traveller) does
not necessarily annihilate women’s power. Alidra is fearless while Elena is more skeptical. The
oldest woman, Guada, a servant, does not have a voice for herself. She advises Elena to forger
about her passion for Leoncio and think “sólo en el deber [suyo] y un poco en lo bueno que tenga
Tomás … [porque] algo tendrá … (81-1).
Although men are depicted as superior in the play, they seem to express a certain fear
facing women who are stronger and in their eyes bear danger. When Jesús talks with Mario
about Alidra and her possible affair with Tomás, Mario wonders if Alidra “nos habrá
envenenado a todos”. Jesús responds with another question
¿Está el mal en ella? … ¿Está en nosotros? … ¿Cómo poder dar solución a este
problema?
Mario: (ingenuo). ¿Es problema financiero o de poetas? …
Jesús: Problema eterno entre el hombre y la mujer … problema de sexo …
192
Mario: ¿Son peores las mujeres que los hombres? … Dime …, explícame …
quiero saber …
Jesús: Son distintas y nada más. (79)
In their dialogue the contradictions between bad and good, superior and inferior, man and
woman are eternal questions that have a common base: fear and curiosity. Men are curious to
find out what women are and they are afraid to approach them because they are not sure of their
hidden power. “Men say that there are two representable things: death and the feminine sex.
That’s because they need femininity to be associated with death. […]. They need to be afraid of
us” (Cixous 885). Angélico implicitly shares her feminist views and criticizes the patriarchal
Spanish society. Men need to have an excuse of not liking women and this excuse comes from
the supposed dangerous female nature, as Cixous mentions. But since men do not give women
the chance to know them better or express themselves, they will never be able to understand
them. Therefore, they will always try to suppress them as an enemy and the conflict between
man and woman will be endless.
It is uncertain if Elena becomes happy or if Alidra returns. The open end of the play
“continúa sin solución el amor imposible de la pareja protagonista” (Nieva Autoras 237). At the
same time, Angélico “deja … que los espectadores aportarán los desenlaces que consideran más
apropiados” (Duno 50). The importance of her theater lies on the fact that it combines innovative
elements, as explained above, with psychological ones that manage to portray the distraught of
an unhappy married woman and her ultimate effort to find a meaning in her meaningless life.
The case of Mercedes in de la O. Lejárraga’s Mamá is similar to Elena’s in the sense that
the main female character is tormented by an unhappy marriage, lack of communication with her
193
husband and above all loneliness. However, Mercedes does not live in a secluded house, away
from the city, surrounded by men. She is sociable, allowed to meet other people and free from
any household chores. Her personality is representative to O’Lejárraga’s type of woman, one
who combines domestic and social life to be a better mother and wife. “The writer’s belief [was]
that the best wife and mother was the one who did not stagnate in the home, but also got out and
developed her talents and intellect” (O’Connor Women 33). Certainly Mercedes does not have a
career outside of home. However the fact that she behaves as a free woman implies that she is
given the chance to experience life beyond domesticity and therefore develop a better
understanding of her role as a mother and wife.
In a contradictory way, Mercedes’ freedom and social activities have kept her away from
her husband and transformed her in an alienated person. She does not talk with him and if she
does, she is always on the move, organizing a social event or meeting with her hairstylist and
dressmaker. One might consider her marital life joyful, as Santiago barely questions her
whereabouts. In addition he does not criticize her female nature or rejects having a conversation
with her because she is a woman, as Tomás does with Elena in Al margen de la ciudad, M.
Bourdieu with Mme Bourdieu in Marie Léneru’s La triomphatrice or Sire Laurent does to Pia in
Marguerite Yourcenar’s Le dialogue dans le marécage.
Despite the fact that there is no evidence of suffering in Mercedes’ and Santiago’s
marriage, at least in the beginning of the play, Mercedes is indeed an unhappy married woman.
The difference between her and Elena is that the latter does not have the courage or even the
chance to revolt or confront her husband because she depends on the moral and ethical norms
with which she was raised. Mercedes on the other hand decides to change her passive attitude
and demand reconsideration of her relationship and role in her family. Santiago married her
194
because he was attracted to her lively personality, which he himself lacks. Now he expresses his
dissatisfaction to the way she is acting. Fernando, Mercedes’ father, explicitly blames Santiago
for this outcome. In Act III he reminds him that the reason for which he got married with
Mercedes was this: “Te casaste con ella porque te gustó. Y te gustó precisamente por eso: porque
esta frívola, porque era alegre, porque era imprevisora, original, graciosa … porque hacía ruido y
se vestía bien” (87). Santiago refuses to accept that Mercedes is a woman who is not meant to
stay inside the house. Her characteristics point to the New Woman of the time, but in its Spanish
version. As it has been already explained in Chapter II, O. Lejárraga wished to deliver a balanced
female type, between the conservative, religious standards of Spanish society and the feminist,
progressive attitude of the early twentieth century.
Santiago’s reaction to Mercedes’ attitude reveals a contradictory view on the type of
woman he chose to have by his side. He wished to have an “alegre”, “imprevisora”, “original”,
“graciosa” woman who would distract him from his professional obligations. In this sense, his
wife was seen not as a life companion, with whom he would cooperate regarding the household
matters but as the means for personal joy and release from his daily pressure. To his defense, it is
understandable, because of his professional duties he is required to be away from home long
hours. In a negative way, his absence diminishes any effort for communication and creates a
chasm, the same way that Tomás’ and Elena’s marriage has been affected by the his total
dedication to his professional duties. Both women are bored and feel abandoned, as other Mme
Bovary and inevitably will look for different ways of distraction. When Fernando points out
Mercedes’ boredom to Santiago he tells him that:
195
¿Qué quieres que haga una mujer que se aburre como una ostra? Tú eres un buen
marido … ahí está el quid. Un marido no debe ser nunca demasiado bueno. Esos
corazoncillos inquietos necesitan un poco de emoción, la espina dorada, la sal de
la vida. Distracciones peores y más caras hay por el mundo. (Act III 86)
Furthermore, between Mercedes and Elena there is a considerable difference. Unlike Elena,
Mercedes married for love. It is a distinct difference that eventually impacts the further evolution
of the couple’s marital relationship. For Elena it is doubtful that she will ever get closer to Tomás.
On the contrary, Mercedes’ strong sentiments to Santiago are mutual and they become the
unifying point between them at the end of the play. Her motive is the affection she feels for her
children, who obviously link her for life with Santiago. In her awaking moment, Mercedes is
discontent to accept the fact that she is marginalized in a marriage in which she agreed to take
part. She expresses her concerns to her husband not with the intention to attack him, but to find a
mutual, balanced solution to save their marriage. Mercedes represents the type of a woman
depicted mostly in the work of de la O. Lejárraga, the one who “in marriage she believes in
moral equality and is happiest when she is able to be a work partner with her husband. She is
assertive, ambitious woman who very much knows what she wants from life and how to get it”
(O’Connor “A Spanish” 872).
As already mentioned, Mercedes’ marital situation might seem much better than other
women’s at the time we study, because she is free to leave the house when she wants and is able
to socialize without her husband’s restrictions. However, her life is monotonous and boring. It
has ending up being like “a conjugal slavery”, as Beauvoir describes. She further explains this
type of slavery by saying that
196
the great difference [between a man and a woman] is that with woman
dependency is interiorized: she is a slave even when she behaves with apparent
freedom. While man is essentially independent and his bondage comes from
without. If he seems to be victim, it is because his burdens are most evident:
woman is supported by him like a parasite, but a parasite is not a conquering
master. (481)
Mercedes’ and Santiago’ marriage can be seen through the opposing poles of happinessunhappiness, freedom-slavery, and dependence-independence. The difference between these
conditions is difficult to define, because although the absence of daily interaction has eliminated
their communication, it has not erased the potential for reestablishment of their relationship.
Both are unhappy, both seem to be trapped in a marriage that has lost its meaning and both
depend on each other to maintain a public profile that justifies their social status. Toward the end
of the play, the negative aspects of their marriage gradually decrease and open up the way to a
better conjugal life. Happiness, freedom and independence will compose the foundation of
Mercedes’ and Santiago’s new beginning in their marriage.
Santiago: Tienes razón. He sido un necio y bien merecido me tengo el mal que me
sucede.
Mercedes: (Con cariño y autoridad casi maternal en su suavidad). No te sucede
ningún mal […]… ¡pero felices, porque el que caiga, siempre encontrará brazos
que le recojan y amor que le sepa compadecer!
197
Santiago: (Acercándose a ella con la turbación natural de un hombre orgulloso a
quien le duele verse en el caso de pedir perdón). Perdóname …
Mercedes: (Comprendiendo y perdonado con gracia y misericordia.) ¡bah, no me
has ofendido! (Le abraza.) La cabezas locas no tenemos orgullo.
Santiago: (Emocionadísimo.) ¡Eres la mujer más buena del mundo! (101-102)
Santiago’s words express despair and culpability. He is unhappy, he has acted as “necio” and this
is why he suffers now, deserving all the “mal que le sucede”. Mercedes in this scene is a stronger
person who with “cariño y autoridad” approaches her husband, suggesting the end of their
“slavery” and the beginning of a better life, based on “amor” and the support that “brazos que
le(s) recojan” can offer in any difficult moment. Their dialogue is an “effect-oriented speech”
(Pfister 154) whose purpose is to alter the facts already presented. It prepares the audience for an
upcoming change. According to Pfister, since the main point of reference for such change is the
speaker or the dramatis personae, ethos is the strategy that the playwright uses to that effect.
“Ethos” (deriving from the Greek word “ήθος” that means “personal moral”) manages to
establish the reliability and credibility of the speaker, who is then able to develop
his own moral integrity or factual authority into the main argument in support of
the correctness of his views. If this moral integrity and factual authority do not
actually exist they have to be fabricated by the speaker. This kind of selfstylization as an altruistic, morally flawless, factually expert and yet guileless
giver of advise is a common feature of dramatic texts. (155)
198
Therefore both characters agree to a mutual moral change that eventually will affect their ways
of thinking and behaving. The above scene is important for another reason. De la O. Lejárraga
shares her feminist views in a way that do not provoke the audience’s reaction or cause a conflict
between the male and female characters. The revolt that she suggests for her married heroine is
based on the mutual agreement of husband and wife. In the case of Elena, as Nieva de la Paz
argued, her revolt is implicit, considered an act against “la supuesta sacralidad de un vínculo
basado a menudo en la necesidad o en la hipocresía social” (115). Through the character of
Mercedes O’ Lejárraga does not need to attack the social hypocrisy or the imposed necessities
because her characters accept their faults and decide to change their way of action. What
O’Lejárraga implies in Mamá is that female nature is proven superior to give a solution in a
moment where contradiction and conflict arise between a man and woman. The married woman
is capable of applying critical thinking to solve a dispute that in other ways it could have
perpetuated the couple’s suffering or “conjugal slavery”.
It is for this reason that Benito Pérez Galdós described Mercedes as “the most authentic
woman of the contemporary theater” (O’Connor Gregorio 24). Her authenticity derives from her
ability to maintain her moral values, critical thinking, tenderness and compassion for her
marriage’s sake. She reproaches Alfonso and raises her voice to him in order to protect her
daughter Cecilia:
Alfonso: (Con afectación de piedad) ¡Es usted una mujer …!”
Mercedes: Y usted un miserable. Pero basta de palabras inútiles. ¡Salga de aquí
inmediatamente! (Act III 93)
199
Later, when Santiago announces to her that their marriage cannot be continued because of her
negative moral impact on their children and her maternal absence from their life, she protests
“pero con humildad” and says “Santiago, mira lo qué estás diciendo …: (Act III 95). In the
continuing dialogue the stage directions inform of a woman who responds “con dolor”, “con
dignidad”, “con amargura”, “con dulzura”. It will be when she is ready to express herself in a
concrete way that she will show authenticity and sincerity, elements that eventually will release
the tension between her and Santiago. “Después de una ligera pausa, empieza a hablar como si
hablara consigo misma. Primero, con tristeza y resignación, pero poco a poco se va exaltando
hasta llegar a una explosión de amargura rebelde y de dignidad herida” (Act III 97).
Mercedes is a sensitive, married woman with the ability to think and conduct a
meaningful dialogue and not a superficial one, as her husband believes. She is aware of the
situation’s gravity and for the first time she asks from Santiago to consider himself responsible:
Tú dices que soy loca, que soy así … ¿Por qué tú, que tenías el secreto de la
perfección, no me has enseñado a ser de otra manera? Dices que por mi amor has
sido cobarde …, que por evitarme cuidados alejaste de casa a nuestros hijos …
¡Es falso! Me los quitaste porque pensaste siempre, desde luego, porque decidiste,
en tu orgullo, de hombre, que yo no era capaz de cumplir mis deberes. (Act III 98)
In her words it is obvious that the contradiction between power and weakness, perfection and
imperfection, sanity and madness derives from the difference of man and woman. She is the
woman and therefore charged with all negative connotations unlike Santiago who, as a man, is
assumed to be right in his decisions.
200
Until this moment in the play, Santiago had never verbally attacked Mercedes. As he
mentions, their problem has been the lack of mutual understanding in any attempted conversation.
“Como siempre, no habíamos de entendernos, como siempre, tú habías de acabar llorando y yo
dejándome vencer por tus lágrimas” (Act III 95-6). The repetition “como siempre” implies that
the couple had tried in the past to discuss their conjugal problems but without results. Santiago
blames Mercedes for this failure but he also presents himself as a victim of the confrontation:
“yo dejándome vencer por tus lágrimas”.
Although his description does not portray a happy marriage, it shows that in reality
Santiago is a man of good nature, who has constantly loved his wife. “Por el amor desatinado y
necio que te he tenido siempre, he faltado a todos mis deberes con mis hijos. Por evitarte a ti
cuidados y preocupaciones, he renunciado al gozo de tenerlos cerca” (Act III 96). He accepts that
Mercedes’ tears defeated him, a contradictory sign of the masculinity that Mercedes described
previously with his presumed superiority and dominance in making decisions. To this extent,
Santiago seems that he does not act for himself only but according to Mercedes’ needs. The
interaction with her all these years and his love to her have not left unaffected his personality. In
a sense her presence has shaped his existence and this is why their marriage has to be saved.
After all Santiago does not act in his own but thinking of what would make Mercedes
happy. His behavior and way of thinking are result of his relationship with Mercedes and the
deep feelings he has for her. In this sense, he is not acting on his own but in accordance to his
wife’s need. Pfister explains that “the figures in the drama appear predominantly as people who
portray themselves rather than exist in their own right – that is, they generally appear in terms of
the way they interact with others rather than as solitary individuals and they generally appear as
speakers” (163). The dialogue between Mercedes and Santiago reveal a psychological
201
transformation of both parties, that eventually will bring them closer to save their marriage. This
is not the effect of the dialogue in Marguerite Yourcenar’s Le dialogue dans le marécage (1930).
In this play Sire Laurent is unable to see beyond his jealousy and locks his young wife Pia in a
remote castle, situated by a marsh, for ten years. When they reunite, they are still unable to
communicate. Sire Laurent cannot accept that Pia is still happy, alive and beautiful as a rose,
despite her confinement and isolation.
Marguerite Yourcenar (1903-1987) wrote this play being inspired by Dante’s Purgatorio
and Maeterlinck’s work in general such as Pelléas er Mélisande or La princesse Maleine, that
she had read when she was still teenager She was also influenced, as she explains in the
Introduction she wrote in December of 1969, by the Japanese traditional type of theater Nô,
which she “considérait l’un des deux ou trois triomphes du théâtre universel” (Kincaid 53).
Martine J. Kincaid in her book Yourcenar dramaturge: microcosme d’une oeuvre refers that the
main characteristics of Nô are the religious and didactic nature but also “le stoïcisme et la
solidarité universelle […] l’économie de personnages, de décors et de paroles confèrent au
spectacle un caractère intimiste qui transporte le spectateur dans les replis du souvenir et de la
conscience” (53). Le dialogue dans le marécage indeed is defined by the elements of religion,
solidarity, memory, consciousness and economy of characters, decoration and dialogue.
Yourcenar comments that her characters live “entre la vie dite vécue et la vie dite rêvée” (8) and
that in the whole play “c’est […] l’impression fantomale qui finalement prédomine” (9).
Her above explanation is important to understand the ineffectiveness of dialogue between
the married couple, Sire Laurent and Pia. The title of the play announces the two main parts of
the plot: it is the dialogue in the marsh. Therefore it is expected to experience a dialogue, which
will take place in an obviously oppressing setting, in a marécage (= a marsh). The scenery,
202
which is placed in a marsh, and the obscure depiction of Pia by her distant for the last twelve
years husband during the Scene I announce implicitly the failure of their upcoming dialogue. Pia
does not appear until the third scene of the play. When she does, she refuses to recognize her
husband who looks like a beggar. She objects his assertions that her lover Simon is dead because
in her mind, he is still alive and through his existence she remains alive too. She does not want to
return in Sienne either: “Je ne veux pas retourner a Sienne. Je ne veux pas recommencer a vivre
dans cette vielle maison noire…je suis heureuse, ici …” (Act III 43).
Pia’s entrance is prepared based on an explicit-figural characterization technique, with
the use of outside commentaries that took place in Act I and II. In Act I Sire Laurent described to
Frère Candide Pia from his point of view, with rather somber colors and connotations. Beyond
the fact that she was younger than him and beautiful, he adds that “cette femme n’avait pas
d’âme” (Act I 18), and that “elle m’avait volé ma confiance en sa fidélité” (Act I 19). When in
Act II the old servants appear they make a different description of Pia. They talk about a goodnatured woman, who helps the beggars and still maintains her beauty: “Elle descendra tout a
l’heure fraîche comme une rose” (Act II 22) describes La première servante while L’autre
servante adds: “Elle donne du pain aux jeunes homes pauvres, et ceux-ci remercient d’être belle”
(Act II 24).
Marguerite Yourcenar with the outside implicit commentary technique aims to increase
the audience’s suspense about Pia’s personality and also create a mystery about her heroine. The
opposing information that the other characters give about her creates two poles between bad and
good. Is she a bad or a good woman? Who is the bad and the good in this marriage? After all, the
audience has not been able to assess Pia base on her own acts on stage. Prifster explains that
203
The special status of this kind of outside commentary consists in the fact
that since the audience has not yet been able to make its own assessment of the
figure, it does not have access to the information that would enable it to place the
figure in any sort of perspective. As a result, the audience is obliged to await the
entrance if that figure in a state of expectant suspense, a state that can be
intensified if the audience is confronted with a number of different and
contradictory outside commentaries. (186)
When Pia appears on stage there the only way the audience can assess her personality is through
her dialogue with Sire Laurent. There are no stage directions that could indicate her physical
appearance, her emotional status or even her movement on stage. The only tool we have to
understand this woman and decide if she bad or good is through a dialogue, that at times seems
to be absurd and overall ineffective. When Sire Laurent tells her that he got married with a young
woman, a neighbor to them, Pia’s response focuses on the clothing and appearance of the second
wife. She tries to recall her by the clothes she was wearing when it would have been expected a
logical reaction from her about her husband’s second marriage, while she was kept prisoner in
his family’s remote castle for the last ten years.
Pia: Je l’ai connue … C’était notre voisine: elle portrait une robe blanche avec un
petit mantelet brode de perles.
Sire Laurent: Je ne me souviens pas de sa robe ... Et j’ai tort de parler d’elle …
Mais c’est peut-être pour parler d’elle que j’ai voulu vous revoir. Et ne pas parler
des morts, c’est une manière d’accepter leur fin.
204
Pia: C’était une voisine … mais je ne me rappelais pas qu’elle fût si belle. (Act III
34)
Maurice Delcroix in his article “La théâtralité du dialogue” comments this scene by saying that
“ce genre d’affirmation virile, même venant d’un époux peu prise, aurait pu éveiller en elle une
poussée de rivalité féminine, et sa dénégation tardive du propos attester un secret cheminement
de cette visualité dans son esprit” (16). Pia clearly does not express any sign of feminine rivalry
as she responds to her husband’s information in an indifferent and rather absurd way. The second
wife was a young woman, beautiful and known to them. Pia doubts that she was “si belle”
although previously Sire Laurent explained that he married a woman more beautiful than her,
who was also cleverer because she know to read. “Elle ne vous ressemblait pas … Elle était plus
belle … du moins, je me suis davantage aperçu qu’elle était belle. Elle était plus savante aussi:
elle savait lire” (Act III 33).
The information that Sire Laurent communicates about Pia here is that she was illiterate.
Later he directly refuses to accept that Pia and her lover Simon had any written communication
because she could not read his letters: “Ils se sont revus … c’est la seule explication … c’est
juste … Elle ne sait pas lire” (Act III 38). Previously in Scene I he had shared with Frère
Candide that he married Pia because she was much younger than him and he believed to be able
to control her. “Je l’ai choisie si jeune pour qu’elle fût irréprochable […] aussi afin qu’elle fût
docile. Je me jugeais assez sage pour pouvoir diriger sa vie” (Scene I 16). Her young age, beauty
and illiteracy are the main characteristics we have about Pia and they are enough to explain why
their marriage was meant to fail from the beginning. In addition, this background information
205
could determine the failure of the upcoming meeting and the attempt for a conciliatory dialogue
as well.
Sire Laurent’s explanation to the reason he chose to marry Pia focused on the dominant
use of “je”, element that implicitly demonstrates that he was the only one in the conjugal life
with the right to express an opinion. He was the one who chose as wife Pia because he had
certain expectations from her, that would eventually ease the memories of his unhappy youth,
that, as he claims, he never had: “Moi […] jamais ne fus jeune” (Scene I 16). Her youth would
help him to feel young and alive again. In a very general comparison, Pia is for Sire Laurent
what Mercedes is for Santiago: a source to recharge her husband’s low energy levels and distract
him from a monotone life. Of course Mercedes loves her husband, unlike Pia who was married
without being asked her opinion. Pia’s conjugal life had to be miserable and a true torture mainly
because of Sire Laurent’s jealousy.
Sire Laurent had the chance to marry another young woman, whose role was also to make
him happy: “mais près d’elle, ma vie était riche…” (Act III 34) he explains to Pia. Once again,
the female is the source of rejuvenation and the male is the one who decides with whom he will
be married. Simone de Beauvoir comments that the male has an advantage to the female when it
comes to marriage “because it is the man who “takes” the woman, [and therefore] he has more
choice – especially when feminine offers are numerous” (435). Despite his masculine superiority
Sire Laurent failed to be happy in his second marriage. His wife died and being left alone he
decided to give up all his fortune to retire in a monastery. His masculine superiority has been
defeated by the feminine inferiority: his first wife Pia found a lover, is imprisoned but still happy
while the second one is not part of his life any more. None of the women he chose to fill in the
206
gap of his unhappy life is by his side. To his punishment, the one he condemned the most, Pia, is
happier than him, although she lives in the middle of a marsh.
The reverse dominant role of masculine - feminine is clearer in Pia’s happiness. She
revolts against her husband’s conjugal oppression by having an affair with Simon, a young man
who kept her alive during the twelve years of her imprisonment. The masculine’s role now is to
keep the woman happy. Indeed Pia’s survival in the marsh was possible thanks to the presence of
Simon, with whom she shared several intimate moments, which she later on describes to Sire
Laurent:
Il vient ici chaque semaine. Comment aurais-je fait pour vivre ici, pendant douze
ans, s’il n’était pas venu chaque semaine? L’été, je l’attends dans le jardin, sous
les arbres, et la nuit tombe sur nous comme un manteau sombre. L’hiver, je
l’attends près du feu, et le reflet des flammes tombe sur nous comme un manteau
rouge. (Act III 39)
Pia’s above description depicts idyllic scenery, clearly contradictory to the deadly looking marsh.
The existence of a garden with trees and plants around the castle had been indirectly introduced
toward the end of Scene I. While Sire Laurent is approaching the marsh where the castle-prison
is, he talks with Frère Candide wondering why there are still roses there, when he had asked the
gardener to tear them out:
On m’avait bien dit qu’il y avait encore des rosiers. J’avais défend qu’il y en eut.
Je les avais fait arracher… (A quoi bon des roses dans un marécage?) Ils ont
207
repousse, ou bien on ne m’a pas obéi. Vous ne savez peut-être pas que c’est dans
la roseraie, chez nous, que tout a eu lieu … Il a eu des roses pour complices … Et
c’est pourquoi je ne pouvais pas permettre ... Je ne peux pas souffrir les roses.
(Act I 20-1)
The roses imply the existence of life, freshness and beauty but they are also symbolically
associated with passion, sensuality and fecundity. Sire Laurent feels threatened by them. He says
that they are accomplices to his wife’s adulterous life and this is why he cannot accept their
presence. Primozich Loredana in her article “Pia, femme ou fantome” comments that the roses
are
émanation de la beauté, [et] elle font allusion au lotus, symbole bouddhiste de
perfection, qui éclot sur les eaux stagnantes des marais. A cette notion de pureté et
de sagesse divine, s’ajoute elle de passion: leur complicité a permis le péché de
Pia. […] Les roses sont également comparées a Pia. “As-tu vu jamais pleureur
une rose” demande une des deux servants a Laurent comme pour souligner la
parfaite identité de cette femme et des fleurs dispensées aux médians. (35)
Similarly Marco Lombardi in his article “Le dialogue dans le marécage de Marguerite
Yourcenar: Une pastorale alchimique” associates roses with nature: “La Rose (comme ses deux
veilles servantes appellent Pia) est ici la Dame du Château, personnification de la Nature” (216).
Camillo Faverzani in his article “Le dialogue dans le marécage: Œuvre poétique ou œuvre
dramatique” refers to the character of Francesca from the tragedy of Tito Ricordi Francesca di
Rimini, who is also described as a rose. He argues that both plays use the rose as a symbol of sin
208
for which the heroines need to be punished. He also agrees with Primozich’s opinion that the
rosary represents the place where the adultery was taking place: “la roseraie représente aussi le
lieu ou leur péché s’accomplit” (44).
The illogical presence of a rosary in the middle of a marsh as first sign of life in the area
intensifies Sire Laurent’s suffering and it prepares his final defeat from the woman he
imprisoned and he now believes dead. His power during their conjugal life has come to an end,
although he still believes that he has rights on his wife’s life. Pia is unable to recognize him in
the beginning. He looks like a beggar. Later when he addresses her with her name, she becomes
aware of his identity but when he tells her about Simon’s marriage and his death she definitely
renounces him. Her last words, that also close the play are: “Il est peut-être triste, ce mendiant
…il faudra lui donner du vin, ou bien une rose…” (Act III 48).
Once again the power of the rose is indicative of her superiority and her victory. She is
the one now who pushes him away, to his final destination - death. “Venez, Monseigneur. Nous
irons ensemble à la recherche du pain des anges”, Frère Candide tells him, who as another “valet”
(Kincaid 51) guides him throughout the play with his philosophical approach and maturity.
Kincaid comments that the young monk is named Candide not by accident, but rather after the
character of Voltaire. His name symbolizes “de l’innocence, de l’ingénuité, de la pureté (50),
carries “une interprétation philosophique” and after all “il possède une grande force de
persuasion qui rappelle l’importance du rôle joue par le valet dans des productions théâtrales”
(51).
It is in this last scene that the failure of the dialogue between the married couple is
evident. The failure was determined already from the beginning of the play and the background
209
information that Sire Laurent was sharing with Frère Candide. Sire Laurent was skeptical about
the feminine nature and expressed fear when, while approaching the castle, a woman showed up:
Sire Laurent: “Ah, vous ne connaissez pas les femmes … elles se confessant a
vous, et trouvent peut-être, en vous avouant leurs fautes, un secret plaisir a se
montrer a vous toutes nues … mais vous ne les connaissez pas, car vous ne leur
avez rien demande” (Act I 18).
Frère Candide: J’aperçois une femme.
Sire Laurent: Ah…
Frère Candide: Ne craignez rien, Monseigneur. Ce n’est qu’une servante. Une
autre servant l’accompagne. Toutes deux sont veilles. (Act I 21)
The chasm between the couple is infinite and each one of them remains a prisoner of their own
marsh. “Sire Laurent, le mal-aimé dévoré par la culpabilité et la peur, poursuit sa quête illusoire.
Alors que Pia, installée dans un monde imaginaire, a trouvé le bonheur en dehors des normes
imposées par la société” (Kincaid 51-2). The close end of the play with the implication of the
upcoming death of Sire Laurent will most likely not end his suffering. In Scene I he told Frère
Candide that Pia could be dead as a way to take revenge of him. The monk replies that if this is
true, then one day they would be able to solve their differences in front of God. Sire Laurent then
fears that if she is dead, he will not be able to die.
Sire Laurent : Peut-être ne la reverrai-je pas. Elle sera morte pour se venger.
Frère Candide : Si elle est morte, Monseigneur, vous vous expliquerez ensemble
210
un jour devant Dieu.
Sire Laurent : Si elle est morte, il me semble que je ne pourrai pas mourir. (20)
In Le dialogue dans le marécage the difference between death and life, vécue and rêvée,
conscient and inconscient is very fragile. It is also not certain according to Yourcenar’s
Introduction that “cette rencontre se passe dans le cerveau d’un mari jaloux ou dans la cour d’une
maison en ruine” (9). The character’s personalities are ambiguous because the information is
given through a description based on the memory of other characters and not on actions that take
place on stage. The reverse role between husband-wife and masculine-feminine imply the defeat
of the oppressing male by an inferior female. This defeat is more concrete within the limits of an
unhappy marriage, where the jealous husband is left alone waiting his death, while his wife
remains happy away from him.
In Marie Lenéru’s La triomphatrice Claude is a married woman who despite the
recognition and respect she receives in the literary circles for being a successful writer, faces the
reality of an unhappy marriage. Her husband Henri resents her success and the fact that she earns
more money than him. Her financial contribution at home, that as he says it is six times more
than his salary, creates a chasm between them. When Claude tells him that the money she makes
from her job could have been inherited from her family, Henri interrupts her saying that in that
case things would have been different because the money would come from a man.
Claude: If you had married a rich woman …
Henri: (Quickly) It wouldn’t have been the same thing! It would have been her
father’s money, or her grandfather’s money. (Act I, Scene 6, 156)
211
His response that comes quickly, as per the stage directions, indicates his desperate situation and
the inferiority complex he feels toward his wife. In the continued utterances they both refer to
their past, that was based on love when they were living in a moderate apartment before Claude’s
professional success. This background information clarifies the nature of their marriage and
shows that they both agreed to get married because they loved each other.
Claude: Let’s go back to the rue Notre-Dame-des-Champs.
Henri: (aggressively) You loved me back then.
Claude: Do you miss those times?
Henri: (Curtly) Yes. (Act I, Scene 6, 157)
Henri’s responses again come in a precipitated and agitated way. Aggressively and curtly he
accepts that he misses the old days but he does not express any further feelings toward his wife
that could bring them close again. The reason is that he is proud to accept the current situation as
a result of only his wife’s success. “Frankly, Henri, could you take your pride somewhere else?”
Claude asks him adding: “Do you want me to give up my royalties?” (Act I, Scene 6, 157). The
royalties to which she refers are obviously her professional and financial achievements, which
clearly offer them both a convenient and luxurious life. Henri does not express any opinion about
how they could work on their marriage, nor has he any intention to do so.
Beyond the financial factor his feelings for his wife have faded away. “Unless I am
mistaken, you hardly find me attractive, my personality horrifies you … it is only out of revenge,
out of masculine pride …(Act I, Scene 6, 157), Claude tells him. Their conversation concentrates
212
on the past good times, which lasted briefly and were interrupted by Claude’s change in behavior,
when she became more active and gradually successful. That change impacted the way Henri
perceived her as a woman. She describes her change as follows:
Claude: (with serious softness) Yes, I became more intelligent, more active and
more balanced. I lost my apathy, my yawning and bad moods… I did not like
boring conversation any more…
Henri: So it was because I bored you?
Claude: No, quite the contrary, it was I who no longer amused you. (Act I, Scene
6, 157)
In the above dialogue two contradictory elements need special attention: the stage directions
regarding Claude’s tone of voice (with serious softness) and the phrases “ I bored you” and “I no
longer amused you”. Claude responds “with serious softness”, a way that reveals two powers in
her: she is serious but she is also soft. She is serious because she means what she says but also
because she is superior to Henri. She is soft because she wants to keep her feminine nature but
also because she wants to attract her husband’s interest. Her “with serious softness” approach
reminds Mercedes’s tone of voice when con emoción y dulzura she was talking to Santiago at the
last scene of Mamá. Both women maintain their feminine aspect and try to lower the tone of the
confrontation with their husbands. Mercedes’ effort is fruitful unlike Claude who fails to find a
way to communicate with Henri.
213
The reason for which their marriage started failing is not clear and this is because both talk about
boredom and amusement that they could cause to each other. “I bored you” Henri say and “I no
longer amused you” Claude responds.
Henri: So it was because I bored you?
Claude: No, quite the contrary, it was I who no longer amused you. (Act I, Scene
6, 157)
Who is the initiator of each condition remains uncertain. Both Henri and Claude accept that
something went wrong to their relationship and at this moment each one feels responsible for not
being a good partner for the other. As we saw in the case of Mercedes with Santiago and Sire
Laurent with Pia a woman’s role is to release her husband’s daily tension and create a pleasant
atmosphere around him. Santiago married Mercedes because she had the opposite personality of
him, while Sire Laurent saw in Pia’s youth the way to feel alive and young again. In Henri’s and
Claude’s case both parties recognize that neither was able to make the other happy. Claude is the
one taking the responsibility by simply remaining silent at the time things started changing to the
worse.
Claude: I was living in silence, the silence of old women…
Henri: Lord! I would have been quite incapable of talking literature to you.
Claude: “Literature”, its true … you think people “talk literature” like they talk
Chinese… When it comes down to it, I think we never exchanged many words,
but I was the only one who noticed. And all the words I had to choke back,
214
swallow, repress forever, like you repress tears, little by little they become cries,
suffocation, anger, despair. I spent my days defending myself, keeping to myself,
refusing you my soul, and even my carefree moments, which were no longer
yours, and at night you wanted …ah! Wait, I should keep quiet again. (Act I,
Scene 6 157)
The description of a silent woman who suffers in her loneliness unable to communicate with her
husband does not fit Claude’s image, depicted in the previous scenes. The strong, powerful and
successful writer, behind her ministerial table, in the large office, decorated by cathedral-like
nuances stained glass, oriental carpets and a foster of books (Act I 151) is a totally different
person within the marriage’s limits. Surpassingly she does not criticize Henri for being proud,
intimidated, jealous and indifferent to her. She does not attack him for being unsupportive of her
race to success but she comments that they were unable to exchange many words with each other.
The dynamic of an effective communication with Henri relies on the power of feminine language.
According to Hélène Cixous’ essay The Laugh of Medusa “[a woman’s] language does not
contain, it carries: it does not hold back, it makes possible” (889). Claude’s speech could have
made possible to change the status of her marriage, as it happened with Mercedes and Santiago,
but unfortunately it did not. Despite the failure, Claude still expresses a certain superiority
because her speech “carries and it does not hold back”. Certainly it does not make things
possible, at least in this situation, but it reflects her feminine side, that her professional success
has not erased.
As Beach states “ironically, the successful professional woman is not being accused here
of neglecting her family, as has often been the case, but rather of being too seductive” (Staging
215
123). In a contradictory way, Claude’ seduction is not perceivable by Henri, who denies her
femininity when she becomes famous. Only the young men of the play and even her daughter
Denise see her feminine aspect, which will later spark tension between them. Henri sees her only
as a rival. He refuses to accept that she is superior once again, when she admits her responsibility
for their dysfunctional marriage. He stands up and “with a vague feeling of revenge” he tells her:
“A person cannot go on showing off forever… There comes a day when the masterpieces are less
frequent, when the brain slows down (Act I, Scene 6, 158). His words portray bitterness and
desire to see Claude’s disempowering.
Claude has to maintain a balance when facing Henri’s comments. She does so in a
surprising way even when he “ironically” tells her: “You are the head of the house, your
daughter owes you everything”. Claude replies, “Your insistence is in poor taste” (Act I, Scene 6,
158). Her reaction shows her capability to confront a man, like she herself was a man. Her
identity is actually divided between the masculine and feminine world, not only because of her
professional activities but also because of the way she acts. In various occasions she expresses
her “double gender” as follows: “I am the man and the woman here” (Act I, Scene I, 152), “I’ve
never been a woman” (Act II, Scene 2, 164), “I am not a woman” (Act III, Scene 5, 176).
The perplexity of her identity, that implicitly has affected her marriage, derives from her
ambition to exist in a masculine world, proving her strength as a man but still maintaining her
femininity. In Part II, Chapter XXV of Simone de Beauvoir’s book The Second Sex, the French
writer, philosopher, activist, feminist and theorist explains that a woman who is independent will
face certain challenges related to the opposite gender.
216
In order to be a complete individual, on equality with man, woman must have
access to the masculine world, as does the male to the feminine world, she must
have access to the other. But the demands of the other are not symmetrical in the
two symmetrical cases. Once attained, dame and fortune, appearing like
immanent qualities, may increase woman’s sexual attractiveness. But the fact
that she is a being of independent activity wars against her femininity, and this
she is aware of. (684-5)
Indeed Claude is aware of the contradiction between male and female and its impact on her
identity. Of what she is not aware is that she has been alienated by her continuous ambition to
reach higher levels of professional success, for which she has been sacrificing her personal
happiness and familial peace. Her husband Henri does not show any understanding of her
alienation and her daughter Denise sees her as her rival. Both of them are afraid of her double
ambiguous identity (expressed also by her androgynous name Claude) decide to leave her alone.
Marriage and conjugal life have lost their meaning in the name of success, fame, recognition and
ambition. Could Claude change, save her marriage and keep her daughter with her? The open
end of the play and Claude’s last words indicate a woman ready to step down from her
“ministerial table”. “Women don’t kill themselves […] they let themselves die” (Act III, Scene
11, 181), she replies to Flahaut. It is up to the audience to decipher Lenéru’s Theater of Ideas and
its message.
The cases of women within the limits of marriage, discussed in this chapter, have a
common characteristic: they are all experiencing the reality of a failing or failed marriage. In all
cases, society, ethical values, personal and gender conflicts define the nature of this reality and
217
influence the heroines into making decisions about the fate of their conjugal life. Elena,
Mercedes, Pia and Claude are classical examples of women who, certain or uncertain of their
personal strength, survive in a marriage that will confine them (Elena), elevate them (Mercedes),
liberate them (Pia) or maintain their suffering (Claude).
4.2. Marriage as prompt for personal evolution: Nelly Roussel’s Pourquoi elles vont à
l’église, and María de la O. Lejárraga’s Mamá.
In early twentieth century, marriage was the most suitable path for a woman to choose.
The adversarial public opinion against the option of pursuing a career through advanced studies
along with the practical obstacles in the workforce (exploitation, low payment, long hours, poor
conditions) discouraged many women from even attempting it ... Once married, a woman had
limited freedom for personal evolution. Legal rights within marriage were not in her favor and in
case that her marriage was not happy, the process to obtain a divorce was not easy.
As explained in Chapter I, divorce in France was legalized in 1884 and in Spain in 1932,
the majority of women would not consider the termination of their marriage, not only because of
the troublesome process and for financial reasons, but also because of social criticism and
uncertainty that such an action would create for them. As Catherine Davies comments “the legal
status of married women was similar to that minors, the deaf and dumb, the mad, and the
incapacitated. Marriage was “legal slavery” (Scanlon 126) yet cultural and social pressures were
such that most women desired it. They subjected themselves voluntarily” (22).
Under these circumstances most women were obligated to remain married in silence.
However there were others who dared to step out and turn the oppressive condition of marriage
218
into their favor. Their reaction would not only be a revolt against male dominance, but also
provide them a chance to evolve into critically thinking, independent individuals. This new
approach would be transferred on stage, where female playwrights depicted married women
going against the current. Nieva de la Paz in her article “Mujer, sociedad y politica en el teatro de
las escritoras espanolas del primer tercio del siglo (1900-1936)” explains that in Spain
el matrimonio se manifiesta como la principal fuente de materia argumental para
la mayor parte de las tramas que articulan las autoras entre 1900 y 1936 […]
Como casi único motivo de la excepcional crítica, las autoras denunciaron en sus
obras la absoluta dependencia económica de la esposa, incapacitada legalmente
para administrar sus bienes. (93)
One of the female Spanish playwrights who suggested a different type of married woman was
María de la O. Lejárraga. In her play Mamá she presents the case of Mercedes, who following
the emerging type of New Woman in the early twentieth century decided to speak out in order to
change the conditions of her conventional marriage. Already from 1910 O. Lejárraga and
Martínez Sierra brought on stage female characters who represented the changing type of
traditional ideal woman. “Abiertamente partidarios de la modificación sustancial del ideal
femenino tradicional se mostraron María de la O Lejárraga y Gregorio Martínez Sierra, […].
Varias de sus protagonistas se lamentan de la monótona vida que les espera si aceptan ajustarse
al modelo burgués de mujer casada” (Nieva “Mujer” 92).
Mercedes indeed fits the description of a married bourgeois woman. Although she seems
to have it all (money, upper class status, good children and a rich husband), her life is aimless
219
and monotonous. Her marriage was failing because of the lack of communication with her
husband tormented her. Raised without her mother’s presence and travelling constantly with her
rich father, she did not grow up surrounded by a traditional family. A result of the constant
movement during her youth is the current restless lifestyle she has that Santiago describes as
“vértigo”. When he asks her what she believes to find through it she replies:
Nada … no sé … es que soy así, que siempre he vivido lo mismo …. Ya ves,
desde niña, sin madre, corriendo con mi padre por todas las playas, todos los
casinos, todos los hoteles de Europa. ¡Creo que se me ha quedado en la sangre la
prisa del tren! (Acto II 57)
In addition, Santiago’s busy professional life and his emotional neglect toward Mercedes
corroded their marriage. Although she, unlike other women of her time, is free to enjoy her
social activities, she is trapped in a lonely and boring conjugal life. Without any significant
interest and because of her children’s long absences while completing their studies, she has even
detached from her maternal role.
Under these circumstances Mercedes’s married life is not promising. In addition, her
children’s well being is jeopardized too, as a result of her distant marriage and poor parental
presence. Facing her husband she warns him of the upcoming devastating results within their
family and requests reconsideration of their roles, as husband and wife. “She has the courage and
the spirit to make her husband understand that his selfishness has been the cause of her gambling,
their son’s lying and their daughter’s falling for a transparent Don Juan” (O’Connor Women 78-
220
9). Her contradictory situation, trapped in an unhappy marriage but free to socialize outside of it,
seems perplexing and impossible to solve. As Simone de Beauvoir says
whereas woman in confined within the conjugal sphere, it is for her to change that
prison into a realm. Her attitude toward her home is dictated by the same dialectic
that defines her situation in general. She takes by becoming prey, she finds
freedom by giving it up. By renouncing the world, she aims to conquer a world.
(450)
Mercedes is indeed the prey of her husband. She describes herself as the “juguete, la distracción,
el animalejo bonito al que se acaricia y se riñe” (Act III 98). As she explains, she was not given
the right to have an opinion at the critical moment when their children were sent away for
schooling. “Ah!, me has querido mucho, pero me has despreciado mucho más. No he tenido
juicio …. Tampoco me has dejado responsabilidad…toda mi vida he sentido un vacío tan
extraño en el corazón” (Act III 99). She is also unaware of their financial status because Santiago
was the one who would always pay her bills. She claims to be rich and poor at the same time.
“Nunca he sabido de verdad, de verdad, si somos ricos o dejamos de serlo. Tú has pagado mis
cuentas siempre, me has reñido por ellas casi siempre. Pero el secreto de tu libro de caja ha sido
inviolablemente tuyo” (Acto III 100).
Her description clearly describes married women’s legal status in Spain regarding their
role in children’s education, their involvement in the household’s finances and overall passive
role in the household. The fact that Mercedes decides to confront Santiago opens up new
perspectives to her life. As de Beauvoir describes “she renounces a world because she wants to
221
conquer a world”. She wants to leave behind the past and make a new start that will allow her to
become a happier woman, mother and wife. This will not benefit only her but also the people
around her. Her attitude and call for change depict O’Lejarraga’s feminist heroines. “The
independent women […] are feminists […] in the sense that they believe in equality of
opportunity and seek actively to participate in and contribute to the world outside the home”
(O’Connor Gregorio 121).
Mercedes asks from Santiago to be allowed to run the finances with him. By being active
and feeling useful within the domestic sphere, she will discover a new meaning in her life. “If
married, this active heroine believes that all decisions affecting the family should be made jointly
by husband and wife. […] She finds that life is most rewarding when she uses her capabilities
and energies constructively” (O’Connor Gregorio 121). The word “constructively” really reflects
Mercedes’ intention to build a new situation that could allow her to see things from a different
perspective. In a certain way she revolts - but in a peaceful way. She does not abolish her
family’s foundation but she wishes to reconstruct it. She could have abandoned her family and
unhappy marriage, as another Nora in Ibsen’s A Doll’s House, run away with a lover or simply
filed for divorce. But how better would her life have been? The chances are that Mercedes would
have felt even emptier, continuing the dizzying lifestyle in which she was raised. O’Lejárraga
options to follow a middle path for her heroine, combining the traditional with the progressive to
introduce the Spanish female feminist.
Divorce never enters her mind as a solution to her marital problems. Rather she
seeks to solve them, when they arise, through planned action. She diagnoses the
ills of her marriage, then sets about to correct them. She is not either to bemoan
222
her lot or to resign herself to a life of misery. She is essentially a woman of action.
(O’Connor Women 30)
Because Mercedes’ approach does not abolish the past but reconstructs it, it gives her the chance
to establish a balanced life that eventually will allow her to evolve and grow as individual. María
Lejárraga suggests a new female subject on stage, compatible with the feminist approach that “is
liberated from the repressions of the past and capable of signaling a new age for both women and
men” (Case 148). It will be for both women and men because Lejárraga’s intention is to promote
the model of a marriage based on respect and the sharing of responsibilities with equality
between the two genders. After all, her personal experience and collaboration with her husband
Gregorio Martínez Sierra shaped this progressive approach. O’Connor comments
that the woman was happier and the marriage more stable when husband and wife
shared responsibilities, and especially when they worked together, was an idea
portrayed repeatedly not only in the theater of this writing team, but in the essays,
novels, and poetry as well. The importance of professional partnership was not
just something Gregorio and María wrote about. They lived it. Perhaps this factor
accounts for the frequency with which the theme appears. (“Heroine” 868)
The “ideal arrangement” (O’Connor “Spanish” 868) for a woman and man working together
within the marriage’s limits reflects the feminist doctrine of O’Lejárraja, as was discussed in
Chapter II. Its value is not only theoretical but also practical. Families’ ties become stronger if
both, men and women share the same conjugal rights. Considering the deeply religious
223
background of Spain and the importance of family, society will also benefit because integral
families with the active participation of mothers and wives’ will form individuals with strong
personalities and concrete values.
Mercedes will evolve as a woman because she will fell useful and important. Her
transformation already started from the moment that she decided to break the silent wall and
demand equal treatment. Her female identity was questioned several times either by Alfonso or
Santiago. Alfonso doubts her capability to confront him effectively and she pushes him away
from her daughter’s life. “(Con afectación de piedad) ¡Es usted una mujer! (Act III 93) he tells
her when she declares that she will do what is possible to defend Cecilia. Later Santiago accuses
her of poor morals, referring to their son’s lies about her gambling. ¡Lógica de mujer! … todo
para ocultar une necedad tuya, uno de tus caprichos de mujer frívola y sin sentido” (Act III 95).
Mercedes realizes that the only way to change the situation and revert the opposing view
other have of her, as a superficial and weak woman, is to speak out. Her decision creates a
contrast that will eventually lead to the play’s denouement. Mercedes becomes the focal point of
contrasts and correspondences for the other characters. Pfister explains that
the dramatic figure may also be defined positively as the sum of the structural
functions it fulfills in either changing or stabilizing the dramatic situation and the
character (in the neutral sense of identity) of a figure as the sum of the contrasts
and correspondences linking it with the other figures in the text. (163)
224
Mercedes indeed intends to change or stabilize the dramatic situation, as this has been evolved
throughout the play. This is why she suggests to Santiago to keep accounts equally from now on,
a solution that will allow both the work together from now on, sharing common responsibilities.
Mercedes: … si desde el primer día hubiésamos llevado la contabilidad a medias,
puede que a mí también me hubiera dado por la economía. ¿No te parece?
Santiago: (Un poco turbado). Mercedes … (Act III 101)
Santiago is “un poco turbado” because Mercedes’ question creates a contrast but it also initiates
communication between them. The adjective “turbado”, “disturbed”, reveals his surprise hearing
his wife suggest such a concrete solution, when previously he had accused her of being frivolous
and selfish. It is also a sign that he has started reflecting upon his own responsibility in creating
the complex situation that they both now face. Mercedes uses a soft voice and a calm tone to
explain in more details her feelings all this time:
Mercedes: (con emoción y dulzura) ¡Acaso has hecho mal en tenerme tan cerca
del corazón y no haberme dejado entrar en tu vida más que de visita! (Pausa,
después de la cual, Santiago habla con amargura, como recriminándose.)
Santiago: Es verdad … Todos tenemos culpa de todo. (Act III 101)
Her emotion and sweetness portray Lejárraga’s Spanish feminist type of woman, as she
promoted in all her work but also reflects Mercedes’s transformation into a balanced person, who
instead of choosing to remain silent or using extreme language, opts for a middle solution. “It
225
was her worldliness and the fact that she was unfettered that gave her the ability to recognize
what was wrong and the strength of character and the sense of justice to undertake the solution of
the problem” (O’Connor Women 79). Mercedes was able to recognize the problem and react
against the artificiality of her life. Her speech served as the means to restore her dysfunctional
marriage but also opened the doors to happiness.
Unlike Mercedes, Mme Bourdieu, the heroine in Nelly Roussel’s play Pourquoi elles
vont à l’église does not have the chance to discuss this with her husband because he constantly
absent from home. The moment she realizes she has been living with a hypocrite, she decides to
take action. She goes to church not only to protest against his anti-clerical ideology but also to
show her capability to act independently as a conscious individual, beyond imposed ideologies
and doctrines. Beauvoir says that
marriage incites man to a capricious imperialism: the temptation to
dominate is the most truly universal, the most irresistible one there is […] he
issues commands, he plays the lord and master […] he enacts violence, power,
unyielding resolution, he issues commands in tones of severity, he shouts and
pounds the table, this farce is a daily reality for his wife. He is so firm in his
rights that the slightest sign of independence on her part seems to him a
rebellion. He would fain stop her breathing without his permission. But she
does rebel. Even if at first she was impressed by male prestige, her bedazzlement
soon evaporates. […] she seems no reason to be under his thumb. He seems to her
to represent no more than an unpleasant and unjust duty. (465)
226
While M. Bourdieu is at home he constantly insults his wife about her intellectual inability to
communicate with him about topics that only men can discuss. He is unable to understand that
she needs some distractions in her life, away from the household chores. He suggests she find an
occupation, “Tu peux bien trouver une occupation” (370), he tells her but her options are limited.
He objects her thought of going to church with Mme Rosier.
M. Bourdieu: Ma situation de vice-president de la Libre Pensee te l’interdit
absolument. […]. Je pretends mettre mes actes en accord avec mes principes. […]
C’est bien compris, n’est-ce pas?
Mme Bourdieu: Oui, c’est compris.
The last part of the conversation with the sentence “c’est bien compris” indicates the imposing
intention of M. Bourdieu to his wife’s actions. He is the vice-president of the Freethinkers’
Movement and therefore he is unable to deviate from his ideology or allow his wife to do so.
However his sentence “Je pretends mettre mes actes en accord avec mes principes” prepares the
audience for the contradictory discovery about his personality and his obvious hypocrisy. Mme
Bourdieu, soon after M. Bourdieu leaves the house for another hour-long meeting with his
friends, realizes that his presence in her life is simply an “unpleasant and unjust duty” and this is
why she decides to rebel. The article she reads referring to his praise about “respect sur la
individualité humaine, librement épanouie” (Roussel 371) simply torments her but it also
awakens her from the submissiveness to her husband’s ideology.
However her reaction is not radical because she does not have the option to leave M.
Bourdieu behind, as for example did Nora in Ibsen’s Dolls’ House. She instead chooses a
227
moderate way to express her disapproval of her boring conjugal life and marital hypocrisy.
Cecilia Beach in her book Staging Politics and Gender: French Women’s Drama, 1880-1923
comments that “Roussel simply criticized the status quo in this play without explicitly staging a
viable alternative” (64). Her theater is part of the soviet form of political theater known as
“agitprop” (agitation propaganda). “In its pure form, [agitprop] theater targets a single use issue
with strategic precision, thus creating a “powerful short-term shock effect, striking at the heart of
an issue with piercing accuracy (Beach Staging 65).
Following these characteristics Pourquoi elles vont à l’église causes a strong effect on the
audience due to Mme Bourdieu’s decision to disobey her husband, but also due to Roussel’s
clear anti-clerical ideology. The focus on Mme Bourdieu’s reaction could reveal the intention of
several other women of her time to go against their husband’s “capricious imperialism”. The
open end of the play allows for further interpretation of the denouement, or a variable alternative
that Beach in the previous quotation states that Roussel did not stage. The main action of the
heroine that ends the play, the result of her decision to “prendre une resolution” or “make a
resolution” reveals that she reflected upon her movement, which was not a spontaneous reaction.
In this case, the importance of Roussel’s play lies in the “truth of the message, the ideological
content and the contact with the audience” (Beach Staging 65). Thanks to the direct dialogue,
simplified plot and clear message of the play, the audience has the chance to experience a
married woman who is transformed into a thoughtful individual, with determination and courage.
The role of another woman, Mme Rosier, is important to the play. It brings on stage
practically the opposite view of another woman regarding religion and sets an example for the
heroine to follow or at least consider. Mme Rosier’s answer to Mme Bourdieu’s hesitance to
follow her to church is: “voilà de bien grands mots. C’est bien très bien d’avoir des principes,
228
certes, et je vous admire. Mais il ne faut pas éxagerer (Roussel 366).” Her words call for a deeper
reconsideration of principles that in some people control their entire existence. Mme Bourdieu
obeys her husband’s anti-clerical doctrine and she does not have any voice for herself. Her friend
Mme Rosier is different. More vibrant and cheerful she represents the type of woman like whom
Mme Bourdeu would like to act.
Although there is no background information about the quality of Mme Rosier’s personal
life, it is clear from her following response that she is also bored and looks to amuse herself by
going to church to socialize. “Ce n’est pas pour la religion qu’on va à l’église. On y va pour faire
toilette, pour voir du monde, pour écouter la musique, pour se distraire, enfin. Elles ne sont pas si
nombreuses, ici, les distractions. Il ne faut pas faire fi de celles qui se présentent” (Roussel 366).
It is not clear if Mme Bourdieu had the chance to socialize before with Mme Rosier in a constant
basis. When M. Bourdieu tells her to find an occupation she replies that “certes, ce n’est pas qui
me manque!” This implies that she is constantly busy at home doing household chores and it is
possible that she does not have many friends with which to socialize.
The fact that Roussel portrays the theme of the “rebelling wife and a tyrant husband”
(Accampo 158) in a short play with such precise dialogue and focused plot shows her quality as
a playwright and intention to bring on stage the New Woman of the time. The freethinkers’
movement doctrine that priests controlled women because “they were “by nature” attracted to
religion” (Acampo 158) was strong in 1910, five years after the separation of State and Church.
Roussel’s opposition to this view was demonstrated in the various speeches she would give
around France, many of which caused debates. She claimed that “the freethinking “priest eaters”
had attitudes toward women no better than the clerics they attacked, because “the alleged
religious” are still completely impregnated with the old Christian morality and fierce anti-
229
clericals have in spite of themselves, preserved the most clerical of all prejudices, masculiniste
prejudice” (Acampo 64). Her opposition was paired with her feminist views. She would add that
“freethinkers needed feminists to achieve their ends [and that] had misconceived notion of
wanting to perfect “us” (i.e. the women) so that we would be worthy of them …[rather than]
perfecting themselves so that they would be worthy of us” (Acampo 64).
This last observation of perfection of a man or a woman conveys a significant feminist
view, strong enough to shake French society of the time, in the same way M. Bourdieu’s
decision shakes the audience. Despite the fact that Pourquoi elles vont à l’église and Mamá
portray women within different social contexts, they both manage to express the reaction of a
woman against male dominance under conjugal life. Both plays reflect a feminist approach to a
married woman’s condition that although not radical or revolutionary, still is effective and
liberating for her.
230
Conclusion
231
The objective of this dissertation was to discuss the evolution of French and Spanish
women’s theater from the 1890’s through the end of the 1930’s and examine the impact of social,
political and ideological context on female characters’ actions, attitudes and choices. In the ten
selected plays French and Spanish female playwrights introduced a New Woman, whose
coexistence with the Traditional Woman creates/ generates/ poses strong conflicts between them
and society. Motherhood, marriage, employment, ethical values and gender differentiation
composed the core of female characters’ lives and at times created insurmountable challenges.
By examining these challenges within the social, political and ideological context and discussing
how female playwrights depicted them on stage, I conclude that French and Spanish women’s
theater from 1890’s to 1930’s had two main characteristics: First, it advocated the emergence of
the New Woman. Second, it was transformed from pure entertainment to an aesthetic, educative
and informative experience, introduced new dynamics, invited the audience to reflect upon the
presented themes and suggested possible solutions that would or could later be transferred to real
life.
Chapter I was divided in two sections. In the first part I discussed the historical
background and socio-politic context from late nineteenth century to the 1930’s in France and
Spain focusing on women’ situation in work, education and legal rights. Considerable
educational reforms and new laws supported women’s presence in the society, allowing them to
be more involved in the ongoing changes of the time. The second part examined women’s
presence in theatrical production. The negative connotation of a woman’s image as a fragile,
naïve and kind individual, who would be unable to produce high quality intellectual work and
impose her presence among men, would be the primary obastacle for women’s French and
Spanish theater. In France Marya Chéliga’s Théâtre Féministe in 1897 set the foundation for
232
promoting women’s plays while in Spain the more organized feminist movement at around 1920
supported considerably female presenc in the theatrical production.
In Chapter II it was discussed the stylistic thematic and ideological evolution of women’s
theater. I argued that Rachilde’s plays and contributions opened the way to the avant-garde
French theater of the twentieth century. María de la O’Lejárraga’s plays advocated the feminist
doctrine and presented a dynamic, eloquent with strong moral and family values woman,
opening new horizons in the Spanish society. Vera Starkoff, Nelly Roussel and María Teresa
León through their ideological and political engagement encouraged discussion about topics
related to social, religious and political issues, with women as central characters. In their plays
female heroines are depicted strong, ideologically conscious and revolutionary individuals, who
bring a new dynamic on stage and in the society after all.
In Chapter III the main topic was motherhood. I examined the way mothers would
consider and reconsider motherhood. I addressed the question of illegitimate children related to a
mother’s point of view and society’s reactions. I analyzed working mothers’ challenges thin the
domestic and social sphere. Strong personality and maternal instincts connect the main female
characters. They all act on behalf of their children, and as traditional mothers they envision a
better future for them. Their job becomes the means to reach this end but it also creates a
different context around them. Success, financial stability, unhappiness, alienation, conflicts
between the public, dynamic woman and the conservative, moral one, struggle for daily survival
and rejection of the political oppression are the opposing poles on the female characters’ lives
that compose their social and personal background.
In Chapter IV I discussed marriage along with its influence on women’s life and its
implications on their further evolution. Despite the unhappy marriage that many women
233
experience, they do not remain inactive or silent but they try to reverse the conjugal oppression
or unhappiness differently. Marriage can lead to a woman’s evolution as far as women express
their potential to act independently beyond their husband’s direction.
The findings of this dissertation are only related with the ten selected plays of French and
Spanish female playwrights. I answered the questions I presented in the Introduction implicitly
or explicitly, either through the direct comparison of French and Spanish female characters or the
study of plays’ plot and analysis of themes. Semiotics of drama and feminist theories contributed
to this end and made it possible to trace connections and analogies between the stylistic,
ideological and thematic approaches of French and Spanish playwrights. The female characters
depicted in the corpus plays represented only a small percentage of the female population of the
time. As it was mentioned in Chapter I, several factors (religion, state, society) would provide
opposition to the New Woman’s efforts for change. It is for this reason that in all plays the New
and the Traditional Woman did not overlap each other but they coexisted, trying to find a middle
way to reach happiness and balance.
Depending on the occasion, other female characters were able to do so by revolting,
while others preferred a moderate reaction to solve their problems. French and Spanish female
playwrights both portrayed dynamic women. In the French plays women tended to be more away
from the traditional values of religion, marriage, and motherhood. The Spanish female characters
remained closer to the aforementioned values. The reason behind this attitude could be traced on
the social background of the two countries. In France the separation of State and Church in 1905
and the stronger presence of the feminist movement in society contributed to the depiction of
women who envisioned independence and happiness away from the traditional norms. On the
234
contrary the Spanish society was based on religious and strong ethical values for centuries and
therefore women preferred to combine the old and the new in a less contradictory way.
The intercultural, transnational and interdisciplinary approach of this study aimed to
provide a background of not only the characters’ complexity but also the female playwrights’
background. By examining this aspect, it became more obvious that French and Spanish
women’s theater in the beginning of the twentieth century had different goals and expectations. It
did not only help to bring on stage women’s issues but it also suggested a new type of
theatergoing experience, one in which audience would be also asked to be engaged and give its
opinion to the problems presented.
Above all in no way we should argue that all the plays from 1890’s to 1930’s depicted
strong women or advocated women’s’ issues only. As we saw the political, social and
ideological context certainly influenced women’s theater and the topics presented. The New
Woman and the Traditional Woman composed the core of dispute in the early twentieth century
and inevitably influenced the themes of various genres. In theater, the fact that many of the
playwrights we studied were politically or ideologically engaged and contributed to the
production of plays with strong female characters. Women playwrights’ active presence in the
social and political sphere facilitated the presentation of their plays on stage, an insurmountable
obstacle during their careers, as discussed in Chapter I.
Certainly there were other French and Spanish female playwrights at the time with less
“revolutionary presence and themes”, whose work did not attract contrary criticism. In this case,
a future comparison between those playwrights and the more innovative ones would offer a
better understanding of the context and could discuss different or possible inter-textual thematic,
stylistic and linguistic approaches. It would also help to trace the evolution of women’s theater
235
by comparing and contrasting traditional and conservative tendencies with the more innovative
and progressive ones.
In addition a future comparison between the way men and women playwrights in both
countries depicted female characters would be informative enough to trace possible
convergences and deviations on women’s issues or ideological doctrines. This perspective could
point out oppositions, obstacles or alliances between men and women playwrights and better
illustrate the condition of theater as total. Because of the multifaceted character of French and
Spanish society during the years of this study, a more in-depth study about women’s issues
beyond motherhood and marriage would illustrate the efforts for further radical changes on
women’s lives. Keeping this in mind and considering possible future studies as described above,
French and Spanish women’s theater seen through a comparative and historic approach can offer
valuable insights on society and its impact on individuals’ attitudes.
236
Appendix
Plot of plays
237
Spanish plays
Mamá (1912) - María de la O. Lejárraga
Mercedes, the main character, is married to Santiago, a man who treats her more like a
child than a wife and mother. Their two children, José María and Cecilia, adore their mother.
However, the fact that they have been away from her for many years at boarding schools
(Santiago’s decision) decreased Mercedes’ involvement as their mother. Being left alone to
entertain her boredom with meaningless social activities, Mercedes ended up gambling. This
activity created a deep debt that she is unable to pay back. She therefore asks to borrow money
from Alfonso, a Don Juan type. Taking advantage of her inability to return his money, Alfonso
tries to seduce Mercedes without success. Alfonso, angry because Mercedes rejected him, flirts
with Cecilia, who is very young and inexperienced and is the perfect prey for him. Meanwhile,
José María finds out about his mother’s debt. In order to help her he writes a check to Alfonso,
forging his Santiago’s signature. Santiago becomes aware of this and threatens Mercedes that he
will take their children away from her, accusing her of negatively influencing their lives. Aware
of Alfonso’s scrupulous intentions toward Cecilia and afraid of losing her children and marriage,
Mercedes wakes up from her lethargy and confronts Santiago. Their conversation will result in
Santiago’s acceptance of his mistakes as an indifferent husband and will mark the beginning of a
new conjugal, happy life based on equal rights and mutual respect.
El jayón (1918) - Concha Espina
Marcela, a young mother and wife who lives in a rural, remote area is tormented by her
238
biological, deformed child, called “el jayón”. To avoid criticism and meet the social demand for
bearing healthy, strong children, she switches her son with her husband’s Andrés illegitimate
love child, whom she finds abandoned at her door. For many years her family and friends know
that the deformed child is the abandonded one and the healthy boy is her own biological son.
After “el jayón” dies in a snowstorm, Marcela relizes that the moment to reveal the truth and
receive her punishement has come. She returns the healthy love child to his biological mother,
Irene, who still remains Andrés’s only love and Marcela decides to spend the rest of her life
alone in the mountains, to be closer to her dead child and away from her unhappy marriage.
Her initial decision to switch children reveals two main issues of the early century Spain:
the pressure from society for a woman to bear healthy descendants and the inability of women to
confront their husbands regarding illegitimate children.
El juramento de la Primorosa (1924) Pilar Millán Astray
Primorosa is a hard working, successful and influential married woman and mother of an
illegitimate child. When she was younger, her daughter Paloma was born, the result of an
unsuccessful relationship with a man who never loved her. From that moment, she swore to
protect the first woman with the same painful experience in her life. When Paloma is engaged to
marry Cayetano, a woman with a little girl shows up to Primorosa to warn her about her future
son-in-law. She tells her that Cayetano deceived her and never supported her or their illegitimate
child. Primorosa decides to fulfill her promise and protect the woman, contrary to Paloma’s
happiness. She takes care of the situation by demanding that Cayetano marries the woman he
abandoned years ago and recognizes their illegitimate child. Paloma is devastated by her
mother’s decision but she understands her motives after Primorosa reveals her the truth. When
239
the woman with whom Cayetano had his only child dies, Primorosa blesses the marriage
between him and Paloma under the condition that the child will live with them. With her actions
and strong determination, Primorosa becomes a symbol for the people of her circle raising her
voice for women’s better legal rights regarding parenthood.
Huelga en el puerto (1933) - María Teresa León
The revolutionary character of the play and its protagonist portrays a different type of
woman, that of a fearless individual who is not only the traditional mother and wife inside the
house but one who is out in public protesting and demanding change both in her family and
society. The play is based on the tormented years of 1931 and 1932 in Sevilla along with the
protests between the Confederación Nacional del Trabajo known as CNT and the Sindicato de
Transportes de la Unión Sindical (linked with the Communist Party). A group of women
struggling for daily survival decide to demand social change and initiate a strike. They unite with
men and they all protest against exploitation, poor salaries and unsecured future of their children.
Al margen de la ciudad (1934) - Halma Angélico
Elena is married with Tomás. She lives in a house outside the city and shares the same roof
with Tomás’ brothers. For them, she is the image of the mother, sister and friend but for one in
particular, Leoncio, she is the ideal woman. Elena is unhappy because she married Tomás not out
of love but from need. She is torn between the desire to experience real love with Leoncio and
her obligation to maintain her image as a decent married woman. A young woman, Alidra, shows
up in Elena’s home, looking to run away from a man she does not want. Elena sees in Alidra the
woman that she herself would like to be and decides to keep her in her house to educate her.
240
Alidra, who incarnates the new, independent woman, knows that Elena loves Leoncio. Alidra
accuses Elena of hypocrisy for staying in a marriage without love. When Alidra decides to leave
Elena’ house she is pregnant with Leoncio’s child. Elena will fight to keep Alidra in her life in
order to maintain alive the vision of a life that she will never be able to have.
241
French plays
L’araigné de cristal (1894)- Rachilde
The Mother and her son Sylvius, (called also “L’Epouvanté” (terror-stricken man) sit in the
half-light of a room open to a terrace, lit by the moon. The mother asks her son why he is
suffering and she offers to help him by finding women for him. Sylvius reveals that that he is
obsessively afraid of mirrors. He explains that when he was ten years old, he was in a building
used to store old furniture for the family home, gazing calmly at his own reflection in a large
mirror on the wall. His image was suddenly fragmented by silver “spider” of cracks that blotted
out his face, decapitating his mirrored self. The gardener had caused the mirror to break using a
drill that penetrated by accident the wall on which the mirror was hanging.
During their fragmental and incommunicative dialogue it becomes clear that the Mother
lacks the basic maternal instincts to console her Son and help him with his fear of mirrors. She
insists that he stops talking about his fear and she orders him to go to the next room to look for
light. Sylvius, unable to refuse his Mother’s order, collides with a mirror that is in the off-stage
space. The sound of a crash and a strong scream compose the ambiguous end of the play leaving
the audience wondering about Sylvius’ fate and whether or not he dies from the collision with
the mirror.
L’Amour libre (1902) - Vera Starkoff
Blanche, the main character, serves as a secretary in a conference held in an Université
Populaire with a discussion about “L’amour libre”. Talking with M.Ruinet, “un homme de
lettres”, she tells him that years ago she was involved with a young, rich man, with whom she
242
had a child out of marriage. Their conversation is interrupted by other characters who plan to
attend the night’s discussion about “L’amour libre”. Their points of view reflect the opposing
opinions of French society about illegitimate children, legislation, relationships and the
constitution of marriage. Blanche is against taking revenge on the man who abandoned her with
a child. She is happy having a child, being able to raise it alone and still make a decent living.
The man who deceived her is a perspective politician now and he visits Université
Populaire to advocate “L’amour libre” that same night. Blanche is happy to see that his
punishment comes from the public that humiliates him when he is unable to give a clear answer
to a question regarding illegitimate children. Blanche confesses to M. Ruinet that the public
conscience and not the laws is the best revenge to the injustice he did to her years ago. Her
response calls for further reflection and contracdicts M. Ruinet’s opinion about better legislation
that will control illegitimacy and protect women’s rights.
Pourquoi elles vont à l’église (1910) - Nelly Roussel
The protagonist Mme Bourdier is bored of being shut up in the house and doing household
chores while her husband is at work, at political meetings and the café. M. Bourdieu, a member
of the Societé de Libre Pensée, spends all his free time with his male comrades, promoting a
non-religious moral code in which all people, despite their sex or class would have access to
truth, knowledge and freedom. Mme Bourdieu becomes aware of her husband’s hypocrisy when
she reads an article in which he promotes equality for both sexes based upon respect and
collaboration. She decides to modestly revolt and goes to church, accepting her neighbor’s Mme.
Rosier’s invitation. Her decision is an action “against her domestic boredom and the sexual
double standard of the freethinkers’ movement” (Kelly 64).
243
La triomphatrice (1914)- Marie Léneru
The main female character Claude Bersier is an established woman of letters. She faces the
challenge of balancing her professional and personal life with marriage and motherhood. She
supports her family financially but fails to find real happiness. Her husband does not find her
attractive any more and he is afraid of her professional success. Unhappy in her marriage and
unable to find a man to truly loves her, she looks for more understanding from her daughter,
Denise. Unfortunately things turn against Claude, as Denise also feels threatened by her mother.
Denise decides to live with her grandmother and Claude remains alone, devastated and unable to
react.
Le dialogue dans le marécage (1932) - Marguerite Yourcenar
The female character Pia is “a young wife incarcerated for many years by her jealous
husband in a crumbling villa in the marshes outside Sienna” (Noonan 223). Sire Laurent, her
husband, now aged encounters her and attempts to justify his motives for having imprisoned her
all these years. She tells him that all this time she has been deeply happy, despite her
confinement, thanks to the weekly visits of her lover. Sire Laurent in vain tries to reverse his
estranged wife’s happiness by telling her that her lover is dead. Pia totally ignores him and the
old man considers her happiness as the ravings of a mad woman. Sire Laurent unable to turn
things around is deeply unhappy, knowing that his only future is his upcoming death while Pia
continues her happy life, between fantasy and reality. The interpretation of their relationship
represents “the overall fear of a man towards his wife and his dependence on her, a possible
reflection of the vibrant changes in French society regarding women and men’s roles in 1930s”
(Noonan 223).
244
Works cited
Accampo, Elinor Ann. Blessed Motherhood, Bitter Fruit: Nelly Roussel and the Politics of
Female Pain in Third Republic France. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2006. Print.
Angélico, Halma. Al margen de la ciudad. In Teatro de mujeres. Tres autoras españolas. Ed.
Cristóbal de Castro. Madrid: Aguilar, 1934. 17-86 Print.
Aston, Elaine, and George Savona. Theatre as Sign- System: A Semiotics of Text and
Performance. London: Routledge. Taylor & Francis Group, 2005. Print.
Austin, Gayle. "Feminist Theories: Paying Attention to Women." Goodman and de Gay
136- 42.
Bilbatúa, Miguel. Introduction. Teatro de agitación política: 1933-1939. Madrid: Cuadernos
para el diálogo, 1976. 5-54. Print.
Beach, Cecilia. French Women Playwrights of the Twentieth Century: a Checklist.
Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1996. Print.
---------. Staging Politics and Gender: French Women's Drama, 1880-1923. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 2005. Print.
---------."Women's Social Protest Theater In The Université Populaire: Véra Starkoff And Nelly
Roussel." Women In French Studies (2003): 78-90. MLA International Bibliography.
--------."Marie Lenéru And The Theater Of Ideas." Women In French Studies 9.(2001): 54-78.
MLA International Bibliography.
Beauvoir, Simone De. The Second Sex. New York: Knopf, 1953. Print.
Bennett, Susan. "Introduction to Part Eight." Introduction. Goodman and de Gay 265-69.
Berlanstein, Lenard R. Daughters of Eve: A Cultural History ff French Theater Women
from the Old Regime to the Fin de Siècle. Cambridge, Mass. [u.a.] Harvard Univ.
245
2001. Print.
Carr, Raymond. Spain: A History. New York: Oxford UP, 2000. Print.
Case, Sue-Ellen. “Towards a new poetics”. Goodman and de Gay 143-48.
Cixous, Hélène, Keith Cohen, and Paula Cohen. "The Laugh Of The Medusa." Signs 1.4
(1976): 875-893. MLA International Bibliography.
Cruz-Cámara, Nuria. "La doctrina socialista y el público en Una mujer por caminos de
España de María Martínez Sierra." Bulletin of Spanish Studies LXXXVI.6 (2009): 793807. Print.
Davies, Catherine. Spanish Women's Writing, 1849-1996. London: Athlone, 1998. Print.
Deak, Frantisek. Symbolist Theater: The Formation of an Avant-garde. Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins UP, 1993. Print.
De Castro, Cristóbal. Teatro de mujeres. Tres autoras españolas. Introduction. Madrid: M.
Aguilar, 1934. 7-16. Print.
Delcroix, Maurice. "La théâtralité du dialogue." Bulletin de la societé internationale d'études
Yourcenariennes 9 (1991): 9-24. MLA International Bibliography.
Duno Guerrero, Douglas José. "Spanish Female Playwrights In The Twentieth Century."
Dissertation Abstracts International, Section A: The Humanities And Social Sciences 59.10
(1999): 3838-3839. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 4 Mar. 2013.
Enders, Victoria Lorée, and Pamela Beth Radcliff, eds. Constructing Spanish Womanhood:
Female Identity in Modern Spain. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999. Print.
Faverzani, Camillo. "Le dialogue dans le marécage: Œuvre poétique ou oeuvre dramatique?."
Bulletin de la societé internationale d'études Yourcenariennes 7 (1990): 41-59. MLA
International Bibliography.
246
Fischer-Lichte, Erica. "Reversing the Hierchy between Text and Performcance." European
Review 9.3 (2001): 277-91.
Fuchs, Elinor. "The Rise and Fall of Character Named Character." The Death of Character:
Perspectives on Theater after Modernism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1996. 21-35. Print.
García, Barrientos José Luis. Cómo se comenta una obra de teatro: Ensayo de método.
Madrid: Editorial Síntesis, 2001. Print.
Gardner, Viv. "The New Woman in the New Theater." Goodman and de Gay 74-79.
González Santamera, Felicidad. "El teatro femenino." Historia del teatro español. Ed. Javier
Huerta Calvo Vol. II. Madrid: Gredos, 2003. 2502-2525. Print.
Granier, Caroline. Un Theatre politique et polemique: Théâtre de rupture. Thesis. Université
Paris 8, 2003. Web. 28 Jan. 2013. <http://raforum.info/dissertations/spip.php?article117>.
Goodman, Lizbeth and Jane de Gay, eds. The Routledge Reader in Gender and Performance.
London: Routledge, 1998. Print.
Hawthorne, Melanie. Rachilde and French Women's Authorship: From Decadence to
Modernism. Lincoln: University of Nebraska, 2001. Print.
Holmes, Diana. French Women's Writing: 1848-1994. London: Athlone, 1996. Print.
---------. Rachilde: Decadence, Gender and the Woman Writer. Oxford: Berg, 2001. Print.
Hughes, Alex. "1900-1969." A History of Women's Writing in France. Cambridge
England: Cambridge UP, 2000. 147-68. Print.
Kelly, Katherine E., ed. Modern Drama by Women 1880s - 1930s: An International Anthology.
London Routledge, 1996. Print.
Kincaid, Martine J. Yourcenar Dramaturge: Microcosme d'une oeuvre. New York, NY: Peter
Lang, 2005. MLA International Bibliography.
247
Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. New York: Norton, 2001.
Print.
Lenéru, Marie. "Marie Lenéru Woman Triumphant." Trans. Melanie C. Hawthorne. Modern
Drama by Women 1880s - 1930s: An International Anthology. London: Routledge, 1996.
147-82. Print.
León, María Teresa. Huelga en el puerto, Teatro de agitación política, 1933-1939. Madrid:
Editorial Cuadernos para el diálogo, 1976. 55-79. Print.
Lloyd, Rosemary. "The Nineteenth Century: Shaping Women." A History of Women's
Writing in France. Cambridge England: Cambridge UP, 2000. 120-47. Print.
Lombardi, Marco. "Le dialogue dans le marécage de Marguerite Yourcenar: Une pastorale
alchimique." Recherches et travaux 58.(2000): 211-217. MLA International Bibliography.
Lively, Frazer E. "Rachilde (Marguerite Eymery) The Crystal Spider." Preface. Modern Drama
by Women 1880s - 1930s: An International Anthology. London [u.a.: Routledge, 1996.
269-72. Print.
Magraw, Roger. France, 1815-1914: The Bourgeois Century. New York: Oxford UP,
1986. Print.
Martínez, Sierra, María. Mamá, comedia en tres actos. Ed. Margaret Sabina Husson. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1937. Print.
McMillan, James F. Housewife or Harlot: The Place of Women in French Society, 18701940. New York: St. Martin's, 1981. Print.
Nash, Mary. "Un/Contested Identities: Motherhood, Sex Reform and the Modernization
of Gender Identity in Early Twentieth-Century Spain." Constructing Spanish
Womanhood: Female Identity in Modern Spain. Ed. Victoria Loree Enders. Albany, NY:
248
State University of New York, 1999. 25-49. Print.
Nieva de la Paz, Pilar."Las autoras teatrales españolas frente al público y la crítica (1918-1936)."
Centro Virtual Cervantes. AIH. Actas XI (1992). Web. 3 Sept. 2011.
<http://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/aih/pdf/11/aih_11_2_016.pdf>.
---------. Autoras dramáticas españolas entre 1918 y 1936: (texto y representación).
Madrid: Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas, Inst. de filología, 1993.
Print.
---------. "Mujer, sociedad y política en el teatro de las escritoras españolas del primer
tercio del siglo (1900-1936)." Boletin de la Fundación Federico García Lorca 1920 (1996): 87-105.
O'Connor, Patricia W. Gregorio and María Martinez Sierra. Boston: Twayne, 1977.
Print.
---------. Gregorio y María Martinez Sierra: Crónica de una colaboración. Madrid:
Avispa, 1987. Print.
---------. Mito y realidad de una dramaturga española, María Martinez Sierra. Logroño:
Instituto De Estudios Riojanos, 2003. Print.
---------. Women in the Theater of Gregorio Martinez Sierra. New York: American, 1966.
Print.
--------. "A Spanish Precursor To Women's Lib: The Heroine In Gregorio Martínez Sierra's
Theater." Hispania: A Journal Devoted To The Teaching Of Spanish And Portuguese 55.4
(1972): 865-872. MLA International Bibliography. Web. 30 Mar. 2013.
--------. Dramaturgas españolas de hoy: Una introducción. Madrid, Fundamentos, 1988. Print.
Oropesa, Salvador A. "Pilar Millán Astray: El conservadurismo español en las guerras
249
culturales de la dictadura de Primo de Rivera y la II República." Hispanic
Journal 30.1-2 (2009): 165-178. MLA International Bibliography.
Pfister, Manfred. The Theory and Analysis of Drama. Cambridge UP, 1988. Print.
Primozich, Loredana. "Pia, femme ou fantôme?." Bulletin de la societé internationale
d'études Yourcenariennes 7.(1990): 29-39. MLA International Bibliography.
Quinn, Michael L. "Semiotics of Theatrical Text." The Semiotic Stage: Prague School
Theatre Theory. New York: P. Lang, 1995. 119-31. Print.
Rachilde [Marguerite Eymery] The Crystal Spider. Trans. Kiki Gounaridou and
Frazer Lively. Modern Drama by Women 1880s- 1930s. London, Routledge, 1996.
269-77. Print.
Ramírez Gómez, Carmen. Mujeres escritoras en la prensa andaluza del siglo XX (19001950). Sevilla: Universidad De Sevilla, Secretariado De Publicaciones, 2000. Print.
Ricci, Evelyne. "Halma Angélico: L'avant-garde au féminin?." Regards sur les espagnoles
créatrices (XVIIIe-XXe siècle). 165-179. Paris, France: Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2006. MLA
International Bibliography.
Roberts, Mary Louise. Disruptive Acts: The New Woman in Fin-de-siècle France.
Chicago: University of Chicago, 2002. Print.
Rodríguez Sánchez, María de los Ángeles. "Una escritora teatral, autora de comedias
populares: Pilar Millán Astray y Terreros (1879 - 1949)." Pedro Muñoz Seca y el
teatro de humor contemporáneo (1898-1936). Cádiz: Servicio de publicaciones
de la Universidad de Cádiz, 1998. 237-43. Print.
Rojas, Auda Elizabeth. Visión y ceguera de Concha Espina: Su obra comprometida.
Madrid: Editorial Pliegos, 1998. Print.
250
Roussel, Nelly. "Pourquoi elles vont à l’église." Au temps de l'anarchie: Un théâtre de
combat, 1880-1914. Vol. I. Paris: Séguier Archimbaud, 2001. 359-72. Print.
Starkoff, Vera. "L'amour libre." Au temps de l'anarchie, Un théâtre de combat: 1880-1914.
Vol. I. Paris: Séguier, 2001. 289-312. Print.
Scanlon, Geraldine M. La polémica feminista en la España contemporánea: (18681974). Madrid: Siglo XXI De España Editores, 1976. Print.
Scott, Joan Wallach. Only Paradoxes to Offer: French Feminists and the Rights of Man.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1996. Print.
Simonton, Deborah. A History of European Women's Work: 1700 to the Present. London:
Routledge, 1998. Print.
Stankiewicz, Teresa. "Straightjacket or Freedom: Transgender in the Life and Works of
Rachilde." Journal of Research on Women and Gender (2010): 62-73.
https://digital.library.txstate.edu/bitstream/handle/10877/4430/Stankiewicz.pdf?sequence=
1.s
Starkoff, Vera. "L'amour libre." Au temps de l'anarchie, Un théâtre de combat: 18801914. Vol. I. Paris: Séguier, 2001. 289-312. Print.
Surel-Tupin, Monique. Preface. Au temps de l'anarchie: Un théatre de combat, 1880-1914.
Paris: Séguier Archimbaud, 2001. 293-95. Print.
Wilcox, John C. "Women Playwrights in Early Twentieth-Century Spain (1898-1936):
Gynocentric Perspectives on National Decline And Change." Anales de la literatura
española contemporánea 30.1-2 (2005): 551-567. MLA International Bibliography. Web.
4 Mar. 2012.
Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One's Own. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989. Print.
251
Zeldin, Theodore. France, 1848-1945 Ambition and Love. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1979.
Print.
Yourcenar, Marguerite. "Le dialogue dans le marécage." Théâtre I. Paris: Gallimard, 1971.
173-201. Print.
252