Introduction
In the century spanning from the Civil War to the Civil Rights Movement, the American South underwent a profound social and political change. A predominantly agricultural region living off its cash crops had to embrace the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. Simultaneously, the aristocratic customs of the wealthy planter elite that used to dominate the South both politically and culturally gave way to other notions of taste and propriety. However, not everyone was willing to accept these changes, and literature offers plentiful examples of characters clinging to the fading image of the Old South. Amanda Wingfield from Williams’ “The Glass Menagerie” and Emily Grierson from Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” are both Southern women who have to face the advances of modernity threatening their way of life. This paper compares the two characters using three main criteria – namely, Amanda and Emily’s relation to the past, their perception of gender relations and courtship, and their perspective on women’s socioeconomic role. Both Amanda and Emily are firmly rooted in the aristocratic ways of the Old South and share its notions of elevated courtship, but, unlike Emily, Amanda made acknowledges the new socioeconomic roles.
Perceptions of the Past
Amanda, the matriarch of the Wingfield family, mostly lives in the past and is firmly rooted in the culture of the aristocratic Old South as she remembers it. Moreover, this devotion to the past is her primary characteristic. When describing the characters, the author takes specific care to mark her as “a woman clinging frantically to another time and place” (Williams). The time Amanda clings to so desperately is the end of the 19th century, when she, as a young woman, partook in the lavish lifestyle of the gradually decaying yet still prominent Southern aristocracy. Roy mentions that the American South had possibly the most elaborate aristocratic culture among modern societies, and its impact on the young Amanda had likely been overwhelming (584). Additionally, the largely mystified, glory of the Old South as the high point of aristocratic sophistication adds to its appeal in Amanda’s eye as well (Roy 584). Thus, as a character, Amanda Wingfield is firmly rooted in her glorified perceptions of the Old South, and this fervent devotion to the past is her defining trait.
Emily Grierson is not different from Amanda in this respect, as clinging to the past is her primary characteristic as well. It is particularly evident in the passage describing her father’s death. When the townspeople come to offer their condolences and help with the arrangements for the deceased, Emily meets them “with no trace of grief on her face” and claims her father is not dead (Faulkner 3). It takes three days to finally convince her to let them attend to the body and bury the late Mr. Grierson (Faulkner 3). For Emily, her father was not only a parent but the head of the Grierson family and the living reminder of “the glory they enjoyed in the past era of the Confederacy” (Khrais 127). By refusing permission to bury him and trying to keep his body within the house, Emily attempts to stop the passing of time and maintain the worldly glory of the once-mighty Griersons in perpetuity. While this attempt fails, it still signals Emily’s devotion to the past crystallized in an idealized vision of the Old South embodied in her father.
Another episode that highlights Emily’s intense attachment to the past is the scene that elaborates on her refusal to pay taxes. The source of the conflict is that Colonel Sartoris, a former mayor of the town, had relieved her from paying any taxes in 1894 out of gentlemanlike sensibilities (Faulkner 1). With the passing of time, the younger generation of the aldermen decides to revoke this tax dispensation. Letters have no effect on the implacable Miss Grierson, and the aldermen visit her house in person to persuade Emily to pay her taxes. Yet, whatever arguments they offer, she brushes them off with a single phrase: “See Colonel Sartoris. I have no taxes in Jefferson” (Faulkner 2). The fact that the colonel has been dead for almost a decade means nothing to Emily: she refuses to even recognize the past as past. Her devotion to the Old South is unshakable, and she clings to any of its manifestations – whether her father of Colonel Sartoris – with a dogged determination. This firm commitment to the past, associated with the glorious aristocratic splendor, and the refusal to let it go makes Emily similar to Amanda.
Perceptions of Gender and Courtship
Gender relations occupy a prominent place in Amanda’s worldview, and her ideas of love and courtship come from the days of her youth – and, thus, from the past that she idolizes so much. As far as she is concerned, having “gentlemen callers” – or simply put, potential suitors, is the most important thing for a young woman. Amanda takes specific care to point out that the art of proper courtship, as practiced in the prominent Southern families, involved complex rituals and careful considerations. Gentlemen callers were expected to flock in numbers so significant there could not be enough chairs to accommodate them all (Williams). Young ladies, on the other hand, were expected to “have a nimble wit and a tongue to meet all occasions” while talking about matters of importance and avoiding improper subjects (Williams). Amanda clearly extends this perception to her daughter Laura, urging her to “stay fresh and pretty for gentlemen callers” (Williams). It would not be an overstatement to say that Amanda’s world revolves around courtship, and her ideas of courtship, in turn, revolve around the Old Southern notions of propriety and good taste.
Emily assigns just as much importance to the proper organization of gender relations as Amanda and demonstrates it with grim clarity that leaves no room for misinterpretation. Soon after the death of her father, whose mere presence discouraged potential suitors, Emily starts seeing Homer Barron, a day laborer from the North. The talk of the town is that the two are going to marry, but Homer confides to some of his acquaintances that he is “not a marrying man” (Faulkner 5). Emily’s response is to invite Homer to her house, poison him with arsenic, and keep his decaying body in her bedchamber for the decades to follow. Homer’s opposition to marriage goes against Emily’s idea of gender relations since, as a Southern aristocrat, she considers wedlock the only appropriate outcome for a relationship. Even though she retaliates violently, the murder is an act of desperation rather than vengeance: Emily attempts to fix Homer “in her elevated world of traditional courtship, marriage, and family” (O’Brien 106). Thus, Emily is obsessed with Old Southern notions of courtship and gender relations every bit as much as Amanda.
Socioeconomic Roles
For all her dedication to the norms and ideals of Southern aristocracy, Amanda does not object to some of the new socioeconomic roles brought by the new age. In particular, she does not think that marriage is the only fitting prospect for a young woman – she also finds it appropriate for a lady to work, at least in some capacities. For example, she encourages Laura to study her typewriter chart, thus implying that being a typist is a fitting occupation even for a girl of her station (Williams). Moreover, Amanda has no stomach for those women who neither marry nor have a trade to earn their living. She calls them “barely tolerated spinsters living upon the grudging patronage of sister’s husband or brother’s wife” and explicitly cautions Laura not to become one of those (Williams). Hence, even though Amanda still views marriage as a preferable option, she recognizes the fact that women are gradually becoming part of the workforce. As a result, she is willing to compromise on the aristocratic lifestyle in terms of work and employment, thus recognizing the new socioeconomic roles.
Emily, however, demonstrates no such flexibility and generally rejects the very idea of employment as not befitting her aristocratic status. Admittedly, the narrator mentions that Mrs. Grierson used to give “china painting lessons” at some point, but stopped doing that long ago (Faulkner 1). It appears that the idea of employment does not attract Emily – giving lessons might be a pursuit to occupy her time, but hardly a necessity. Instead, she prefers to lead an idle lifestyle – and, as the text shoes, she has enough money to do so. Even though the story refers to Emily as a “pauper” on one occasion, it only makes sense as a comparison to the past splendor of Griersons as an aristocratic family (Faulkner 3). As a matter of fact, she is far from being desperately needy – she has her house and even keeps a black servant around to do the housework. Thus, while Amanda recognizes the necessity for women to join the workforce, at least in some respectable positions befitting a lady, Emily is adamantly opposed to the idea and does not intend to tarnish her aristocratic dignity by working.
Conclusion
As one can see, Amanda Wingfield from Williams’ “The Glass Menagerie” and Emily Grierson from Faulkner’s “A Rose for Emily” display significant similarities between them, but also have at least one notable difference. Both characters are women of the upper-class Southern upbringing and demonstrate utter devotion to the ways of the idealized Old South. Amanda is literally described by the author as a woman frantically clinging to another age, and Emily’s attempts to freeze the passing of time with her sheer will hint at a similar perception. Apart from that, when it comes to gender relations, both women share the aristocratic ideas of elevated courtship. Amanda expects her daughter to receive gentleman callers and entertain them in witty exchanges, and Emily is so obsessed with proper courtship that she murders her lover to ensure the ‘proper’ outcome for their relationship. However, the characters differ with their attitudes toward the new socioeconomic roles for women. While Amanda had made peace with the idea that women have to work and earn their living, Emily rejects the notion of employment as unbefitting her aristocratic status.
Works Cited
Faulkner, William. “A Rose for Emily.” Canadian Academy. Web.
Khrais, Sura M. “‘An Eyesore among Eyesores’: The Significance of Physical Setting in Faulkner’s ‘A Rose for Emily’.” International Journal of Applied Linguistics & English Literature, col. 6, no. 6, 2017, pp. 123-126.
O’Brien, Timothy. “Who Arose for Emily?” The Faulkner Journal, vol. 29, no. 1, 2015, pp. 101-109.
Roy, Sukanta. “Breaking of Illusion: A Journey of Symbolic Realism to Expressionism in Tennessee William’s ‘The Glass Menagerie’.” Social Science and Humanities Journal, vol. 2, no. 8, 2018, pp. 584-588.
Williams, Tennessee. The Glass Menagerie. New Direction Publishing, 1999. EPub edition.