Appreciation on Autres Temps... by Edith Wharton Autres Temps...

was written by Edith Wharton, and published in 1911, under the title Other Times, Other Manners (a free translation of the French expression autres temps, autres murs other times, other customs). In 1916, when published in the Xingu collection, it appeared retitled as Autres Temps.... This short story was written in prose, and it is an expression of the American Realism. Mrs. Lidcote, a rich divorce that had been ostracised from society, was on a steamer, the Utopia, making her way back to the much dreaded New York, the very same city that had condemned her for leaving her family. She had received a letter whilst she was in India, which told of her daughters divorce and remarriage, and so she had hastened to her place in Florence to gather her things, and had boarded the ship. She had spent 20 years away in self-exile, and now she was coming back only to give her daughter Leila the support she needed. Mrs. Lidcotes thoughts revealed an inner talk with her past, which was seemingly going to repeat itself by proxy right before her eyes, spoiling her daughters fate. During the long eight days on board of the Utopia, she could not help but wondering about Leilas future as an outcast (much like herself), and about all the rejection and pain Leila was yet to endure. Still on the steamer, she met an old friend Frank Ide, who seemed to have strong feelings for her. He told Mrs. Lidcote that her daughter was alright, for she had done things regularly (in relation to the divorce). When she arrived in NY, her daughter was not waiting for her as Leila was busy with the arrangements for a party that should develop into the appointment of Wilbour Barkley, her new husband, for a position in Rome. Throughout the story, the reader is made aware of the fact that Mrs. Lidcote had to flee NY when she divorced her first spouse, for she was cut by the very same society that now seemed to welcome and embrace Leila's choice almost to the point of mollycoddling her. After much waiting for the littlest glimpse of attention from Leila, Mrs. Lidcote finally got an hour alone with her. During the next two days, it was understood, at least from Mrs. Lidcote point-of-view, that she was to stay in the bedroom, as her presence amongst such important guests would have been shameful for her daughter. People like Mrs. Boulger, who had fiercely antagonized Mrs. Lidcote in the past, were still as influential as ever, and were now part of Leilas move to land Wilbour a position in Rome. The dinner party she threw was an important step for her climbing the social ladder, and it had as guests the prominent Gileses, the well-known Fresbies, and the powerful Mrs. Boulger. A curious point is that the dinner party had been arranged with the help of Leilas ex-husband, Horace Pursh. Despite being mentioned as a simple detail, this means to tell the reader just how acceptable divorce was seen as then Leila and Horace had just separated, and yet his family and he were still willing to help her. As Mrs. Lidcote felt her daughter did not want her at the party, and, moreover, had not even informed the guests of her presence, she stayed in the bedroom for the whole weekend, under the pretext of being tired. On Monday, after all the guests were gone, Mrs. Lidcote left for the hotel where she had previously stayed, so that she could rest for the night and travel back to Italy on the following morning. Franklin Ide showed up unannounced and entered her sitting-room; he told her that times had changed, and that her imagination was playing tricks on her. He naively expected them to be together now that Leila was happy, as that meant Mrs. Lidcote was free from the responsibility

of being there for Leila. He went through great lengths to convince Mrs. Lidcote that divorce was not a frowned upon practice anymore, and that no one condemned her any longer for having had one. He even said Mrs. Wynn had insisted they go for dinner with herself, her daughter Charlotte, and the latters fianc. She almost believed him, despite having the feeling that everything he said seemed like a painted gauze let down between herself and the real facts of life, and experiencing a sudden urge to tear the gauze into shreds. She decided to call what she believed to be a bluff, and told him that he was right, she was probably imagining things, and that they should go at once to dine with Mrs. Wynn and her family a suggestion to which he responded in the most awkward manner, doing everything he could to talk her out of it. When a maid knocked on the door to ask how many pieces of luggage Mrs. Lidcote would be taking on the steamer, she was suddenly drawn back to reality, feeling that the veil of painted gauze had been torn in tatters, and that she was moving again among the grim edges of reality. I have really enjoyed this story, even though I was left with a sense of discomfort and incompleteness due to its unresolved ending. Analysing the supposedly freer and certainly hypocritical NY Mrs. Lidcote returned to has made me realise humanity has not come a long way in the past century. The ambiguity, the double standards, the social exclusion and the intolerance are significant characteristics of society at present. One can very well imagine Mrs. Lidcote story being told in this day and age, in a small town rather than in a big city where divorced women are still treated as outcasts, especially when they try to reengage in social interaction and start to go out at night. For said reason, I was not the least shocked to see the disparities presented by Wharton my generation also experiences all sorts of prejudices and paradoxes. And besides, what are human beings other than wells of contradictions and doubts? Even people who think themselves righteous and pristine are fallible being so is a characteristic of humankind, and thus it is bound to be mirrored in the behaviour of the larger group. What one influential member decides is sure to be followed by the flock, which does not dispute the validity of the point made, even if it seems incongruent. Thats why the same society that had made of Mrs. Lidcote a pariah, allowed Leila to socially ascend despite having committed a sin identical to that of her mum's past. This paradoxical behaviour seems to be the only real constant in the conduct of modern society, as everything else that constitutes it from morals and customs to clothes and hairdos is fickle and follows the ephemeral trends set by a certain decade or persona. Whilst society condemned the divorce at the time Mrs. Lidcote had one, 20 years later this was a somewhat common practice, and one which the reformulated, tolerant upper class overtly accepted. Perhaps the dilemma the protagonist faced had its origins in Whartons real feelings and observations, as one can draw many parallels between this short story and the events of her life. Edith Newbold Jones was also from NY, and likewise was born into a wealthy family (apparently the expression keeping up with the Joneses was inspired by her ancestors), being, therefore, part of the upper caste. She divorced Edward Wharton, a rich banker with whom she had had an unhappy relationship, in 1913. Even though the story was written before her divorce, one imagines the thoughts related to the separation must have been lingering in her mind for a while before she took action (Edwards acute depression, which might have weighted on the decision to divorce, was deemed incurable in 1908). The shunning of Mrs. Lidcote represented, perhaps, Wharton's own fears of being cut once she divorced her husband; she had an insight on the views of the elite and she knew how

cruel they could be and maybe that is why she moved to France after her separation. Her open criticism to society might have been a step towards womens freedom, but despite censoring the ambiguities of the early 20th century, Wharton's views were quite paradoxical and ambiguous too she had an extra-marital affair and a divorce and, nonetheless, supported the institutions of marriage and family. What appealed to me the most in this story was its portrayal of what might be an unsuspecting fine line between the otherwise incongruent reality and paranoia. During parts of the narration, I wondered if what Mrs. Lidcote was thinking were wrong, or if the whole situation were genuinely unfavourable towards her. If what appeared to be irrational werent actually so, then she was really being cut and marginalized; but if it were, she was suffering from some sort of paranoid delusion, in which she was much hated and unwanted. This feeling of doubt as to whether she was delusional or not reached its peak twice (less so on the second occasion), with the ulteriorly motivated pep talks given by her cousin and Franklin almost as speeches about the changes in Leila and in New Yorks upper-class social prism. But, in both accounts, this feeling was dispersed when she confronted what was being presented as truthful, and pretended to go along with it. On the first occasion, Susy Suffern tried to convince Mrs. Lidcote that Leila wanted nothing more than for her to come downstairs and dine with the rich, important guests, but that it was Mrs. Lidcote herself who was tired and needed to rest. At Mrs. Lidcotes refusal to stay confined upstairs, for she had rested enough, Leila rushed to her room and tried to make her mum believe that she did look really tired and in need of rest, and that all the guests were aware of her being indisposed and, therefore, it wouldnt be at all shameful for Mrs. Lidcote to retire to her chambers. Mrs. Lidcote played on her daughters angst, pretending she meant to go downstairs and attend the dinner party, just so she could study Leilas reaction. Her observation revealed a flushing Leila desperately trying to control the disobliging expression on her countenance. On the second account, it was Franklin who tried to talk Mrs. Lidcote into believing that she was not tainted anymore and also that Mrs. Wynn had invited them for dinner. She acted as if she had trusted his words, and suggested they go to dine with them at once a proposal from which he tried to eschew in any way he could, even contradicting himself in order to evade it (at first he said Charlotte was with her fianc at the hotel, then he avowed that they must have already gone to bed, and, subsequently, that he was sure they had gone out to dine). When Mrs. Lidcote glanced at him, she saw his face redden just like her daughters had done a few days before. Both blushings, in my opinion, proved that Mrs. Lidcote was right, NY hadnt changed that much, people just didnt want to see it because that implied they hadn't changed either. The themes broached in this piece seem current and relevant even on the 21 st century, as people still experience the consequences of being misjudged by a dubious society. It is funny how humankind likes to think of itself as highly evolved, and yet it continuously succumbs to the irrationality of mistakes caused by passions. The use of double standards, for instance, could be explained through peoples partiality, which is often a direct reflection of ones emotions in relation to a said person. It seemed logical to assume that if Leilas divorce had been accepted, then Mrs. Lidcotes would have been as well. The problem is that society did not (and still does not) know how to forgive and reconsider its rulings; once a judgement was passed, it was set in stone. All Mrs. Lidcote wanted was to be included, and Susy and Franklin sure tried to make her think she would be. In spite of her scepticism, Mrs. Lidcote wished she could believe that they were right and that things had changed, but she was adamant she was not

imagining her situation, no matter how contradictory it sounded in view of the latest outcome (societys acceptance of Leilas divorce). On the night before departing on the Utopia, she explained to Franklin what she thought about said matter: "...You say it's preposterous that the women who didn't object to accepting Leila's hospitality should have objected to meeting me under her roof. And so it is; but I begin to understand why. It's simply that society is much too busy to revise its own judgments. Probably no one in the house with me stopped to consider that my case and Leila's were identical. They only remembered that I'd done something which, at the time I did it, was condemned by society. [...] I'm the woman who has been cut for nearly twenty years. The older people have half forgotten why, and the younger ones have never really known: it's simply become a tradition to cut me. And traditions that have lost their meaning are the hardest of all to destroy." And yet, New Yorkers didnt seem to want to see the hypocritical ways of its society, they wanted to believe it had changed, and they had changed with it. But, in fact, things were much the same, despite the new attitude towards divorce. The societal core had not been modified and so the social politics had not been altered at the least: a select circle still made the decisions that had to be followed by the rest of the society cutting some people, appointing others for positions (jobs), allowing some to climb socially, assuring the descent of others, etc. Mrs. Boulger, for instance, was still part of the upper class axis of power when Leila divorced and remarried, and yet she displayed a complete shift in the behaviour relating to that matter she would even play a part in Leilas social ascent, whereas it was understood that, with Mrs. Lidcote, she had acted otherwise. Of course societys mask was then as active as ever, the verdicts passed needed no reiteration; they were valid until someone worthy said otherwise. And so, the validation of such a worthy person as Mrs. Boulger meant Wilbour's job in Rome was secured. Sadly enough, the freer America Mrs. Lidcotes old friends were trying to sell to her was not actually there surely attitudes might have changed, but that didnt mean people were ever unleashed, they still had to watch their every move, for there was always someone waiting to see them fall and tell the world about it. Autres Temps... was also interesting because it managed to intertwine the personal and the social impact the divorce had had on Mrs. Lidcote this depiction enabled the reader to find out the many ways in which her life had been affected by such a choice. Moreover, I have enjoyed the somewhat existentialist tone present in this narrative the regard of human existence in an unexplainably aggressive, intimidating world, and the consequences of the choices made along the way are clearly portrayed in Mrs. Lidcotes unfortunate story. She was hostilized by an unapproachable upper class, and the choice she made drove her to an acquiescent exile. Interpreting this narrative, I have understood the antagonist to be embodied in the New Yorker upper-class society, and its animosity with the protagonist to be unceasing. Mrs. Lidcotes conflicts can be divided into those of psychological nature (internal) discerning reality from paranoia, dealing with the rejection and with the hopelessness of her case, and assessing her feelings for Franklin; and those of social nature (external) struggle against societys prejudice, and confrontment of said prejudiced society because of her daughter. As for the elements of the plot, they are, if I have correctly observed, as follow: introduction Mrs. Lidcote is on the steamer and has a talk about Leila and about NY with Franklin Ide; rising action Mrs. Lidcote arrives and finds out

Leila will be hosting a dinner party; climax when Leila blushes , because it indicates Mrs. Lidcote is right to be suspicious (the climax develops from the new information Susy gives Mrs. Lidcote, implying Leila thinks her mum should stay in the room resting during the dinner party with important guests who happen to be of her acquaintance ; to the subsequent acceptance of what is underlying in Susys words; and, finally, to Mrs. Lidcotes teasing, when she pretends to Leila that she means to attend the dinner party and Leila flushes); falling action when Mrs. Lidcote goes to the hotel and has a talk with Franklin (there is a mini-climax at this point, when he says Mrs. Wynn invited them to dine it gives the reader a streak of hope that she might be mistaken, and that a happy ending is on the way); denouement when Franklin blushes again, as it confirms that Mrs. Lidcote situation remains unchanged . The setting is New York, presumably in the beginning of the 20th century, and the context social conditions and morals is that of the wealthy, privileged white upper-class society. The point of view has a 3rd person limited omniscient narrator (who only knows of Mrs. Lidcotes thoughts or feelings). The themes introduced are: divorce and its social consequences for a woman; prejudice; tradition; isolation; criticism to New Yorks upper class its morals, duality, hypocrisy, double standards, customs; womens freedom of choice; and social ascension. The situational irony (contrast between what appears to be and what actually exists) is depicted in this narrative, as it appears that society has modified it ways (it now accepts the divorce), but, in fact, it has not experienced a major change (it is still prejudiced). This compassionless society is part of the modern-day reality, and it continuously excludes, secludes, segregates and marginalizes. And that is why Whartons story is as timely as it is timeless, because people are still discriminated with basis on gender and marital status (not to mention age, race, religion and sexual preferences). And Mrs. Lidcote's attitudes to go into exile and to accept hiding in the bedroom demonstrated that maybe she also saw herself as inferior in some way, as if she thought she was wrong and had to hide out from her shameful past. But it was impossible to run away from herself, and so her past came back to haunt her, saying Im not only your own past, but Leilas present. This short story displayed Ediths cynical view of a repressing society experiencing changes in its way of production (shifting from a rural to an urban industrial reality, living the modernization), and which was, as a result, changing its own standards. What had once been unacceptable was now not only admissible, but almost commendable, as it was denoted by the nonchalance with which the story of a certain Mabel was being told on the steamer (apparently Mabels husband had found out about their divorce when she was already wearing another engagement ring). My favourite part was the finale, when Mrs. Lidcote was at the hotel with Franklin, and she alluded to the New Yorkers collective societal persona (its sense perfectly conveyed through Franklins words), mentally associating it to the veil of painted gauze. This is what society was doing, it was hiding its problems by distracting itself with less important, and perhaps more pleasing, matters (un?)aware that, by placing said veil between individuals and reality, it was making itself short-sighted, disenabling itself from seeing what laid just a bit farther its duality ever more present due to this implicated lack of understanding. Society longed for calling itself liberal it was as if that label were necessary to validate its very existence and yet it dwelled in its own

conservativeness and prejudiced views, still tattooed on peoples minds and exemplified in their behaviour. I found the last scene very insightful as to what the author intended with this text. During the final dialogue, it became quite clear that Wharton meant, besides the pondering of the aforementioned themes, a reflection on the (un)importance of the societal core. Franklin asked, what do you suppose such words as you've been using 'society,' 'tradition,' and the rest mean to all the life out there?"; to which Mrs. Lidcote perceptively replied, "less than nothing, of course. But you and I are not out there. I believe the author meant to highlight that the social imprisonment was chiefly intrinsic to the upper class way of life its members so worried about keeping the appearances and following the socially acceptable code of conduct, that their lives couldnt possibly be unleashed. Common people could be free, but the upper caste would never detach itself from its hypocritical faade and from the engulfing power of tradition. Mrs. Lidcotes sharpness was also denoted on the rest of the spiel: "We're shut up in a little tight round of habit and association, just as we're shut up in this room. Remember, I thought I'd got out of it once; but what really happened was that the other people went out, and left me in the same little room. The only difference was that I was there alone. Oh, I've made it habitable now, I'm used to it; but I've lost any illusions I may have had as to an angel's opening the door. In my opinion, the little tight round of habit and association stands for society, Mrs. Lidcote thought she had escaped its many judgments when she fled, but in fact she had never freed herself, it was just an illusion she was never allowed to put the past behind her, everywhere she went she would still feel it in her acquaintances gelid attitudes towards her, or see it understood in the eyes of strangers when someone hushly answered yes, the Mrs. Lidcote, dont you know?. I have particularly agreed with Mrs. Lidcotes views when she said: we are imprisoned, of course all of us middling people, who dont carry our freedom in our brains. But weve accommodated ourselves to our different cells, and if we are moved suddenly into new ones were likely to find a stone wall where we thought there was thin air, and to knock ourselves senseless against it. I believe that only in ones mind one can be truly free, and that this type of freedom is so supreme it travels with the person to wherever they go, in such a way that, even in the occasion of being physically constrained, one could still be free inside. But it is also true that people who do not carry such freedom within the self are bound to be imprisoned, for they do not have full control of their own minds after being confined for some time, people get used to their realities and end up finding their prisons comfortable, however bad they might be, so if anyone takes that comfort from them, they might lose their feet. Whilst researching for this assignment, Ive read online that Wharton is compared to Chopin, and I could really see the resemblances once that was highlighted. Besides the fact that Kate Chopin was an exponent of local color/naturalism/realism, and that Wharton was a realist as well, the resemblance was also echoed in the upper class tone both authors characteristically used which was considered pretentious and elitist by many a critic. Chopins themes showed some of the same interests as Whartons, such

as womens freedom, loveless marriages, social responsibilities, and womens role in society. The Story of an Hour, for example, portrays a womans acknowledgement of her longing for freedom. The Awakening, details a married womans affairs and her attempt to take control of her life. As for Wharton, she used divorce as a theme in at least two other pieces, namely Twilight Sleep and The Other Two, and a scandalous woman who has an affair with a married man as a central character in The Age of Innocence. Her elegant prose was pervaded by her sardonic views of society and its dualities, repeatedly considering the social-psychological consequences of womens freedom of choice. Such freedom for women was not commonly portrayed in literature still, both authors bravely carried through their outrageous depictions of the possible paths for a woman, in spite of the prejudice that reigned in the early 20th century society. I guess that, just through the observation of a little portion of the work of both authors, one realises that they had some of the same concerns in relation to the role and the status of women in the social environment, and that they both questioned the institution of marriage (affairs and divorces were constantly examined topics). This conclusion seems fit, as Margaret McDowell avows in Whartons biography ... certainly no American author before 1930 produced such penetrating studies of women who, instead of marrying, decide to risk social ostracism by contracting temporary alliances based on mutual trust and sexual desire. Overall, I found this text an excellent means to reflect upon societys customs and morals, and to question what has and has not changed during the past century. The depiction of a repressive society that imprisons through the weight of tradition is still relevant because it is still real. The questioning of the values imposed by the dominant caste is necessary to avoid the individual and collective alienation, and this short story provides the background for such significant matters to be discussed. It is also an interesting piece for its transparent portrayal of the feelings of rejection, inferiority, isolation, guilt, sorrow, and complete solitude of the protagonist. This sociopsychological rendering of the upper class in the beginning of the century is also valuable for the historical picture it paints, given that the described attitudes were in accordance with the legitimate social etiquette of that period. All in all, I have thoroughly enjoyed this piece and I am looking forward to reading more from the same author, for I enjoyed not only the themes, but also the style in which she writes.

References: Millicent Bell. The Cambridge Companion to Edith Wharton. Cambridge University Press. 2006. http://library.du.ac.in/xmlui/handle/1/9086 http://repositorioaberto.univ-ab.pt/bitstream/10400.2/540/1/LC301.pdf http://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/wharton/othertwo.htm http://www.whartonsalon.org/autres-temps/ http://birdbath.hfu.edu.tw/am2006/Edith%20Wharton.ppt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Wharton http://www.rc.umd.edu/praxis/contemporary/barrish/barrish.html http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/wharton.htm http://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/wharton/othertwo.htm