On Lover’s Eyes and Female Desire

Text BY Ana Escoto

Anonymous, Lovers Eye Brooch, ca. 1840

In 19th-century England, gender roles were strictly defined, constraining women within a framework of marriage and societal expectations. Women were expected to embody ideals of chastity, obedience, and domesticity, while men enjoyed freedoms that included the tacit acceptance of extramarital affairs. This gendered landscape was rooted in a hetero-patriarchal system that controlled nearly every aspect of women's lives, from their education to their sexual expression. Within this context, the lover’s eye—a miniature portrait of a secret lover's gaze—emerges as a symbol of resistance against such repression.

The significance of the lover’s eye becomes clear when we uncover the rigid societal norms of Victorian England. Texts like The Whole Duty of a Woman (1737) laid bare the expectations placed upon women, affirming a woman’s life revolved around securing a husband. From an early age, girls were prepared for marriage, as opportunities for women outside the home were severely restricted. The essence of womanhood was tied to performance: modesty, purity, and submission were paramount. Judith Butler’s concept of gender performance elucidates how these roles were socially constructed and reinforced, dictating how women should behave to uphold societal ideals.

This performance was inextricably linked to a woman's sexuality. Her virginity was a prized possession and her sexual expression was limited to reproduction within marriage. The Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 starkly illustrated this imbalance; men could divorce their wives for infidelity, while women faced severe repercussions for straying. The consequences for women were dire, reinforcing the double standards that defined gender relations at the time.

In this repressive environment, the lover’s eye offered women a means of covert resistance. These miniature portraits, often concealed in clothing, allowed women to keep a secret connection to a lover outside their marriage. This seemingly innocuous item carried deep emotional significance, representing a form of defiance against the chastity and fidelity demanded by society. Michel Foucault's theories on power reveal that where there is repression, there is also resistance. The lover’s eye allowed women to carve out a space for their desires, hidden yet potent in a world that denied them agency.

In a society that largely ignored or dismissed female desire, The lover’s eye served as a powerful symbol. While men’s sexual needs were accepted, women were expected to be passive participants. The act of wearing a lover’s eye became an assertion of autonomy and sexual agency, enabling women to engage in relationships that contradicted societal norms. The portrait represented not just a connection to a lover, but also a challenge to the sexual repression that sought to keep women in a state of subservience.

The lover’s eye has a noteworthy origin. It is said to have been inspired by the love affair between the Prince of Wales and Maria Fitzherbert, a relationship that defied social conventions due to its class disparity, Maria was not socially suited for the price. This narrative adds a new layer of meaning to the lover’s eye, transforming it into a symbol of forbidden love and resistance against societal norms. It allowed women to keep their desires alive, embodying a spirit of defiance that resonated deeply within their private lives.

This hidden act of resistance was compounded by the understanding that intimacy was often hidden from public view. Carrying the lover’s eye was a way to assert one's desires without attracting scrutiny. The miniature portrait allowed women to satiate some emotional needs while still adhering to the restrictions of their roles. This secret connection fostered a sense of empowerment in a world that relegated them to the background.

Moreover, the lover’s eye functioned as a tool for gender subversion. By engaging in extramarital affairs and keeping the portrait hidden, women challenged the norms that dictated their lives. R.W. Connell’s theory of hegemonic masculinity offers insight into how these dynamics played out; men wielded power over women economically and socially, reinforcing their dominance. However, women’s clandestine relationships—embodied in the lover’s eye—represented a quiet rebellion against this structure, allowing them to reclaim a measure of control over their own identities.

Ultimately, the lover’s eye was more than a mere piece of jewellery; it was a form of rebellion against the strictures of Victorian gender roles. By carrying a portrait of a secret lover, women were asserting their own desires in a context that sought to erase them. The lover’s eye allowed women to resist, to subvert, and to reclaim their autonomy, all while navigating the complexities of a world that demanded conformity. In this act of defiance, we see a profound challenge to the norms that sought to control their lives, offering a glimpse into the resilience and agency of women in a repressive society.

Published 29th September 2024.