2. Elizabeth Thomas had a tough life. Born to a lawyer
and his young wife in London in 1675, she lost her
father at an early age and the family was plunged
into financial hardship that Thomas never really
escaped. She relied on patronage from an active
literary society in London, but never received so
much as to be comfortable. She found love and was
engaged to a chap called Richard Gwinnet, but they
were both poorly off and stayed engaged for sixteen
years while they saved for their wedding! Jesus!
However, when they were finally able to marry, she
delayed to look after her ill mother, and he popped
his clogs (in 1717). Although she continued to write
(her first publication was in 1700) she was never
well off and went to debtor’s prison in 1727,
emerged ill and didn’t last much longer. Anyway,
much of her poetry centred on women’s rights,
particularly in relation to education. This poem,
however, focuses on the disparity of marriage.
Although women had some rights in eighteenth
century England, these were forfeit upon marriage
when legally they became powerless due to the
Coverture doctrine that left husbands with all the
power.
3. Methinks, ’tis strange you can’t afford
One pitying look, one parting word;
Humanity claims this as due,
But what’s humanity to you?
Lines 1-4 begin the poem on a note of sarcastic anger. The title
character, "The Forsaken Wife," shames her unfaithful husband—the
man who has forsaken, or abandoned, her—for leaving without any
kind of proper goodbye: Elizabeth Thomas begins in
an ironic manner. Using “Methinks” at the beginning is interesting. It
heightens the irony present in the upcoming lines. In the poem, the
speaker refers to her husband’s mental poverty in the first two lines.
The husband lacks all gentlemanly qualities. He didn’t have enough
time to take pity on his wife and even utter some sweet words before
parting. The poet takes this behaviour as a due. But such a
humanitarian response best suits the crown of a gentleman. The poet
can’t expect it from the husband, lacking humility and dedication.
4. Cruel man! I am not blind,
Your infidelity I find;
Your want of love my ruin shows,
My broken heart, your broken vows.
Yet maugre all your rigid hate,
I will be true despite fate;
And one pre-eminence I’ll claim,
To be for ever still the same.
The second stanza of ‘The Forsaken Wife’ talks about
why the husband has left the poetic persona. The poet
has come to know about the extramarital affair he is
having with another lady. His want of love or the passion
of getting another woman’s hands is the cause of the
poet’s ruinous condition. Here, the poet employs
personification and invests desire with the ability to
break one’s heart. Moreover, in the fourth line, the poet
refers to the sacred marital vows. The husband has also
maligned this pure bond that can only be broken by the
Almighty.
In the last four lines, the poet refers to her husband’s
“rigid hate”. Here, the poet uses a hypallage or
transferred epithet and personifies hate metaphorically.
The poet uses the archaic form of “in spite of”, “maugre”
in the first line. However, in this section, the poet says
that she will remain forever true to herself and never fail
in protecting the sacred bond to which the husband
caused irrevocable damage. At last, the poet claims her
“pre-eminence” or greatness as she is determined to
remain constant in her devotion not for the person but
for the belief that binds two souls in the institution called
marriage.
5. Show me a man that dare be true,
That dares to suffer what I do;
That can for ever sigh unheard,
And ever love without regard:
I then will own your prior claim
To love, to honour, and to fame;
But till that time, my dear, adieu,
I yet superior am to you.
In the third and last stanza of ‘The Forsaken Wife’,
the argument of the previous stanza continues.
Here, the poet addresses the absent persona of the
husband like a dramatic monologue. She asks him
to show a man who dares to be true even if the wife
has deserted him. However, the poet
uses hyperbole in the following not for
mere exaggeration but for highlighting her mental
pain. It heightens the emotional flow of the poem.
Moreover, in the following lines, the poet refers to
her present state. After the husband’s mindless
decision, the speaker has nothing to do despite
sighing. She boldly says that she still loves him
“without regard”. In the last four lines, she refers to
the husband’s claims “To love, to honour, and to
fame”. After such an unfaithful attitude towards the
devoted wife, he can’t claim such tags anymore.
For her constancy and purity, the speaker has
become superior in her eyes. For this reason,
despite having a broken heart, she can calmly say,
“But till that time, my dear, adieu”.
6. Structure
The important thing here is to get across how the poem’s structure
contributes to the sense of anger and bitterness of the poetic voice. We
have the harsh consonance in the opening stanza of ‘p’s that
contributes to a heavily stressed bitter tone. Then the repetition of ‘one’
and ‘humanity’ stress the heartlessness of his actions with the deeply
sarcastic rhetorical question contribute to this as well. The monosyllabic
and stressed rhyme (couplets throughout the whole poem) also
contributes to this tone. You could also mention the heavy use of first-
person pronouns ‘I’ and ‘my’ that are used to focus the reader on the
personal suffering and are contrasted with the selfish and cruel ‘you’ to
clearly demonstrate the injustice between men and women. Very, very
bitter and justifiably so. However, from the sparks of anger comes a fire
of superiority and freedom from the confines of expecting to be
submissive to men.
7. Content
The title tells us everything we need to know about the context of the feelings within the poem. A wife
has been abandoned by her husband. The reality of the time is that she would have had to suffer her
heartache and ruination in silence as women, and particularly wives, had little to no voice, rights or
power in eighteenth century England. This poem serves as a way of venting her true feelings that she
would not have been able to share in polite society. I must point, however, that the voice of the poem
is a construct used to explore this inequity in society The first stanza is a withering attack on the
unfaithful husband. She is amazed that he doesn’t feel any guilt or sympathy toward her as a result of
his cheating. In the end she decides that it is because he has no compassion. She moves on to
demonstrate the flaws in marriage rights. First, she reveals that she knows of his unfaithfulness and
perhaps suggests that although she doesn’t mention it, this is not as a result of her being ignorant,
stupid or blind. She points out that she is the one punished for his failure to stand by the promises of
his marriage. Although we may have some sympathy with men at this time who could have to marry on
the basis of property or financial need rather than love (and thus maybe strayed to find the latter
elsewhere), it is clear that that wives were the biggest sufferers. Despite the hurt, she promises to
remain true, partially because she has no other option, but in the poem she claims the moral high
ground by sticking to her promises. In the final stanza, the poetic voice seems to have become
emboldened by her anger and makes a wider declaration about the worth of women in comparison to
men. She questions whether men could be so brave in the face of suffering as she has been. Only if
she is shown a man who could endure this is she willing to accept their superiority, the common logic
of the day. Until then she sees herself as superior.
