Hardys dramatic dialogue Essay

Denying the harsh moral codes set upon you can at times improve your material circumstances; however it can reduce you to a situation lower than poverty. Hardy’s dramatic dialogue â€Å"The Ruined Maid† attempts to portray the injustices and ironies of Victorian morality. Hardy is able to achieve this through his elaborate control over language. The class distinctions and moral codes placed upon women in the Victorian era have a large degree of irony. In the first stanza Hardy introduces two women: an unnamed, impoverished farm maid and a relatively wealthy â€Å"ruined† woman. The fact that the farm maid is unnamed shows her relatively insignificant life in comparison to the â€Å"ruined† woman who is named. The â€Å"ruined† woman (‘Melia) is said to have acquired â€Å"fair garments†, illustrating her affluence as the adjective â€Å"fair† suggests her clothes were of great beauty. The farm maid also wonders how ‘Melia has come across â€Å"such prosperi-ty† emphasising her newfound wealth. ‘Melia states that she has acquired this wealth as she has â€Å"been ruined†. By crossing the Victorian morality line and selling herself she has been rewarded instead of being looked down upon. In the second stanza Hardy contrasts the two women’s lifestyles to illustrate their vast differences. Hardy uses negative diction such as the noun â€Å"tatters† to describe the poverty-stricken woman clothing which contrasts to the description of the wealthier woman in the first stanza. Hardy also contrasts this in the second stanza where Hardy uses positive diction with vibrant connotations such as â€Å"gay bracelets† and â€Å"bright feathers† to again describe the â€Å"ruined† woman’s clothing. The use of juxtaposition between the poverty of one woman and the relative wealth of ‘Melia emphasises their class differences. The â€Å"ruined† woman, obviously gaining from her denial of normal moral codes, states â€Å"that’s how we dress when we are ruined†. This illustrates that all women in her profession wear wealthy clothing, portraying the ironies of Victorian moral rectitude. Restrained in the entrenched Victorian class system with its moral and economic confines women at times have to escape in order to improve their situation. In the third stanza Hardy illustrates the â€Å"ruined† woman’s original poverty. She is described to have had a â€Å"home in the barton†, illustrating her initial lack of wealth through the use of the noun â€Å"barton†. ‘Melia is said to have in the past used archaic, colloquial language such as â€Å"thee† and â€Å"thou† portraying her earlier impoverishment; only those of the lower classes would have used these words. However Hardy contrasts this with the woman’s â€Å"talking† which now â€Å"fits ‘ee for high company†, again emphasising her gain from selling herself. ‘Melia says that â€Å"some polish is gained with one’s ruin†. The noun â€Å"polish† suggests the woman has gained refinement by becoming â€Å"ruined†, illustrating the potential gains from defying Victorian moral codes. This can also portray the hypocrisy of Victorian society as pure, virginal women are approved of; however happen to live depressing, miserable lives. In the fourth stanza Hardy again contrasts the woman’s current position with her past one, describing how she used to have â€Å"paws† and a â€Å"face blue and bleak†. The fact that her hands are said to have been â€Å"paws† illustrates the strenuous work she had to endure. The adjective â€Å"bleak† is an example of a synecdoche as it is used to illustrate ‘Meila’s former emotions. However she is now said to have â€Å"little gloves† and a â€Å"delicate cheek† portraying her dramatic improvement both in her occupation and emotionally. The last line: â€Å"we never do work when we’re ruined† emphasises her lack of taxing labour after becoming â€Å"ruined†. Crossing the morality line can at times result in improvements to one’s position economically. By defying Victorian morality one’s situation is condemned to being lower than the poverty of those who are pure and righteous. In the fifth stanza Hardy again uses negative diction to describe ‘Melia’s past position. Hardy illustrates that she used to view her life as a â€Å"hag-ridden dream† portraying her past depressive outlook on life due to her previous poverty. She is said to have â€Å"sigh[ed]† and â€Å"sock[ed]† emphasising her negative view on life. However now she â€Å"know[s] not of†¦ melancholy†. This shows her emotional improvement as a result of becoming â€Å"ruined†. In the last stanza the farm girl says she wished she was like her former friend and â€Å"had feathers† and a â€Å"fine sweeping gown†. This illustrates her misunderstanding of ‘Melia’s new profession due to her poverty. She is unable to see through the vivacious fai ade of ‘Melia’s wealthy clothing in order to see the realities of her occupation. ‘Melia however separates herself from her former friend stating that she is but a â€Å"raw country girl†. The adjective â€Å"raw† again emphasises the girl’s righteousness and innocence contrasted to the other woman’s â€Å"ruined† morality. The two women are completely different due to the chasmic nature of the Victorian class distinctions and ‘Melia’s decision to sell herself. ‘Melia’s also denies the farm maid of her dreams stating that she â€Å"cannot quite expect that†. Although she wishes she could become wealthy she can’t escape the class which she was born into. ‘Melia says that â€Å"you ain’t ruined† showing that to become rich after being born into the lower classes you must become â€Å"ruined†. However this could also be seen as a warning to the other woman to hold on to her maidenly modesty due to its huge worth in Victorian society. Furthermore Hardy uses the colloquial expression â€Å"ain’t† to show the reader that the â€Å"ruined† woman hasn’t escaped her poor origins. Women of the Victorian times held a very insecure position in society; one which could change dramatically just by defying ironic moral codes. In â€Å"The Ruined Maid† Hardy attempts to show the ironies and injustices place upon women in the Victorian era. He shows that although one may improve their economic situation by defying the moral codes of their society they are condemned to a fate worse than poverty.