Féminisme fort discret.
J’ai tout de même relevé que la description de Miss Mitford ou de Miss Barrett était prétexte à aborder la condition féminine et plus spécialement des femmes écrivains.
P. 12 : je note une allusion discrète mais très claire à la morale puritaine qui refuse aux femmes le droit au plaisir et à la sexualité, mais la laisse aux animaux… « Before he was well out of his puppy-hood, Flush was a father.
Such conduct in a man even, in the year 1842, would have called for some excuse from a biographer; in a woman no excuse could have availed; her name must have been blotted in ignominy from the page. But the moral code of dogs, whether better or worse, is certainly different from ours, and there was nothing in Flush’s conduct in this respect that requires a veil now, or unfitted him for the society of the purest and the chastest in the land then. »
Je note aussi qu’Elizabeth doit s’opposer à tous les hommes (père, frère, amant) pour retrouver Flush kidnappé….