A-level student Daisy Hill
Both Doña Perfecta (1876) and La Casa de Bernarda Alba (1936) highlight the extreme, oppressive nature of the times when they were written, showcasing how religion and social shame are wielded to oppress and control women in particular.
The texts present glimpses of everyday life in rural Spain. While they incorporate elements of heightened drama, their realism connects directly to the contemporary social situations in Spain and the authors’ aspirations for social change. Both Lorca and Galdós supported marginalized groups and championed personal freedom—Galdós even held a government position, while Lorca was an outspoken anti-fascist. The political voice in both texts is unmistakable, particularly in their critique of conservative values and their detrimental impact on women.
Catholicism is portrayed as an instrument of control. Bernarda’s insistence on an eight-year mourning period for her daughters is justified as religious piety, but is also a way of intensifying her authority. Lorca critiques religion through symbolic reclamations of religious spaces and imagery: eg the floral crown worn by Paca la Roseta—a woman vilified for her liberated sexuality—and the olive grove, the site of clandestine sexual encounters. The olive grove has many biblical associations, while the floral crown evokes the crown of thorns worn by Christ, shocking contemporary audiences by transforming these religious symbols into emblems of sexual desire and bodily autonomy. Through this, Lorca protests the oppression caused by religion, particularly its impact on women and their sexuality.
Galdós also critiques the use of religion as a tool of oppression, though his focus is on its role in suppressing social progress. Pepe Rey, depicted as a modern man with progressive ideas, becomes an outcast in Orbajosa partly because of his origins in Madrid. A rumor about his supposed lack of religious devotion spreads, irrevocably tarnishing his reputation. Through this, Galdós demonstrates the strong connection between conservative values, which foster xenophobia, and religion, which provides justification for such prejudices.
The strongest critique of religion in Doña Perfecta lies in the theme of hypocrisy, which culminates in the final scene: one of the gravest sins, murder, is committed by Doña Perfecta, the most devout and pious character. This conclusion reinforces the idea that late 19th-century Spanish religion is little more than a tool to reinforce oppression.
In La Casa de Bernarda Alba the most extreme consequence of this oppression is Adela’s death at the end of the play. The negation of her love for Pepe el Romano ultimately drives her to suicide, stemming from her lack of autonomy enforced by both her mother and society. This theme pervades the play, symbolized by the closed doors and windows of Bernarda’s house. The confined, prison-like setting resonates particularly with theatrical audiences, reinforcing the bleak consequences of the women’s incarceration. The tragedy is heightened in the final scene, where Adela’s death is concealed by Bernarda’s final command, ‘¡Silencio!’: the rules of conservative society prevail as Bernarda reasserts her control.
Similarly, in Doña Perfecta, Rosario’s tortured love leads to her confinement in a mental institution. Like Adela, Rosario’s life effectively ends due to society’s inability to tolerate a woman’s independence. As with Bernarda, it is a woman, Doña Perfecta, who enforces this imprisonment on her own daughter. This suggests that society perpetuates a vicious cycle of oppression, with women enforcing the very ideals that oppress them in their pursuit of the prevailing notion of perfection, regardless of the consequences.
Throughout both texts oppression consumes every aspect of life. In La Casa de Bernarda Alba the countryside and mountains represent the freedom that lies outside the village, but Bernarda forbids her daughters from leaving the house. In any case, going beyond the village would be unthinkable, for fear of the social shame that might arise if the daughters were perceived as breaking societal rules. Lorca contrasts the artificial norms of the village with the natural freedom of the countryside, suggesting that societal rules are a restrictive, unnatural force. At the same time, Bernarda manipulates these norms for her own personal gain. For instance, the repeated reference to el qué dirán (“what people will say”) is used both to protect her daughters and to justify her control over them. Lorca thus makes it clear that this oppressive system depends on the complicity of individuals like Bernarda, offering hope for a more liberated Spain in the future.
Galdós also portrays the rigid norms of rural Spain, using a culture of shame perpetuated by both Orbajosa’s citizens and Doña Perfecta herself. The cruelty of Orbajosa’s community is epitomized by the Troya sisters, who gossip about Pepe Rey and spread rumors that contribute to his demise. Their unity as three gossiping women can be seen as a manifestation of Orbajosa’s collective opposition to outsiders, reinforcing the same societal rules under which they themselves suffer. The sisters are depicted as poor and marginalized, showing how the system punishes young women for their social status. However, despite their rebellion against assigned roles through their antisocial behavior, they also perpetuate the very gossip that leads to Pepe Rey’s death. Like Lorca, Galdós illustrates how those who suffer under conservative ideals also collude in their own oppression. Doña Perfecta, perhaps the strongest enforcer of conservative ideals, embodies the pinnacle of societal conformity, as suggested by her very name and the title of the novel. She uses gossip to shame Pepe Rey for failing to conform to her ideal of “perfection.” Ultimately, she symbolizes the irony of this so-called perfection, as her actions destroy the lives of both her nephew and daughter – another case of a brutally conservative society imposing a culture of shame.
In summary, both works create microcosms of conservative society’s treatment of women in late 19th- and early 20th-century Spain, highlighting the oppressive nature of religion and social shame and the devastating consequences for women. These works invite readers to question the prevailing social order and its widespread effects. The tragic conclusions of both texts suggest that, while such values remain, any hope of freedom remains unrealized. By comparing the two texts, we can conclude that nothing much changed in the sixty years between their publications.
Bulletin of Advanced Spanish 