After returning home from his first meeting with the Schlegels, Leonard Bast kicks off his boots, jarring a photograph frame which smashes to the floor. The woman pictured in the frame is Jacky, his wife. “Leonard tried to pull out the fragments of glass, and cut his fingers and swore again. A drop of blood fell on the frame, another followed, spilling over onto the exposed photograph” (41). Interestingly enough, this realistic portrayal of the “dirtying” of the photograph also symbolically represents Jacky’s and Leonard’s relationship. Once Leonard finds out the truth of Jacky’s and Mr. Wilcox’s past, it reads, “By now, he had no illusions about his wife, and this was only one new stain on the face of a love that had never been pure” (201). The author’s choice of using ‘stain’ and ‘face’ relate directly back to the drops of blood Leonard dripped on the face of Jacky’s photograph. Not only does the spilled blood on the photograph frame relate to the reality of their dirtied love affair, but it also relates to how their relationship broke apart before Leonard’s death with his one night affair with Helen.

Margaret is invited over to Mrs. Wilcox’s house. During their conversation, Mrs. Wilcox mentions Dolly, her daughter-in-law, and points to a frame which holds her photograph. “Margaret could not bear being bored. She grew inattentive, played with the photograph frame, dropped it, smashed Dolly’s glass, apologized, was pardoned, cut her finger thereon, was pitied, and finally said she must be going” (61). Despite the fact that Leonard and Margaret both break and cut their finger on the glass of a photograph frame, Leonard’s emphasis is on the blood itself which spills onto the exposed photograph. The language surrounding Margaret’s breaking of the photograph frame concentrates on the act of breaking the glass itself, rather than any sort of blood that happens from the cut finger. Because of this difference in emphasis, Margaret’s relationship with the Wilcoxes takes on a different meaning in relation to the broken photograph frame. Charles, Dolly’s husband, was to inherit Howards End from Mrs. Wilcox. By keeping the reality of Margaret’s ownership of Howards End from her, Charles and Dolly still meant to inherit the house.

At the end of the novel, when Margaret ends up getting the house anyway, it reads, “She, who had never expected to conquer anyone, had charged straight through these Wilcoxes and broken up their lives” (291). In light of the photograph frame she had broken with Dolly’s photo in it, the glass of the photograph frame begins to represent the Wilcoxes, standing between her and her rightful owning of Howards End, and the photograph Howards End itself. By the end of the novel, Margaret has broken Mr. Wilcox; he is “weary” and “shadowy” (291). His son has been put in jail because of a poorly chosen chivalrous act on the behalf of Margaret’s sister and his daughter-in-law’s face “sorrow could wither but not steady.” The Wilcox household has been broken up by deceit and accidents, and the only things left standing are Margaret and Howards End. Having charged full-speed into their lives, Margaret breaks through the Wilcoxes blocking her from her rightful, yet unknown, ownership of Howards End. She also breaks through to become acknowledged as the “new” Mrs. Wilcox. Therefore, in order to be considered an actual part of the Wilcox family, they must be broken apart, just as Margaret broke the glass of the photograph frame.

The actions by which the characters break the photograph frame may also illustrate the motif’s use at foreshadowing certain events that happen to the characters which break the photograph frame. When Leonard knocks the photograph frame off the table, he has just kicked off his boots. Kicking off his boots can represent a freeing of social constraints, which would foreshadow his love affair with Helen on Jacky. Margaret grows inattentive before accidentally breaking the photograph frame. This could foreshadow her inattentive way of stumbling on not only Jacky’s involvement with Mr. Wilcox, but also her rightful ownership of Howards End.

Though both Leonard and Margaret break two different photograph frames, the circumstances of the changes in their relationship with the ones pictured reflect the way Forster chooses to emphasize different aspects of the breaking of the photograph frame. With the photograph frame as a basis, Leonard and Jacky’s relationship is obviously broken in the sense that Leonard cheats on her and also because of the impure state of their relationship from the beginning, noted in the quote reflecting back on Leonard’s blood dripping onto Jacky’s exposed photograph. The broken photograph frame also expands itself into a metaphor for the way Margaret breaks into the Wilcox family. Not only does she break in to become a part of the family itself, but also to be acknowledged as the rightful owner of Howards End. Both extrapolations convey a deeper understanding of Leonard and Jacky and Margaret and the Wilcoxes.

Streete defines a “strange woman” as any woman, usually foreign but not always, that “is not under male sexual hegemony” (113), as in a woman seemingly outside the realm of Jewish law that could and would punish her for “acting out.” She is therefore a threat because there is no punishment for her temptatious actions. Women like Delilah and the foreign wives of Solomon that seduced him away from YHWH are perfect examples of these “strange women.” This “strange woman” is also set up as an antithesis to the feminized “Wisdom” in Proverbs. The author of Proverbs personifies Wisdom as an interloper between God and man, giving man the opportunity to commune more wholly with God and not for any illicit selfish purposes. “Anti-Wisdom” or the “strange woman” instead seeks to separate foolish young men from YHWH and control them (112-13). In this sense, Wisdom represents the solely ideal woman—reserved and close enough to God to bring man to Him. On the other side of this is Anti-Wisdom, a metaphorical Delilah.

Based on this defined problem and the added need of continuing the line of their marginalized community, female sexuality is only allowed if a man can control it (either her father or her husband). Similarly, because the control of a woman is so closely linked to controlling her reproduction, any time a woman acts against the constraints of the male hegemony, she is attacked in sexual terms. Jezebel, who commits no actual adultery, is called a whore because she seduces her husband and others away from YHWH (62). This also explains why Israel, commonly referred to as a “she,” is called a “whore,” rather than an idolater whenever “she” fails to follow YHWH’s commandments. Similarly, men should actively seek Wisdom and stay away from “Anti-Wisdom,” but women should only use Wisdom for men’s benefit and/or to trick “outsiders,” such as in the case of Sarai pretending that Abraham is her brother rather than her husband so he is not killed while they are traveling. Obviously, when Delilah uses wisdom to trick Samson into telling her what the source of his strength is, she is not using wisdom to the benefit of the Jews.

This contrasts sharply against the views of women’s sexuality as exposed in Streete’s analysis of the New Testament. The need for women’s sexuality having to be restrained has less relevance here because Jews in the first and second century were worrying less about assimilating into the mainstream culture as evidenced by their newfound leniency on adultery, which was no longer found to be a capital crime (147). If they still were as frightened about maintaining their line, their laws constraining women’s sexuality would still be in effect as harshly. There is the definitive virgin/whore dichotomy, as shown much in Revelations, but there is less interference and worry about the “strange woman” and her potential for tempting men away from God. The “strange woman” in the New Testament has turned into worry about any sexual activity made by any man outside of marriage, including with prostitutes (which men in the Old Testament were allowed to be with) (129). The “strange woman” in the New Testament morphs into a worry about any sexual wantonness. There is still pressure for a woman to remain a virgin until marriage, but the crime otherwise is now more lenient. Men, subsequently, may now be punished more strictly for their indiscretions and are now considered more “in control” of their apostasy then they were under the Old Testament.

Streete’s book definitely sheds light on the reasons behind the constant fear of the “strange” or “foreign” women evident in Proverbs and other books, and her argument remains solidly formed throughout the entire book. There are some tangential lapses, in the sense that her argument will split off into seemingly unimportant side arguments, but she keeps her argument thoroughly backed up and her prose interesting throughout the entirety of the book. Her argument is interesting, specifically in how the first half of the book gives background for how revolutionary Jesus was, especially pardoning an adulteress for which was an unpardonable crime with terrible consequences in the Old Testament age. It also explains in detail why YHWH must always be paired with a “wife,” such as Israel (because every other religion has a divine spousal symbol that made the world. Without Israel being a “she,” it would be homoerotic (76-77).) or why the feminized Wisdom is the interloper between Israel and YHWH. Women in these symbolic senses have so much power, and yet they were constantly controlled for worry of using this power against Israel.

Gail Streete’s The Strange Woman: Power and Sex in the Bible explains the Old Testament fear of the “strange woman,” the temptress who would seduce Israel away from YHWH as well as why women needed to be contained and controlled. It also provides the stark contrast between Old Testament and New Testament views on sexuality, such as men suddenly being found accountable of apostasy by cleaving to a prostitute in the New Testament. It also makes and backs up these arguments flawlessly. Streete writes a powerful argument for the power of women within the text against a sadly stark reality.