Catherine Moore
"Single women have a dreadful propensity for
being poor, which is one very strong argument in favour of matrimony" --
Jane Austen, letter of March 13, 1816 from http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html#protofem3
According
to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term “marriage” (n.) may be defined as “A
particular instance of matrimony between a husband and wife; a matrimonial
alliance” (1D). Key to this understanding of “marriage” is the term “alliance”.
The term alliance suggests a mutually beneficial union between two parties. The
utility of a marriage and it’s social, gender, and political implications
provides a range of motivations for this traditional alliance. Authors like William
Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Mary Robinson consider the institution of
marriage as the facilitator for female subjection. Society, during the Romantic
era, treated women as undeniably inferior to men. Additionally, an alliance through marriage carried significant
political implications. Advantageous marriages were present particularly among
the upper class nobility. There existed very few authors like Charlotte Smith,
who consider marriage, or lack there of, as a means to liberate and empower
females. Her attempts to discourage the stereotype that older women must be
married in order to be productive, accepted members of society, provides a rare
perspective into the mind of a more radical thinker. Ultimately, the
institution of marriage manifests itself as the facilitator for countless social,
political, and gender- related issues in Romantic era society.
According to http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html#protofem3, in the time of Jane Austen’s writing, marriage was the only vehicle for women
of the “genteel” class to become emancipated from the constraints of familial
ties. It was rare for these women to obtain a respectable form of work without
falling from social graces (and even then they teetered on the fringes of the
upper social realm). Under almost all circumstances, it was incontrovertibly
necessary for women to remain in the same household, with their parents, until
marriage. Any abrupt departure from one’s family, and consequently source of
income, would be socially interpreted as an act of extreme rebellion and would most
likely bring shame to the family. As described in the same Jane Austen
encyclopedia entry, “English divorce law during the pre-1857 period was a truly
bizarre medieval holdover”, in that, to achieve a divorce, especially for
women, was nearly impossible. In addition, “almost the only grounds for divorce
was the sexual infidelity of the wife…the divorce trial was between the husband
and the wife's alleged lover, with the wife herself more or less a bystander" (Pemberley). In regard to inheritance, any property or money endowed to a woman before her
marriage passed directly to her spouse. This naturally gave rise to the
advantageous phenomenon of “fortune hunting”. Marriages arranged by upper-class
elites would often involve the union of a female heiress and a male with a
title or strong social ties. Both families would gain social graces as well as
a secure succession to their fortune. Under these pretenses, however, the issue
of emotional or romantic bonds between the potential husband and wife were
often compromised.
Noteworthy artist and printmaker
of the time, William Hogarth, produced a series of six succeeding prints
entitle Marriage A-La-Mode. The image
below, the first of the series, depicts the two fathers bickering over the
marriage contract, as the VI count (the male’s father) points to an
illustration of his genealogy, while the merchant (the lady’s father) figures
out all the facts and figures. Hogarth picks on the impractical and implicitly
arrogant genteel figure of the VI count, implying a certain arrogance of upper
class nobility. Furthermore, he is satirizing the business-like nature of
arranged marriages that were centered on contracts and personal gains, instead
of genuine emotion.
William
Goodwin’s Enquiry Concerning Political
Justice & Of History and Romance considers a more critical approach to
the apparent rational gaps than Hogarth’s satirical illustrations criticize. He
first lays out the apparent flaws in the current system of marriage by stating “the
method is for a thoughtless and romantic youth of each sex to come together, to
see each other, for a few times and under circumstances full of delusion, and
then to vow eternal attachment” (94). His oversimplification of the courtship
process is intended to highlight the irrationality of the subsequent marriage system.
Furthermore, he argues “In almost every instance they find themselves
deceived…they are led to conceive it their wisest policy to shut their eyes
upon realities, happy, if, by any perversion of intellect, they can persuade
themselves that they were right in their first crude opinion of each other.”
(94). This kind of “deception” provides the foundation for what Goodwin
considers the norm for a socially engineered marriage relationship. He later
describes the institution of marriage as a system of “fraud”, based on
principles of “deception” and “crippled judgment”. He implies that those men,
who partake in this inherently flawed system, exhibit deficient moral character
in all facets of their lives. Concluding his argument against the present system
of marriage he argues, “marriage, as now understood, is a monopoly, and the
worst of monopolies. So long as two human beings are forbidden, by positive
institution, to follow the dictates of their own mind, prejudice will be alive
and vigorous” (94).
After
boldly asserting his opinions on the institutional flaws of the current
marriage system, Goodwin suggests potential solutions or alterations to for
future improvements. He first appeals to the elevation of reason and intellect;
“the abolition of the present system of marriage appears to involve no
evils…[and doing so would] lead us universally to prefer the pleasures of
intellect to the pleasures of sense” (94). Goodwin equates a system of marriage
based on equality and reason to the acquisition of higher “intellectual”
prowess. He presents, what modern day readers would consider inherent or
logical, the idea that “each man would select for himself a partner to whom he
will adhere as long as that adherence shall continue to be the choice of both
parties” (94). This idea of mutual selection between partners is one of
progressive, gender neutralizing principles.
Despite
being unified under the Act of the Union in 1707, tensions between Scotland and
England persisted in matters regarding cultural and historical differences. The
unification of families through marriage provoked a certain level of contention
when occurring between two families of different nationalities. (for more
information on the Act of the Union, http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/614670/Act-of-Union). One notable Scottish author, Sir Walter Scott, wrote on
matters concerning Scottish ancestry and heroic folklore. One particularly
noteworthy piece, The Lay of the Last
Minstrel, depicts a marriage between an English Lady and a Scottish Knight:
“It was an English Layde bright,/ (that sun shines fair on Carlisle wall,)/ And
she would marry a Scottish knight,/ For love will still be lord of all” (p.
672, 30-34). In this particular story, love conquers the clandestine nature of
their union. Not only are these two figures unifying their families, but they
also symbolically unify their two nations: “For she had lands, both meadow and
lea,/…And he swore her death ere he would see/ A Scottish knight the lord of
all” (42-46). Coming from the perspective of a Scottish nationalist writer, it
would follow that the male figure would become “lord of all” the English woman’s
possessions. Regardless of which character was afforded the most agency through
marriage, it stands that unification through matrimony was an effective
mechanism for political unification.
No class was known
more infamously for their exploitation of marriage as a means to gain
advantageous political ties than the upper nobility and royal families. According
to the a book entitled The Politics of Marriage Among Non-Catholic
European Royalty by Patricia H.
Fleming, marriage alliances were continually used to bind together the various
royal families and their countries during both peace and war. “They allowed
greater flexibility and subtlety than military alliances, for the forgoing of a
marriage alliance generally does not, as a military alliance does, imply
opposition and hostility to those who are not part of the agreement” (Fleming, 236). These marriage bonds were often the means of tying one family into an
entirely new network of relationships. As Fleming argued, “once established, a
marriage bond could influence, or justify, a multitude of subsequent political and
personal activities.” (236) The Habsburgs in particular underwent serious
negotiations, leading to divisions in court and threats of violence (Doran, 908). Furthermore, in 1772, King George II enacted the Royal Marriage Act,
dictating that no member of the royal family, or potential heirs to the throne,
could enter into a marriage contract without the consent of the reigning
monarch. The immediacy of the social changes regarding endogamy within the
royal family inevitably influenced Romantic authors like Sir Walter Scott,
Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Austen. With a longstanding tradition of “marriage of
the state” throughout British history, it would follow that British nobility
and families looking to make advantageous unions for their offspring followed
in this royal tradition.
(Pictured
Above: One of the most infamous politically arranged marriages between Henry
VIII and Catherine of Aragon, daughter to Spanish monarchs Ferdinand and
Isabelle. The marriage was clearly intended to unite England and Spain, thus
with Henry’s decision to divorce Catherine came serious animosity and backlash
from Spain)
Robinson’s
Memoirs of the Late Mrs. Robinson play
with the notion of infidelity, and its effects on the marriage system. She
provokes the seemingly unanswered question whether one can truly live in an
adulterous relationship, and how a lack of emotional connection between
partners can completely change the nature of a marriage. Authors similar to
Godwin and Wollstonecraft advocate for a genuine emotional connection between two
partners; without which a marriage is unlikely to succeed. Yet, as Mary
Robinson recalls, “My heart, even as I knelt at the altar, was as free from any
tender impression as it had been at the moment of my birth…love was still a
stranger to my bosom.” (331). This lack of love or affection foreshadows the
eventual fate of their union. Robinson explains her reasoning for remaining in
her marriage, prior to her husband’s indiscretions, as her obligation to
maintain a “refined sense of feminine rectitude, [that] attached me to the
interests as well as to the person of my husband” (332). This “feminine
rectitude” is a direct reflection of social expectations for a woman existing
in an overbearing upper class society. She later reflects on the state of her
life trapped in an unfortunate marriage: “I had formed a union with a family
who had neither sentiment nor sensibility: I was doomed to bear the society of
ignorance and pride: I was treated as though I had been the most abject of
beings, even at a time when my conscious spirit soared as far above their
powers to wound it…” (335). This “society of ignorance” was not an uncommon
role for women to take on. Female infidelities were one of the most concrete
and quickest ways for a man to get out of his marriage. However, the double
standard allowing men multiple indiscretions, illegitimate children, and even
sometime second families, left many women trapped in a life of unfortunate
solitude. Finally, Mary proclaims: “Mr Robinson knows what I endured, and how
patiently, how correctly I suited my mind to the strict propriety of wedded
life he knows, that my duty as a wife was exemplary, my chastity inviolate….he
knows that I bore my afflicting humiliations with a cheerful, uncomplaining
spirit, that I toiled honorably for his comfort…” (336). This final passage
illustrates the insensitivity and ultimately cruel nature of the male double
standard and the sad helplessness of women like Mrs. Robinson.
Charlotte
Smith is one of the few authors of her time who attempts to consider the
institution of marriage as a catalyst for female empowerment, instead of a
perpetuation for their subjection. In her poem, Thirty-Eight Addressed to Mrs. H----Y, the speaker is a woman mourning the loss of her youth,
and self-pitying her life of solitude. She describes herself as “the starch
maid, or matron sage,/ Already of that sober age” (7-8).“Starch” according to
the anthology footnote implies “Unbending, formal, or unmarried”. This poem
offers a glimpse into the raw female fear of getting old, losing male
affection, and perhaps remaining single forever. Writing from the point of view
of a woman reaching a milestone age, Smith’s insights into the female
perspective reflect commonly shared sentiments of Romantic era women. Living in
a society centered around the family unit, and the perpetuation of one’s
lineage, turning thirty-eight without a husband or family inevitably left women
feeling a lack of purpose and more importantly estranged from society. Even today
there exists a stigma around women who never marry or produce a family. Smith
strategically counters this stereotypical female reaction by finishing the
piece with a statement of conviction: “with eye more steady we engage/to
contemplate the approaching age,/ And life more justly estimate,/With firmer
souls and stronger powers,/…we’ll not regret the stealing hours/ That led from
Thirty----even to forty eight” (49-55). She gives the speaker back some of her
agency by acknowledging her “firmer souls and stronger powers”. Though it is
hard for women to realize the implications of their age, whether married or
not, Smith conjures that entering into each year with conviction and soundness
of mind, they will fill the void of a male copanion.
One
could dissect Mary Wollstonecraft’s essay on Vindication of the rights of Women for an endless expanse of time when
considering female empowerment, education, children etc. There are a few
especially noteworthy passages specifically regarding the institution of
marriage as a vehicle for suppressing women. Wollstonecraft acknowledges the
social principles that in order “to
rise in the world, and have the liberty of running from pleasure to pleasure,
they must marry advantageously, and to this object their time is sacrificed,
and their persons often legally prostituted” (Wollstonecraft, chapter 4, 23). Given that women
have been forced into this kind of social bind, “the man should be legally
obliged to maintain the woman and her children, unless adultery, a natural
divorcement, abrogated the law…” (chapter 4, 65).
This, of course, should only remain
in tact until women no longer have to rely on their male counterparts for
subsistence.
In
an ideal system of marriage, women would be more “rationally educated, could they take a more comprehensive
view of things, they would be contented to love but once in their lives; and
after marriage calmly let passion subside into friendship—into that tender
intimacy, which is the best refuge from care; yet is built on such pure, still
affections, that idle jealousies would not be allowed to disturb the discharge
of the sober duties of life, nor to engross the thoughts that ought to be
otherwise employed” (chapter 6, 15).
This
suggestion of “friendship” as an ideal relationship achievement implies an
inherent sense of balance and equality between the sexes. Wollstonecraft views
the attainment of friendship as the ideal form of equality and balance between
spouses. When men are able to overcome the novel “passion” from the beginning
of the marriage, it is then that their loyalty and capacity to connect to their
partner is truly put to test. Thus, Wollstonecraft advocates for the importance
of an emotionally based union, rejecting the alternative advantageous marriage
found so often in her society.
Marriage, and the
institution thereof, inspires a symbolic interconnectedness between
institutional oppression and Romantic society. Pertaining mostly to women,
marriage facilitated their suppression and stripped them of their agency as
individuals. Once a woman was married, she became a subject to her husband’s
will. Marriage, however, also inspired the pairing of two equally discontent
figures, under the pretense of political or monetary gains. The various
implications of a marriage union helped shape the social atmosphere of the Romantic
period.
Citations:
Doran, Susan (October 1989). "Religion and
Politics at the Court of Elizabeth I: The Habsburg Marriage Negotiations of
1559-1567". The English Historical Review 104 (413): 908–926. doi:10.1093/ehr/CIV.413.908.
Fleming, Patricia H. The
Politics of Marriage Among Non-Catholic European Royalty Current
Anthropology , Vol. 14, No. 3 (Jun., 1973), pp. 231-249 Published by: The University of Chicago
Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research Article Stable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740765
http://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/pptopic2.html#protofem3
No comments:
Post a Comment