Love And Marriage In 18th Century
Our aim in this paper will be to analyze and discuss the different ways in
which
love and marriage were dealt with during the eighteenth century and to
what
extent these two terms were linked together or considered as opposite.
To
accomplish this matter we are going to focus our attention on several
works that
are representative from this period and that reflect in an
accurate way the
social mores and more specifically, marriage conventions and
romantic love.
Throughout this discussion we will be emphasizing the idea
that marriage is
represented in these works as an institution completely
detached from love and
that it pursues more than anything else economic
purposes and an rising in the
social hierarchy. First of all we should
account for the situation of English
women during the eighteenth century,
that despite several social improvements,
continued having less rights or
freedom than men within the family and marriage
as an institution.
Patriarchal forms were still a deep-rooted custom that ruled
society, which
was male-centered. Marriage was often forced on women as their
only way of
having a recognized position in society, but at the same time led
them to
slavery. Women’s property could be spent to the discretion of the
husband as
she was considered, together with all that she owned, a possession of
the
husband. Significantly relevant is the fact that the convention of
marriages
arranged by parents was still widely accepted. Evidences of this
aspect can be
found in Goldsmith’s work She Stoops to Conquer. At the very
beginning of the
play Mr.Hardcastle expresses that he has already chosen a
husband for his young
daughter: "Then to be plain with you, Kate, I expect
the young gentleman I
have chosen to be your husband from town this very day.
I have his father’s
letter, in which he informs me his son is set out, and
that he intends to follow
himself shortly after." (p. 3) Mr. Hardcastle later
explains that he would
never control her daughter’s choice, but in fact
claims that Marlow "(he)’s
a man of excellent understanding" (p.4), this
meaning that the young gentleman
should be the right option for her. Despite
her initial disagreement with the
idea of this established encounter with the
young boy, she finally accepts the
meeting after her father’s exaltation of
the young man’s virtues. She then
joyfully declares: "My dear papa, say no
more (kissing his hand), he’s mine,
I’ll have him!" (p.4). Later on in
the play, Tony’s false directions lead
Marlow and Hastings to the
Hardcastle residence, where they believe they can
lodge for a decent rate
before continuing on to meet Mr. Hardcastle and his
beautiful daughter at his
estate. This "inn" is actually Mr. Hardcastle
mansion, but the travelers do
not realize this since the mansion remarkably
resembles an inn. Hastings is
soon informed of his mistake when he meets Miss
Neville, but the couple
decides to leave Marlow in ignorance for the time being
so that their plans
for marriage will not be frustrated by his outrage and
embarrassment. In a
similar way, in the novel Mary the Wrongs of Woman, Mary
Wollstonecraft
exposes this same tendency of arranged marriages, where love is
forgotten and
only the possible benefits that both parts can obtain from the
union are
taken into account. Hence, the way in which Darnford asserts "my
father and
mother were people of fashion; married by their parents" (p.94)
should not be
taken as a striking statement for this matter was considered in
the
eighteenth century the usual procedure to follow . It is also important
to
remark that Mary loses her case because the judge considers that "it was
her
duty to love and obey the man chosen by her parents and relations, who
were
qualified by their experience to judge better for her, than she could
for
herself " (p.199). Therefore it is not stunning that the idea of marriage
is
often understood as a social custom generally detached from love.
This
detachment not only concerns marriage directed by someone superior but
also the
economical benefits taken out of it. We can set an example in Henry
Fielding’s
Joseph Andrews, and more precisely in the chapters referring
to the story of the
young lovers Leonora and Horatio. With the appearance of
Bellarmine, a fine"gentleman who owned a Coach and Six" (p.135), breaking into
Leonora’s
life, she reconsiders her engagement with Horatio, who had "not
even a Pair"
(p.138). Being a young and inexperienced girl, Leonora asks her
aunt for some
piece of advice relating her love affair and this one answers
that without any
doubt she should marry Bellarmine as he possesses all that
Horatio lacks, that
is, fine clothes, good looks, gallantry and above all
fortune. "I have lived
longer in it than you, and I assure you there is not
any thing worth our Regard
besides Money: nor did I ever know one Person who
married from other
Considerations, who did not afterwards heartily repent
it. Besides, if we
examine the two Men, can you prefer a sneaking Fellow, who
hath been bred at a
University, to a fine Gentleman just come from his
Travels?". (p.138). At
first Leonora had appeared in the novel as a young
girl madly in love with
Horatio, and she even proclaimed that he was her
lover or almost her husband
(p.137). However, she does not doubt in accepting
Bellarmine because of his
wealthy position and the monetary benefits she
would get from the matrimony,
which would also imply her rising in the social
scale. Together with this, the
thought of marrying Bellarmine provokes a
certain feeling of pride that will
lead her to think that she could become
the envy of the rest of society,
although in the end her vacillation and
folly will make her lose both suitors:
"How vast is the difference
between being the Wife of a poor Counsellor, and
the Wife of one of
Bellarmine´s Fortune! If I marry Horatio, I shall triumph
over no more than
one Rival: but my marrying Bellarmine, I shall be the Envy of
all my
Acquaintance. What Happiness!". (p.137) Marriage depending on
monetary
aspects can be easily understood if we bear in mind the role of
women in the
eighteenth century English society. We should consider the cases
of Leonora,
"Daughter of a Gentleman of Fortune" (p.130) and Kate
Hardcastle, who
belongs to a high social status, as exceptional. For both of
them marriage does
not represent the only means of getting independence since
they both have a
certain fortune that could enable them either to remain in
the same social
status or marry some fine gentleman that could provide them a
certain economic
stability. However, even among the wealthy, marriage was
primarily a business
arrangement. In a similar way we should point at lower
or middle class circles.
Here money was a "critical factor in getting a
start in life by buying a shop
or starting a business" and it was also
"inevitable that financial
considerations should continue to play a very
large part in marriage plans".
In this sense we should now refer to
Defoe´s Moll Flanders, where the heroine
moves within this environment and
comes to express: "[...] that marriages were
the consequences of politick
schemes for forming interests, and carrying on
business, and that Love had no
share, or but very little in the
matter."(p.83). Moll Flanders is a story
about the evolution of a woman from a
low to a mid-class status. Since she
was a child her only desire was to become a"gentlewoman" and her only means to
ascend in the social scale was to take
advantage of the opportunities that
life offered her, which are all summed up in
one word: marriage.
Nevertheless, marriages took place among people belonging to
the same social
class and this is why Moll Flanders has to pretend to be richer
than she
really is in order to reach her aim. This can be observed in many
different
passages all along Moll’s life, when she "[...] took care to make
the world
take me as something more than I was" (p.135). It is clear that
Moll’s
ideas on marriage depend more on monetary affairs than in love ones,
and that
her aim in life is getting a better social position. After her second
husband
dies, she goes to the Mint where she meets a new acquaintance, a widow
who
would help her to make her husband-to-be believe that she owns a fortune
of
1500 pounds, otherwise he would not accept her for not belonging to
his same
status . It is for this same reason that in She Stoops to Conquer,
Marlow
rejects Kate Hardcastle when he is still mistaking her for a simple
barmaid
instead of a lady: "But to be plain with you, the difference of our
birth,
fortune and education makes an honourable connection impossible; and I
can never
harbour a thought of seducing simplicity that trusted in my honour,
or bringing
ruin upon one whose only fault was being too lovely." (p.42)
Nevertheless, the
reader should not be mistaken by generalizing marriage as a
term opposed to
love. Pure love moved by passion and true feelings did exist
and not necessarily
linked to extramarital relations. She Stoops to Conquer
sets this example on the
figures of Hastings and Neville. The young lovers
are truly in love although
they are still conditioned by money in a way. They
have to hide their love from
Mrs. Hardcastle, as she is the proprietor of
Neville’s jewels, and to obtain
her wealth, Constance must marry whomever
Mrs. Hardcastle pleases, unless the
man refuses. To keep the money in the
family Mrs. Hardcastle wishes for Neville
to marry her son Tony. However, the
lovers proclaim several times their love
disregarding money. During a
conversation that both hold, Miss Neville states
she would rather marry him
once she owns all her jewels so that they can secure
their future: "The
instant they (jewels) are put into my possession you shall
find me ready to
make them and myself yours". But Hastings exclaims: "Perish
the baubles! Your
person is all I desire" (p.19). Even when the young lady
assures that "in the
moment of passion, fortune may be despised, but it ever
produces a lasting
repentance" Hastings insists on letting their feelings
flow: "Perish fortune.
Love and contempt will increase what we possess beyond
a monarch’s revenue.
Let me prevail" (p.56). Mary narrates a similar story
in Mary the Wrongs of
Woman. Peggy is married to Daniel, a sailor. Money was not
involved in their
marriage but pure love and passion. When Daniel dies Peggy is
forced to live
on his wages and later on she has to earn a living by doing some
hard
physical work. She laments the loss of her husband not because of the
work
she has to do now to sustain the family for "it was pleasant to work for
her
children" (p.132) but because of her broken heart without his
beloved.
"Providence to have let him come back without a leg or an arm,
it would have
been the same thing to her - for she did not love him because
he maintained them
- no; she had hands of her own." (p.132). Nevertheless, it
should not be
striking that eighteenth century women looked for husbands as a
means of rising
their social position and their wealth, as they hardly had
any other way of
obtaining it, disregarding love. And this is Moll’s
resolution: "[...] I was
resolved now to be married or nothing, and to be
well married or not at all."
(p.77). Working women were not accepted by
society and the only jobs that they
could get were those implying hard
physical work (servitude) or prostitution.
Besides, the legal system in
this period did not allow women to inherit anything
when the spouses died,
all the money passing from father to son/son-in-law. Moll
Flanders chose
her life as a prostitute and states that it caused her all the
misery and
destruction she will suffer later on in her life: "Well, let her
life have
been the way it would then, it was certain that my life was very
uneasy to
me; for I liv’d, as I have said, but in the worst sort of whoredom,
and as I
cou’d expect no Good of it, so really no good issue came and all my
seeming
prosperity wore off and ended in misery and distruction." (p.138). Her
choice
of going to whoredom, however, was only because she felt the need to
survive.
All of Moll’s subsequent sexual relations will have a monetary
dimension.
Moll does not even try to make a distinction between sex and money
and takes
for granted that you must make a financial assessment before going to
bed
with anyone. Sex is therefore a transaction or rather an investment. In
this
sense she adds up whether she has more money or less after each
relationship
throughout her life. In the first periods of her life she
exploits her sexuality
for the purpose of profit. Later on, when her beauty
vanishes, she has to move
towards crime as her only means of life. Therefore
we could say that her life
moves simultaneously between two levels: the
sexual and the financial . While
Moll makes her choice of life, Mary
Wollstonecraft shows in Mary the Wrongs of
Woman, the misery of women who
prostituted themselves because they did not have
any other option. Jemina is
a clear example who, after having been raped by her
master at the age of
sixteen, will be used by men for the rest of her life. She
works as a
servant, becomes a mistress and then a washerwoman to survive because
she has
no other choice. She feels then a slave without any control over her
own
body, condemned to remain static in this social position . When talking
about
her job as a washerwoman she affirms: "[...]that this was a
wretchedness of
situation peculiar to my sex. A man with half my industry,
and, I may say,
abilities, could have procured a decent livelihood. [...]
whilst I, [...] was
cast aside as the filfth of society. Condemned to labour,
like a machine, only
to earn bread, and scarcely that [...]" (p.115-116) In
this paragraph Jemina
explains that after being obliged to maintain an
illicit sexual intercourse she
lost her virtue and with it all her rights as
a woman in society. This leads us
a to the question of women’s virtue and how
to preserve it. Virtue was one of
the main qualities a woman should possess
in order to get married. This idea of
chastity and feminine purity was so
strong that at the end of the century it was
commonly believed that decent
women had no sexual desires at all . In this
respect, young, inexperienced
and chaste characters like Fanny Goodwill (in
Joseph Andrews) are opposed
to others like Mary, who acts upon her own sexual
desires, or Moll, who is
depicted as enjoying her trade at least during a period
of her life. Thus,
Moll makes no resistance to her suitors, not even with her
first lover, the
young brother, who cunningly persuades her to have a sexual
relation with
him: "For God knows that I made no resistance to him while he
only held me in
his arms and kissed; indeed I was too well pleased with it to
resist him
much" (p. 46). Hence the social and sexual mores between women and
men were
not equal when applied to both parts separately. For instance, the
disparity
between male and female chastity can be clearly observed in
Joseph
Andrews. Thus, when Joseph, a servant, appears in the novel
defending his virtue
and chastity from the advances of Lady Booby, the whole
scene becomes a parody.
And the Lady even talks about the non-existence
of man’s virtue: "Did ever
Mortal hear of a Man’s Virtue! Did ever the
greatest Man pretend to any of
this Kind! Will Magistrates who punish
Lewdness, or Parsons, who preach against
it, make any scruple of committing
it? And a Boy, a Stripling have the
Confidence to talk of his Virtue?"
(p.80) The double standard that demands
chastity on women but not on men,
together with the oppression over women, who
were considered as a mere
possession of their husbands, induces Mary to declare
that when one "is born
a woman" one is "born to suffer" (p.181). This
leads us to the conclusion
that marriage in the eighteenth century did not go
together with love,
moreover they were considered opposed terms most of the
times. "A woman would
only be expected to maintain; yes, barely grant a
subsistence, to a woman
rendered odious to habitual intoxication: but who would
expect him, or think
it possible to love her?" (Mary the Wrongs of Woman, p.
154). The
relevance of this remark lays in the depiction Mary gives of her
marriage.
She describes the lack of love that runs through it, at the same
time
transforming it into a general declaration that concerns every marriage
in that
period. The statement made by the lady who owns the shop where Mary
hides from
George Vernables is also notable, as she does not believe that
Mary can get away
from her husband because "when a woman was once married,
she must bear
everything" (p. 170). All in all we could conclude our essay
saying that
through all the examples we have analyzed, the separation between
love and
marriage is clear. In most of the cases women found in marriage the
only
possible escape from the patriarchal forms embodied in the father’s
figure. It
was also the only means to achieve a higher position in the social
scale and a
certain economic independence and stability. However, the
existence of arranged
marriages and consequently the lack of love, turned
matrimony into a prison
where women were locked. A male-ruled world
transformed women into virtual
slaves that had no rights, and the cases where
marriage was the result of a true
and passionate love can be counted for as
exceptional.
Bibliography
Wollstonecraft, M., Mary The Wrongs of
Woman (1976) Oxford World’s
Classics. ? Fielding, J., Joseph Andrews
(1999) Penguin Classics.
? Defoe, D., Moll Flanders (1978) Penguin English
Library. ?
Goldsmith, O., She Stoops to Conquer (1991) Dover Thrift
Editions. ?
Stone, L. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England 1500-1800,
(1979) Pelikan
Books. ? Ty, E. Unsex’d Revolutionaries: Five Women
Novelists of the
1790’s. (1993) University of Toronto Press, Toronto. ?
Spencer, J., The
Rise of the Woman Novelist: From Aphra Behn to Jane
Austen (1987) Basil
Blackwell,
Oxford.