,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
actors in both free unions and marriages would be men, as in his statement
that ‘each man would select for himself a partner’. Furthermore, he did not
address the dangers to women adequately; their economic weakness left
them vulnerable to desertion. Godwin’s suggestion that free unions would
last only as long as this was the ‘choice of both parties’ was also problematic.
What if one of the partners wished to be free but the other did not?
Wol stonecraft had a better grasp on women’s problems. In fact, in her
work Vindication of the Rights of Woman, she argued that men who seduced
women ‘should be legal y obliged to maintain the woman and her children’.6
In addition, in her unfinished novel, Maria, or the Wrongs of Woman, she
critiqued marriage thoroughly. The plot detailed all the possible horrors for
women under patriarchy, including brutality, rape, greed, and desertion, as
Maria struggled to free herself from her evil husband. Wol stonecraft also
defended Maria’s unmarried relationship with Henry Darnford; because
it was based on affection, it was a true marriage. Wol stonecraft did not
disdain the institution, since ‘the odium of society impedes usefulness,’
but she wanted reforms, since marriage demanded slavish obedience of
women, even to stupid or vice-ridden husbands.7 She shared Godwin’s
belief in reason, but she had a better estimate of women’s difficulties, due to
their economic weakness and poor education. She also understood more
clearly the power of emotion over women.8
Godwin and Wol stonecraft’s own relationships showed the risks
of marital experimentation without societal changes. Wol stonecraft’s
decision, in 1793, to live with Gilbert Imlay in France became a watchword
of sexual danger for women in the nineteenth century. Imlay was an
American speculator and revolutionary, and the two fell in love in the
midst of the French Revolution. Though she did not demand a wedding,
Wol stonecraft believed their union was a lifelong commitment. She took
Imlay’s name and registered their daughter, Fanny, as legitimate. Her letters
to Imlay resembled those of a wife, and she was consumed by the power
of her affection, writing, ‘You have, by your tenderness and worth, twisted
yourself more artful y round my heart than I supposed possible.’9 Stil , the
fact that Mary was not a wife made her uneasy. She wrote in 1794, ‘if a
wandering of the heart, or even a caprice of the imagination detains you,
there is an end to all my hopes of happiness.’10 To Mary, the union was a
marriage, based on affinity and respect; unfortunately, her partner did not
share her commitment.
Gilbert registered Mary as his wife, and, in revolutionary France, this
constituted a marriage, though it was not legal in England. Despite this, he
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
had lost interest in her by early 1795, and Wol stonecraft was so bewildered
by the change that she did not let go completely until many months later.
j
j 172
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
radical couples, 1790–1850
She joined Imlay at Le Havre, and when he left for England, she reluctantly
returned to her homeland in order to salvage the relationship. She even
agreed to go on a business trip to Scandinavia for him, acting as his ‘best
friend and wife’, in the summer of 1795, but it was all to no avail.11 Her
agony at the end of the union led her to attempt suicide twice; in fact, her
emotional need for Imlay was perhaps greater for having no legal bond to
coerce it. Mary only accepted defeat when Imlay had rejected her multiple
times in favour of a new lover. She had seen herself as a pioneer, but she
was instead, as Janet Todd put it, ‘an abandoned woman whose lover had
tired of her.’12
Wol stonecraft’s plight showed the dangers of cohabitation for
women. For one thing, her child had no legal father. Imlay promised to set
aside money for Fanny, but he never did so, and Mary refused to resort to
humiliating legal proceedings to get it. Second, Wol stonecraft’s freedom
in the union was highly contingent. Because of her love for Gilbert, she
found it difficult to disentangle herself from him, even after months of
cruelty. Wol stonecraft did not see the freedom of her union as a positive,
though she had criticised the English legal system for leaving women with
no redress against faithless husbands. She believed that marriage was only
real as long as the emotions binding the couple remained, but she had not
anticipated Imlay’s love would die before hers.13 In short, Wol stonecraft’s
first union showed the difficulty of ending nonmarital relationships.
Neither partner could conceive of what kind of separation should follow
an informal union; in addition, those who saw themselves as pioneers were
particularly loath to admit failure.14 This squalid end forced Wol stonecraft
to admit that her brave experiment was, to the eyes of society, no more
than a brief affair with a worthless man.
Wol stonecraft’s relationship with Godwin was different, both
because of her prior experience and because Godwin was more considerate.
Godwin, despite his writings about marriage, was probably a virgin when
he met Wol stonecraft for the second time in January 1796. Wol stonecraft,
then, took the lead, visiting Godwin at his home, and the two began a sexual
relationship in August. The couple apparently did not consider marrying.
In the first edition of his memoirs, Godwin proclaimed it ridiculous ‘to
require the overflowing of the soul to wait upon a ceremony,’ but in his
more chastened second edition, he admitted, that his ‘prejudices’ made
him reluctant to take part in a ceremony that ‘I should undoubtedly, as a
citizen, be desirous to abolish.’15 So the couple met clandestinely and had
separate social lives. Though this decision appeared mutual, Mary’s past
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
experience made her uneasy and touchy, and she hinted at times about
marriage. For example, when she sent him some linen, she wrote that she
173 j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
enjoyed ‘acting the part of a wife, though you have so little respect for the
character.’16 But Godwin refused to take the hints.
The crisis in their relationship developed when
Wol stonecraft
confirmed in December 1796 that she was pregnant. The relationship
could no longer be discreet, and Mary’s situation was dire. Rather than a
pseudo-wife to Imlay, she would be a fallen woman with two illegitimate
children. Thus, Mary urged William to marry her and, reluctantly, he
agreed. They married quietly on 29 March 1797. Godwin faced a great deal
of ridicule when the marriage became public in April. He admitted that he
had been inconsistent, but defended himself on the grounds that he had to
consider Mary’s well-being: ‘Nothing but a regard for the happiness of the
individual, which I had no right to injure, could have induced me to submit
to an institution which I wish to see abolished’.17 As long as society stayed
traditional, sexual experiments disadvantaged women. Rather than watch
Mary suffer, William married her.
Wol stonecraft’s experiences were painful enough to discourage many
women from entering free unions. If she had not married, she would have
had no chance at a useful social life; and, indeed, her tarnished reputation
greatly limited her influence on the later women’s movement. Godwin, too,
had been converted. After Wol stonecraft’s death, he married Mary Jane
Clairemont, again after first getting her pregnant. Indeed, the two married
twice, since she gave a false name in the first wedding and feared it was
not legal. Neither Godwin nor Wol stonecraft repudiated their beliefs, but
living out these ideals in the unreconstructed world proved impossible.
The ‘romantic’ generation
Godwin and Wol stonecraft influenced subsequent generations in both
the working and middle classes. Godwin’s most famous follower was Percy
Shelley, though the latter was already a radical when he met Godwin.
He had been expelled from Oxford for writing a pamphlet in support of
atheism, quarrelled with his father, and then married without his father’s
permission. In 1812, he wrote to Godwin to begin the friendship. Like
Godwin, Shelley’s attitude towards marriage was complex. In Queen Mab,
he insisted that love was the only binding power between two people; when
it died, the marriage was over.18 Yet Shelley married Harriet Westbrook
twice – once in Scotland and once in England, explaining his decision by
pointing out the difficulties for any dishonoured woman.19
Most romantics expressed sexual rebellion by marrying legal y
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
and then having affairs. Lord Byron’s notorious amours, married and
single, were an example of this advocacy of ‘free love’.20 Shelley’s marital
j
j 174
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
radical couples, 1790–1850
behaviour, though distinct from this, also had aspects of both defiance and
compliance. Though he did not limit his sexual activities to his wives, he
went through three weddings and stayed with his second wife until his
death. The one way Shelley stood out from other men of his time was his
public elopement with Mary Godwin while he was still married, particularly
since both Mary and Percy insisted that they were following the precepts
of her parents when they did so. Percy loved another woman; how could
living with Harriet be moral? Shelley’s situation fitted with Godwin’s early
objections to marriage. Harriet and Percy were ‘thoughtless and romantic’
youths (sixteen and nineteen) when they married. And Shelley had clearly
deluded himself about the eternal nature of his love. Thus, he felt justified
in following his heart.21
Shelley was so confident of Godwin’s approval that he told William of
their plans to elope in July 1814. Godwin, appalled, made Shelley promise
to give up this scheme, but Mary and Percy ran away together on 28 July,
taking Mary’s stepsister, Jane, with them. Godwin refused to see Mary
as long as she cohabited with Shelley, and the couple were baffled by his
reaction. As William St Clair has pointed out, though, Godwin had good
reason to differentiate his behaviour from his daughter’s. William and
Mary had been discreet, were both in their thirties, and had not broken
up a marriage. In contrast, Percy and Mary had openly defied society, were
very young, and had hurt Harriet Shelley deeply.22 Thus, Godwin’s reaction
was understandable, if not heroic.
The Godwin/Shelley menage now had two generations of marital
nonconformity, and the result was a variety of family tensions. For
instance, Mary Godwin and Fanny Imlay barely knew their maternal
aunts, since neither approved of their sister’s private life. In addition, Mary
Jane’s jealousy of Godwin’s first wife may have made her an unsympathetic
stepmother; Mary claimed her stepmother ill-treated her. The elopement
brought these tensions to a boil. On one side, Mary Jane blamed Mary for
Jane’s ‘fal ’; on the other, Mary Godwin held her stepmother responsible for
her father’s harshness. Ironical y, the main victim of the feud was Fanny
Imlay, who committed suicide in the midst of the scandal. Her reasons
remain murky, but most likely she believed she did not belong in the
household, since she was not related to William or Mary Jane. Though
some of these problems happened in many families (like step-parenting),
others (illegitimacies and elopements) were the result of unusual marital
practices.23 At the least, both Godwin’s and Mary Jane’s sexual careers made
them ill-suited to lecture Percy and Mary about morality, though this did
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
not much hinder them.
In the end, Harriet Shelley’s suicide ended the estrangement, since
175 j
j
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Created from nscc-ebooks on 2019-06-18 23:44:10.
living in sin
Percy and Mary married as soon as possible, especial y because Mary,
pregnant for the third time, insisted on it. Again, a free union ended in a
conventional marriage, and Godwin, for one, could not have been happier
about it.24 As St Clair has noted, by December 1816, Godwin and Shelley,
two dissenters from marriage, had gone through the ritual six times. In
the end, the advantages of the marriage ceremony (which Shelley called
‘magical’) overrode any objections to it. Though Shelley did not receive
custody of his children, he and Mary were welcomed back to Godwin’s
home and went out in society. The family repercussions, though, did not
end, since Shelley’s father never forgave him or Mary.25
The Godwin/Shelley elopement defied the ‘monopoly’ of marriage,
since Percy renounced his vows to Harriet. All the same, his choi
ce
to cohabit was dictated by his limited options. Mary and Percy would
probably have married had he been able to do so; at any rate, they did
not hesitate when they had the opportunity. Thus, though they were more
openly defiant than Wol stonecraft and Godwin in some ways, they were
more conventional in others. Like her mother, Mary disliked being a
‘fallen woman’; she was, for instance, deeply hurt that none of her friends
visited her after her elopement. Radical women were particularly upset at
these defections, since they assumed that their friends and families were
progressive.26
Despite his marriages, Shelley’s example influenced many later
radicals. Barbara Taylor has demonstrated Shelley’s influence on Robert
Owen. In addition, Richard Carlile, the radical printer, admired Shelley
throughout his life, as did W. J. Linton, who was active in reforming circles.27
Nor were middle-class activists immune. Radical Unitarians quoted
Shelley frequently in their literature, and George Henry Lewes asked Mary
Shelley if he could write her husband’s biography. Into the 1890s, Shelley’s
reputation as a marital radical attracted admirers, including anarchists,
socialists, and novelists.28
In general, then, early nineteenth-century marital dissenters
influenced many later movements. All the same, men appreciated Shelley
more than women. Women feared that men free to leave unions would
not hesitate to do so. After al , the majority of free unions in the Romantic
period had little to do with theorising against marriage. Byron’s scandalous
career was a case in point. He quickly moved from lover to lover, and since
he was already married after 1815, the best he could offer was protection to
any paramours. Women looked at his career and assumed that his freedom
was a cover for promiscuity. Shelley and Godwin were more attractive
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
models, but both had married in the end. This gender divide continued as
working-class radicalism spread; though they might dislike the Hardwicke
j
j 176
Frost, Ginger S.. Living in Sin : Cohabiting as Husband and Wife in Nineteenth-Century England,
Manchester University Press, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/nscc-ebooks/detail.action?docID=1069613.
Living in Sin Page 35