195; G. Allen, The Woman Who Did (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 75; T.
Hardy, Jude the Obscure (London: Macmil an, 1968), p. 424.
191 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
29 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 190–219.
30 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 219–21; ‘Marriage and protest’, The Christian Reformer,
or, The Unitarian Magazine and Review 2 (1835), 60; ‘Marriages’, The New Moral World 1
(1834–35), 24; Outhwaite, Clandestine Marriage in England, pp. 145–64; Anderson, ‘The
incidence of civil marriages’, pp. 50–87.
31 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, pp. 219–21.
32 W. H. Dixon, Spiritual Wives 2 vols (London: Hurst and Blackett, 1868), I, 226–329, quote
from p. 325; ‘The Agapemone’, The Leader 1 (1850), 150; and ‘Spiritual wives’, Westminster
Review 89 (1868), 456–79.
33 J. F. C. Harrison, The Second Coming: Popular Mil enarianism, 1780–1850 (New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1979), pp. 138–47.
34 Ibid. , p. 16.
35 Ibid. , pp. 16–17, 32–8, quote from p. 36.
36 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 172–5, 330–1.
37 Wiener, Radicalism and Freethought, pp. 80–90; 124–30; R. Carlile, ‘Every Woman’s Book’,
in M. L. Bush (ed.), What is Love? Richard Carlile’s Philosophy of Sex (London: Verso,
1998), p. 97.
38 Bush, What is Love? , p. 12; Carlile, ‘Every Woman’s Book’, pp. 78–9 (for quote).
39 H. Rogers, ‘“The prayer, the passion and the reason” of Eliza Sharples: Freethought,
women’s rights and Republicanism, 1832–52’, in E. Yeo (ed.), Radical Femininity: Women’s
Self-Representation in the Public Sphere (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1998),
pp. 53–7, first quote from p. 53; Wiener, Radicalism and Freethought, pp. 180–1, second
quote from p. 181; E. Sharples, The Isis: A London Weekly Publication (London: David
France, 1832), pp. 25, 203–4; third quote from p. 204.
40 Wiener, Radicalism and Freethought, pp. 194–9, first quote from p. 196; R. Carlile, ‘Moral
marriage’, The Gauntlet (1833), 521–2; second quote from 521.
41 ‘Moral marriage’, 521; R. Carlile, ‘Family affairs’, A Scourge for the Littleness of ‘Great’ Men
3 (1834), 17–21, quote from 19; Rogers, ‘“The prayer, the passion, and the reason”’, 56–7.
42 Sharples, The Isis, p. v (for quote); Rogers, ‘“The prayer, the passion and the reason”’, 56.
43 Sharples, The Isis, p. v (for quote); Rogers, ‘“The prayer, the passion and the reason”’,
63–5.
44 Sharples, The Isis, pp. 202–3; Wiener, Radicalism and Freethought, pp. 218–23; 257 (quote
from p. 219); Rogers, ‘“The prayer, the passion and the reason”’, 56–7.
45 Wiener, Radicalism and Freethought, p. 221; Rogers, ‘“The prayer, the passion and the
reason”’ , 72–4, quote from 74.
46 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 15–24.
47 Owen, The Marriage System, pp. 16–35, 68–9; first quote from p. 16; ‘Police’, Crisis 3 (1833),
47 (second quote).
48 Owen, The Marriage System, pp. 49–58, quotes from pp. 49, 50.
49 W. Thompson, Appeal of One Half the Human Race, Women, Against the Pretensions of the
Other Half, Men (New York: Bur Franklin, 1970), pp. 55–9; quote from pp. 55–6.
50 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 75–7; J. Sever, ‘James Morrison and The Pioneer’,
unpublished manuscript, British Library, pp. 8–10, quotes from p. 10.
51 F. Morrison, The Influence of the Present Marriage System upon the Character and Interests
of Females (Manchester: A. Heywood, 1838), pp. 2; 13. See also Philia, ‘To the editor of the
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
Crisis’, Crisis 3 (1834), 258; Kate, ‘Female improvement’, The New Moral World 1 (1834–35),
263–4.
j
j 192
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
52 C. Southwel , An Essay on Marriage Addressed to the Lord Bishop of Exeter (London: E.
Roe, 1840), p. 17.
53 Gillis, For Better, For Worse, p. 225; E. Yeo, ‘Robert Owen and radical culture’, in S. Pol ard
and J. Salt (eds.), Robert Owen: Prophet of the Poor (London: Macmil an, 1971), 101–2; J.
Hobson, Socialism as it Is! (Leeds: J. Hobson, 1838), p. 138.
54 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 252–8; quote from p. 256.
55 Yeo, ‘Robert Owen and radical culture’, 101–2, quote from 102.
56 Southwel , An Essay on Marriage, p. 8.
57 C. Southwel , Confessions of a Free Thinker (London: Publisher unknown, 1848?), pp.
24–40, quote from pp. 34–5.
58 HO 45/981 (for quotes); Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 198–9.
59 Southwel , Confessions of a Free-Thinker, pp. 30–4; Yeo, ‘Robert Owen and radical culture’,
102; Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 199–201.
60 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 68–73; 130–57.
61 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 130–57; G. J. Holyoake, ‘Emma Martin’, The Leader
2 (1851), 985 (for quote).
62 Taylor, Eve and the New Jerusalem, pp. 205–16, quote from p. 212.
63 Clark, The Struggle for the Breeches, pp. 266–9, quote from p. 268.
64 Gleadle, The Early Feminists, pp. 4–21; 33–45; M. L. G[rimstone], ‘Men and women’, Crisis
3 (1834), 236. See also R. Watts, Gender, Power and the Unitarians in England, 1760–1860
(London: Longman, 1998), pp. 92–3, 116–17.
65 M. L. Grimstone, ‘Female education’, Monthly Repository 9 (1835), 106–12, first quote from
110; ‘The protective system of morals’, Monthly Repository 9 (1835), 683–8; second quote
from 685.
66 H. Glynn, ‘The morality of easy divorce’, The Leader 1 (1850), 157; Junius Redivivus, ‘On
the condition of women in England’, Monthly Repository 7 (1833), 217–31; F. B. Smith,
Radical Artisan: Wil iam James Linton, 1812–97 (Manchester: Manchester University
Press, 1973), p. 21; W. J. Linton, ‘Effects of legislating upon love or some reasons against
lawful wedlock’, The National (1839), 327–9, quote from 327; Gleadle, The Early Feminists,
pp. 111–20.
67 Mineka, The Dissidence of Dissent, pp. 178–81; Garnett, The Life of W. J. Fox, pp. 43–5;
107–113; G. Wal as, Wil iam Johnson Fox, 1786–1864 (London: Watts & Co., 1924), p. 29; W.
J. Fox, ‘The dissenting marriage question’, Monthly Repository 7 (1833), 142; ‘The condition
of women, and the marriage question’, Crisis 2 (1833), 174.
68 Garnett, Life of W. J. Fox, pp. 158–68; Mineka, Dissidence of Dissent, p. 188.
69 Mineka, Dissidence of Dissent, pp. 191–9; 286–8, quotes from pp. 194, 196; Garnett, Life of
W. J. Fox, pp. 166–76; 186–8; 202; Wal as, Wil iam Johnson Fox
, pp. 26–7.
70 Mineka, Dissidence of Dissent, p. 188; see also Watts, Gender, Power and the Unitarians in
England, 116–17.
71 Garnett, Life of W. J. Fox, p. 74.
72 Guy, Compassion and the Art of the Possible, pp. 2–3; Yeldham, Margaret Gil ies RWS,
pp. 1–4; R. K. Webb, ‘Southwood Smith: The intellectual sources of public service’, in D.
Porter and R. Porter (eds), Doctors, Politics and Society: Historical Essays (Atlanta, GA:
Rodopi, 1993), 46–80.
73 Yeldham, Margaret Gil ies RWS, pp. 58–61.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
74 Gleadle, The Early Feminists, pp. 51; 92; 98; A. Blainey, The Farthing Poet: A Biography of
Richard Hengist Horne, 1802–1884, A Lesser Literary Lion (London: Longmans, 1968), pp.
193 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
58–65; quote from p. 63.
75 Blainey, The Farthing Poet, pp. 62–9.
76 Ibid. , pp. 25–8; 152–5.
77 Ibid. , pp. 168–70; 202–5; 242–3.
78 J. McLean, The Poems and Plays of Thomas Wade (Troy, New York: The Whitson
Publishing Company, 1997), pp. 5–14, quote from p. 10.
79 Smith, Radical Artisan, pp. 14–17; 21; 43; first quote from pp. 14–15, second from p. 21.
80 Ibid. , pp. 42–51; 99–120, first quote from p. 43; second quote from p. 102.
81 Ibid. , pp. 114; 148.
82 Gleadle, The Early Feminists, pp. 177–83.
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
j
j 194
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.
9
Radical couples, 1850–1914
The last half of the nineteenth century saw two major phases
in marital radicalism. The first phase, lasting roughly from 1850
to 1880, was primarily theoretical. Most couples, whatever their
reservations about the institution, chose to marry legal y during this
period. Mid-century was the high tide of Victorian respectability, and
couples could achieve reforms only if they disassociated themselves from
scandals. Thus, the working-class movement turned to trade unionism and
its version of domesticity, and feminists concentrated on legal equality.
Those couples who could not marry lived together discreetly or formed
platonic partnerships. The fin-de-siècle period (1880–1914) was different.
Socialism and anarchism gained adherents and made numerous public
statements against ‘bourgeois’ marriage. The feminist movement, though
always leery about sexual experiments, explored alternatives to marriage.
Novelists and essayists challenged the status quo on such issues as divorce
and illegitimacy. The number of cohabiting couples remained smal , but
a growing minority publicly dissented from marriage and regarded the
reticence of mid-century as hypocritical. Interestingly, many of these
reformers had the same reasons for disliking marriage as those in the 1790s.
As secularists, most distrusted its religious aspects; they also objected to
women’s position in the institution. In addition, because the Divorce Act
of 1857 was so limited, the indissolubility of marriage remained a major
grievance.
Despite this opening of rhetorical space, continuities remained.
As before, women faced more problems when they had ‘fallen’. Women’s
economic position remained precarious, and they continued to struggle
with the issue of emotional attachment; though free to leave irregular
unions, women often did not do so. Indeed, because radical couples tried
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
to make a point with their lives, their unions were under greater pressure.
Ironical y, in an age when some legal marriages were dissolved, free unions
j
j 195
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
became even more difficult t o end, in part because few men or women
challenged monogamy. Only a minority questioned how free couples could
be if they remained in unhappy unions, married or not. Unable to solve
these problems, most radicals of the end of the century theorised for the
future, but lived respectably in the present.
Rationalism, secularism, Hintonians
Two forms of mid-century radicalism descended from the agendas of the
early nineteenth century. The circle around The Leader, edited by Leigh Hunt,
and later The Westminster Review, edited by John Chapman, followed the
agenda of the Radical Unitarians. Both publications pushed for liberalism
and freethinking. Leigh Hunt’s son, Thornton Hunt, and his friend George
Henry Lewes produced the Leader, and, for a time, they partnered with W.
J. Linton. In addition, they wrote articles promoting marriage reform and
women’s rights. All the same, these men kept up the appearance of ‘normal’
family life in the midst of wider sexual relationships.
Lewes, for example, joined Hunt’s circle in 1835 and had many ties
to radical politics and literature. Despite his marriage to Agnes Jervis in
1841, he embraced, in Rosemary Ashton’s phrase, ‘free love inside marriage.’
Biographers are short on specifics, but Lewes apparently had numerous
affairs. His radical principles, nevertheless, were sorely tested when his wife
began a relationship with Hunt (who was also married). Lewes evinced
little jealousy, but he became disil usioned and stopped registering Hunt’s
children as his own after the birth of Rose in 1851. Lewes’s support for sexual
freedom was tempered by his domestic unhappiness; he had discovered the
disadvantages of free love inside a legal – and thus indissoluble – marriage.
He and Agnes separated in 1855, yet Lewes did not protest when she
registered more children under his name, one as late as 1857.1 Though his
enthusiasm waned, Lewes lived out his beliefs with a refreshing gender
equality.
Another practitioner of ‘free love within marriage’ was the Westminster
Review’s publisher, John Chapman. Chapman had ‘utter contempt for
monogamy’, according to Gordon Haight. He was married and also had a
mistress living in his house as a governess. Despite an already complicated
love life, he may have seduced Marian Evans, and he tried to persuade
Barbara Leigh Smith to run away with him.2 In short, these men did not let
their married ties prevent them from sexual intrigues, but they also seldom
made open breaches. In
deed, with the exception of Lewes, most of them
Copyright © 2008. Manchester University Press. All rights reserved.
saw sexual freedom as primarily for men. Their discretion allowed them to
have public acceptance while working for social change.
j
j 196
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, 1850–1914
Outward conformity, though, had disadvantages. Lewes’s separation
left him rudderless and unhappy. In this state, he met Marian Evans when
they were both working for the Westminster Review. Evans, the daughter of
a clergyman, became a freethinker in her youth and translated Feuerbach’s
Essence of Christianity in 1854. She agreed with Feuerbach’s definition of
marriage: ‘Marriage … must be the free bond of love … a marriage which
is not spontaneously concluded, spontaneously willed, self-sufficing, is not
a true marriage’. In addition, after reading Jane Eyre, she described the law
that forced men to stay with insane wives as ‘diabolical’. She and Lewes also
both admired George Sand’s work and sexual freedom.3 Thus, once they
had fallen in love, they were both willing to forego respectability. Their
elopement to Germany in 1854 marked the beginning of their twenty-four
year union.
Evans and Lewes had one of the most outwardly successful free unions
in the nineteenth century, but they would have married had they been able
to do so. Because of their prominence, they could not be discreet, and Evans
disliked the idea of secrecy in any case. Unfortunately, their openness did
not gain them the support of most of their friends. For instance, George
Combe disapproved of them, but he did not criticise Charles Bray, who had
a mistress and two illegitimate children. Combe justified this hypocrisy by
insisting that all sexual adventures must be discreet; otherwise, the reform
movement suffered. Similarly, Joseph Parkes disdained them, despite the
fact that he also had a mistress.4 Mid-Victorians, then, were most shocked
by Evans and Lewes because they were open about their affair. Yet Evans and
Living in Sin Page 39