{"id":1663,"date":"2011-01-10T09:00:38","date_gmt":"2011-01-10T09:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.badreputation.org.uk\/?p=1663"},"modified":"2011-01-10T09:00:38","modified_gmt":"2011-01-10T09:00:38","slug":"an-alphabet-of-femininism-13-m-is-for-marriage","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/badreputation.org.uk\/2011\/01\/10\/an-alphabet-of-femininism-13-m-is-for-marriage\/","title":{"rendered":"An Alphabet of Feminism #13: M is for Marriage"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

M<\/h6>\n

MARRIAGE<\/h2>\n

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh.<\/p>\n

Genesis 2.24<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So begins marriage. <\/em>In this day and age, most people think of such ‘cleaving’ as kinda cute, an emotional commitment “’til death do us part”; and indeed the union\u00a0matrimony represents (‘bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh’) begins with the word’s\u00a0Latin ancestor, the double-gendered\u00a0maritus \/ marita <\/em>(= ‘husband \/ wife’). Ever-efficient, the Romans join husband and wife in one word, giving us, in miniature,\u00a0marriage’s <\/em>first definition:\u00a0‘the relation between married persons; wedlock’.<\/p>\n

Ooh little darlin’…<\/h3>\n
\"Claymation<\/a>

I do... Tim Burton's The Corpse Bride. Image from http:\/\/www.halloweenweb.co.uk\/<\/p><\/div>\n

But <\/em>before all our newfangled post-Romantic notions of individualism, marriage<\/em> was much less dewy-eyed. It required nothing more than parental consent, and its functions were social, religious and legal. Firstly, it acknowledged\u00a0a sexual relationship and those children born within it, thus easing the financial burden of bastard upkeep on society and oiling the cogs of inheritance. Secondly, it was a Holy Sacrament, an institution to prevent sin, though it did not<\/strong> sanction guilt-free sex \u2013 too much fun with your wife<\/a>, and it became adultery<\/em> (= ‘pollution of the marriage bed’).<\/p>\n

Finally \u2013 then as now \u2013 marriage <\/em>linked families, dynasties, and countries together ‘in-law’, in a way that could be personal, symbolic, or world-changing: new money<\/a> meeting impoverished aristocracy<\/a>; the Venetian Doge annually ‘marrying’ the sea;\u00a0Catherine of Braganza<\/a> bringing England \u00a3300,000, Bombay and Tangier as her dowry. In extension, it helped\u00a0negotiate the legal exchange of worldly goods, including a dower for the bride should she survive her groom, inheritance for the children, and the resolution of all money matters under the auspices of the pater familias.<\/em> So it was impossible for a wife to run up debt, to own property, or, in any sense, to exist independently of her husband<\/a>. In consequence,\u00a0marriage <\/em>became the Holy Grail for 99.9% of young women, who dreaded remaining financially dependent on rich relations or married sisters should the marriage-market reject them (as it did, if you were the wrong side of one\u00a0in three aristocratic women).<\/p>\n

…if U ain’t busy for the next 7 years…<\/h3>\n

Phew. In its second definition\u00a0marriage<\/em> takes up the legal challenge, becoming ‘the action, or act, of marrying; the ceremony by which two persons are made husband and wife’.<\/p>\n

\"Raphael's<\/a>

Dearly Beloved... Raphael's Marriage of the Virgin.<\/p><\/div>\n

The non-specifics here are no accident: to the irritation of the early modern church, ‘contract marriages’ and Dodgy Marriage more generally (Scotch Marriages<\/a> <\/em>or\u00a0Fleet Marriages<\/a><\/em>)\u00a0endured for centuries before the Marriage Act<\/a> of 1753 put paid to such shenanigans and demanded a public service or none at all. Previously, ‘the ceremony by which two persons are made husband and wife’ could be an exchange of bent or halved coins, the presentation of a ring, or a declaration (‘I make you my wife’). There were certain caveats to this last, of course – you had to use the present tense (no conditionals), unless you used the future and then tumbled into bed: present consummation is present consent.<\/p>\n

All very neat, in theory, although such marriages<\/em> generally took place on the hoof between impetuous couples and only became of real significance once the bride fell pregnant or one or both of the parties got into difficulties. Then you get into semantics: what does ‘will’ mean, exactly? It’s an uncooperative word, conflating what you ‘want’ and what you ‘will do’. Church courts agreed, and many of those marriages that were challenged were dissolved, with an inevitably skewed impact on the would-be wife.<\/p>\n

So marriage is as much about\u00a0speech and silence<\/a> as ‘cleaving’: moreover, much of its value depends on the weight society gives how you live (today, you can lose your state benefits if you ‘live with another person as if you are married<\/a>‘). It also creates interesting problems if you are physically silenced before you can assert your consent (as happens in Manzoni’s novel The Betrothed<\/strong>), or if your marriage is explosively interrupted<\/a>, as in Fassbinder’s film The Marriage of Maria Braun<\/a><\/strong>. Conversely, Renaissance actors wondered what God thought about marriages carried out on stage as part of a performance: valid or not? Why not? This whole idea is, in essence, the premise of Tim Burton’s The Corpse Bride<\/a> <\/strong>(2004), where nobody questions the legality of Victor’s (clearly accidental) declaration to the bride of the title, despite trying every other conceivable method to get him out of it.<\/p>\n

…Let’s pretend we’re married and go all night.<\/h3>\n

The word marriage <\/em>reflects this in a now-obsolete sense, as ‘intimate union’, antonymic to virginity<\/em>. And here I nearly tripped up on another little tradition: breach of promise, a common law tort allowing a partner to sue their long-fled lover for damages based on the impact of such ‘intimate union’ but also on the value of language \u2013 ‘Does she know how you told me you’d hold me until you die? Well you’re still alive<\/a>…’<\/p>\n

This tort was overwhelmingly used by women, although originally payable to the father of a seduced girl, who had lost ‘services’ (make me a cuppa, love) because of her pregnancy. Later on, it became a means of quantifying waste of time, reputation and trousseau-money in a marriage market competitive enough that such things mattered. Although the tort was abolished in the UK in 1970, a version is still in use elsewhere:\u00a0a jilted woman in Chicago is currently\u00a0suing her fiance<\/a> for the costs of her cancelled wedding, and ’emotional distress’. Whether or not she will succeed is unclear, but her early-modern precursors inevitably\u00a0triumphed:<\/p>\n

See my interesting client
\nVictim of a heartless wile!
\nSee the traitor all defiant ,
\nWears a supercilious smile!
\nSweetly smiled my client on him
\nCoyly wooed and gently won him….<\/p>\n

W.S. Gilbert, Trial By Jury<\/a> (1875)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Trial By Jury <\/strong>explains why the tort was so useful to jilted women, but also why it declined: by 1875 female financial options were expanding enough to change the public perception of such cases from ‘poor innocent maid vs. base seducer’ to ‘I ain’t sayin’ she’s a gold digger…’ So what began as a way to compensate gender inequality itself ended as a vehicle for misogyny, with stories of pretty girls luring men in and then threatening to do the legal equivalent of ‘thcreaming and thcreaming until i’m thick<\/a>‘. What God has joined, let no man put asunder.<\/p>\n

\"Illustration:<\/a><\/p>\n

Further Reading: <\/strong><\/p>\n