A Brief History of Marriage (Planned Parenthood style)

[VK]

Jane Austin was writing about the critical importance of love in marriage by the very early 19th century.

More like she was writing about the critical importance of marrying up and of women to catch the best man they could. Her "love" matches, rarely meet more than a few times, have barely any knowledge of each other beyond that of a few evenings, and if they are lucky an exchange of letters. Her relationships are bound together more by class, than by any indication of affection. She comdemns those who marry pragmatically, yet shows us no examples of married love working out any better.

[Thomas]

VK wrote:

Her relationships are bound together more by class, than by any indication of affection.

Try reading "Pride and Prejudice." No one here has stated that practicality and class were never important in marriage. However, the notion that love is important in marriage is far from new and did not arise as late as the 20th century. In addition, practicality and class remain extremely critical in marriage. That's why so many women marry up. (This is a reverse of the custom of marrying within the same class, but class and practicality are still very important in marriage.)

In "Pride and Prejudice," the culmination of the book is twofold: the triumph of love over rigid class restrictions and that love leading to marriage.

As far as Shakespeare, the tragedy of "Romeo and Juliet" is that they love each other but cannot obtain their families' permission to marry. Because of this, they enter into their secret marriage. Romeo commits suicide, because he believes that Juliet is dead, and Juliet kills herself, when she finds Romeo's body. The discovery of the secret marriage, which united the families, and the recognition of Romeo and Juliet's love for each other, leads the Capulet and Montague families to end their feud. The tragedy emphasizes the importance of romantic love including its role in marriage. (This is not to deny that Shakespeare had many a harsh word for married life.)

Bear in mind, when I emphasize the following two points, that no one is denying the historical roles of practicality and class in marriage.

Point 1: Romantic love did not arise in the Medieval period. It existed for centuries before that time.

Point 2: The belief that love is important in marriage did not arise during the 20th century. It existed for centuries before that.

God, the best maker of all marriages,
Combine your hearts into one.
--William Shakespeare

[typhonblue]

Point 1: Romantic love did not arise in the Medieval period. It existed for centuries before that time.

I'm curious.

Is there any example of romantic poetry between a man and a woman that exists *outside* the judeau-christian tradition?  

Point 2: The belief that love is important in marriage did not arise during the 20th century. It existed for centuries before that.

Iconoclasts may support a position while the majority of society opposes it. Just because a few artists spoke out for love in marriage does not mean it was common practice or embraced by the majority.

It didn't become common practice, using romance and love as a way of arranging marriage, until the 20th century.

[VK]

Try reading "Pride and Prejudice."

I've read it. It has nothing that compares with the modern notion of romantic love, it is pretty much nothing but a treatise on how women who behave themselves get the best (by which read richest) husbands. And none of them marry out of their class (As Elizabeth Bennet puts it "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. Thus far we are equal".

I mean, look at the plot of the main romance. She hates him, she hates him, she realises how large an estate he has, he rescues one sister from disgrace, and puts the other one into the way of a good marriage - having shown himself rich, and a good protector she marries him. They may claim to love each other, but I see little evidence of it.

As far as Shakespeare, the tragedy of "Romeo and Juliet" is that they love each other but cannot obtain their families' permission to marry.... The tragedy emphasizes the importance of romantic love including its role in marriage. (This is not to deny that Shakespeare had many a harsh word for married life.)

Or rather emphazises that romance has no role in married life - it is not seen as nessisary or desirable by anyone in the play except two hormone crazied teens (whose definition of love is "ooh, he looks hot and he can say sonnets! it must be twue love") and a maidservent who changes her mind about the relationship in the second half (even the friar thinks that marrying for hah, not even love, a brief seuxal attraction is foolish - he only consents because he believes it will make their families make up... and when it fails, he attempts to wash his hands of the matter)

Bear in mind, when I emphasize the following two points, that no one is denying the historical roles of practicality and class in marriage.

Point 1: Romantic love did not arise in the Medieval period. It existed for centuries before that time.

Point 2: The belief that love is important in marriage did not arise during the 20th century. It existed for centuries before that.

Sure romantic love existed - it just had little or no place in marriage. Marriage was a practical arrangement, of property, to raise children. Love was not important in a marriage - it was assumed any couple would grow to love each other in time. They certainly were not expected to be in love beforehand. Often they would be lucky if they met beforehand!

[Thomas]

More later, perhaps, but for now I will state...

VK wrote:

it ("Pride and Prejudice") is pretty much nothing but a treatise on how women who behave themselves get the best (by which read richest) husbands.

It seems you didn't read the "Pride and Prejudice" that I read (the one by Jane Austen). Elizabeth Bennet didn't "behave" herself with respect to Mr. Darcy, though she did behave with dignity. It was precisely because she stood up to him that he came to respect and love her. As Darcy states, "I hoped to obtain your forgiveness, to lessen your ill opinion, by letting you see that your reproofs had been attended to."

In fact, Elizabeth's refusal to behave like a proper lady in the eyes of Lady Catherine de Bourgh was one of the things that led Darcy to believe that he might win Elizabeth's hand. From the novel:

(When Lady Catherine related to Darcy her conversation with Elizabeth toward the end of the novel, she dwelled) emphatically on every expression of the latter (Elizabeth), which, in her ladyship's apprehension, peculiarly noted her perverseness (emphasis mine)... But, unluckily for her ladyship, its effect had been exactly contrariwise.

"It taught me to hope," said he (Darcy)

VK stated:

She hates him, she hates him

That was Darcy's impression, but Elizabeth sets his straight when he says, "How you must have hated me after that evening" and she replies, "Hate you! I was angry perhaps at first, but my anger soon began to take a proper direction."

VK stated:

Elizabeth Bennet puts it "He is a gentleman, I am a gentleman's daughter. Thus far we are equal".

"Thus far," yes. But as Mr. Darcy and Lady Catherine de Bourgh point out, there is a large gap in their status. That gap is the very basis of Mr. Darcy's apprehension with regard to marrying Elizabeth. Mr. Darcy emphasizes this in his first, failed, proposal to Elizabeth, and Lady Catherine emphasizes it during her visit to Elizabeth shortly before the engagement. It is by going beyond this gap that they recognize their love and marry.

VK stated:

They may claim to love each other, but I see little evidence of it.

Then you missed it, though I don't see how anyone could. Perhaps you know the emotions of the characters more than they do.

When Elizabeth tells her sister Jane of her engagement to Darcy, Elizabeth states, "He still loves me, and we are engaged." In wonder and apprehension Jane asks Elizabeth, "are you quite certain that you can be happy with him?" and Elizabeth replies, "There can be no doubt of that. It is settled between us already that we are to be the happiest couple in the world." Still feeling some apprehension, Jane states (emphasis mine), "Oh Lizzy! do anything rather than marry without affection."

It can't get much clearer than that.

[Thomas]

typhonblue stated:

It didn't become common practice, using romance and love as a way of arranging marriage, until the 20th century.

Depends what you mean by "common practice." It certainly became more common.

When Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd became engaged, they agreed that her wedding ring should be inscribed with "Love Is Eternal."

An interesting read is "(George) Washington's Advice on Love and Marriage." It contains sound advice, even for a modern reader.

Washington and Lincoln were prominent citizens. There is little reason to believe that their convictions regarding the importance of love in marriage were extreme or uncommon.

George Washington

suggested that before Eleanor Calvert Custis, the widow of Martha's son Jack, remarry, she should consider:"the family & connexions of the man...the line of conduct he has observed...what prospect there is of his proving kind & affectionate to you..." (emphasis mine)