Processing Marriage, feat. Jude the Obscure

Sue Bridehead: "it is only a sordid contract, based on material convenience in householding, rating, and taxing"

A little over 6 years ago, Jon and I went to ROM and got married. Apart from the 2 friends we roped in as compulsory witnesses, we didn't tell or invite anyone. Keeping it under wraps was my idea. I didn't want to make a public commitment given my poor track record in long-term relationships. I thought I might lose interest, and that would be embarrassing and painful for everyone involved. It's only recently that I learnt I'm not the only one with such worries. 

While reading Far From the Madding Crowd I had to laugh at Bathsheba Everdene's ambivalence about marriage, so closely did it echo mine: 

“I have tried hard all the time I’ve been thinking; for a marriage would be very nice in one sense. People would talk about me, and think I had won my battle, and I should feel triumphant, and all that. But a husband—”

“Well!”

“Why, he’d always be there, as you say; whenever I looked up, there he’d be.”

The other reason was that I didn't (and still don't) like the institution and conventions of marriage. In this area I found much solace in Jude the Obscure's anti-heroine, Sue Bridehead. Sue is Jude's cousin and eventually lover. They are both married to other people and live in practical adultery, although with the consent of both legal spouses.

Before meeting Jude, Sue had no interest in matrimony. She even lived with her best guy friend in London for 15 months, before he was literally friendzoned to death. But when she learns that Jude is actually married, Sue impulsively says Yes to the nearest convenient suitor. She soon realises how offensive religious matrimony is:

"I have been looking at the marriage service in the prayer-book, and it seems to me very humiliating that a giver-away should be required at all. According to the ceremony as there printed, my bridegroom chooses me of his own will and pleasure; but I don’t choose him. Somebody gives me to him, like a she-ass or she-goat, or any other domestic animal. Bless your exalted views of woman, O churchman!" 

However, a non-ecclesiastical wedding is so much worse:

As she read the four-square undertaking, never before seen by her, into which her own and Jude’s names were inserted, and by which that very volatile essence, their love for each other, was supposed to be made permanent, her face seemed to grow painfully apprehensive. “Names and Surnames of the Parties”—(they were to be parties now, not lovers, she thought). “Condition”—(a horrid idea)—“Rank or Occupation”—“Age”—“Dwelling at”—“Length of Residence”—“Church or Building in which the Marriage is to be solemnized”—“District and County in which the Parties respectively dwell.” 

“It spoils the sentiment, doesn’t it!” she said on their way home. “It seems making a more sordid business of it even than signing the contract in a vestry. There is a little poetry in a church.” 

Sue describes the secular marriage as “sordid” on numerous other occasions.

"[Marriage is] only a sordid contract, based on material convenience in householding, rating, and taxing, and the inheritance of land and money by children, making it necessary that the male parent should be known..."

 “I think I should begin to be afraid of you, Jude, the moment you had contracted to cherish me under a Government stamp, and I was licensed to be loved on the premises by you—Ugh, how horrible and sordid!" 

I can relate to that knee-jerk aversion to marriage. (Word association: “wedding” - “puke”.) But why? For Sue, it seems to be because marriage profanes love. By turning a relationship into contractual obligation, marriage is love's own death sentence:

"[...] it is foreign to a man’s nature to go on loving a person when he is told that he must and shall be that person’s lover. There would be a much likelier chance of his doing it if he were told not to love. If the marriage ceremony consisted in an oath and signed contract between the parties to cease loving from that day forward, in consideration of personal possession being given, and to avoid each other’s society as much as possible in public, there would be more loving couples than there are now. Fancy the secret meetings between the perjuring husband and wife, the denials of having seen each other, the clambering in at bedroom windows, and the hiding in closets! There’d be little cooling then.”

"Jude, do you think that when you must have me with you by law, we shall be so happy as we are now? The men and women of our family are very generous when everything depends upon their goodwill, but they always kick against compulsion. Don’t you dread the attitude that insensibly arises out of legal obligation? Don’t you think it is destructive to a passion whose essence is its gratuitousness?” 

Is this view of marriage ultra-cynical or ultra-idealistic? Perhaps both are one and the same. Published in 1894, the ideas in Jude were certainly not compliant with Victorian norms. No wonder it was banned and Thomas Hardy swore off writing novels thereafter.

Back to the story: Jude and Sue live unhappily and eventually break apart, both going back to their legal (if loveless) marriages.

Both spouses are amazing characters. Sue's husband, Mr Phillotson, is inconceivably liberal, agreeing "absolutely and unconditionally" to Sue's request to go away and live with Jude. His friend hears of it and is aghast:

“But if people did as you want to do, there’d be a general domestic disintegration. The family would no longer be the social unit.”

“Yes—I am all abroad, I suppose!” said Phillotson sadly. “I was never a very bright reasoner, you remember. … And yet, I don’t see why the woman and the children should not be the unit without the man.” 

Jude's wife Arabella is just the opposite - earthy and pragmatic, without the least shred of romanticism. She gives Phillotson shit for humouring Sue:

“That’s the only way with these fanciful women that chaw high—innocent or guilty. She’d have come round in time. We all do! Custom does it! It’s all the same in the end! [...] You were too quick about her. I shouldn’t have let her go! I should have kept her chained on—her spirit for kicking would have been broke soon enough! There’s nothing like bondage and a stone-deaf taskmaster for taming us women. Besides, you’ve got the laws on your side. Moses knew. Don’t you call to mind what he says? [...] ‘Then shall the man be guiltless; but the woman shall bear her iniquity.’ Damn rough on us women; but we must grin and put up wi’ it!”

Jon and I are planning a belated wedding this year. It's been raking up all kinds of sentiments about wedding, sentiments I had buried for the past few years and that I am excavating with the help of Thomas Hardy. I don’t know why, exactly, but it helps. Maybe it makes me feel less alone in my disdain for matrimony. Maybe hating the baggage of marriage does not make me a stone-cold, emotionless person - just one who is sensitive to moral and aesthetic implications.

In any case, it must be a very modern thing to take it all so seriously - so maybe I shouldn’t. As Jude's neighbour, the Widow Edlin, says:

“Nobody thought o’ being afeard o’ matrimony in my time, nor of much else but a cannon-ball or empty cupboard! Why when I and my poor man were married we thought no more o’t than of a game o’ dibs!”

Week 1 of 2025: putting up 2025 calendars and clearing expired food from the fridge, karaoke-ing Smells Like Teen Spirit, BKT for 2 days running, lying on the grass with a book, We Read Together, We Write Together, job interview, book shopping, inexplicably waking up at 6am and walking to the park.