Happily Married Writers

[Anstasia]

Hi all,

I am curious to know about writers who have been happily married regardless of how many marriages they might have had.

I know that John Donne was married, and he seems to have loved his wife; they had many children, but somehow I think they were also very poor...

Your responses are much appreciated!

[OrphanPip]

John Donne's poverty is rather a relative term, it's hard to say someone was living in poverty when they're a member of parliament. He had a lot of rich friends, and his monetary troubles were mostly early in life.

Anyway, D.H. Lawrence, Matthew Arnold, and Tolstoy are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. I'm not sure happily married authors are any rarer than happily married couples in general.

[stlukesguild]

Edmund Spenser
Philip Sidney
Stéphane Mallarmé
Pablo Neruda
Miguel Hernandez
Dante Allighieri was married although Boccaccio suggests that this was not a happy union... yet this may have simply been his own opinion and based upon the courtly love conceit of Beatrice, the unattainable woman.
William Blake
Victor Hugo
Percy Shelley?
Anton Checkov
Leo Tolstoy

[Pecksie]

I'm not so sure about Philip Sidney --- very little is known about his feelings for his wife, who was Walsingham's daughter, and he died not long after his marriage... (But then again, very little is known about his feelings for Penelope Devereux, too).

John Donne, on the other hand, married his wife against her father's wishes, was imprisoned for it, and went on to have many kids and to write tender and haunting poems about her. He mourned her deeply when she died, aged about 33.

Shelley is an interesting case. His marriage was certainly stormy, but I wouldn't say it was unhappy, except perhaps towards the end of his life when Mary withdrew from him emotionally and physically... Before that, they'd been sexually and intellectually close. Whatever the answer, his wife certainly idealized him after he died.

Other happily married writers that come to mind are John Milton, Margaret Cavendish (marchioness of Newcastle), Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Pedro Salinas, Juan Rulfo and Jorge Luis Borges (in his marriage to María Kodama).

[JCamilo]

Tolstoy was not a happy union, at least in the end of his life. He desired a lifestyle which didnt suited his wife.

Shelley had two marriages, the second one with Mary was not happy, albeit less because of them. There is some suggestions that Shelley, before dying, could have been jumping the fence.

Machado de Assis was a quite a happy marriage, many love poems to his wife are among his best poems. Guimarães Rosa too (His wife died a few days ago).

Adolfo Bioy Casares and Silvina Ocampo (both writers) are a happy literary couple.

[OrphanPip]

Mary and Shelley's marriage was less than stellar at times. Shelley and Harriet's marriage was a train wreck, considering he ditched her while she was pregnant.

[cyberbob]

Agatha Christie's 2nd marriage and I think Ayn Rand's marriage lasted their whole lives.

[mortalterror]

Agreed with JCamilo, Tolstoy was very unhappy with his marriage later in life.

Dante Alighieri, are you kidding? His wife loved him so much she stayed in the city where he was condemned to death for the last twenty years of his life. If I had a wife like that I wouldn't mention her in my poems, and pine for a lost ideal too.

Milton's last marriage might have been happy, but his first drove him to return his wife to her parents and write pamphlets about the English right to divorce.

Hernandez marriage may indeed have been a happy one for the two years he was out of jail to enjoy it.

[JCamilo]

The jail is good for weddings

Ovid wife didnt follow him either, but then, I think it would piss the emperor...

Oscar Wilde wife had no complaints for quite awhile...

And even if Tennyson said about a guy that it is better to have loved and lost... neither his wife :D

[mona amon]

James Joyce

George Bernard Shaw

Elizabeth Gaskell

[mortalterror]

Ovid wife didnt follow him either, but then, I think it would piss the emperor...

Yeah, but she still lobbied the Emperor to bring him back. She copied and circulated his manuscripts for him. They sent each other touching letters, and Ovid writes numerous poems about his wife's fidelity.

Lyde was not so dear to Antimachus,
nor Bittis so loved by her Philetas,
as you, my wife, clinging to my heart,
worthy of a happier, not truer husband.
You’re the support on which my ruins rest,
if I’m still anyone, it’s all your gift.
It’s your doing that I’m not despoiled, stripped bare
by those who sought the planks from my shipwreck.
...
Alas, my poetry has no great powers,
my lips are inadequate to sing your worth! –
if I had any inborn vigour long ago,
it’s extinct, quenched by enduring sorrows! –
or you’d be first among the sacred heroines,
seen to be first, for the virtues of your heart.
Yet in so far as my praise has any power,
you will still live, for all time, in my verse.
-Tristia, tr. A.S. Kline

[stlukesguild]

This question is somewhat intriguing. How many writers of any real merit have been able to balance the demands of a wife/family and those of writing? Looking just at random at a nearby shelf I went through the writers included there:

Émile Zola- Two children by a mistress, never married
Gustave Flaubert- Had several mistresses but never married; lived with momma all his life
Prosper Mérimée- Several affairs, openly against marriage, although he tutored Eugenie, daughter of Countess of Montijo, during her courtship with Napoleon III
Guy de Maupassant- Never married
Joris-Karl Huysmans- Never married, long term lover:Anna Meunier
Stendhal (Marie-Henri Beyle)- Never married/womanizer
Comte de Lautréamont (Isidore Lucien Ducasse)- Never married, died age 24
Gérard de Nerval- (Gérard Labrunie)- Never married, mentally unstable
Théophile Gautier- Passionately in love with one of the leading ballerinas of the day, Carlotta Grisi, who did not return his love; married her sister, Ernestina (an opera singer).
Charles Baudelaire- Never married, had long-term stormy relationship with Jeanne Duval, the "Black Venus" who is the subject of many of his poems.
Paul Verlaine- Stormy and at times violent relationship with his wife, Mathilde Mauté de Fleurville, equally stormy relationship with Arthur Rimbaud. Notorious sexual escapades with lovers of either sex.
Arthur Rimbaud- Stormy relationship with Paul Verlaine, later had various relationships with native women in Yemen and Ethiopia.
Stéphane Mallarmé- Married to Maria Christina Gerhard.
Paul Valéry-Jeannie Gobillard
Guillaume Apollinaire (Wilhelm Albert Włodzimierz Apolinary Kostrowicki)- Often lived with his mother, never married; died age 38
Alfred Jarry- Homosexual
Pierre Louÿs- Heterosexual/never married, traveled frequently in Homesexual circles as result of close friendships with André Gide and Oscar Wilde.

Now obviously, this is in no way a scientific study... just a random view of a few of the best known writers from one country over a brief period of history... it is intriguing to compare them with the artists of the time:

Edgar Degas- Never married
Édouard Manet- Passionately in love (according to all accounts) with his wife, Suzanne Leenhoff
Claude Monet- Twice married: Camille and Alice (Camille died of TB)
Pierre Renoir- Happily married to Aline Victorine Charigot
Jean-François Millet- Married (Happily married by all accounts)
Paul Gauguin- Married to Mette-Sophie Gad with whom he had 5 children over a 10 year period. Just as his father had done to his mother and him, Gauguin abandoned his family. Later had numerous trysts with native (often pre-pubescent) women of Tahiti and the Marquesas. Died of syphilis.
Vincent Van Gogh- Never married. Mentally unstable.
Maurice Denis- Twice married
Camille Pissarro- Married Julie Vellay
Pierre Bonnard- Lived most of his life with common-law wife Marthe de Meligny who he legally married late in life
Pierre Matisse- Married Amélie Noellie Parayre in 1898, separated in 1939
Auguste Rodin- Maintained a life-long relationship with his common-law wife/mistress, Rose Beuret. Reportedly had numerous affairs, including the stormy relationship with talented but mentally unstable artist Camille Claudel.

It's interesting that the visual artists... painters, sculptors, etc... in spite of their reputation for being "bohemians" and embracing the libertine lifestyle... seem... at least by this comparison... to follow the far more traditional roles when it come to marriage.

Hmmm...???:sosp:

[OrphanPip]

Verlaine's longest continuous relationship was actually with Lucien Letinois, I think they managed 5 years before he died of *typhus, and they were relatively stable together. It's kind of sad that he always gets glossed over in biographies of Verlaine for the more sensational story of Rimbaud and the debauchery at the end of his life.

[Jozanny]

Auguste Rodin- Maintained a life-long relationship with his common-law wife/mistress, Rose Beuret. Reportedly had numerous affairs, including the stormy relationship with talented but mentally unstable artist Camille Claudel.

It's interesting that the visual artists... painters, sculptors, etc... in spite of their reputation for being "bohemians" and embracing the libertine lifestyle... seem... at least by this comparison... to follow the far more traditional roles when it come to marriage.

Hmmm...???:sosp:

This last is on my meter for more research luke. I did not like the movie. I thought it a bit cut and paste, and it pissed me off, but created an interest in Camille's work, such as survived.

Her story actually angers me, because the medical establishment of the day, remarkably, wanted to reintegrate her, and the family forced continued institutionalization. They should have been charged with a criminal offense.

[prendrelemick]

Shakespeare was happy enough, Him in London, her in Stratford.

[JCamilo]

Well, i think you will see they all will represent a % equal to any other social group. Not in the merit of happiness in marriage (haha), but we have stable couples for writers too (Nabokov, Stevenson, Eliot, Joyce, Tolstoy, Machado, Guimarães Rosa, Tennyson, Brownings, etc).

Eventually, the life of an artist is the less artistic thing in the world...

[mal4mac]

Tolstoy's marriage was not happy, except perhaps in the early stages. He was much older than his wife, and she was at first happy to adopt a student/teacher relationship. For instance, she enjoyed producing fine copies of Tolstoy's W&P from his scrawled, heavily edited originals - something his publishers, and indeed Tolstoy himself, could use as a step towards publication - very useful work. She was much less happy to do this with Tolstoy's later, wacky religious writings, always hoping Tolstoy would get back to writing novels. She was even less happy about him giving his money away and living like a peasant - she wanted to live the life of a famous society woman married to a world-famous man, he wanted to work on the farm and go on long pilgrimages in sack-cloth. Rosamund Bartlett's biography is good on the marriage.

Ellmann's biography of Joyce is very good on that marriage, which did appear to be a happy one - perhaps surprisingly given their differences - and his impossible ways... She was even less of an intellectual than Tolstoy's wife, and didn't try to understand (or even read!) Joyce's work, indeed she disparaged it. Maybe her saving grace was that she wasn't a social climber, and treated Joyce's heavy drinking & spendthrift ways with good humour, grace, self-effacement and loving stoicism. Joyce also had great respect for the 'ordinary person' ( Bloom!), so perhaps he was happy to accept that his wife was ordinary, and could enjoy the affable, loving side of her.

[mortalterror]

Those letters Joyce wrote to his wife are hot! Probably the best thing he ever wrote.

[JBI]

Those letters Joyce wrote to his wife are hot! Probably the best thing he ever wrote.

Especially that one about farts.

[JCamilo]

She is perfectly for him, not reading his work!

Anyways, nothing beats Pessoa's letter to his long fiancee, specially when one of his Heteronymous started to talk against his wedding.

[keilj]

There's such a thing has a happy marriage??? All the ones I know of personally are either filled with compromise, a dull sort of resignation, and subdued tension (and those are the good ones), or, the bad ones, which are filled with denial, emotional and psychological warfare, cruel and dysfunctional interrelations, and sometimes even drunkenness and outright abuse. A happy marriage, I honestly have never witnessed one - except for perhaps deeply religious people (whose marriages, again, are built on mountains and mountains of denial)


It often boils down to a trade-off of sex and the comfort of not being alone, versus the things I mentioned above

[Jozanny]

There's such a thing has a happy marriage??? All the ones I know of personally are either filled with compromise, a dull sort of resignation, and subdued tension (and those are the good ones), or, the bad ones, which are filled with denial, emotional and psychological warfare, cruel and dysfunctional interrelations, and sometimes even drunkenness and outright abuse. A happy marriage, I honestly have never witnessed one - except for perhaps deeply religious people (whose marriages, again, are built on mountains and mountains of denial)


It often boils down to a trade-off of sex and the comfort of not being alone, versus the things I mentioned above

I don't think anyone can answer the question definitively kelij, except on the basis of personal experience, but a minority of pair bonded individuals are probably happy, whether the arts are involved or not. I sort of hate my ex, but miss my lovers, would prefer not to be alone but don't know that I'll ever find a partner who can mediate between my desire for space even though I need companionship.

Having broken one engagement though, I will never marry, because divorce is a miserable process.

[dfloyd]

oxymoron. Ayn Rand had a once a week liason with her second in command, who was also married. This once a week get together was for sex with the knowledge of both spouses, but not with their approval.

[Anstasia]

Hi all,

This has been a very informative and interesting read. I would welcome more responses! So please continue to keep them coming of you can.

In the meantime, I wanted to ask if you are aware of how these authors discuss their (*) happiness or (*) misery in marriage or their experience of (*) unrequited love in their works or letters. (Initially I thought that I had two topics in mind, but it seems like there are three.)

My personal theory is that happy marriages are possible even if they are exceedingly rare. That love is possible I do not doubt, but why it does not survive in cases where it seems especially strong, I have no answer. Peter Abelard and Heloise come to mind, and Kierkegaard's is an esp. thorny case for me. I have not read his diaries, but from what I remember from the wikipedia article, he basically left her for his career, and he knew that he broke her heart. Weren't the Brownings separated for a very long time? How long did they actually live together?

Was it Tolstoy who said that happy couples are happy in the same way while miserable ones experience unhappiness in different ways? If you can point to examples of happy marriages in literary works, I'd be very grateful. They certainly do not make a story interesting...

Thanks for your responses!

[keilj]

In the meantime, I wanted to ask if you are aware of how these authors discuss their (*) happiness or (*) misery in marriage or their experience of (*) unrequited love in their works or letters. (Initially I thought that I had two topics in mind, but it seems like there are three.)



The first one that pops into my head is Tender is the Night by Fitzgerald. It is basically autobiographical - unfortunately his wife in real life did not treat him very well.

Tender is the Night is a very good book - probably my favorite by Fitzgerald

[JCamilo]

I think Elizabeth lived for 10 years after her wedding with Robert. Their previous story wasn't thaaaaaat long. Anyways, Elizabeth exaltation of love in her Sonnets bring her closer to happiness, no doubt.

Love letters... I would say Joyce is a good example, and Fernando Pessoa (who have a famous small poem about ridiculous love letters) a great example. Keats letters to Fanny also come to my mind. And Mortal example of Ovid is great, one because he is the poet of love letters after all, second because his self-expression on his exiles poems are notable.

[stlukesguild]

Auguste Rodin- Maintained a life-long relationship with his common-law wife/mistress, Rose Beuret. Reportedly had numerous affairs, including the stormy relationship with talented but mentally unstable artist Camille Claudel.

Hmmm...???
This last is on my meter for more research luke. I did not like the movie. I thought it a bit cut and paste, and it pissed me off, but created an interest in Camille's work, such as survived.

Her story actually angers me, because the medical establishment of the day, remarkably, wanted to reintegrate her, and the family forced continued institutionalization. They should have been charged with a criminal offense.

I read a good deal on Rodin and Camille while I was in art school and still suffering from delusions that I too might be a sculptor (I can draw and paint but I can't think in 3-dimensions at all). Camille's story was indeed quite sad... and it has been hyped up and twisted by feminist art historians out to uncover another unknown female artistic genius and another male villain.

Rodin was known for his infidelities... but always remained "true" to his life-long common-law wife/mistress, Rose.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5180/5513463624_21c3a60bb2.jpg

Camille Claudel was a talented and attractive young artist who had studied sculpture at the Académie Colarossi with sculptor Alfred Boucher. She was barred (as a woman) from entering the École des Beaux-Arts, and so she started working in Rodin's workshop (Rodin, who would become the greatest sculptor of the 19th century, had himself been rejected from the École).

Claudel became Rodin's model, his muse, his confidant, and eventually his lover.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5512867953_2e2a2b2f1b.jpg

Rodin, however, was not prepared to end his 20-some year relationship with Rose, who had been with him and been highly supportive during his most poverty-ridden days. This led to repeated arguments and ongoing tension.

Claudel's work is clearly influenced by Rodin... but it is also uniquely her own and bears a striking lyricism and emotional honesty.

Claude Debussy kept a copy of Claudel's La Valse on his mantel:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5174/5512910277_9075db5d44.jpg

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5173/5513505306_ff67bd38d9.jpg

Her sculpture of Vertumnus and Pomona presents an image of a loving couple in which the male kneels before the woman... as if in adoration... while her body gently envelops his... in an almost protective manner.

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5512910239_0247c2964f.jpg

Rodin's related work, the Eternal Idol, conveys more of an aggressive male eroticism as the woman falls back before the man's loving kisses:

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5056/5513523514_23ff455a67_b.jpg

In another related work, the famous Kiss...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5252/5513523412_f4cb624dfe_z.jpg

...it is the man who protectively envelops the female in a pose suggestive of an inverted Pieta.

Perhaps Claudel's finest work was the highly autobiographical, The Mature Age (The Destiny):

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5053/5513505390_f7a7bf8d58_b.jpg

In this sculpture, reminiscent of Ruben's Allegory of War...

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5293/5513542288_2a82e85c31_b.jpg

... in which the "hero" is seduced away from the loving caresses of the woman who loves him for the harpy of war... the "hero" (Rodin) turns his back upon the imploring arms of the woman who loves him (Camille) for his old wife/mistress (the harpy).

Claudel's relationship with her family had always been strained as a result of her decision to avoid the expected roles as wife and mother and follow the bohemian lifestyle of the artist.. Her father continued to support her efforts as an artist, emotionally and financially, but her mother was adamantly against her career in the arts and angered and embarrassed by her relationship with Rodin. After an pregnancy and an unwanted abortion, Claudel left Rodin and her mother c. 1899.

In 1905 she began to exhibit signs of mental illness. She destroyed many of her artworks and a paranoid rage, claiming that Rodin and his agents were stealing her ideas, stealing her work, and plotting to kill her. Her mother viciously saw Camille's affliction as God's retribution for her failing to have lived up to her expectations. Her brother, the poet and diplomat, Paul Claudel, made attempts to support her until his marriage in 1906 and his diplomatic assignment to China. Her father continued to support her until his death in 1913.

Camille was never informed of her father's death, but instead, at the insistence of her mother and with the aid of her brother, she was "voluntarily" institutionalized. Her diagnosis was schizophrenia. The records show that Camille had long periods of lucidity with few outbursts. Only when the subject of Rodin was brought up, did she seemingly become irrational and paranoid. The doctors repeatedly attempted to have her released but her mother continually fought against this. She was seen as an embarrassment to the family... and certainly to Paul's career... and her institutionalization was a rightful retribution for the pain she had caused her family. Her mother blocked all mail to Camille except that from her brother Paul, but never once did she or her Camille's sister visit her. When she died after 30 years institutionalized, she was buried in a communal grave as no one in the family claimed the body.

Following her death (and even earlier), the press got wind of Claudel's mistreatment by her family and accused them of locking away an "artist of genius". Paul, perhaps somewhat guilt-ridden, used his skills in writing and diplomacy to convince everyone that she had been truly mad. He also made an effort to play up the image of Camille as a great sculptor and as Rodin's victim. Many of the recent biographies play up this aspect of Camille as Rodin's victim... and not the victim of her family... and especially her mother.

[Cunninglinguist]

How about Mark Twain?

How are we defining & assessing "happiness" anyways? Do we measure it by the faithfulness of the individuals; the length of the marriage? I think this has to be sufficiently addressed if we're intending to go into the gray. Then again, maybe we're not.


That love is possible I do not doubt, but why it does not survive in cases where it seems especially strong, I have no answer.

Most likely because it's a bluff of one kind or another.

[Anstasia]

Here's my definition (of many possible but not widely publicized... or I just do not know about them) of marital happiness:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5230164

What did you mean about Mark Twain? Did he write how he was happily married in letters or elsewhere?


As for why love does not survive, I can say that I understand that there are certain technical reasons--parents who interfere (as in the case of Abelard; poor Abelard got even castrated! is that really true or a fable?), ambition (as in the case of Kierkegaard... actually, I am not sure if it's ambition or pure stupidity... as I said I have not read his diaries, but I have to admit, he already repels me), perhaps money too? But still, I feel that love has to survive. Good love has to survive. Instead what I see in many cases relationship (marriages or cohabitation) which is totally dysfunctional continues forever (i.e. survives) but good love does not... My 2 cents.

[Anstasia]

Cunning linguist,

Thanks for these stunning visuals. I am glad that you posted them. I am so infatuated with sculpture, but I've never ever pursued it even if occasionally I feel like there is a sculpture artist living deep inside of me.

I am very intrigued by Claudel's _Destiny_. Why is it autobiographical? And is Claudel the woman on her knees unable to get a hold of what would seem to be Destiny walking away from her? I'm very curious. You may point me to a source if that's more convenient.

[Cunninglinguist]

Cunning linguist,

Thanks for these stunning visuals. I am glad that you posted them. I am so infatuated with sculpture, but I've never ever pursued it even if occasionally I feel like there is a sculpture artist living deep inside of me.

I am very intrigued by Claudel's _Destiny_. Why is it autobiographical? And is Claudel the woman on her knees unable to get a hold of what would seem to be Destiny walking away from her? I'm very curious. You may point me to a source if that's more convenient.

Woops, I think you meant to attribute these kind words to Stlukes

Edit:


As for why love does not survive, I can say that I understand that there are certain technical reasons--parents who interfere (as in the case of Abelard; poor Abelard got even castrated! is that really true or a fable?), ambition (as in the case of Kierkegaard... actually, I am not sure if it's ambition or pure stupidity... as I said I have not read his diaries, but I have to admit, he already repels me), perhaps money too? But still, I feel that love has to survive. Good love has to survive. Instead what I see in many cases relationship (marriages or cohabitation) which is totally dysfunctional continues forever (i.e. survives) but good love does not... My 2 cents.

If a couple is split up through circumstance, I don't think we can say that the circumstance has killed it. For ambition and avarice, then the love wasn't really that strong in the first place, it just had ostensible priority--"seem[ing] strong," as you said--while it was really second to other passions. Admittedly, my response was based on a certain interpretation of what you said; that "strong love," as it were, is love that has first priority in one's life. When love seems to have this first priority, but by and by so proves not to, then it was a bluff.

[Anstasia]

Oh, sorry, St. Lukes! Thanks again!

[Alexander III]

As for the why love doesn't last argument, here are my thoughts:

I suppose it is beacuse the pursuit of love,the chase, the game, whatever you will call it - It is dominated by a mingling of hope and imagination; arguably two of the most sentimentally powerful tools of man. Once love has been achieved and stabled, and the pursuit is no longer there Hope and Imagination are silently replaced by reality and satisfaction. The latter two will never provide the emotional impact which the former two had, and thus one will begin to crave the former two again, due to that high which was experienced, and thus one wishes to re obtain the high by leaving what has become dull and ordinary to re create a situation where the high might be re-expreinced.

I suppose it is similar to the fact that statistically speaking a middle and upperclass person is FAR more likely to commit suicide than a lower class person. That is because the prospect of the future keeps us going, by achieving success and wealth hope and imagination of the pursuit are replaced by reality and satisfaction of the pursuit achieved. I suppose that one could say that the only thing worse than not getting what one wants, is getting it. ( I think Wilde said that, it popped into my memory just now)

[Anstasia]

Once love has been achieved and stabled, and the pursuit is no longer there Hope and Imagination are silently replaced by reality and satisfaction.

Perhaps that's the case. We get bored, etc. But I feel that we are (should be?) poets of our own lives. And so that would mean that we can make art out of seemingly boring stuff. Shkolovsky talks about defamiliarization (ostranenie), and to me this literary term has always meant the renewal of our surroundings; it's a challenge to look at the world through the eyes of love, grace, inspiration.

But where there is love and boredom has not yet managed to settle, obstacles of a different nature separate the lovers; these could be parents or circumstances like economic status. I wonder how poets and novelists have dealt with it this problem. Do the make art out of their pain? Is all (most?) art the product of emotional suffering?

[mortalterror]

Rodin was known for his infidelities... but always remained "true" to his life-long common-law wife/mistress, Rose.

LAST night, ah, yesternight, betwixt her lips and mine
There fell thy shadow, Cynara! thy breath was shed
Upon my soul between the kisses and the wine;
And I was desolate and sick of an old passion,
Yea, I was desolate and bowed my head:
I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion.

All night upon mine heart I felt her warm heart beat,
Night-long within mine arms in love and sleep she lay;
Surely the kisses of her bought red mouth were sweet;
But I was desolate and sick of an old passion,
When I awoke and found the dawn was gray:
I have been faithful to you, Cynara! in my fashion.

I have forgot much, Cynara! gone with the wind,
Flung roses, roses riotously with the throng,
Dancing, to put thy pale, lost lilies out of mind;
But I was desolate and sick of an old passion,
Yea, all the time, because the dance was long;
I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion.

I cried for madder music and for stronger wine,
But when the feast is finished and the lamps expire,
Then falls thy shadow, Cynara! the night is thine;
And I am desolate and sick of an old passion,
Yea, hungry for the lips of my desire:
I have been faithful to thee, Cynara! in my fashion.
-Non sum qualis eram bonae sub regno Cynarae by Ernest Dowson

[OrphanPip]

I suppose it is similar to the fact that statistically speaking a middle and upperclass person is FAR more likely to commit suicide than a lower class person. That is because the prospect of the future keeps us going, by achieving success and wealth hope and imagination of the pursuit are replaced by reality and satisfaction of the pursuit achieved. I suppose that one could say that the only thing worse than not getting what one wants, is getting it. ( I think Wilde said that, it popped into my memory just now)

It's not actually true though, the highest rates of suicide (using US statistics) are the very rich and the very poor. Although, sociologist suggest that the suicide rates are higher for the very rich because they have greater access to resources to commit suicide successfully, this has a significant effect on the data because suicides in general are fairly infrequent. Likewise, in the US the rural suicide rate is way higher than urban suicide rates, largely because people in rural environments are more likely to use guns to kill themselves. And along with the very poor, unemployment and drug addiction correlate strongly with suicide rates.

As to why people get dissatisfied with being in marriages. Because biologically we're inclined to serial monogamy not life long monogamy.

[Jozanny]

Thanks luke. I really don't know where in god's name I will find the time to research Camille, but her story is one for the modern disability movement. The film Camille Claudel explains everything you informed us of in your excellent post, and covers her life with Rodin up to her forced commitment, and from there I only got as far as Wiki and some feminine analysis of what sets her apart from Rodin, but her biography inspires the Crusader in me, and I'd like to actually see some of her surviving work. Keep an ear to the ground for me if you would. :eek:

[Cunninglinguist]

It's not actually true though, the highest rates of suicide (using US statistics) are the very rich and the very poor. Although, sociologist suggest that the suicide rates are higher for the very rich because they have greater access to resources to commit suicide successfully

Do you know if there has been any research done to substantiate this suggestion, or is it just a suggestion?



On the point you make about our tendencies in marriage: my hypothesis is that our attitudes throughout marriage reflect conventions more so than anything natural or biological. We are rather plastic by nature and conditioning has great influence over our propensities.

For one, our culture celebrates romantic love and posits it as the only sound basis for a marriage. It does it so much so that most of us find it hard to imagine a marriage without it. Popular culture, corporations and the like, in the form of "happily ever after" fairy tales like Cinderella, to drama sitcoms and all the Valentines Day hype fostered by Hallmark Cards, portray romantic love as the key to a successful, happy marriage. But, for most of us, romantic love would hardly be a sustainable basis, and when it starts to fade we second-guess ourselves as to whether or not we've found "the one" whom will give us our life-long happiness. I think that, therefore, dissatisfaction with marriage is founded more in grossly absurd, albeit conventional, expectations of it. On the other hand, if we were more comfortable with the inevitable romantic indifference we might be able to cultivate happier, saner ones.

Moreover, I do not think that we're hardwired to be constantly looking for the next great romance (i.e. not hardwired to be serial monogamists). As I'm sure you know, we do not have to function on a maximum reproduction principle to live fulfilled lives (ergo, our goal is not to have sex with as many people as possible); and anyways, if this were true there'd be nothing more fulfilling for men than making a daily visit to their local sperm bank. At any rate, we can cite many people who live fulfilled and happy lives yet never indulged romance to any great degree--indeed, some who never indulged it at all. And, on the other hand, I'm sure many of us can cite people who excessively indulge it and lead miserable lives. In any case, I think that how much we do indulge it is, once again, a matter of conditioning more than anything.

[Paulclem]

I wonder how many of the commentators on this thread are married or have been married? I think it would be interesting to see.

I looked at this Guardian article which clearly shows marriage rates are falling, but that might not be dissatisfaction with marriage/ lifelong partners itself, but the ease with which co-habitation can occur these days without the former social stigma of the last century.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/11/marriage-rates-uk-data

At the bottom is a chart with the UK marriage rate per thousand. This perhaps is reflected in other western democracies.

In the UK marriage is often associated with the church , vows, and an increasingly expensive ceremony. This also might be why people are co-habiting as families and just not adopting the ceremony.

One aspect missing from the discussion on aspects of marriage is that your goals, aims, desires, pleasures, contentments etc change as you grow older. That static snapshot we all tend to refer to, whatever our age, may well give an unrealistic picture of marriage. My attitude at 47 is very different from my attitude at 21 - which was incidentally much more in line with the more critical comments on marriage. I've no doubt that at 70, it will be very different too.

[keilj]

What did you mean about Mark Twain? Did he write how he was happily married in letters or elsewhere?




Twain definitely loved his wife and daughters quite a bit - but he did not really write much about it - particularity his wife

Sinclair Lewis tackled marriage head on in his books Dodsworth and Cass Timberlane. But, from what I have seen on LitNet, most folks don't really care for Lewis' writing, so you may not enjoy these books - I loved them

[Jozanny]

What conclusions is the OP trying to draw about writers and marriage? luke tackles this slightly, but I don't see that there is any significant revelations that distinguish literary marriage from Hollywood marriage, other than what it might inform upon the work. Muriel Spark and Doris Lessing were indifferent mothers, but gifted authors with strong feminine voices. Burroughs was nuts, as far as I can see, and got away with murder when he shot his wife. Tolstoy's might provide an irony to his messianic tendencies, but writers don't form an exceptioned class when it comes to partners.

[OrphanPip]

Do you know if there has been any research done to substantiate this suggestion, or is it just a suggestion?

It's just a suggestion, it's difficult to work these things out because of numerous overlapping factors. Access to guns, family history of suicide, religiosity, culture, marital status, employment status, all overlap so it becomes hard to say what's going on. Some things are reasonably solidly supported, access to guns is a huge contributor to successful suicide, more men die by suicide because they usually go for guns, hanging or jumping, where as women go for overdose and wrist cutting more often. Then people with diagnosed mental illness are the most likely to commit suicide. The groups with the highest suicide rates by age are apparently males over 80, teenage boys, and teenage girls.




On the point you make about our tendencies in marriage: my hypothesis is that our attitudes throughout marriage reflect conventions more so than anything natural or biological. We are rather plastic by nature and conditioning has great influence over our propensities.

For one, our culture celebrates romantic love and posits it as the only sound basis for a marriage. It does it so much so that most of us find it hard to imagine a marriage without it. Popular culture, corporations and the like, in the form of "happily ever after" fairy tales like Cinderella, to drama sitcoms and all the Valentines Day hype fostered by Hallmark Cards, portray romantic love as the key to a successful, happy marriage. But, for most of us, romantic love would hardly be a sustainable basis, and when it starts to fade we second-guess ourselves as to whether or not we've found "the one" whom will give us our life-long happiness. I think that, therefore, dissatisfaction with marriage is founded more in grossly absurd, albeit conventional, expectations of it. On the other hand, if we were more comfortable with the inevitable romantic indifference we might be able to cultivate happier, saner ones.

Moreover, I do not think that we're hardwired to be constantly looking for the next great romance (i.e. not hardwired to be serial monogamists). As I'm sure you know, we do not have to function on a maximum reproduction principle to live fulfilled lives (ergo, our goal is not to have sex with as many people as possible); and anyways, if this were true there'd be nothing more fulfilling for men than making a daily visit to their local sperm bank. At any rate, we can cite many people who live fulfilled and happy lives yet never indulged romance to any great degree--indeed, some who never indulged it at all. And, on the other hand, I'm sure many of us can cite people who excessively indulge it and lead miserable lives. In any case, I think that how much we do indulge it is, once again, a matter of conditioning more than anything.

I'm not sure this is true. Marriages are less successful these days because people have an option to get out of them, and women can be relatively financially secure without a man. Statistically, the majority of people polled admit to infidelity, and I don't think it's a new phenomenon. People have never been all that good at being happy couples all of the time.

The hormone oxytocin is thought to play a major role in the regulation of social behavior. Social rodents like the naked mole rat have oxytocin activity in a certain section of their brain that seems to keep them mellow and cooperative, they are the only eusocial mammals we know of. That is to say many of them forego breeding and contribute to the survival of a queen breeder, like ants and bees. Oxytocin activity in that section of the brain is also found in the monogamous vole. It seems that oxytocin activity in that section of the brain plays a major part in producing social connections, likely the source of our emotional investments in others.

We don't understand its role completely in humans, but we know that oxytocin activity in human brains is really high during labour, it's likely responsible for producing the maternal bond in humans.

This is all just to say that our biology plays a major role in producing how we react to social structures. Saying we're serial monogamist is not to say that we are hardwired to have sex with everyone possible. It says we have an inclination to change, and move on eventually. We're not voles, we don't have that overwhelming hormonally induced bonding to our sexual partners. We still bond to our partners, but often more strongly over short periods.

Edit: Just checked the wiki there's a cute study that found oxytocin levels rise 5 times in both dogs and humans after petting, so apparently it plays a role in dog-human bonding as well ;).

Edit2: And variants in oxytocin receptors have been linked to autism.

[Cunninglinguist]

What conclusions is the OP trying to draw about writers and marriage? luke tackles this slightly, but I don't see that there is any significant revelations that distinguish literary marriage from Hollywood marriage, other than what it might inform upon the work. Muriel Spark and Doris Lessing were indifferent mothers, but gifted authors with strong feminine voices. Burroughs was nuts, as far as I can see, and got away with murder when he shot his wife. Tolstoy's might provide an irony to his messianic tendencies, but writers don't form an exceptioned class when it comes to partners.

I was wondering the same thing. Thank you for explicitly asking the question.


I'm not sure this is true. Marriages are less successful these days because people have an option to get out of them, and women can be relatively financially secure without a man.

Certainly there is less of a stigma about divorce than there was a century ago. Many people at that time regarded divorce as a mark of personal failure. In fact, there has been a ten-fold increase in divorce over the past century.

I think we are fair in saying that a lack of stigma has contributed to this; certainly another factor is that women can be less dependent on men. Moreover, individualism is also on the rise and many of todays marriages are more stressful, and, legally, divorce is easier to get. But, all said, we only ever become dissatisfied with something when it fails to meet our expectations.

People ultimately get divorced because their marriages are unhappy. But why do the marriages become unhappy? From my understanding, you're telling us that it's because our biological nature requires romantic love to fade (perhaps my understanding is flawed?). However, the point I'm arguing comes down to this: people become unhappy with marriage not because they are biologically inclined to become romantically indifferent, but because they have absurd expectations of it. If you think marriage is going to be an endless sexual honeymoon, then you will probably end up disappointed. On the other hand, if you reconcile your expectations with the reality that the romantic love does fade, the marriage might turn out to be a bit happier, albeit less spicy.


Statistically, the majority of people polled admit to infidelity, and I don't think it's a new phenomenon. People have never been all that good at being happy couples all of the time.

As for infidelity, in a relatively recent survey (NORC, 2007:298, 1877), 92% of US adults said sex outside of marriage is "always wrong" or "almost always wrong." Nevertheless, 16% of men and 13% of women admitted that they had been unfaithful to their partners at least once. Which stats are you referring to? NORC is credible so, it seems, at best the stats would be ambiguous.

Anyways, why would someone marry if they knew they would be unfaithful unless they thought that at the time of the marriage they wouldn't be? There's no good reason to marry if you know you'll cheat. So this tells us that, in general, those who become unfaithful are those who started with certain expectations that, by and by, were not met. Ostensibly, these expectations were ones of perpetual romantic love, which was what had inspired any faith in the relationship in the first place.


This is all just to say that our biology plays a major role in producing how we react to social structures. Saying we're serial monogamist is not to say that we are hardwired to have sex with everyone possible. It says we have an inclination to change, and move on eventually. We're not voles, we don't have that overwhelming hormonally induced bonding to our sexual partners. We still bond to our partners, but often more strongly over short periods.

I don’t think it’s quite that simple and I think the oxytocin case has been overstated here - we can cite many instances where people do not feel compelled to be serial monogamists yet lead happy lives and marriages, and we can cite many instances where excessive serial monogamy renders people quite miserable. While it is quite clear that romantic love has to fade, I would not argue that we are inclined to live our lives perpetually searching for it (which seems to be your suggestion). The fact that some of us do exhibit this tendency, once again, I think reflects more how society conditions us more than anything biological.

Oxytocin stimulates nerve growth factor. Therefore, petting dogs makes you smarter? Wouldn't that be a treat :D

Edit: Uhh... I feel like I'm hijacking the thread, so I won't reply hereafter.


NORC. General Social Surveys, 1972-2006: Cumulative Codebook. Chicago, National Opinion Research Center, 2007.

[Anstasia]

When love seems to have this first priority, but by and by so proves not to, then it was a bluff.

But you see, I've seen so many couples who stay together forever, and it's their mutual dysfunction that keeps them together, not love really. Most likely fear. One example--a man who has low self-esteem becomes jealous of his wife; the wife who does not think much of herself (i.e. no self-esteem there either) likes the jealousy and interprets it to mean attention and in fact even love. That's botched up 'love' to me.

I really think that there are couples who love each other--in the most sincere and pure meaning of the word--but sometimes that love does not survive, and I am not convinced that it's because ultimately they did not prioritize love. Right now I am much more willing to accept that we do not live in a perfect world...


My next question is actually about the portrayal in fiction of happily married couples. Where are they? I am not interested in a story where finally they lived happily ever after. I want to see that happiness. Are there such literary candidates?

[Patrick_Bateman]

Sylvia Plath

[Emmy Castrol]

My next question is actually about the portrayal in fiction of happily married couples. Where are they? I am not interested in a story where finally they lived happily ever after. I want to see that happiness. Are there such literary candidates?

I have recently finished DH Lawrence's 'Kangaroo' and found Somers and Harriet to be a happily married couple. Apparently they were modelled on DH Lawrence himself and his wife Freda.

But a warning... although they are happily married, they are not conventional. They argue all the time and bully each other but DH Lawrence offers excellent psychological analysis on the nature of the man-woman relationship. Despite their disagreements, Somers and Harriet are very compatible and Harriet is an intellectual match for Somers. From observing Somers and Harriet's relationship, it is easy to understand why DH Lawrence and Freda's marriage lasted as long as it did.

I believe the key to a lasting marriage is a compatible taste in the judgement of character in the opposite sex. My relationships with past boyfriends never worked out because they esteemed highly women whose characters I couldn't stand. Eventually this spirals to a feeling of betrayal, feeding a lack of trust and then the relationship falls apart.

[Anstasia]

I have recently finished DH Lawrence's 'Kangaroo' and found Somers and Harriet to be a happily married couple. Apparently they were modelled on DH Lawrence himself and his wife Freda.

But a warning... although they are happily married, they are not conventional. They argue all the time and bully each other but DH Lawrence offers excellent psychological analysis on the nature of the man-woman relationship. Despite their disagreements, Somers and Harriet are very compatible and Harriet is an intellectual match for Somers. From observing Somers and Harriet's relationship, it is easy to understand why DH Lawrence and Freda's marriage lasted as long as it did.

I believe the key to a lasting marriage is a compatible taste in the judgement of character in the opposite sex. My relationships with past boyfriends never worked out because they esteemed highly women whose characters I couldn't stand. Eventually this spirals to a feeling of betrayal, feeding a lack of trust and then the relationship falls apart.


Very interesting. I never thought of this connection. :iagree: