Charles Dickens on being unhappily married (1858)

http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/family/autopsy-report

by samclemens • 11 years ago

45 42 11 years ago

feintruled2• 11 years ago

Note his forceful denials of an affair at the end, which we now know to be false. Of course, he couldn't possibly admit to such a thing back then, but it does make you doubt the rest of the account.

nightspirit2• 11 years ago

Reputation damage control. Same with telling the wife to stay with him even though neither of them saw any benefit in it, the children were already cared for by their aunt and Dickens was apparently "cared for" by a lover.

tlb• 11 years ago

Citation for the affair? Wikipedia gives only weak evidence for them living together after the separation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dickens#Middle_years

nightspirit2• 11 years ago

And if you click the "Ellen Ternan" link there you will see that they lived together for 10 years and are even suspected of having a child (who died early).

feintruled2• 11 years ago

There was a recent biography of Dickens by Claire Tomalin that went into some detail, or online I found this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/3554534/The-se...

zeveb• 11 years ago

Note his forceful denials of an affair at the end, which we now know to be false.

Do we? Do we know that an affair (as opposed to an unconsummated infatuation) existed at the time of the letter, as opposed to later? A quick googling indicates that Miss Ternan may or may not have returned his affections.

Despite what various public figures would have one believe, it is possible (if not terribly probable) to resist temptation…

bshimmin2• 11 years ago

This part rather struck me:

In the manly consideration toward Mrs. Dickens which I owe to my wife, I will only remark of her that the peculiarity of her character has thrown all the children on someone else. I do not know — I cannot by any stretch of fancy imagine — what would have become of them but for this aunt, who has grown up with them, to whom they are devoted, and who has sacrificed the best part of her youth and life to them.

It perhaps makes sense in a Victorian context, but today you might wonder, well, why he didn't look after the children himself?

golemotron• 11 years ago

It perhaps makes sense in a Victorian context, but today you might wonder, well, why he didn't look after the children himself?

The kids were taken care of. We're all better off that he was able to make the time to write as prolifically as he did.

d4nt• 11 years ago

When I first read "the manly consideration toward Mrs. Dickens" I thought he was talking about sex.

Having assumed that meaning, the next part about how her sister raising the children seemed to suggest that they had not had sex and that the children were not Mrs Dickens's.

But I think I was wrong because, he then goes on to strongly deny having an affair. Why hint at one affair, then deny another.

bshimmin2• 11 years ago

I think he meant "manly consideration" in the sense of "It would not be fitting of a man (read: gentleman) to make disparaging remarks about his wife in public". Perhaps I'm totally wrong though.

agarden• 11 years ago

It seems to me unlikely that he expected his wife to do everything for the kids. Having a nurse was common in those days. The complaint seems to be that his wife did nothing for the kids.

His wife also wasn't earning any money, presumably. So Dickens had to work to provide for everyone.

Also, they had ten kids.

DanBC2• 11 years ago

On a slight tangent: Darwin's children drew vegetable battles on the manuscript of On the Origin of Species.

http://theappendix.net/blog/2014/2/darwins-children-drew-veg...

kraftman• 11 years ago

Just a slight tangent.

DanBC2• 11 years ago

Sorry - I have no idea how I misread the title so badly. I'd delete this but I've missed the window.

padobson3• 11 years ago

Marriage requires time, energy, empathy. It requires mental, physical, emotional and spiritual support. A successful marriage forces two people to put the success of the marriage above their individual successes. No institution that I know of forces an individual to abandon selfishness so completely. For it to work, individuality itself needs to be abandoned.

So it's not really surprising that so many talented, ambitious people have had failing marriages.

maratd3• 11 years ago

Marriage requires time, energy, empathy.

Yes! As do all things. If you're not willing to commit the time, energy, and empathy necessary to get a cooperative task done, don't start it.

It requires mental, physical, emotional and spiritual support.

No! Co-dependence is the path to ruin. This is very different from empathy and rendering help. Don't be a crutch for anyone else. Ever.

A successful marriage forces two people to put the success of the marriage above their individual successes.

No no no! This is the path to misery and unhappiness. Your interests should coincide! They should be mutually shared! The success of any partnership is based on common interests, not on the partners selflessly making themselves miserable for the sake of some perceived interest of the other party.

Always pursue your own happiness. A healthy marriage is where you can make the other person happy by doing just that.

For it to work, individuality itself needs to be abandoned.

Absolutely not! This sort of romantic nonsense plays well on Disney movies, but doesn't work in real life.

You'll just make yourself miserable, then you'll make your partner miserable, then your kids, and then everyone else in your family.

Absolutely take care of yourself FIRST. If you don't take care of yourself and your needs, you can't take of anyone else!

Nobody needs a useless, moping wreck of a person who is always depressed. Take care of yourself, then take care of others.

It works the same way as those emergency instructions you see on a plane. Put your mask on first. If you're not breathing, you can't help anyone else by definition.

So it's not really surprising that so many talented, ambitious people have had failing marriages.

So many talented, ambitious people have failed marriages because they over-think things. They go on the Internet and read stupid posts. Normal people don't do that!

ryanwaggoner3• 11 years ago

How long have you been married?

ZenoArrow2• 11 years ago

I wish I could upvote your post more than once. Co-dependence doesn't appear to be a healthy basis for any adult relationship.

As you say, co-dependence is different from offering empathy and help, I suspect the difference is when it becomes self-destructive. People have to take responsibility for their own happiness, partners (and friends and family) should never see it as their own responsibility to 'make you better', support seems to work best by being a friend for someone to talk to whilst they work through things for themselves.

For those who haven't heard of co-dependency (in relationships), here's an overview of some common issues:

http://www.mindbodygreen.com/0-17039/10-signs-youre-in-a-cod...

amyjess2• 11 years ago

No no no! This is the path to misery and unhappiness. Your interests should coincide! They should be mutually shared! The success of any partnership is based on common interests, not on the partners selflessly making themselves miserable for the sake of some perceived interest of the other party.

Yes, what GP advocates is the foundation of an abusive relationship. There is no swifter way to guarantee the onset of emotional abuse than by pressuring any partner into sacrificing their happiness for the other.

paulddraper2• 11 years ago

There are extremes, and I fear that the GP's intent was lost.

Compromise and selflessness are key to marriage. Individual ambition is the opposite of these qualities.

Extremity ambitious individuals who are not able to transfer this ambition to include the well-being of their partner set up the marriage for failure, regardless of their influence our talents.

I not saying that's what happened, but the GP points out that otherwise successful people with poor marriages isn't so hard to imagine.

Yes, there must be balance. "Abandon individuality" carried to it's literal extreme is wrong. But the essence of the GP's statement has truth: individual focus and individual ambition don't necessarily translate to a good relationship.

ninkendo• 11 years ago

I had a different interpretation of OP's post. Phrases like "put the success of the marriage above their individual successes" and the like are more of a sentiment than a prescribed behavior. It's like telling your spouse "you're more important to me than my job". On the one hand, in my case it's true - my wife is more important to me than my career in a general sense - but on the other hand it's not like she's making me abandon my career to, like, wait at home and fawn over her or anything. But if that prioritization actually caused me to make sacrifices where I'm no longer happy, then that's more of the "path to misery" IMO.

You can have a feeling of love strong enough to believe your spouse is the most important thing in your life, without being codependent. The codependency comes from the outcome: does this feeling cause you to abandon your own needs? To abandon your own pursuit of happiness? If not, maybe you do actually love the person deeply and you don't need to go worrying that you're in some dangerous, codependent relationship.

Full disclosure, happily married 9 years now.

baldfat• 11 years ago

So many talented, ambitious people have failed marriages because they over-think things. They go on the Internet and read stupid posts. Normal people don't do that!

Normal people also have failed marriages for the same reasons.

Selfishness and a lack of genuine communication ruins marriages.

Mikeb85• 11 years ago

No! Co-dependence is the path to ruin. This is very different from empathy and rendering help. Don't be a crutch for anyone else. Ever.

Support != dependence. It's as simple as someone who gives a shit about you beyond the level a room-mate would. I don't need my wife to get through life. But it's nice when she wishes me luck, or comforts me when something goes bad. And vice versa.

No no no! This is the path to misery and unhappiness.

Disagree strongly. If I say, decide unilaterally to move to NY for a job (without the wife's approval), we're going to be unhappy. Compromise = putting the marriage first = trying to avoid when your wants/success directly conflicts with your partner's.

Your interests should coincide! They should be mutually shared! The success of any partnership is based on common interests

Please, no 2 people have the same interests. Some shared goals are of course important (do both people want kids, want to live in the same country, enjoy certain activities together?), but they can enjoy different interests and get along. For example, when I play golf my wife will go on a spa date with a girlfriend or something...

A healthy marriage is where you can make the other person happy

Fixed it.

So many talented, ambitious people have failed marriages because they over-think things.

I'd say more likely because they pursue their own goals to the detriment of their relationships (and it's not always romantic partners, sometimes it's family and friends).

dragonwriter2• 11 years ago

> It requires mental, physical, emotional and spiritual support.
Co-dependence is the path to ruin.

Co-dependence is a path to ruin, sure, but despite what one might infer from the elements that comprise the name, mutual mental, physical, and emotional support isn't even remotely the same thing as co-dependence. [0]

> A successful marriage forces two people to put the success of the marriage above their individual successes.
No no no! This is the path to misery and unhappiness. Your interests should coincide! They should be mutually shared!

Both are right -- or wrong -- but in any case incomplete. Successful marriage requires a certain degree of shared goals (particularly, the shared goal of success of the couple together), but real people never have all of their interests shared. The common goals provide the basis for each partner to compromise the pursuit of some of their non-shared goals in ways which accommodate the other partners (non-shared) goals, because doing so promotes the common, shared goals.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codependency

bubalus• 11 years ago

I have uniformly replied that she must bear our misfortune and fight the fight out to the end, that the children were the first consideration, and that I feared they must bind us together in “appearance.”

I'm curious as to what he actually said to her. Nobody talks to their spouse in such a stuffy way, even if they are estranged.

civilian2• 11 years ago

Have you read the Pickwick Papers? It wouldn't surprise me if Dickens did speak that stuffily.

JWSJ• 11 years ago

Is there an explanation for the "peculiarity of her character?"

civilian2• 11 years ago

This really just reminds me how much I hate Dickens' writing style. He adds unnecessary lists in the middle of sentences which distracts the reader, and adds little unrelated remarks that distracts from the point of an individual sentence.

As part of my humanities requirement I took a "modern english novels" class in college. Little did I know that literature departments have an erroneous definition of modern.

Charles Dickens on being unhappily married (1858)

Related Stories