When
Roland forbids Harriet to enter their marital home, she stays with Walter
Dunraven and the adulterous couple travels to Ghent, “selected, because being a
commercial and unfashionable old city, scarcely any English ever make it their
abode.” (The Law of Divorce, Chapter
6). Harriet describes in detail how dreary the sights of Ghent were to her: “Thus
my days dragged on till you sued for a divorce.” (Ibid.) Walter wants to marry Harriet, but she resists the idea and
falls ill. She has a frightening nightmare:
“During
my illness I had a dream. I thought that I woke up after death in another
world. I lay on my back, bound hand and foot, and alone. On all sides of me
were firey [sic.] and lofty walls,
and over my head was a roof of granite red hot. The reflected heat of my vast
dungeon burned and baked my manacled limbs. My veins were swollen and throbbing
with liquid fire. Then flames burst forth from the ground beneath me, and I was
on the point of being suffocated. In my agony I desired that I might be reduced
to a cinder. But, no, I was doomed to a never-ending, incomplete suffocation.
The red-hot roof then opened with a violence which seemed to shake my prison to
its foundations, and, as the rent widened, I heard its thunder loud and harsh articulate
these terrible words: 'Marriage is
honourable, and the bed undefiled; but adulterers and adulteresses God will
judge.'” (Ibid.)
Harriet
leaves Walter, and with her sister Lizzy decides to travel to Paris to plead
with Roland. As Harriet’s nightmare of purgatory gives a Catholic judgement on
her actions, so Roland too receives a moral verdict. One evening he wonders
into a Catholic church in Paris and hears a sermon about the indissolubility of
matrimony. The Curé explains the Catholic view on divorce with the clarity of a
legal expert:
"When
a divorce is granted by the Church it is because a marriage has been contracted
within the prohibited degrees of affinity, or with some person whom it is
unlawful to marry ; as, for example, one who is under vows of celibacy, or,
lastly, because the consummation of the marriage is hopeless and impossible. A
divorce, therefore, in such cases is not to be regarded as the dissolution of a
nuptial bond, but merely as a declaration on the part of the Church, that there
has never, strictly speaking, been any marriage at all. “(The Law of the Divorce, Chapter 7)
The
author provides references to the Bible for the sections quoted by the Curé and
other footnotes throughout the 10-page long speech on perfidiousness and
history of divorce. (Ibid.) The Curé
condemns the recent English divorce law as “Adultery made easy” (Ibid.)
The Law of Divorce
has now turned Roland’s dilemma into a religious question. Harriet’s dream of
purgatory (a Catholic concept) and Roland’s visit to a Catholic church-service
have persuaded them both to look to Rome for rules regarding matrimony. These
rules support their desire to be reunited.
The
narrative appears to suggest that the Catholic view is right. Roland and
Harriet have both been led into temptation and they have both fallen. Harriet
was seduced by Walter and committed adultery, giving in to her vanity and
sexual desire. Roland equally gave in to his own desire for revenge. As a
result they are now separated and are seeking a way to redeem themselves and
return to the original blessed state of matrimony.
Catholicism’s
ascendancy in the narrative is checked, however, by Catherine. Roland goes home
and has a conversation with his wife about divorce. Catherine declares: “In the
Romish Church you may get anything for hard cash! Pardons, indulgences,
sacraments, dispensations, and divorces, all have their price.” (The Law of Divorce, Chapter 8) She
chooses Napoleon as an example:
Napoleon aged 23 |
The
well documented reason for Napoleon’s (1769-1821) desire to free himself of
Josephine (1763-1814) was the lack of male heir. The Emperor’s potential heir,
his nephew Napoleon Charles Bonaparte died in 1807 at the age of four, Napoleon
survived an assassination attempt in 1809; these events concentrated his mind
on this matter. Napoleon divorced Josephine
and married Marie Louisa of Austria (1791-1847) in 1810.
Napoleon’s
divorce from Josephine reflects Roland’s situation in The Law of Divorce. Josephine, six years older than Napoleon and a
widowed mother of two was far from “faithful” as Catherine suggests. She began
an adulterous affair with a handsome Hussar pretty much as soon as Napoleon had
disappeared over the horizon on his first military campaign after their
marriage in 1796. Napoleon’s feelings for her were never quite the same after
this, and when he could no longer deny his wife’s adultery, he retaliated. In 1798,
during the Egyptian campaign, he famously had a mistress known as ‘Napoleon’s
Cleopatra’. Several illegitimate children with a number of mistresses followed.
Here too, we have a newly wedded wife unable to resist temptation, followed by
a revengeful reaction by a quick-tempered husband.
In
defence of Napoleon’s divorce from Josephine, Roland observes that the marriage
was not within the Catholic Church and therefore would not have been valid (The Law of Divorce, Chapter 8). At the
time of the marriage in 1796, the Catholic Church had no standing in France.
Only in 1801, as the First Consul, Napoleon restored the religious powers of
the Catholic Church. Napoleon himself was brought up as a Catholic but did not
continue in this faith as an adult. However, in 1804 Josephine persuaded
Napoleon to marry again, this time according to Catholic rites. Reluctantly
Napoleon agreed, and the ceremony took place the day before his coronation as
the Emperor of the French on 1st December 1804.
Josephine’s
timing may have been influenced by the drafting of the Napoleonic Code in 1804.
Divorce had been made easy by post-revolutionary legislation in 1792, and
despite the 1801 Concordat restoring the Catholic Church in France, Napoleon
decided to keep divorce as an option in the statute books. It was abolished in
1816 at the restoration of the Bourbon dynasty, and then introduced again in
1884.
So,
in the end, it looks like Catherine is correct in her assessment of the
Catholic Church. Napoleon had his marriage to Josephine annulled on the
technicality that the parish priest was not present at the ceremony in 1804
(this may have been deliberately arranged as a useful get-out-clause at the
time). This way, he ensured not only a divorce but an annulment according the
Catholic doctrine acceptable to his future Catholic in-laws. His second wife,
Maria Louisa of Austria (or to give her full name Maria Ludovica Leopoldina
Franziska Therese Josepha Lucia) was Catholic and her marriage to Napoleon was celebrated
according to Catholic rites – twice. First in Vienna, where Napoleon was absent
and represented by the bride’s uncle, then in Paris, with a third ceremony, a
civil wedding, in between.
Roland
replies to Catherine’s example of Napoleon by listing a number of cases
throughout history when the Pope has excommunicated people (including England’s
Henry VIII) as a punishment for wanting a divorce (The Law of Divorce, Chapter 8). This part of the argument seems
like a dead heat, so Roland changes tact: “But enough as to what Rome says on
this subject; let us turn to a much more important inquiry, viz., what does the
Bible say.” (Ibid.) He challenges Catherine to interpret the
sections of the bible the Curé used in his sermon. Catherine replies firmly: “in
the opinion of Protestant clergymen in general they do not forbid a husband or
wife legally separated on the ground of adultery from marrying again." (Ibid.) And then she goes on to make the
Protestant case. She makes an absolutely blistering attack against the Catholic
church and then addresses the specific question of divorce:
“A
blameless wife or husband is made the victim of a partner's infidelity, and the
Church, which they call Catholic, would condemn this innocent one to perpetual
celibacy! Can anything be conceived more arbitrary, unnatural, and unjust? This
was one of the mediaeval fetters which Luther broke in pieces.” (Ibid.)
The
central question of divorce in The Law of
Divorce has now shifted away from the earlier choice between the
righteousness of the Divine law versus that of man-made law. It is now a choice
between the Catholic and the Protestant, between the foreign (French or
continental) and the British moral code and religious views on divorce. Roland is
confused:
“The
sermon which he had heard from the Curé had made a durable impression on his
mind on the one hand, while on the other Catherine's heavy broadsides and smart
fire of small shot had not failed to take also a certain effect. Between the
two he was miserable, and more distracted than ever; he knew not what to think,
and still less what to do.” (The Law of
Divorce, Chapter 9)
He
approaches “The Abbé Lagier, the Curé of St. Sauveur” for advice (Ibid.). The Curé explains to Roland,
once again, the rules of matrimony and divorce according to the Catholic
doctrine. For a fleeting moment Roland contemplates becoming a Catholic in
order to have his second marriage annulled. “God forbid” is the Curé’s response
to this, and it is now clear to Roland that the Catholic faith will not offer
him a way out of his marital dilemma: “his intercourse with priests, in their
priestly capacity, began and ended with this visit.” (Ibid.) Roland’s dilemma is practical rather than spiritual, and
altogether beyond the sphere of priests.
With
this insight by Roland, The Law of
Divorce dismisses the religious aspects of Roland’s divorce and
re-marriage. The central theme of the novel is no longer a matter of a
fundamental moral principle. From now on the matter of the divorce becomes a
social problem (how to avoid scandal) and a personal struggle (how to get what
they want) for Roland, Harriet and Catherine.
No comments:
Post a Comment