Unfortunate Couples: Adultery in Four Eighteenth

Unfortunate Couples: Adultery
in Four Eighteenth-Century
Nadine BBrenguier
French Novels
n Love in the Western World, Denis de Rougemont affirms that "to
'udge by literature, adultery would seem to be one of the most remarkable of occupations in both Europe and America. Few are the novels
that fail to allude to it."' In Adultery in the Novel Tony Tanner reaches
similar conclusions: "Adultery as a phenomenon is in evidence in literature from the earliest times, as in Homer (and indeed we might suggest
that it is the unstable triangularity of adultery, rather than the static symmetry of marriage, that is the generative form of Western literature as
we know it).'* An investigation of adultery can ignore neither the light
de Rougemont has thrown upon the relations between adultery, courtly
love, and death, nor the insights Tanner allows into the "great bourgeois
novel." De Rougemont traces the degradation of the myth of courtly love
through Petrarch, L'Astrke, and Racinian tragedy, noting its eclipse in
the eighteenth century and suggesting that it reappears in a secular form
in the nineteenth-century novel. Tanner's analysis builds on de Rougemont's thesis, and, taking Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Julie, ou La Nouvelle
Hiloi'se as a precursor to the novels of the next century, he locates the ideological shift in attitudes to marriage and adultery in the middle of the
I,
1 Love in the Wurern World, trans. Montgrmery Bdgion (Huwwt, E m , 1940, reprinted, New
York Pmthem Bodrs. 1956). p. 16.
2 Adultery in rk Novel: Cornact and Transgression( B a l t i m : Johns Hopkins Unimsity Press.
1979). p. 12.
EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION. Volume 4. Number 4. July 1992
332 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION
eighteenth century. He also contrasts adultery with other forms of sexual transgression: "Earlier fiction, particularly in the eighteenth century,
abounds in seduction, fornication, and rape, and it would be possible
to show how these particular modes of sexual 'exchange' were related
to differing modes of economic exploitation or simply different transacs
classes or within any one class. Adultery is a very
tional ~ l e between
different matter."' The implication that adultery has not always been a
threat to the institution of marriage seems worth examining more closely.
I undertake this analysis, however, not solely to study the various conceptions of maniage in the eighteenth century; I consider a rather more
elusive concept: the married couple.
In the twentieth century, marriage is automatically associated with
the formation of a couple (although formal marriage may not be necessary to such an association). Constituting the private side of marriage,
a "couple" is not only the functional association of two persons (in order to procreate, to continue the lineage, to increase wealth, and so forth)
but also the locus of strong affective bonds, with its own dynamics that
suppose each individual dedicated to the benefit of the relationship. At
present, a couple is considered an entity with a life of its own, as evidenced by a book such as Le Couple: sa vie, sa mart: and its crises have
become a privileged subject of fiction.
I am not concerned here with tracing the notion of the married couple
in literature, but with outlining the way in which differing conceptions of
marriage and married life determine the literary representation of adultery. Four novels will assist me in this endeavour: Claude Cr6biUon's
Lettres de la Marquise de M*** au Comte de R*** (1732). Choderlos de
Laclos's Les Liaisons dungereuses (1782), Jean-Jacque Rousseau's Julie,
ou La Nouvelle Hdloi'se (1761), and his Emile et Sophie, ou les solitaires
(1762).' While the first two novels emphasize a similar conception of
marriage, in which an extra-marital affair does not alter a conjugal relationship, Rousseau's attempt to enhance the status of the married couple
3 Tanner. p. 13.
4 Jean-G. Lemak, Le Couple: so vie, so m m . Lo snuerurorion du couple h m i n (Paris: Pay*
1979).
5 References are to rhe following editions: Claude-Pmspcr Iolyot dc Cr6billon. known as CrCbillon
fils. Lcnres dc In Marquise d e w * ' au Comrr deR*** (Paris: Nizet, 1970); Choderlos dc Laclos,
Les Lioisom dnngereusrs, in (Euvms compl2trs, ed. Lauren1 Vcrsini (Pads: Gdlimanl, 1979);
Julie, or Lo Nouvclle HPlofse, in Euwes compldrcs, ed. Bernard Gagnebin and Marcel Raymond
(Paris: Gallimard. 1%9), vol. 2; Emile cr Sophir, ou Its solitaires, in Qmra compl21cs, vol. 4.
Overshadowed by Emile, h i s sequel m a i n s link known and has not b a n lhe obi& of much
critical attention.
334 E I G H T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y FICTION
The civil law of the Ancien Rbgime considered adultery an exclusively feminine transgression (while canon law recognized three types of
adultery and condemned all of them).' In his Trait6 de I'adultPre (1778),
Jean-Fran~oisFoumel was in no doubt about the matter: "G6n6ralement
par I'accusation d'adulthre, on entend toujours l'accusation dirigbe contre
une femme mari&.'q Even lawyers who defined adultery more broadlythrough definitions which were not gender-specific-were quick to point
out that for all practical purposes only wives could be prosecuted for it.lo
They alleged as the major cause for this inequity the thorny problem of
illegitimate children: "La principale raison qu'en donnent les jurisconsultes, c'est que I'incontinence du mari se consomme hors de la maison;
qu'elle n'a pas, comme celle de la femme, l'inconvbnient d'introduire
des btrangers au milieu des enfants lbgitimes; et que d'ailleurs ce
serait foumir aux femmes le prbtexte d'une multitude de r&lamations
s~andaleuses."~~
Consequently, a wife could only bring forward a charge
of adultery to obtain a separation from a debauched husband, who did
not have to fear any judicial punishment. Foumel admitted to the injustice of such laws: "Si I'on jugeait la question par les principes du for
intbrieur, I'accusation d'Adult&re serait accordbe contre les maris aussi
bien que c o n k les femme~."'~
So did the lawyer Toussaint in the article "Adult&e" of the Encyclopbdie: "De plus, quoique le mari qui viole
la foi conjugale soit coupable aussi bien que la femme, il n'est pourtant
point permis h celle-ci de I'en accuser, ni de le poursuivre pour raison de ce crime." Even if they questioned the status quo, lawyers such
8 Between a manied man, and an unmanied woman, between an unmarried man and a married
woman, and between two married persons.
Toussaint wmte in the Encyclopddic: "AwmEne,
est I'infid6lit6 d'une pnsonnc marite, qui au m6pris de la foi conjugale qu'elle a ju&, a un
commerce charnel avec quelqu'aua que son +use ou son +ax; ou le crime d'une personne
libre avec unc aulre qui est mariee." Another lawyer, Claude-Joseph de Ferrikre, stated in his
Dirrionrairc dc droit el deprotique: "Adultere, est une conjonction illicite d'une femme marib
avcc un autn homme que son mari, ou d'un homme marib avec une autre femme que l a
sienne. Ainsi I'adulten est une conjonction illicite qui se wmmet avec une personne marite.
L'adultere qui est commis par une femme passe pour un crime plus grand que celui qui est
commis par un mari" (Dicrionnoire de droir I de pratique, contenom Pexplicarion des t e r n de
Dmit, d'Ordonnnnces, de Courumrs el de Prariquc [Paris, 17401).
10 For example, the lawyer Frangois-%em
...
II Foumcl, pp. 17-18.
U N F O R T U N A T E C O U P L E S AND ADULTERY 335
as Fournel and Toussaint did not propose any specific reforms and did
not transform their contributions into feminist manifestos.lJ
Although they differed in the breadth of their definition, both civil
and canon laws condemned adultery very severely. The "Adultbre" article in the Encyclopidie provides an excellent example of the rhetoric
used to underscore the gravity of this act: "Nous jugeons avec raison,
et conform6ment au sentiment de toutes les Nations, que I'adultbre est,
aprbs l'homicide, le plus punissable de tous les crimes, parce qu'il est
de tous les vols le plus cruel, et un outrage capable d'occasionner les
meurtres et les e x c h les plus dkplorables." Fournel complained, however, that the severity of the law was mitigated by the dissolution of
morals: "L'adultbre, qui, dans la corruption des mceurs actuelles, n'est
plus regard6 que comme une espibglerie de socittk, n'en est pas moins
un d6lit grave, qui considkd de p&s, doit exciter I'indignation de ceux
dont la morale est le plus rel%2h6e."14
Interestingly, Fournel deplored what Charles Pinot-Duclos, a novelist
of "worldliness," analysed in his Mimoires pour servir d I'histoire des
mceurs du dir-huitiPme siPcle (175 I)." In a passage contrasting the "lois"
and the "pr6jug6s" governing adultery, Duclos presented key elements
of the problem under investigation:
Les lois sont faites pour r6gler nos actions; mais les @jug& decident de nos
sentiments. Par exemple, un simple particulier est-il trahi par sa femme, le voila
d6shonor6, c'est-&-dikeridicule; car en France c'est presque la m&mechose.
Pourquoi? c'est que, s'btant mari6 h son goBt, il est au moins tax6 d'avoir fait
un mauvais choix. II n'en est pas ainsi des gens d'une certaine fqon, dont les
mariages sont des espkces de trait& faits sur les convenances de la naissance
et de la fortune. Voill pourquoi nous ne connaissons point panni nous cette
qualification burlesque qu'on donne, dans la bourgeoisie, ZI un mari tromp4 par
13 In addition to Toussaint. the abbe Yvon contributed to the "Adultbre" article. In his section the
abM Yvon also made the implicit assumption that adultery was primarily a feminine hansgnssion: "L'adultere est exu&mement nuisible aux enfans qui en pmviennent, parce qu'il ne faut
attendre pour eux, ni Ies effets de la tcndressc matemelle, dc la part d'une femme qui ne voit
en eur que des sujets d'inqui&ude, ou des reproches d'inIid6lilile. ni aucunc vigilance sur leurs
maum de Is pan d'une femme qui n'a plus dc m a u n , ct qui a pndu le goOt de I'imwna." Interestingly, the EncyclopCdic's article b l u d the distinctions between civil and canon laws in
so far as it war the l a w e r Toussaint who avoided beinn- -aender s r s i f i c in his definition, while
the abbe Yvon gave ad;ltuy a feminine slant.
I5 M h i r r s p o u r servir d I'hismin des maws du dix-huiIi2mmc silele, in (Fuvres eompUIes (Gedve:
Slat);ine Reorins.. 1968). vol. 2. Rcfnmccs are to this edition. This novel has a more commonlv
used title: Mmmres rur Its mrum d~ CP I,(cI<. It was recently publ~rhedseparately with a
preface by Henri Coulct (Paris: Edihons Dcppnquikcs. 1986).
.
336 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION
sa femme. En effet, P qui peut-on appliquer ce titre qu'P un homme qui, &ant
amoureux de sa femme et s'en croyant aim&,en est trahi? Nous ne sommes point
dam ce cas-1P nous autres; ou, s'il s'en trouve quelqu'un, c'est une exception
rare.I6
This passage suggests that a violation of the law may be judged according to differing criteria and assessed differently by various social groups.
The gravity of the adulterous act does not depend on the law (under
which it is always a crime) but rather on matrimonial practices. This explains why Duclos establishes a strong correlation between the status of
marriage and the status of adultery. He points out the major difference between the matrimonial values of the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie, and
he contrasts marriage in the two classes: the former is a transaction between families, the latter an agreement between two individuals. An
aristocratic marriage is an arrangement imposed upon two persons who
do not expect personal satisfaction from it, but rather expect the fulfilment of their social obligations by continuing a lineage, increasing their
wealth, or improving their social status. The idea that marriage can pmvide an affective bond is, according to Duclos, a bourgeois claim par
excellence. Since marriage is seen as "une es@ce de divorce continueP
in the aristocratic society depicted by Duclos, adultery becomes an institutionalized pastime and, as the bond between spouses is very weak,
has no influence on conjugal relationships. It is a very different matter in the bourgeoisie. Much of the literature. of the period emphasizes
the contrast between aristocratic alliances, contracted merely for their social function, and bourgeois marriages, in which the relations between
individuals are the prime concern. The four novels under consideration
illustrate these conflicting sets of values, and it is worth assessing the
implication of such diverging values in the representation of adultery.
Cr6billon fils's epistolary novel, Letfres de la Marquise de M***, first
relates the seduction of the Marquise de M*** by the Comte de R***,
and then recounts how the growth of her passion and the intensification
of her guilt lead to her death when she perceives her lover's indifference
(we only read the Marquise's letters). I will argue that what adultery
16 Duclos, p. 475.
17 Duclos, p. 475.
U N F O R T U N A T E C O U P L E S AND A D U L T E R Y 337
endangers-and ultimately destroys-is not the Marquise's marriage but,
rather, her sense of self.ls
At the beginning of the correspondence, when the Marquise resists
the assaults of the Comte, conjugal fidelity does not figure among her
arguments: "Je ne suis point heureuse, mais je suis tranquille. Cette tranquillitd m'a coot6 trop; je la pos&de depuis trop peu de temps; enfin,
j'en connais trop les charmes pour vouloir m'exposer la perdre (5:53).'9
The Marquise values above all her peace, her independence, and her
freedom from amorous feelingm She expresses no interest in taking revenge on an adulterous husband. Moreover, she justifies her husband's
adultery (his "libertinage"), and does not find it morally reprehensible:
"Je pardonne g6ndreusement i? mon ingrat son libe~tinage,et si je suis
f k h & de quelque chose, c'est que vous y preniez tant d'intdr&t. ... Pauvre homme! je le plaindrais bien s'il fallait qu'occup6 sans cesse de me
plaire, il n'eOt pour toute ressource que le triste badinage de I'amour conjugal; je ne suis point assez injuste pour I'exiger" (2:46). Conjugal love
is not part of the ethos of her class, and it is not
Under such circumstances, the "devoir" that the Marquise repeatedly
opposes to her suitor's demands seems to go beyond her immediate
conjugal obligations to encompass a wider notion of personal pride and
r e p u t a t i ~ n Imagining
.~~
the probable end of their illicit relationship, she
uses a very revealing phrase: "La crainte de vous voir changer m'accable,
et le malheur que j'aurais de vous perdre, me ferment les yeux sur les
avantages qui suivraient peutBtre votre inconstance. Je sais que, rendue d
18 The Marquise's status ar a married w a n ~ a l t h o u g hnot gnos&
i-
usually neglected by
critics in favour of the analysis of her passion. A relatively recent example of such an analysis
can be found in Susan Lee CamU's Lc Soliloqur de la parsion fentinine, ou Ic dialogue illuroire
(TUbingen: G. Nan, 1982).
19 References are to the letter number followed by the page number.
20 She explains that her maniage to the Manpis was arranged in the traditional way. In love with
another man, she had no affection for the husband imposed on her. The Marquise nonetheless
became s loving wife, before resigning herself to the fate of being mated with indifference by
her husband Oener 40).
21 From a legal point of view the Msrquise is immune to her husband's accusation bsause he is
himself engaging in adultery. If masculine adultery could not be pmsccuted, it still could prevent
a husband from accusin~and ounishin~
- his wife for thc follow in^ reasons: "Un mari ne oeut
pas accuser sa femme d'adult&re, lorsqu'il est lui-meme coupable de ce crime; non pes qu'il se
fasse compensation de ce crime, mais parce quc celui qui devrait donner I'exemple de Is chastete
conjugale, ne doit point &re admis i venger I'inobservation des promesses solennelles, qu'il a lui&me vial@ (Enryelopddie, s.v. "Adult&e"). It was not a concern f a equality which seemed
to motivate this provision, and it only confirms the upper hand the husband legally had in
maniage.
-
.
22 Lems 5 , s . 11, 14,43, and 63.
-
338 E I G H T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y FICTION
moi-&me, je n'aurais plus rien A me reprocher" (43:144, my emphasis).
If their relationship ends, she will be "returned" not to her husband, but
to herself. The violation caused by adultery does not concern conjugal
faith, but her faith in herself and her integrity. The Marquise's letters do
not depict an adulterous wife tom by guilt, but rather a passionate woman
who gradually loses her self-esteem after being seduced and neglected
by an unworthy lover.
Remorse and shame colour the last part of her correspondence, although neither is triggered by her husband, who openly displays his
indifference to her: "Je voudrais Ctre accablee de sa haine; je voudrais
qu'il [mon mari] ne me vft point; je voudrais enfin qu'il me detestat autant que je me dkteste moi-meme! Je ne le vois jamais sans fr6mir"
(48:226). This passage demonstrates the unobtrusive role played by the
Marquis and underscores the absence of any love triangle. Both the situation to which she alludes and her own perception of herself define her
as a woman who, in vain, desires the hatred and contempt of her husband but is left alone with her own scorn. The Marquise is portrayed less
as an unfaithful wife than as a woman coping with the drama of men's
inconstancy.
&
In LRs Liaisons dangereuses the seduction of a married woman is part
of a complicated plot, developed in a "polyphonic" correspondence. The
Marquise de Merteuil intends to take her revenge on a former lover,
the Comte de Gercourt, by asking the Vicomte de Valmont to deflower
Gercourt's future bride, the innocent Cecile Volanges. Valmont, however,
has other plans and prefers to pursue the seduction of his aunt's guest, the
Presidente de T o w e l , the virtuous wife of a magistrate. He is therefore
tempted to what is legally called "adultery" and, to reach his goal, begins
a correspondence with the reticent Pksidente de Touwel.
In her struggle against Valmont's attempts at seduction, the Presidente
uses arguments that, to critics interested in sociological questions, show
her attachment to bourgeois values such as marriage, fidelity, and family.
Founding their argument on her social position (in the noblesse de robe
rather than the noblesse d'ipbe), both Roger Vailland and Madeleine
Themen see her as a symbol of the virtuous bourgeoisie in contrast to
the dissolute aristocracy, embodied in the Marquise and the Wcomte."
23 Roger Vailland. Lnclos por lui-dm (Paris: Seuil. 1953). Madeleine Thenien, "Les Lioisms
dongcreusrs": une interprdrorionpsychologigue(Paris:Soci6t6 d'hseignernentsupCrieur, 1973).
They both identify the "bourgeoisie" with Ule "noblesse de robe" to which the M i d m t e belongs.
340 E I O H T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y FICTION
A close analysis of her arguments for resisting Valmont's seduction,
however, reveals a clear tendency on her part not to emphasize greatly
her role as a wife. L i e Crtbillon fils's Marquise, the PrQsidente is first
concerned with her own tranquillity; she makes this theme the leitmotif
of her plea: "Et moi, je suis si persuadQ qu'il [I'amour] me rendrait
malheureuse, que je voudrais n'entendre jamais prononcer son nom. I1 me
semble que d'en parler seulement alt2re la tranquillite et c'est autant par
gofit que par devoir, que je vous prie de vouloir bien garder le silence sur
ce point" (50: 102, my emphasis)J4 The word "adult&reWis conspicuously
absent from Les Liaisons dangereuses. "AltQfl is the closest we come
to it, but there is no etymological link between them; moreover, this
revealing term qualifies not the RQsidente's marriage, but rather her
peace of mind.
It would be unfair to contend that she completely neglects all consideration of her marriage; however, it is clearly not her most pressing
preoccupation: "Non, je n'oublie point, je n'oublierai jamais ce que je
me dois, ce que je dois & des n ~ u d sque j'ai formbs, que je respecte
et que je chtris" (78:159, my emphasis). This sense of duty is but another way of differentiating herself from other women of her class. Far
from being secluded in the domestic realm, she stresses her participation in the world and the effects of its imperatives on her conduct.=
When she mentions her husband she links him with duty and dampens her claims to conjugal love: "Chtrie et estimt d'un mari que j'aime
et respecte, mes devoirs, mes plaisirs se rassemblent dans le meme objet. Je suis heureuse, je dois l'etre" (56:113, my emphasis). Rich in
implications, the phrase "je dois l'etre" betrays the RQsidente's inability to distinguish between the public and private realms, as she evokes
conjugal happiness as one more social obligation. Moreover, it constitutes a veiled confession of her deep discontent. As the plot progresses
and her feelings for Valmont strengthen, her conjugal happiness appears
to be a mere illusion and she no longer conceals the fact that her marriage is loveless. After giving herself to him, she confesses to Valmont's
aunt: "Que vous dirais-je enfin? j'aime, oui, j'aime Cperdument. HQlas!
ce mot que j'icris pour la premiere fois" (102231).
24 References arc to the letter number followed by lhe page number.
25 In Ulis respect she reminds one of La Fayettc's Princesse de Cltves. mother married heroine
who resists adultery for reasons other than saving her marriage; I subscribe to Peggy Kamufs
areument in her chaoter entitled "A Mother's WlII: The Princesre dc CPvcs."
. that UK P ~ i n c u v
is ahud o f c m m m i n g a crime 01"mfidelity to the mother's fanmy of impetv~ouswomanhood"
(p. 95) See Fictions of Femtntw Dmrc (Lmcoln and London: Univmity of Nebraska Pnw.
-
~~
~
~~~~
~
~
~
~~~
U N F O R T U N A T E COUPLES AND A D U L T E R Y 341
As for Valmont, he chooses the Prdsidente as the only woman worthy
of measuring up to him: "J'aurai cette femme; je I'enlbverai au mari
qui la profane: j'oserai la ravir au Dieu m&mequ'elle adore" (6:22). In
his overweening pride he sets aside her husband and substitutes a divine
figure in his place. Thus adultery will not be committed in its literal sense
(which would be too bourgeois for Valmont's ambitions); rather he will
force her to reject God in favour of idolatry. In the biblical tradition, the
relationship between God and his people is an alliance comparable to that
uniting wife and husband.26Valmont promotes himself to the position of
idol, obliging the PrCsidente to renounce her faith and to break off the
ties which united her to God. He attacks not the woman as wife but as
the embodiment of divine love: the nun, the spiritual virgin married to
the divinity.17
The Prdsidente's marriage lacks vitality and depth, as does her absent
and elusive husband. This emptiness is underscored in the plot by the lack
of correspondence between wife and hu~band.~'The T o w e l "couple"
does not exist; conjugality does not constitute the major reason for her
fight against Valmont's seduction any more than it motivates Valmont
in his assault. Her husband, absent throughout, does not even inflict
the punishment to which he alone is entitled. Fournel designates the
husband as the only possible accuser: "L'adult&re est considdk en France
comme un ddlit privd, dont la vengeance est exclusivement ksewde au
mari, inspecteur nC des mceurs de sa femme, auxquelles il est le plus
intdressd.'Q9 The Msidente knows all this when, in a letter dictated on
26 In this passage I am indebted to Marie-Odilc M6tral's observation: "Dieu s d t -me
le mari;
Isra*, comme la femme" (Lc Morioge. Lcs htsitatiow de I'Occidcnt [Faris: Aubier-Monlaigne,
19771). p. 91.
Thc conjunction of sociological ("noblesse de mbc"), religious (her faith and the principle
of "all or nothing"), and psychologiczl considerations (the strength of her psssion) suggesb
the Midente's lansensim. Moreover, her ardour reminds us of Raciness fragic heroines. The
Racinian character of Laclos's novel is discussed in some detail by Philip T h d y in Lncios:
LesLiaisonr dongereurn (London: Edward Amald, 1970). pp. 43-48; and the lanseniam of the
Residmte is mentioned by Simon Davies in h l o s . Lcs Linisow dangenuscs (London: Grsnt
and Cutler. 1987). p. 71.
Cpoux est sans doute l'un des &la les plus significatifs du m a n " (612). 1 interpret the absmce
of letrers from the Pr&idmt in a way diameically opposed to his. He sees in Laelos's silence
a b u t their compondence a hint that their relationship is not as conventional as is claimed
by Bernard Guyon in "La Chute d'une honnete femme," L'amdu d'or (May-Aupst 1948).
167-72, and by Launnt Veraini, (Euvrcs compiPres (Paris: Gallimard, 1979). p. 293.
29 Troird de /'odultPre, p. 10.
342 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY F l C T l O N
her death bed, she formulates her only address to him: "Et toi, que j'ai
outrage toi, dont I'estime ajoute ZI mon supplice; toi, qui seul enfin aurais
le droit de te venger, que fais-tu loin de moi? Viens punir une femme
infidble" (161:361). It is too late, however, and her appeal does not reach
its addressee, her ghostly husband.
What was the punishment that her husband fails to inflict on her?
The Encycloptdie provides an explicit summary of the situation in the
"Adulti?re" article: "Les lois concernant l'adult&re sont ZI present bien
mitigees. Toute la peine qu'on inflige ZI la femme convaincue d'adulthe,
c'est de la priver de sa dot et de toutes ses conventions matrimoniales,
et de la reMguer dans un monasere. On ne la fouette meme pas, de peur
que si le mari se tmuvait dispod h la reprendre, cet affront public ne I'en
d6tournat." This information sheds light on the Pdsidente's final decision
to confine herself in a convent. When she returns to the convent of her
youth she attempts not only to retrieve her lost purity and innocence, but
also to inflict on herself the punishment for adulterous wives. Madame
de Tourvel has fought alone and her punishment is self-inflicted.
In the Lettres de la Marquise and Les Liaisons dangereuses adultery
is presented as a moral dilemma for women; marriage appears only in
the background adding a social dimension to the dilemma. What illicit
love alters and finally destroys is not their marriage, but their identity as virtuous women. Their resistance to adultery appears as a way
to distinguish themselves from other women in a milieu where adultery is "une espibglerie de soci6te." As a consequence, these novels do
not examine adultery in the broader context of its effects on society at
large-with particular regard to the issue of illegitimate children (so important for the law, and for Rousseau+but limit their analysis of the
transgression to the psychological realm.
In Rousseau's fictional works, Julie, ou La Nouvelle Htloi'se and Emile
et Sophie, ou les solitaires, adultery is a completely different matter.
Despite their very different status in Rousseau's work (the latter is an
unfinished sequel to the treatise Emile ou de l'iducation, whereas the
former is a very elaborate epistolary novel), the two novels include large
sections on the subject of married life. Julie d'Etange and Saint-Preux, her
young tutor, fall deeply in love. Julie gives in to Saint-Preux's pressing
desires, but her father's pride excludes all hope of their marriage. Full
of remorse for her fault and in order to please her father, Julie agrees to
UNFORTUNATE COUPLES ANDADULTERY 343
marry Monsieur de Wolmar. But where many a novel would have ended,
Rousseau's novel continues: this marriage and the domestic organization
of Clarens, their estate, occupy its second half. Emile et Sophie ends with
the marriage of the protagonists, based on their mutual love.
The two plots similarly defer their similar implications. What is only
latent in Julie comes into full bloom in Emile et Sophie: the marriage
based on love, impossible between Julie and Saint-Preux, seems to be
the happy conclusion of Emile. Simultaneously, adultery, present only as
a threat in the second part of Julie, destroys Emile and Sophie's marriage in the most tragic way. Rousseau's discussion of marriage contrasts
vividly with Cr6billon's and Laclos's, since he affirms the possibility of
happiness in married life and underscores the horrible consequences of
adultery. He also betrays, however, an ambivalent attitude towards marriage: at the same time that he glorifies a new conception of marriage
and the couple, Rousseau builds them on unstable ground.
In the last letter to Saint-Preux before her marriage, Julie alludes to her
engagement with Monsieur de Wolmar, to which her former lover reacts
passionately. Saint-Preux, who has lived in Paris and has witnessed its
mores, offers to the soon-to-be-married Julie the option of an adulterous
relation:
Quoi! serons-nous meilleurs moralistes que ces foules de savants dont Londres
et Paris sont peuplds, qui tous se raillent de la fiddlit6 conjugale, et regardent
I'adul9re comme un jeu? Les exemples n'en sont point scandaleux; il n'est
&me permis d'y trouver redire; et tous les honn&tesgens se riraient ici de
celui qui, par respect pour le mariage rksisterait au penchant de son mu. (111,
16:337)'O
In this defence Saint-Preux shows himself to be an explicit proponent of
the aristocratic view of adultery as a social game, a pastime in leisurely
circles (widespread in "novels of worldliness").
Indignant at such a bold proposal, Julie replies in a vigorous plea
which contrasts strikingly with the Marquise's and the Msidente's. She
denies the solely private nature of adultery and links conjugal fidelity
with social stability at large: "L'un des deux penserait-il &re innocent,
parce qu'il est libre peut-&re de son c6t6, et ne manque de foi personne?
11 se trompe grossibrement. Ce n'est pas seulement I'int6rst des epoux,
mais la cause commune de tous les hommes, que la puret6 du mariage
ne soit point altirke" (111, 18:359, my emphasis). Like the Msidente,
30 References are to the pan, followed by letter and page numbers.
344 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION
Julie observes the alteration caused by adultery but she attributes to it a
much greater consequence. At stake is not the alteration of a woman's
peace of mind, but the destruction of social peace.
She shows particular concern for the alteration of the bloodline occasioned by adultery, reiterating the argument used by jurists to incriminate
women: "Comment prouvent-ils [les Philosophes] qu'il est indiffkrent h
un @re d'avoir des hentiers qui ne soient pas de son sang; d'&tre charg6
peut-&re de plus d'enfants qu'il n'en aurait eu, et forck de partager ses
bien aux gages de son d6shonneur sans sentir pour eux des entrailles de
@re?'(III, 18:360). Julie points here to the wife's responsibility in assuring the biological connection between father and child, as a father
cannot legally deny paternity unless he can prove that his fathering a
child was a physical impossibility. One of the legal ends of marriage is
to assure the legitimacy of the offspring, and the law of the period establishes that "un enfant n6 pendant le mariage ne peut Stre d6savou6
quelques preuves qu'il y ait de la debauche de sa mi%e.'"l It is therefore a matter to be taken extremely seriously, as the fierce rhetoric of
Julie's plea and her dramatization of the dangers associated with adultery
attest:
A 1'6gard des liaisons pdtendues que L'adultke et I'infid6litb peuvent former
entre les families, c'est moins une raison drieuse qu'une plaisanterie absurde
et brutale qui ne mtrite pour toute dponse que le mbpris et I'indignation. Les
trahisons, les querelles, les combats, les mewtres, les empoisonnements, dont
ce d6sordre a couvert la tme dans tous les temps, montrent assez ce qu'on doit
attendre pour le r e p s et I'union des hommes d'un attachement f m k par le
crime. S'il dsulte quelque sorte de socikt6 de ce vil et mkprisable commerce,
elle est semblable ?I celle des brigands, qu'il faut d6truire et a n h t i r pour assurer
les socibt6s lbgitimes. (111, 18:361)
As her rationale takes on cosmic dimensions, her refutation of SaintPreux's arguments gradually becomes further removed from the starting
point-his offer of an adultemus relation. This passage concludes a very
long and heated account of the consequences of adultery, which establishes Julie's authority in the matter. The inability to speak for herself
and to use her own voice needs further investigation.
31 F m i k Dictionmire de droit eI & pratique, S.V. "Adultbe." In a legal brief defending an
adulterous woman.M a i a Lacmix, a lawyer in Toulouw, mentioned the generality of such lws:
"La Ygislafeurs dc t o u h lles N a t i m on1 paurvu, en &me temps, aux vuw de la Religion: elk
met la sainctete du Mariage A couvnt dcs Lem6rifes d'un mari ware ou jalour" (MLmoirepour la
D a m Olympc de P o p & Saint A b n , Marquise &Montbrun.Borrct, k c o r o n . Ottonc, etoutrcs
L i e u , conme Messire lean-Boptklc Bcrmrdin de TrPmoler Monrperot, Marquis de Montmoirac
Imp., n.d.1, p. 144).
She does not speak in her own name but in the name of society, since
she believes herself charged with ensuring the proper functioning of the
society of which she is a part. This overflow of discourse, however, can
be seen as playing the same role as the silence of the other heroines:
it is Julie's way of dealing with her fear of adultery. She actually hints
at this problem in the passage immediately following her long diatribe:
J ,a1. a c h e de suspendre l'indignation que m'inspirent ces maximes pour
les discuter paisiblement avec vous. Plus je les trouve insendes, moins
je dois dkdaigner de les refuter pour me faire honte moi-meme de
les avoir 6cout6es avec trop peu d'bloignement" (111, 18:361). Julie's
impersonal plea thus appears as an attempt to buttress her own inability
to resist temptation and constitutes a strategy to divert the attention of
the reader-Saint Preux-from these doubts.
In addition, Julie's impersonal plea is related to the power of changing
the individual that Rousseau attributes to marriage. In insisting on the
woman's role in the social mechanism and on her responsibility for the
collective well-being, Julie's plea raises the issue of feminine identity
in marriage. This issue may be better understood in the light of Julie's
account of her wedding ceremony, given to Saint-Preux in the same
letter. Marrying Monsieur de Wolmar entails a deep transformation of
Julie's identity:
'6
M v 6 e I 1'6glise, je sentis en entrant une sorie d'6motion que je n'avais jamais tprouvb. ... La purete, la dignitt, la saintett du mariage, si vivement
expostes dans les paroles de I'bcriture, ses chastes et sublimes devoirs si importants au bonheur, I I'ordre, I la paix, I la dude du genre humain, si doux A
remplir pour eux-mhes; tout cela me fit une telle impression, que je cms sent i int6rieurement
~
une n?volution subite. Une puissance inconnue sembla corriger
tout I coup le dtsordre de mes affections et les rttablir selon la loi du devoir et
de la nature. (111, 18:353-54)
What has been traditionally called, because of its mystical nature, "the
conversion of Julie," is described in terms of a death followed by a rebirth and a regeneration. The ambiguity between metamorphosis and
death is emphasized by Claire, Julie's cousin, when she tells Saint-Preux
of Julie's marriage: "Votre amante n'est plus, mais j'ai retrouve mon
amie, et vous en avez acquis m e dont le coeur peut vous rendre beaucoup
plus que vous n'avez perdu" (IV, 17:339). Julie d'Etange has to "die"
for Julie de Wolmar to be born. In other words, Rousseau infuses marriage with enough power to transform the individual completely. The new
Julie, Julie de Wolmar, devotes her new life to a new religion, namely.,
346 E I G H T E E N T H - C E N T U R Y F I C T I O N
"married life." Preoccupied only with the well-being of the Clarens family, Julie is confined to the domestic sphere and, through her conversion,
is transformed into a wife and partner in a married couple." The Wolmars, however, constitute an expiatory couple. The pathos of Julie's
situation is that, as a woman, she can undo the violation of her sexual
integrity only through the sacrifice of her life through marriage.')
In this context her insistence on conjugal fidelity takes on an expiatory
flavour: "Je cms me sentir renate; je n u s recommencer une autre vie.
Douce et consolante vertu, je la recommence pour toi; c'est toi qui me
toii que je la veux consacrer" (III, 18, 355).
la rendras chkre; c'est ?
What is remarkable in Julie is that conjugality finds its origins in the
premature loss of the protagonist's chastity. Through marriage, and the
changes it involves, she finds the ultimate way to purify herself. Had
she married Wolmar in her virginal purity, she might not have needed
to devote herself so completely to family life. Married life is idealized
by Rousseau and simultaneously founded on a fault. Rousseau replaces
the traditional death of the heroine (either actual or by confinement in a
convent) by marriage, and consequently this marriage has an ambiguous
status, spelled out by Julie's central letter: her plea against adultery, in
conjunction with the evocation of her marriage, reveals a trust in marriage
as an organizing force in society but, in spite of the idealization, betrays
her uncertainty about its impact on a woman's identity.
Another marriage haunts Rousseau's imagination. Emile and Sophie, the
hero and heroine of the fifth book of Emile, undoubtedly constitute a
more perfect couple than the Wolmars, since they provide an example
of the ideology (so widespread among the Philosophes) which founds a
good marriage on the mutual love and respect of the partners. In Emile
32 In the fifth book of Emilc, Rousscsu also suggests such a commitment: "Cependant la v6riIable
&re de famille, loin $&re une femme du monde, n'est gubre moins nclusc dans sa maison
que la religieusc dans son daiue" (Entile ou de I'Cducntion, in (Euvres compl2ter. 4:737). The
comparison is shiking. Rousseau advocates the reversal of practices well established in the
French aristocracy (the confinement of adolescents in convents and the "freedom" of married
women): unmarried gids should be able to m p y life outside a religious institution, while manied
women should enter into the domestic sphere just as they would take on the religious life.
33 Repeatedly, Julie perceives herself aa an expiating victim sacrificed for the sake of the sacial
and familial d m , as in the following passage: "l'envisageai le saint nacud que j'allais former
comme un nouvel &at qui devait purifier mon b e et la mdre & tous ses devoirs" (Julie, Ill,
383354).
U N F O R T U N A T E COUPLES AND ADULTERY 347
et Sophie, ou les solitaires, the happiness pmmised at the conclusion
of the treatise on education is destroyed and the protagonists are in a
. ~ in
state of despair, because of the death of their young d a ~ g h t e rOnce
Paris, they search for some distraction fmm their grief. There the family drama is inevitably intensified through the multiplicity of exchanges
associated with life in a city. Emile and Sophie are victims of the conjugal organization which prevails in Parisian high society; there is no
differentiation between the male and female realms, or between the public and private spheres. When men are obliged to live like women, they
compensate for the lack of action through adultery, as Saint-Preux has
learned from his years in the French capital: "Enfin, ils sentent si bien
I'ennui de cette indolence effemink et casani8re. que, pour y m€ler au
moins quelque sorte d'activitk, ils c2dent chez eux la place aux 6trangers
et vont aupr8s des femmes d'autrui chercher h t e m w r ce degollt" (IV,
10:451). Lost in worldly pleasures, Emile and Sophie lose sight of the
values of their youth, and their marriage comes to resemble the functional union so widely associated with the urban aristocratic mores that
we have seen Duclos define:
Sophie consol&, ou plut6t distraite par son amie el par les societ6s oh elle
I'entrainait, n'avait plus ce goat dkidb pour la vie priv6e et pour La retraite: elle
avail oublib ses p e a s et presque ce qui lui h i t rest& Son fils en grandissant
allait devenir moins dbpendant d'elle, et dbjh la m&reapprenait B s'en passer.
Moi-meme je n'btais plus son Emile, je n'btais que son mari, el le mari d'une
homete femme dam les grandes villes est un homme avec qui l'on garde en
public toutes sortes de bonnes manihes, mais qu'on ne voit point en particulier.
(P. 887)
This assumption, however, is invalidated by the sudden occurrence of
adultery. In this novel, we have only the husband's response to his wife's
misconduct. When Sophie confesses her infidelity (and pregnancy) to
Emile, he reacts with a violence which would not be expected from
a well-bred husband: "0 qui powrait d6m@ler,exprimer cette confusion de sentiments divers que la honte, I'amour, la fureur, les regrets,
l'attendrissement, la jalousie, I'affreux desespoir me firent eprouver h la
fois? Non, cette situation, ce tumulte ne se peut d6crire" (p. 891).
In addition to his shame and the breakup of his marriage, Emile foresees his own death as a result of Sophie's disgrace: "Je n'6tais plus le
34 This in iuelf is quite new, since novels of the period m l y mention young childnn and even
more rarely give them a signilkant role in the nmtive.
348 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY FICTION
m&meque la veille, ou plut6t. je n'6tais plus; c'ttait ma propre mort que
j'avais pleurer" (p. 894). In other words, Emile cannot perceive himself as a separate individual. Nothing could really imperil couples that
did not exist, but in this case the wife's downfall has immeasurable consequences for the husband's fate; the passage reveals the significant role
played by marriage as well as the fragility of Rousseau's beautiful invention at the end of Emile. In spite of deep differences (Julie d'Etange has
lost her identity by manying while Emile loses his through his wife's
adultery), both marriages obey a similar logic: in marriage, the individual
is at risk.
In Emile et Sophie adultery is not defined by the familiar triangular structure of adultery. The husband is the only subject worthy of
Rousseau's attention. After Sophie's confession, Emile avoids any confrontation with her, does not question her, does not attempt to discover
the identity of her lover: "Ce qui me dtchirait le plus cmellement n'6tait
pas tant de renoncer A elle que d'&tre force de la mtpriser" @. 895).
He sees the catastrophe in her debasement rather than in the adulterous
act itself, showing a deep concern with his own self-esteem: in despising her, he despises himself. Not surprisingly, then, shame ("honte") is
the feeling that he first mentions when he evokes his reaction to Sophie's
confession of adultery.
The main source of Emile's torments is that he must despise a wife
whom he has "freely" chosen (under the strong guidance of his governor,
of course), whom he loves but believes not worthy of his esteem. We are
reminded of Duclos's remarks on the attitude of the bourgeois husband.
In feeling responsible for Sophie's conduct, Emile emphasizes her total
subordination and dependency and denies her any individuality:
Je me disais avec douleur mais avec force que les maximes du monde ne font
point loi pow qui veut v i m pow soi-mhe, et que, pdjugts pour pdjug6s.
ceux des bonnes moeurs en ont un de plus qui les favorise; que c'est avec raison
qu'on impute A un mari le desordre de sa femme, soit pow I'avoir ma1 choisie,
soit pour la ma1 gouvemer; que j'ttais moi-m&meun exemple de la justice de
cette imputation, et que si Emile eOt tg toujours sage Sophie n'e0t jamais failli.
(P. 901)
Emile may be partly responsible, but it is Sophie who is guilty. Adultery
is not analysed as a transgression of conjugal faith by a wife who aspires
to a change or is submitted to the assaults of a bold suitor, but as a
phenomenon destroying the couple born from the ashes of two formerly
distinct persons. Emile and Sophie, whose union responds to the ideal
U N F O R T U N A T E COUPLES A N D A D U L T E R Y 349
of the period, do not constitute, like the Wolmars, an expiatory couple.
The perfect couple created at the conclusion of Emile is but short-lived,
however, as if Rousseau has had doubts about the viability of his own
invention and needed to uncover some of the threats endangering it. As
a visionary, Rousseau already foresees the lapses and defects of the very
ideals he is so eager to defend. The married couple, even in its most
idealized representation, is characterized above all by its failures.
The particular relevance that Rousseau attributes to adultery lays bare
a conception of conjugality which emphasizes the personal satisfaction
to be drawn from married life, while betraying numerous anxieties about
the possible failure of such hopes. However, while Rousseau's fiction
presents marriage as a private affair mobilizing a high level of emotional
energy, he goes beyond the affective dimension of adultery and considers its far-reaching social implications, such as the attribution of paternity
and the dismantling of marriage and the family. A similar (although reversed) paradox characterizes the Lettres de la Marquise and Les Liaisons
dangereuses in so far as the protagonists are tied by arranged marriages
to which they are minimally committed and from which they expect little
personal fulfilment. And yet, this fictional staging of marriage as a mere
social transaction goes hand in hand with a representation of adultery
which ignores the social impact of the transgression and which privileges its private side. A possible explanation of this paradox lies in the
question of the couple: in Rousseau's fictions, the protagonists (Julie, Sophie, and, to some extent, Emile) lose their independent identity at the
time of their wedding. What adultery will destroy, therefore, is not so
much the individuals as what they now constitute: a married couple with
its associated social and personal expectations. Both the Marquise and the
Prksidente, on the other hand, childless and free of any affective commitment to their husbands, enter the adulterous relationship as individuals
and it is as such that they are affected by its unfortunate unfolding.
These differences support Elisabeth de Fontenay's argument: "Le
mariage de convenance, en revanche, assujettit la femme puisqu'il transforme le contrat entre familles, de type patriarcal, en un lien conjugal
inter-individuel, et dknuk de toute dimension socio-politique. En privatisant ce lien, on rejette la femme hors de la vie publique et on la condamne
exclusivement i% la vie domestique."" This confinement in domesticity
35 Elisabeth de Fontenay, "Pour Emile et par Emile, Sophie ou I'invention du menage," Les Temps
modems 358 (1976). 1792. In Ulis article, Elisabeth de Fontenay devotes a single paragraph to
Emile er Sophie, in which she ermines the impact of city life on their "rnhge." In Lenrcsde
Misrriss Henley (1784) Isabelle de Charrih provides a very subtle analysis of the privslilatian
of conjugal life.
350 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY PICTION
does not prevent the woman from being held responsible for the common good through her role in the household. Thus any disruption of her
mission has crucial consequences which enhance a woman's culpability. Although all women are guilty before the law, Rousseau's insistence
on the social consequences of adultery highlights even more strongly the
woman's guilt.
The question of adultery and the couple is one more aspect of the debate raging in the eighteenth century between "la tradition, dans les
iddaux patriciens, de formes privildgihs du mariage" and Yes exigences
de la pers~nne."~~
At stake is the opposition between the functional aspect
of the family (aristocratic and based on arranged marriage) and its affective dimension (bourgeois and founded on love). In striving to banish
restrictions burdening the individual, the Enlightenment did not foresee that an apparently more autonomous couple could create its own set
of constraints. Paradoxically, the attempt at liberating the couple from
social obligations bred a new servitude. The failure of marriage to satisfy its partners had no meaning in a society where marriage had little
to do with love: while the Roman Catholic Church considered love to
be a passion incompatible with the duties of matrimony, moralists dismissed it as a transitory feeling irreconcilable with the indissolubility
of conjugal ties. As love was made the ideal motive for marriage, all
hopes focused on the conjugal relationship as a source of personal happiness and its failure became all the more traumatic. Today's notoriously
high divorce rate is perhaps the price paid for the success of the Enlightenment project regarding marriage and the high expectations it fostered
two centuries ago.
Harvard University
36 J q u e s Lacan, Lcs Complues font'liao (Paris: Navarin Edifour. 1984). p. 69. This text wa.
originally written by Lacan for vol. 8 of the Encyclopddiefranpisc, devoted to "Lavie mntak,"
published in 1938.