Working on a Digital Humanities Project, I was involved in the editing of “A serious proposal for promoting lawful and honourable marriage. Address’d to the unmarried, of both sexes” by E. Cother. This text is a proposal for a marriage agency which was published in London in 1750 (for W. Owen, at Homer’s Head, near Temple-Bar). The fact that such a document exists is the first thing which surprised me. Thinking about a “marriage agency,” I could only apply this concept to the 20^th and 21^st centuries, and not to the 18^th. However, attempts to promote a marriage among those who could not succeed on their own for one reason or another, existed much earlier.

The author claims that there are many unmarried women and men in London, and he introduces the scheme he invented to help them to succeed in marriage. This scheme consists of 23 rules. Before the description of these rules, an introduction is provided. Here, the author explains his goals, describes his potential reader and provides a successful story of one couple. This “story of success” in marriage is provided to encourage a potential reader and to show that unusual ways of behaving sometimes work well, and there is no reason to be ashamed of one’s desire to find a match.

The very first thing in which I am interested is the title, especially the word “serious” included in it.  For what reason did the author use it? To highlight the importance of the issue? Or to provide an opposition with the romance? To show that there is no room for joke or fancy? I think, in this case the word works in both directions. The author complains that the desire to be married is a subject for jokes among the public, and this is a big obstacle on one’s way to happiness. In this sense, he acts as a rebel destroying popular stereotypes raised by romance and hypocritical rules. He reveals common patterns of behavior which a woman uses to seem uninterested in marriage while she is desperately in need of a good husband: “And why all these?  but to conform herself to those rigid, and absurd Rules of Mock-modesty, and Sham-reserve; the Laws of which, were introduced by Romance, and Gallantry.” As the current example shows, the author is highly aware of the constructed nature of many concepts which is interesting according to topics of gender and sexuality. One can also see that concepts of “romance” and “gallantry” are described in a strongly negative way, and they are in opposition to natural and reasonable behavior. At the same time, while destroying stereotypes, or at least trying to show that there is no shame in a desire to be married, E. Cother is also concerned about honour and reputation. These are the main concepts, and they organize a framework for his proposal. This intersects with the notion from English Masculinities by Hitchcock and Cohen which is also concerned with the concepts of honour and reputation as key cultural and behavioral ideas in the 18^th century. Therefore, what is especially interesting for me is an opportunity to see how these concepts “work” in real life, and to compare this vision with theoretical framework I already had. The author of the Proposal tries to be “in the middle” of this problematic field of honour and reputation issues. On one hand, he reveals the hypocrisy of many ideas and shows their uselessness. On the other hand, he does not recommend “a bold or confident Behavior” (4). The importance of the Honour, Modesty and Reputation is doubtless. This makes the narrative problematic: in trying to help single persons to find each other, one should not violate established norms.

First, the author addresses himself to ladies, then to gentlemen. It is implied, therefore, that for women the issue is more important and difficult, especially applying to modern norms and rules of behavior. Women are more vulnerable in their reputation and conduct. This intersects again with the notion from English Masculinities: “female sexual reputation was both of supreme importance and extreme fragility” (Hitchcock and Cohen 15). Talking about possible obstacles on the way to marriage, Cother mentions women’s necessity to be introduced into the world, and this corresponds to Evelina by F. Burney. Therefore, the work with this particular text is a great opportunity to compare fictional and non-fictional sources of eighteenth century literature, and to see that to some extent the lines between them are blurred. For example, in his document, E. Cother provides a story of a happy marriage, and it can be easily read both as fiction and as a “real story.”

The appearance of masculinity in the text is also interesting. Among possible obstacles for men on their way to marriage there are “manner of life, dispositions of mind, turn of temper.” Defining a gentleman, the author shows that this type of person has fewer obstacles to get married, which corresponds to the idea of class (more opportunities and choice), and also to the idea of a libertine. As authors of the English Masculinities mentioned, “men’s reputations became if anything less connected to their sexual behavior, while those of women became more fully dependent on just that aspect of their lives” (Hitchcock and Cohen 16).

 “A serious proposal for promoting lawful and honourable marriage” also demonstrates that “boundaries were more ambiguous and shifting than a simple and static demarcation between public (male) and private (female) spaces would allow” (Hitchcock and Cohen 20). It is clear when one sees how the author offers to make appointments between single persons.

Finally, the thing which amazed me most of all is the non-fictional nature of the text, which reveals “real” society and its concerns. However, being non-fictional in its nature, the Proposal uses fictional methods to become attractive to the reader. Moreover, the author mentions Shakespeare as an authority in questions of sense and natural behavior. He does not provide Shakespeare’s name in talking about his heroines, which means that he is oriented to the well-read, educated public that is able to recognize the author through his characters. This also seemed interesting during the work.

To sum up, I would like to say that work with the Digital Project became a logical completion for me in the sense that I have already read some fiction from the 18^th century as well as contemporary critical materials concerning gender and sexuality. Having found a marriage agency proposal, I could compare the “real,” historical narrative with both fictional and critical ones and draw some conclusions about gender in the 18^th century.

Works Cited

Hitchcock, Tim; Cohen, Michèle  English masculinities, 1660-1800. London : Longman,1999.

Cother, E. “A Serious Proposal For Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage. Address’d to the Unmarried, of both Sexes.” London, 1750. Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale. Michigan State University Libraries. 11 Apr. 2016.