A Discourse on Fornication

The Limits of Language in the Discussion of Fornication: Modern Issues of Sex Contrived from Archaic Beliefs

Samantha Stanley 

The Limits of Language in the Discussion of Fornication: Modern Issues of Sex Contrived from Archaic Beliefs

My group edited the 17th century document “A DISCOURSE ON FORNICATION” by John Turner. Turner argues against fornication outside the confines of marriage, making three main points about the act of fornication and the evils derived from going against God’s word: “That Fornication is a Violation of God’s positive Law, in the original Institution of Marriage. That it is expresly forbidden in the Gospel, and absolutely inconsistent with that pure and holy Life, which the Christian Religion requires from us. Lastly, From the natural Turpitude of it, and the Evils and pernicious Consequences that attend it.”

While the text itself is dated and lacks total consequence in society today, these ideas still exist in our lawmaking practices and in religious groups which participate in politics. Political issues centered on abortion, women’s health, contraceptives, and STDs all come back to these basic ideas of religion and sin that Turner discusses. While western society currently is becoming increasingly more socially aware, political debates around sexual health and women’s rights still lean heavily on ideas rooted in Turner’s rhetoric. By the end of his piece Turner states “Deliver thy self therefore from the strange Woman, even from the Stranger that flattereth with her Words” (Turner 53). The patriarchal construction of gender is therefore the basis of the sin of fornication.

The men Turner is attempting to protect, he believes, are only tempted to sin because women are consciously inciting temptation. Judith Butler, in Gender Trouble, explores the distinction between sex and gender which relates to the construction of the self and the “temptations” Turner believes are incited by women. As Butler points out “If gender is the cultural meanings that the sexed body assumes, then a gender cannot be said to follow from a sex in any one way” (Butler 6). The cultural meanings Butler mentions are those which have been established by men themselves. Turner attempts to blame women for the sin of fornication, conflating sex and gender as based off the two-sex model, but when he does this he is failing to acknowledge the construction of women as created by men in order to please men. That is, “Womanhood” is a construction perpetuated and problematized by men. It is also constructed so all blame of sin within religion can be put on women instead of the main perpetrators of rape.

I was fascinated by the construction of gender which Turner conflates with sex and the limitations of his rhetoric. He relieves men of all responsibility and uses religion to blame women for all sins of fornication, often repeating himself instead of using substantial evidence to condemn women. All of his ideas on fornication and why human beings need to resist the sin, however, seem pointless, as he prefaces the piece with “This is in no Sin more practised than in those of Adultery and Fornication. Adultery may possibly be allowed to have somewhat of Ill in it; especially on the Womans Side” (Turner 1). By stating that the sin is heavily practiced and then relieving perpetrators of any responsibility, and then blaming the nature of women, Turner is undermining his own argument. He blames women but does not suggest any modes to deal with the issue. The argument is limited by set definitions of words which have been defined in a patriarchal context; “Whether gender or sex is fixed or free is a function of a discourse which, it will be suggested, seeks to set certain limits to analysis or to safeguard certain tenets of humanism as presuppositional to any analysis of gender” (Butler 9). While the problems Turner analyzes are modern and consistent, he is undermined by his own use of language which is closely defined as only existing in a smaller, less informed sphere than what our current society inhabits. The definition of gender used by Turner is patriarchal because the construction is based on the two-sex model which describes women as being inferior and morally weak in comparison to men. As parts of Western society still cling to these inherently oppressive concepts, we still have laws which work to harm and target women; namely, abortion, access to contraceptives, and access general sexual health practices.

The publication of this document in 1650 seems redundant when looking back on the numerous arguments made against fornication by the very same men who were easily tempted by prostitutes and other women in servile positions. By examining this document through the lens of twenty-first century feminist rhetoric the argument against continually subjecting our people to these archaic beliefs through unfair laws seems like the only plausible argument. While a significant portion of our society has deserted religion in favor of living according to one’s own ideas of morality and freedom, and even more so a diversity of religion has taken the place of a focus on Christianity, our laws still seem to uphold a rigidly patriarchal concepts due to the heterosexual white cisgendered men who remain in power. By examining these texts through feminist ideologies, we can construct a new rhetoric to better combat injustices that have been reoccurring for many centuries since.

Works Cited
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York:Routledge, 1990. Print.

Turner, John. A DISCOURSE ON FORNICATION. Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) Creation Partnership. 1698.

A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage

Reflection on Editing “A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage addressed to the Unmarried, of Both Sexes” by E. Cother

Samantha Poole

Reflections on the Editing Process

The experience of editing “A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage addressed to the Unmarried, of Both Sexes” by Cother, E. was surreal in all of the questions the document raised. Questions such as: Was it truly necessary to have a book explaining how to propose and “promote” a lawful marriage? Could this book be considered a conduct book on marriage and proposing? Did citizens of London actually read this book in search of guidance? These questions along with many others were persistently buzzing through my head while I was editing and reading the piece.

An aspect that I found to be quite interesting about the text was the necessity of the text during the time period. The text made me reflect and think a lot more about the type of culture it was published in, and made me realize that A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage addressed to the Unmarried, of Both Sexes was published during the same time conduct books were exceedingly popular. With this in mind the document helped me infer that it was published in a society that needed strict social guidelines, whether it be how to act in certain company as a male or female, or merely how to act in order to “promote a lawful marriage”. This realization helped me reflect on the amount of social constructs  present in each citizen’s life. Reading Cother’s text helped me understand the inescapable amount of pressure placed on an individual in the eighteenth century, pressures to act in a certain manner with certain members of society, the pressure for women to be considered beautiful and virtuous, and the pressures associated with marriage in that marriage was seen as an economic move, meant to better one’s wealth and social standing.

Another aspect of the piece by Cother which was quite intriguing was the Articles which start on page 35 which explains a proposed two offices to be set at “two different parts of the city”, one a “ladies office” and one a “gentlemen’s office” (Cother 35). Cother explains that this separation is meant “to avoid, as much as possible, all impertinent curiosity of either Sex” (36). Then proceeds to explain in detail that each office will have their own register, their own books, etc. to be kept separate at all times. This strange circumstance Cother brings up highlights the anxieties which existed in the 18th century towards sexuality, to the extent that as Cother illustrates both sexes were not supposed to be in the same office space due to the chance of “curiosity of either Sex”. I didn’t find Cother’s explanation of this issue of the anxieties of sexuality surprising; however I found it remarkable in the insight it lends its reader. Cother inconspicuously explains in his articles starting on page 35 the real fears patriarchal eighteenth century British society had concerning women’s bodies. The beginning of the Articles is definitely extraordinary in that it explains the thought process of the patriarchy when faced with the thought of women possibly gaining the right to work in such an office, that thought being separation of the sexes is absolutely essential for any office properly function. The male anxieties expressed in such a short part of Cother’s text explains not only the mindset and thoughts of the patriarchal society but also the abnormality of women working during the 18th century, a time in which men were the sole providers of their families. Cother suggests that breaking the domestic and public spheres cannot be so simple as merely allowing women into the male dominated public sphere but created a women’s public sphere, separate as to not distract or instill “curiosity” into the male population. The necessity of creating another separate public sphere for women is interesting in that through Cother’s allusion to this need for gender binaries in the work place he is explaining the anxieties associated with the differences in the female body which serve as a distraction and may disrupt the productivity of any given office.

Overall, A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage addressed to the Unmarried, of Both Sexes by E. Cother serves as a source of insight into the anxieties associated with women and the separation of the spheres while also illuminating the process of proposing marriage in the 18th century. Cother’s work also provides us with questions to modern day issues such as the anxieties still associated with the female body today:  perhaps we in the 21st century have a different outlook on sexuality and “curiosity” associated with both the male and female body. The topics of anxiety and sexuality addressed by Cother are still incredibly relevant to both the 18th century and the 21st century. This amazing connection through Cother’s written work allows us insight into the societal norms and construct, as well as the anxieties associated with the separation of spheres, a problem we still face today in that women don’t have equal pay and are typically expected to work in areas which have been traditionally “feminized”.

 

Works Cited

Cother, E. “A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage Addressed to the Unmarried, of Both Sexes.” Editorial. 18th Connect. TypeWright, n.d. Web.

A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage, Uncategorized

Digital Humanities Project: “A Serious Proposal For Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage.”

Awesome Group 2 reviewed the document “A Serious Proposal For Promoting Lawful and Honourable Marriage. Address’d to the Unmarried, of both Sexes” by E. Cother. This 75-page document outlines the need for, essentially, a kind of dating service, and then outlines explicitly how that service would operate. I will be focusing mainly on the Articles covered in the pages I edited, and putting it in the context of ideas presented by Carole Pateman, who theorizes about the politics of consent. Despite their forced exclusion from the public sphere and the political limitations imposed upon their gender – as Pateman describes it – Cother sees women as citizens with agency, and develops a system that allows them to act as such (though only within that microcosm).

Cother identifies a problem that adults still deal with in the twenty-first century: how hard it can be to meet people. This would have been even more of a challenge in Cother’s day, especially for young ladies, when people are hard-pressed to interact with people outside of their established acquaintances. It would not be proper for a young woman to simply go up to a man she does not know in a shop or a bar and strike up a conversation, for example. (It would not even be appropriate for a young woman to go to a shop or a bar unescorted.) If a woman does not like any of the single men she knows, then, she is unlikely to make a happy match. This is the societal problem Cother has identified, and he carefully offers a potential solution (in as inoffensive terms as he can think of) thus:
“…a Proposal whereby a Lady may, without Reserve, without Danger to her Reputation, without Fear of Insult or Contempt, without the Assistance of a Confident, without Offense to the most Consummate Modesty, without Offence to the Laws of God or Man, without incurring the least Censure from others, nay, without the least Cause for censuring herself, without making herself known even to the very Person with whom she shall converse, unless by her own Choice; without being confined on any Pretence whatever one Moment longer than she likes; hold Conversation, and be in Company, with a Gentleman for two Hours, on the Terms of serious, and honourable Interview, in order to satisfy her Judgment, whether such Person, with whom she shall so converse, be worth her farther Notice; and be of such Fortune, Disposition, or Person, as she should chuse to make her an Husband” (Cother 3-4).
In other words, he is proposing a system that will ensure discretion and privacy as well as personal safety to the participants, and an assurance that nothing the least inappropriate will occur.

In his Articles (23 in all) Cother explains in length how this service will operate within all standards of safety and propriety. Essentially all interested persons will pay a small fee to register for the service, which will then arrange for interviews between men and women in a respectable house, with a Guard present. There are Articles that get down to the nuts and bolts of the service, such as how much both parties must pay for the guard. But there are also articles that deal specifically with how the safety of the parties will be ensured. Article XVIII requires that, “That the Gentleman, on such Interview, either come without, or leave his Sword with the Person on Guard” (55). And before that Article XVII states, “That the Lady, on such Interview, shall be at Liberty to come in a Veil” (53), in order to conceal her identity if she so chooses. The Guard is always on standby, ready to intervene at the woman’s call. Cother is specifically dealing with the issue of women and consent here. From before Cother’s time and stretching into the present, women who report rape are doubted at every turn. “In sexual relations more generally, a woman’s refusal of consent…is systematically invalidated…enforced submission continues to be interpreted as consent” (Pateman 12-13). This makes women afraid to speak up about assault for fear they won’t be believed. So Cother provides a witness and a bodyguard in one. What he is really trying to do is level the playing field on the woman’s behalf. In a patriarchal society that will systematically undervalue and dismiss her, his service needs to consciously operate outside of those norms, and provide a space where her words – and her consent – are as meaningful as a man’s.

Cother is very conscious that at the time, this is the kind of idea that will get laughed down the second it is suggested. It is simply a ludicrous idea in the eighteenth century to have an office that will arrange “interviews” between two people to see if they are interested in marrying one another. One of the reasons this would have been so strange is that it would have necessitated women to be uncharacteristically proactive in actually going out to a public office and registering for this service. It assumes that women can afford to register, and will be allowed to by whomever is their guardian (unless they are widows). It takes away the romance of a courtship and turns it into a selective intellectual endeavor – on both sides. Pateman talks about seventeenth and eighteenth century women as “…inhabitants of a private sphere that is part of civil society and yet is separated from the public world…Women have never been completely excluded from participation in the institutions of the public world – but women have been incorporated into public life in a different manner from men” (Pateman 4). In describing the political position of women in society, Pateman points out that women are always assumed to be naturally subordinate to men. Cother’s system, while going out of its way to ensure women’s protection and privacy, in every other way treats men and women the same. Both pay the same, the same age limit (no younger than 21 unless a widow or widower) applies to both, and they are expected to follow the same guidelines for respectable behavior. Women are perhaps more vulnerable than men in this situation, but they are not assumed to be less competent or worthy of participation.

Pateman also addresses the problem of women and consent: “…whether, given the patriarchal construction of what it means to be men and women and the present structure of relations between the sexes, ‘consent’ can have any genuine meaning in public or private life. Unless refusal of consent is possible, talk of consent is pointless” (12). The Guard, which shall be present at interviews, hypothetically eliminates any danger to the woman. The Guard takes the man’s weapons; he is ready to intervene at the slightest sign of trouble; he ensures that the woman has a ride home, and will even accompany her if she wishes. The Guard is meant to eliminate any power imbalance between the man and woman. He ensures that the woman has the right to say no if she wishes; she may leave early if she chooses, without fear of being followed. Consent, in other words, will happen whether one party likes it or not. Especially in a time when strangers do not interact, period, the ability to ensure a respectful and unthreatening atmosphere would have been crucial. In the scenario Cother is presenting, man and woman are on equal footing for once – more so than if they had been courting in the traditional way.

In a time when the idea of public and private spheres is being solidified, Cother is presenting a system that inherently rejects the idea that women must remain in their place (so to speak). Cother purports that marriage is the ultimate state of bliss, and it is natural to him that both men and women should seek it out. (Furthermore, this system cannot actually work if only men are allowed to apply.) Pateman theorizes that just because women have been historically overlooked and subjugated, does not mean that they have ever been irrelevant or incompetent. Cother’s service functions on the same basis: not only do women deserve an opportunity to meet potential husbands, but they are fully capable of having the same independence as a man in making this choice for themselves.

Works Cited
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

Pateman, Carole. “Introduction.” Introduction. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, and Political Theory. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP, 1989. 1-15. Print.

A Discourse on Fornication

Editing “A Discourse on Fornication”

For the 18th century archival project, my group edited a piece titled “A Discourse on Fornication: Showing the Greatness of that Sin; and Examining the Excuses pleased for it, from the Examples of Ancient Times” by J. Turner. According to the title page, J. Turner was a Church lecturer, and this pamphlet was printed at the request of the churchgoers. It is likely that this was a  sermon that J. Turner gave, and afterwards the members of the parish wanted a copy of it for further study. The printing press would be the only efficient way to distribute this lecture. This information also suggests that Turner is writing for a very small audience that he knows well and shares religious beliefs with. This text explores the roles of concubines in the Bible and has a conservative approach to marriage, divorce, and sexuality. According to Turner, only first marriages are legitimate. If a person were to divorce and remarry, they would be committing adultery. However, “they mention of Abraham, and Jacob, and Solomon, and Jephtha that had Concubines and yet they are Characterized in Scripture for Good Men, and highly favour’d of God” (Turner 15). The inclusion of concubines and second wives in the Bible complicate Turner’s assertion that only first marriages are legitimate, since these sins did not diminish the greatness of ancient kings and prophets. While concubines exist in the Bible, Turner’s final assertion is that people should abstain from fornication, that marriage should be upheld, and God will deal with the adulterers and prostitutes (Turner 33). These three claims reaffirms the beliefs on marriage that would have been held by his audience at the church he was reading this to.

According to Roy Porter’s work English Society in the 18th Century, double standards for wives regarding adultery and divorce were both socially acceptable and part of the legal institution. A man could have an affair without it tarnishing his reputation while a woman could be ruined for being adulterous. For legal purposes, it was extremely important that women remain loyal to their husbands because their infidelity could create a false heir (Porter 25). Porter also points out that this double standard was also supported in divorce laws because “a wife’s adultery was ground enough in law for divorce, but not vice versa” (Porter 25). Turner pushes against this by emphasizing the spiritual importance of both husbands and wife remaining loyal in their marriage.  For Turner, the inclusion of concubines and second wives in the Bible do not support Christian men having extramarital sexual relations. While this argument does suggest a kind of equality, it also eliminates any possibility for divorce which could be disastrous for men and women alike. Divorce already was seldom granted and only under extreme circumstances which did not include abuse, and Turner’s argument takes it this even further.

After reading Turner’s speech, I was wondering what his alternatives to divorce were. It is overly optimistic to assume that everyone will have a loving or even mutually respectful marriage, especially during the eighteenth century when women were regarded as property. As a twenty-first century, largely secular individual, it seems overly cruel to mandate that a person must stay in an awful marriage out of fear of offending God. If an individual were to get divorced and live a life of celibacy, would that be a suitable solution since there would be no “adulterous” fornication? This would be extremely hard to enforce, and would probably only work under if the divorced individuals entered a community like a monastery. Turner also does not explore annulment as an option for ending marriage, though it may be more suitable since this decision comes from a church figure rather than a legal entity. Annulment could also be suitable because it erases a marriage rather than legally separating the couple. Turner uses many Biblical examples to build and defend his argument against divorce, and knows how to appeal to his religious audience. However, his argument is not practical enough to have an impact on the larger society who may not share the same religious beliefs. While it took many years for it to become more equal and accessible to men and women, divorce laws were eventually reformed to reflect the societal need to get out of marriages. Turner makes a sound argument, but an ultimately impossible one because he does not consider the reality of the state of 18th-century marriages.

 

Works Cited:

Porter, Roy. English Society in the Eighteenth Century. Second Ed. New York: Penguin. 1990. Print.

Turner, J. “A Discourse on Fornication: Showing the Greatness of that Sin; and Examining the Excuses pleaded for it, from the Examples of Ancient Times”.  London. 1698. 18thConnect. Web. Accessed April 2016.

Female Conduct

Digital Humanities Project- Analytical Response

Tim Guman

Digital Humanities Project:

Analytical Response

            In this essay, Thomas Marriott responds to two critics who wrote a negative review of his book Female Conduct, Marriott speaks about himself in third person throughout the essay, referring to himself as “The Author of Female Conduct” (3) and then simply as “the Author.” The book that has been judged by the critic is a female conduct book, “being an essay on the art of pleasing. To be practised by the fair sex, before, and after marriage. A poem, in two books” (Open Library). It seems like none of the remarks made by the critics that Marriott defends himself against have anything to do with his philosophy on female conduct but are rather strictly attacks on his skill and style as a writer. His essay is titled as a modernized version of Horace’s 20th epistle, in which Horace defends himself against critics. This modernization only encompasses roughly the final third of the text. He spends the first two thirds of his essay directly responding to the attacks made by his critics and disparaging the entire field of literary criticism.

            The first critic he responds to “deals in all the small ware of criticism” (2) according to Marriott. He argues that rather than being critically productive, literary critics are simply talentless and petty leeches who intentionally deceive the public and try to show off their pretended wit. Marriott says of this critic, “the principal Aim of his Critical Review is, to mislead and deceive the Judgment of his Readers, by Misrepresentations, and false glosses, and to disparage, and depreciate every New Book, that has not some Recommendation to his Partiality, or some Connection of Interest with him, or his Confederates” (5). This is a huge accusation that seeks to portray his critics as talentless hacks. He even goes so far as to compare the critic to Death itself. This metaphor makes the critic seem like some sort of supernatural evil power: “it may be reckoned a Wonder, that any Thing should escape his petulant censure, for, like Death itself, these small Critics spare nothing” (3).

            He compares his own talent and originality to the critic’s lack of these attributes. The critic accuses Marriott of being too subtle. Marriott responds to this by claiming that “to conceal Art is the Master-piece of Art” (8). The critic, on the other hand, he groups in with people who value “A pert Vivacity, Wit’s Counterfeit” which “Is oft mistaken, for true genuine Wit” (10). Superficially he insults the critics skill and intelligence as he does many times throughout the essay, although he also subliminally challenges the critics manhood by describing him with two feminine words, “pert” and “vivacity.” In Millenium Hall the narrator describes his friend Lamont with the exact same words in regards to his wit: “Thus that vivacity, which, properly qualified, might have become true wit, degenerated into pertness and impertinence” (55). This reveals the author’s attitude that silliness, vanity, and frivolity are all distinctly female attributes and reinforces the binary developing during the 18th century that to be male is to be strictly and distinctly not effeminate.

            Later in the essay, he uses a Greek fable to describe the work of literary criticism. In this particular fable, a critic seeks a reward from Jupiter for diligently finding every flaw in a book. Jupiter tells him to separate the chaff from a large quantity of wheat and he will receive him a reward. The critic spends many hours completing the task. When he is finished Jupiter tells him for his reward he can keep the useless chaff. The moral of this fable is that critical review is a fruitless labor that produces no real value: “he had so diligently sifted and cleared the Grain from the Dross, in hopes of getting Bread for his Pains” (20).

            This essay by Marriott is an interesting look into the intense animosity between authors and critics in 18th century English literature. Clearly, some authors had a very low opinion of literary critics, whereas today critics are held in higher esteem—at least within the field of academia. In the modernization itself of Horace’s epistle, written in verse form, Marriott compares his female conduct book to a female herself. In this case, he likens the book to his own daughter, “bred in private, like a rural Maid” (23). He both celebrates and laments her departure from himself:

You languish […] to roam

And will no longer be confin’d at Home;

Seen by a Few, you now repining Sigh,

Fond to be gaz’d on by the public Eye […]

Go, bold advent’rer! fly away with Speed,

Go, where your giddy Inclinations lead.

But go forewarn’d, from me this Lesson learn, ‘When gone from me, you can never return’

            In this way Mariott takes advantage of the image of the inexperienced, artless female and uses it as a metaphor for his own work. It reinforces the idea that females are meant to be sheltered and protected–that they possess a virtuous innocence that should be fostered. In this metaphor, also, the female is dependent on and a product of the intellectual male.

           

Works Cited

Marriott, Thomas. “The Twentieth Epistle of Horace to His Book, Modernized by the Author of Female Conduct, and Applied to His Own Book. And Intended as an Answer to the Remarks on His Book, Made by the Writer of the Critical Review, and by the Writer of the Monthly Review.”  (Open Library). N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Apr. 2016.

Scott, Sarah, and Gary Kelly. A Description of Millenium Hall. Peterborough, Ont.: Broadview, 1995. Print.

Female Conduct

Digital Humanities Response: Gender in relation to writing in the 18th century

As I edited “The twentieth epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book” by Thomas Marriott, I enjoyed seeing the rhetoric and arguments in a writing piece much more obscure than the popular eighteenth century texts I have been reading. There were several errors or difficult to read sections, which made me pause and think about the writing and context often to figure out what word fit. Also, several sections of the document were in Latin, but they seemed to be interludes or comments, because the story continued in English normally even with these sections in the middle. These Latin sections likely appeal to or reference the classical tradition that older models or writing and criticism were ingrained in. The work as a whole however, actually challenges this tradition by combining it with more modern epistolary conduct literature.

The author’s incorporation of conduct writing is apparent through the narrative focus and epistolary style that we have seen in other literary works that act as conduct books such as Pamela, Evelina, and Roxana. When these conduct books discussed how men should act, they focused on men’s actions in social situations and how they treated women. Marriott also discusses how men should act, but explores men’s actions in an academic setting. He exposes how literary critics of the time cared more about finding flaws in a work than appreciating any of its merits. Marriott’s modernized, hybrid writing style suggests that the classicism of his critics is outdated and restricts their appreciation of newer works. It is also important to note that conduct books were intended to set standards about gender roles, essentially telling the reader what it meant to be a real man/woman; by disparaging literary critics in the context of a conduct book, Marriott does not just denounce the actions of the critics, but also questions their masculinity.

The story describes the lifespan of a book that an author has written and published as it is discovered by the public, panned by critics, and then left to rot on a shelf. Marriott says that the book was “bred in private, like a rural maid” (23) when it was first written. By feminizing the book, Marriott indirectly likens the critic’s attacks to villains taking advantage of a defenseless woman. This shows the power of gender identity in the time period. Marriott is not actually trying to debunk any of the claims the critics have made against his works, he is saying that the claims should not be taken seriously because the critics are not acting gentlemanly. Marriott defends his writing by mentioning that “Ovid says the same Thing to his Book“ (23). This either leads to the conclusion that respected author Ovid would be criticized just as harshly if he was writing today, or that Ovid was criticized as harshly in his own time period; hence, the modern critics emulate the style of those who could not even recognize the genius of someone as famous as Ovid.

It can also be assumed that the book in the story is also a conduct book or at least a book with a moral message. The book has “hurt Vice alone”(25) and asks “Whom have I injur’d with my moral Muse?”(25). This associates the book with God because it is morally just. The book almost seems to be a Christ figure being destroyed by hatred while only trying to deliver its moral teachings. By associating the book with God and morality it also implies that the critics are immoral or agents of the devil. The critics are “fraught” with “Envy” (24), “prejudic’d” (24),”vulgar” (25), and “impotent of Wit”(26). All of these qualities suggest that they go against god and also that they are not respectable as men (notice the use of the word impotent here). Not only are the critics dissociated with masculinity, they are also associated with femininity. Marriott describes the critic’s mercurial writing as one who “Prostitutes his venal Quill”(26). Prostitution was always associated with women, specifically women that were considered immoral and vile. Furthermore, the book “strove hard to merit female Praise” (27) but the critics still do not appreciate it and deliver “The fate of Orpheus underserv’d” (27). In the story of Orpheus he dies by being ripped apart by crazed women, similar to the book being ripped apart by the critics. Marriott is not only saying that the critics are women, but also that they are enraged women who have resorted to violent rage. Marriott even goes as far as to dehumanize the critics as they destroy the book. He describes “This Critic Monster, like a Beast of Prey” (26) that “On you, his Froth envenom’d, he will spit”(26).

Marriott’s main argument centers on attacking the character of those that have disparaged his writing. It seems somewhat hypocritical to argue that these critics are anti-intellectual in their orientation when his entire argument only insults them personally instead of addressing the complaints they have made about his works. The only reason Marriott’s argument works is because of the powerful association between gender and one’s intellectual capacity. Marriott describes how the critics’ immorality and other negative traits reflect on their lack of masculinity, which in turn makes them incapable of intelligent literary reviews. It is unclear if Marriott is actually sexist in his comparisons to women; he may be saying it is bad to be like the women he mentions because they are crazy and immoral or he may be saying it is bad to be like those women because they are crazy, immoral, and women. However, I would say his overall point implies sexism, since if not being male results in anti-intellectualism, and women are not male, then that would make women anti-intellectual. Overall Marriott’s argument becomes superficial as he moves too far away from exposing the critics’ anti-intellectual practices into petty insults. If he had included even one or two examples of unfair criticism towards his work (which he obviously thinks are prevalent), then his argument would be much more valid. This does speak to the power of gender in the time period though, since this argument most likely held up very strongly, and accusations of lacking masculinity were considered real evidence against someone.

Marriott, Thomas (1759) “The Twentieth Epistle of Horace to His Book, Modernized by the Author of Female Conduct, and Applied to His Own Book. And Intended as an Answer to the Remarks on His Book, Made by the Writer of the Critical Review, and by the Writer of the Monthly Review.” Eighteenth Century Collections Online. Gale, 06 Jan. 2004. Web.

Female Conduct

Analysis: “The Twentith epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book”

To edit “The Twentith epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book,” the need for focus and diligence took place. There were several pages with errors and not a single page required a lack of work. Errors ranged from spelling mistakes to wrong punctuation marks. Most of the pages were aligned correctly, but sometimes the lines were close to one another altering the ability to effectively read each line. This was fixed by using Type Wright. Another common change was switching a fancy looking “f” to an “s” (10, 11, 12). This was an easy fix yet quite infuriating when words could potentially be spelt with either an “f” or an “s”. Luckily, overall the pages had little smudges and could were legible in its original state, although fixing the errors will inevitably continue to make the document easier to read. Although the work was relatively easy-going, it is an important task that needed to be done so its content doesn’t get lost through time and technological advances.

While reading the pages for content rather than for clarity and errors, the elements of a conduct book occur. This book does what most conduct books aim to do. Present a good quality and explain the importance and how to lose it. In this conduct book, the speaker states, “Ne’er to the character of Wit pretend. This often loses, seldom gains a friend;”(11). The element desired in this case is the “Wit” and without Wit or rather feigned Wit, it appears the ability to have friends and maintain the relationship is lost. This is similar to other conduct books where Women are told to be chaste in order to be fulfilled by marriage. Women must remain a certain condition if they are to continue relationships such as marriage.   

On page twenty-three, the author iterates, “Go, where your giddy Inclinations lead. / But go forewarn’d, from me this Lesson learn, / ‘When gone from me, you can never return.” He is speaking on the subject of women and diminishing the value of their dreams and goals (inclinations) by describing them as merely giddy wants. To fortify this, the author says that they may never return if they follow their inclinations which now not only devalues the goals of women, but punishes them for following such an inclination. This is relevant to the prior example of women’s supposed need to remain chaste. As women may develop a want to have sex for pleasure rather than duty to a man, there seems to be an inclination in her life. It doesn’t necessarily have to be reduced to giddy, but can still be giddy to her. And by indulging in such sexual nature, women are often shamed by men and society and are never meant to gain a husband because of it. They can never return to the men in society. While this is untrue, conduct books reiterate this concept of shame and chastity and “The Twentith epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book,” definitely pushes this agenda.

He sells this truth by claiming he is authentic. He promotes his fame and poetic nature heavily throughout. He even refers to himself in third-person as “the Author of Female Conduct.” This builds credit as readers will see that the author of Female Conduct would be the most knowledgable and thus trust much of what he states. While claiming this he also bashes his critics. On page six, he describes his critic’s “Ignorance of the Classic Poets.” So not only does he build up his credibility, he diminishes the credibility of those against him so that readers are less inclined to trust his critics, who may have valid critics to his conduct book. Thus readers are to believe all of his inclinations of how women and men should behave.

Works Cited:

Marriott, T.  “The Twentieth Epistle of Horace to His Book, Modernized by the Author of Female Conduct, and Applied to His Own Book. And Intended as an Answer to the Remarks on His Book, Made by the Writer of the Critical Review, and by the Writer of the Monthly Review.” (35) Published by W. Owen, at Homer’s Head, near Temple-Bar, 1759.

A Discourse on Fornication

A Discourse on Fornication Analysis: The Dangers of Women

“A Discourse on Fornication shewing the greatness of that sin, and examining the excuses pleaded for it, from the examples of antient times” by John Turner is a piece written for men of John Turner’s parish outlining the sinfulness of fornication. Turner’s disapproval of fornication and adultery is evident as he condemns fornicators to a life of torment and hell. Turner develops three main arguments regarding the dismissal of fornication; that fornication is against God’s law of marriage, fornication is forbidden by the Bible, and fornication results in other sins. At the center of Turner’s focus lies the danger of women and their ability to lure even the holiest man into the realm of unholy adulterers. Turner’s “Discourse on Fornication” is a piece written for men stressing the dangers of women and their ability to seduce men into adultery.
John Turner, a lecturer of Christ Church in London, wrote “A Discourse on Fornication” at the request of the male members of his parish. The piece is founded on that fact that fornication, although popular with men and women at the time, results in sinfulness and a loss of God. This piece fits neatly within the eighteenth-century scope of male fears of women as bringers of sin and the sin caused by these women because Turner’s devotes countless pages teaching the men of his parish how to resist the sinfulness of women. Turner quotes a bible passage that says, “Keep thee from the Evil Women, from the Flattery of the Tongue of a strange Woman, Lust not after her Beauty in thine Heart, Neither let her take their with her Eye lids; for by means of a Whorish Woman a Man is brought to a Piece of Bread” (Turner, 46). This quote evokes a fear of women’s sexuality, physical beauty, and ability to corrupt holy men with their sinfulness. This passage takes the blame of fornication off of men and places it directly onto women. Turner’s argument is consistent with the argument of many men from the eighteenth century and, unfortunately, today, that women born of Eve are responsible for the fall of man and for all of man’s sins. Turner’s invocation of women as the bringers of sin, as well as a number of arguments about treacherous female prostitutes and concubines, attempts to teach his male audience about the importance of being on guard against women.

In Turner’s eyes, women are dangerous creatures who lead men into adulterous relationships against the Lord. Turner makes a few suggestions to the men in his parish on how to proceed with the temptations of women, saying:

Deliver thy self therefore from the strange Woman, even from the Stranger that flattereth with her Words, which forsaketh the Guide of her Youth, and forgetteth the Covenant of her God. For her House inclineth to Death, and her Paths unto the Dead. None that go unto her return again, neither take they hold of the Paths of Life. And especially, remember that Faith into which you have been baptiz’d; know what manner of Spirit you are of,* and consider the end of your Conversation.  Turner, 54

In this single passage, Turner equates women to fornication and fornication to death, therefore encouraging his male readers to fear women. Where does Turner’s fear of women originate? Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble touches upon the fact that society often excludes “those who fail to conform to unspoken normative requirements of the subject” (Butler, 6). The women Turner suggests lure men into adulterous relationships are the exact subjects Judith speaks of in her investigation of gender, sex, and desire. Women who participated in adultery do not fit into the traditional, Christian marriage norm Turner urges the men in his parish to seek. Turner fears women who engage in adultery because they do not fit the ideal Christian woman. During the eighteenth-century, women and their bodies were meant to be wholly operated and controlled by men, specifically, husbands. Women who engage in fornication suddenly have bodies with power, the power to ruin a holy man. Butler says, “this association of the body with the female works along magical relations of reciprocity whereby the female sex becomes restricted to its body, and the male body, fully disavowed, becomes, paradoxically, the incorporeal instrument of an ostensibly radical freedom” (Butler, 12). The women Turner fears have bodies that are fully disavowed and demonstrate the freedom associated with male bodies. These women are therefore threats to the societal norm Turner exists within, resulting in the extreme apprehension towards women demonstrated in Turner’s arguments against fornication. “A Discourse on Fornication” is a way for Turner to reconcile the fact that women demonstrate a sort of sexual freedom through fornication and, ultimately, have power that is regularly associated with men.

Work Cited
Butler, Judith. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Turner, John. “A Discourse on Fornication shewing the greatness of that sin, and examining the excuses pleaded for it, from the examples of antient times.” London. 1698. Print.

A Discourse on Fornication

A Discourse on Fornication Analytical Response

“A Discourse on Fornication” Response

John Turner’s 1698 text “A Discourse on Fornication” uses Biblical references to center its argument around Christianity and immoral sexual behavior. Similar to other texts regarding sexuality in the eighteenth century, “A Discourse on Fornication” focuses its attention on identifying the deviancy of sexual behavior. Turner goes as far as labeling sexual activity outside of the institution of marriage as an ultimate sin. The text creates its argument by comparing acts of men against God’s “Original Institution”, emphasizing that adultery and fornication violate the Christian ideals of good, and fornicators are refusing their chances at the pure and holy life.

The argument cements itself around the works of God and His approval: there is no discussion of societal assumptions of gender or sex, but an in-depth look at God’s proposed plan and man’s ability to follow his word. Turner blames man’s downfall on their ability to succumb to vice: “the looseness of men’s manners has corrupted their judgments, and defaced their sense of good evil”. Nothing can fall between, no one can be in a purgatory of morality: one is either good, or evil, and sexual deviance leaves you to the “humiliation of God”.

The language of the text is loaded with statements that emphasize patriarchal power structures. Turner speaks on the foul nature of adultery, “especially on the woman’s side, where there is a manifest injury to the whole family”. Women are not seen as their own, but as vehicles that carry their families and are therefore responsible for their moral uplift—or downfall.

Turner’s discourse places emphasis on traditional heterosexual institutions of marriage. It is reiterated through the text that man’s body is not his to own, but it is a possession of God, and one must conduct themselves through the principles of God. Women’s bodies are commodities under male possession and must give themselves to men and become “one flesh”. There is no idea of bodily autonomy; one’s body is not just theirs to own and conduct, but it is a “Servant of God” and must be used to carry out his deeds; bodies are not for individual pleasure, but for servicing those above you:

Christ was raised from the Dead, that he might raise us also to Immortality: and therefore we are bound not to live unto our selves, by giving up our Bodies to Pleasure in the Lusts of the Flesh; but to devote our selves to the Service of that Great God who made us, and to the Obedience of Christ, who died to expiate our Guilt.

Christian morals often center themselves around guilt and the duty of man to obey and service Christ. Man’s existence is validated by spreading the word of God and following the ‘right’ path. By using the Old Testament as the basis of his arguments, all of Turner’s points are his own reconstruction of biblical literature, and how he perceives God’s word: “We are commanded also to be Holy; and Holiness is expressly declared to be that qualification without which no Man shall see the Lord”. There is no salvation if there is no obedience.  Turner strongly emphasizes the evil of all vices, but the language surrounding sexuality places sexual activity in a negative light, deeming it impure and vile. The text stigmatizes sex and any sort of lustful behavior, referring to sexual activity as “vile affection”. Desire is viewed condition under strict religious rule—it is viewed as a problem, not a feeling.

Turner relates vice to uncleanliness; those who indulge their pleasures are not clean to the eyes of God and his disciples:

He becomes in every sence polluted and defiled.*Every other Sin that a Man doth is without the Body, but he that committeth Fornication sinneth against his own Body. The Prophane is injurious to God, and the Fraudulent to his Brother, and the Mischief of all other Sins falls first at a distance from ones self. But the Mischief of Fornication falls more immediately on the Offenders own Head; his own Body is debased in the very Trespass he has committed.

Those who succumb to sexual vices are “Harlots, Jezebels, and Whoremongers” who will be denied entrance to God’s kingdom. To sin against the body is to commit an ultimate crime: one is sinning against the gift that God has given you.

The article “A Discourse on Fornication” gave clear insights into the opinions on sexual deviancy during the eighteenth century. As noted in some of the texts we read for class, such as Trumbach and Harvey, the enlightenment was allowing for more leniency regarding the culture around sexuality, but the prevailing ideas of proper sexuality in Christian religions shaped popular notions of morality and created a discourse around sexuality that emphasized it as shameful behavior.

Works Cited

Butler, John. “A Discourse on Fornication”. London, 1698.

Female Conduct

Reflection on Editing Process

While editing our team’s document, “The Twentieth epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book,” I was expecting to read mostly about how females should behave. Instead, I was shocked to find that the author spent the whole article defending his writing against critics. His defense of his own writing and unusual style of the preface helped me gain a deeper understanding of how important reputation and masculinity were for male writers in the eighteenth century. 

Reputation was everything in the eighteenth century. If someone did not have a good reputation, they were seen as less than other men, and could even be viewed as having undesirable female characteristics, “As a result of these caveats and observations, changing notions of honor and civility have added several layers of complexity to the story of an incredibly sharply defined set of masculine identities” (English Masculinities, 15). To criticize a man’s reputation was to question how masculine he was, a cruel insult in an era of strict gender roles. This is captured in action in Lady Mary Wortley Montagu’s poem, “The Reasons that Induced Dr. S to write a Poem call’d the Lady’s Dressing room,” Lady Montagu destroyed Jonathan Swift by discrediting his reputation as an honorable man. She knew that insinuating that Swift went to a prostitute and had sexual troubles was the best revenge there could be.

As we’ve learned in class, the title and preface often reveal a lot about how the author wants his audience to read the text. In “The Twentieth epistle of Horace,” the preface captures how delicate male reputations were in the eighteenth century. Under the title are the words “Intended as an Answer to the Remarks on his Book, made by the Writer of the Critical Review, and by the Writer of the Monthly Review” (1). Instead of using this introduction to focus on the idea of a conduct book, the author chooses to let the audience know that he’s focusing instead on the criticism he’s received and to protect his reputation from further insult. While the insults his critics use against him are never directly stated, this aggressive defense of his reputation could likely stem from his masculinity being questioned after writing a female conduct novel (Female Conduct, .the third edition). As Hitchcock points out in English Masculinities 1660-1800, women were viewed as both physically and mentally weaker than men, so being compared to one would be the ultimate insult to an author, “The implications of this transition are usually taken to mean that ‘woman’ was constructed in difference from ‘man’, not only sexually passive but physically weaker than men and because of the presumed homology between body and mind, mentally weaker as well” (8). Accusing a man of acting in a feminine manner is to insult his mind, his body, and his sexual history, three things eighteenth century men value highly.

The structure of the piece is very different from what we’ve seen in previous eighteenth-century texts. Instead of the traditional linear form we’ve seen in novels and essays, the author continues to go back to what he states in the introduction. There is very little content that relates to the actual topic of the piece, which are instructions for how women should behave. Each time it seems as if he is going to begin talking about proper etiquette for ladies, he returns to what he says in the introduction. In other texts, the preface is used by the author as a disclaimer to mold the way the readers read the book. For example, the preface in Roxana tells the readers that if they see anything improper in the text, it’s the dirty mind of the reader and not the fault of the writer, “And all without raising a single idea throughout the whole, that shall shock the exacts purity, even in the warmest of those instances where Purity would be most apprehensible” (31). This way, the writer frees himself from any criticism by assuring the audience that it was written with good intentions. He then continues with the novel without restating the thesis as obviously. The author of The Twentieth epistle takes a different route, and instead spends the entire text referring back to his preface. Even halfway through the novel, he continues to refer back to his preface, “By this we see, how detestable and contemptible these two Roman Scriblers had rendered themselves to all Men of Candor and Genius, by their arrogance” (17). This intense focus on the preface shows how desperate the author is to restore his reputation and reclaim his masculinity.

Editing “The Twentieth epistle of Horace to his book, modernized by the author of Female conduct, and applied to his own book” helped me understand how different the writing style and structure was in the eighteenth century compared to today, but the most important thing I took from this document was an understanding of how a man’s masculinity depended heavily on his reputation, and that honor was so important that they would rather defend their honor than write about the subject of their book.

Bibliography

Hitchcock, T. “English Masculinities.” (n.d.): n. pag. Web. 26 Apr. 2016.

Marriott, T.  “The Twentieth Epistle of Horace to His Book, Modernized by the Author of Female Conduct, and Applied to His Own Book. And Intended as an Answer to the Remarks on His Book, Made by the Writer of the Critical Review, and by the Writer of the Monthly Review.” (35) Published by W. Owen, at Homer’s Head, near Temple-Bar, 1759.