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.

Caroline McCarthy

Our group transcribed a conduct book called A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honorable Marriage, released in 1750 by Dr. E. Cother. Throughout the book, Cother gives advice to young men and women on how to properly behave in a relationship, and ultimately proposes that both sexes can have the opportunity to learn these behaviors through an established marriage agency. Cother claims that there are a lot of eligible young men and women in society, but most of them are unequipped and undereducated in socializing with the opposite sex. Women, in particular, “have not been so properly introduced into the world as they ought” (32) as the result of a restricting education and sheltered upbringing.

Cother goes on to explain how the marriage agency would ideally operate: there would be two separate “Offices” that educated the members of each sex how to properly court a woman or how to behave when being courted by a gentleman. Women need to maintain their “delicacy” (71) throughout the courtship and hide away any anxieties, doubts or frustrations they have. Men, on the other hand, need to respect their woman’s boundaries whether they’re on a date or in “correspondence” with letters and such. Towards the end, Cother also explains that women and men cannot let their guards down, so to speak, even after they are legally married. Specifically, men should still have enough respect for their wives to know not to “intrude himself into matters in which he never had the least concern” such as “stalking into his Lady’s dressing room without due notice given” (73).

The biggest surprise our group had from this was that it was actually written as a book, instead of just an outline of a set of rules. There are specific rules made by Cother, but they are defined and explained in a narrative-like structure. It seemed to be more of a “how-to” book; Cother was trying to help “prevent and hinder…rudeness and indecency of any kind” (49) when eighteenth century young adults try to find a marriage partner. Furthermore, we thought that these rules would be more about the type of person one should or shouldn’t marry, based on the social ethics, laws and principles of that time period. So, we expected rules with age limits, prohibition from interracial marriage, homosexual marriage, and/or marriage between people of two different classes or backgrounds. Yet, none of these social taboos were even mentioned, much less enforced, by Cother. Overall, Cother’s tone was very matter-of-fact as opposed to personal; she was rehashing the social rules that she’s been taught in order to help the younger generation, not necessarily to push her own beliefs or agenda.

Reading this piece gave us a lot of insight into gender roles and expectations of affluent young adults of the time period. Women were not only expected to be pure, well mannered and adjusted to the idea that their main role in life was as a wife and mother, but they had to constantly act a certain way in public if they wanted to be socially accepted (not just by eligible bachelors, but everyone they and their families were connected with). They had to play the part of the “delicate” china doll that remained emotionally neutral and passive when out in public. Men had to be the ‘perfect gentleman’ at all times.

We also learned that finding a significant other and being in a relationship at that time was a long, calculated process for both sexes, and it could easily take a downward spiral if one of them doesn’t follow the rules. Cother explains very specific rules regarding courtship, including one about when/how to end a date. Specifically, if a woman on a date wishes to go home, then she should instruct “the person on Guard” to call for a coach and then notify the man of where she is going. In turn, the man must respect this and “be obliged not to depart till such Lady’s Coach, or Chair, has been gone from the Door with her for at least Five minutes” (49). If the man wants to leave the date first, then he must leave on his own and let the “Guard attend to Lady” (49). Other rules similar to this one imply that a courtship choreographed by the marriage agency is short, formal and planned out, and any romance, leisure or intimacy is forbidden.

If either sex did not properly play the role that society expects of them, Cother explains that the ramifications would have a domino effect on everyone involved. For instance, if a woman threw a tantrum at a party, then it would affect her reputation as a woman worthy of marriage. If she had a suitor at that time, then he’d be compelled to break it off before his reputation was damaged. Additionally, her parents’ reputations would be damaged, and they will cease to be invited to important social events or have access to the most exclusive clubs from then on. Apparently, reputation is everything to high society people, and even one mistake can destroy an otherwise perfect reputation. According to Cother, that is why a marriage agency is required; so women and men can better understand and become accustomed to the rules of being an unmarried adult. As far as Cother is concerned, the only way a young adult can truly understand and appreciate the social structure behind relationships is by learning them from marriage ‘experts’ (as opposed to learning them as they continue to date different people) and, as a result, find a suitable marriage partner in a short time.

WORKS CITED

Cother, E.  “A serious proposal for promoting lawful and honourable marriage. Address’d to the unmarried, of both sexes.” Published by W. Owen, at Homer’s Head, near Temple-Bar, 1750.

The document that my group and I edited, A Serious Proposal for Promoting Lawful and Honorable Marriage, felt very much aligned with one of the prevailing themes in the novels we read: romance and marriage. Just as the works we were assigned to read could be interpreted as guidebooks for how women and one man, were meant to act in civic engagements during that period in history, our chosen document, concentrated on both how to court and react to courtship for both sexes. Specifically, I wished to inspect the interactions and power dynamics that I saw emerge in the document as a prominent theme and compare it to the ideas of more recent female writers on the plight of women during the 18^th Century.

The document was split into various sections, each specifying a different part towards the path of marriage. It was astonishing and a bit reassuring the first time I went through Cother’s piece to find that men and women of status, with all the resources, connections, and wealth at their disposal had the exact same problems of dating that still plague both genders today, such as how long a courtship should be, where to rendezvous with one another, and what to talk about.

At the start of the work, Cother opens up by explaining how the subject of marriage arises in an individual’s mind and how, if one truly intends it as the next stage of their life, two individuals are to introduce themselves to each other, advising to “immediately declare the open and honest Sentiments of their Hearts, and make no Scruple of coming directly to the Point,” (p. 5) However, after this instruction on presentation, Dr. Cother opens up with a first-person account on how he accompanied an associate of his to a friend’s dinner. This friend recounted how he and his newly wedded wife came to know one another and marry and how it awakened that same desire for companionship in Cother, who, bases his document on this short but influential event.

This was another aspect of the document that had me taken aback, that Dr. Cother structured each section of his advice in an intimate fashion, as if he were talking to the reader directly during a time where formality was considered to be the norm.

Given that it was written in 1750, I would have thought that Cother would be much more distant and authoritative in providing counsel to his readers. Though it was unexpected, it was a welcome surprise and I felt as though it was to accommodate the reader as a way of reassuring him/her that these problems are natural and that not everyone knows the ins and outs of dating. It was a method to draw readers in and allow them to relate and go through the extensive requirements needed for a courtship to go smoothly.

The next part was the most uncomfortable to come to terms with, as Cother concentrated on explaining how both a man and woman would have to enroll with their genders’ respective registries for interviewing one another for two hours, with the lady evaluating the man’s “fortune, disposition, or person, as she should choose to make her a husband,” (p. 3). While listing off the various requirements and actions that these registries provided, option XXIV caught my eye as it stated that “any parent, uncle, or brother shall be at liberty to register a daughter, niece, or sister, if above the age of twenty-one years, provided the private direction for future correspondence be to themselves,” (p. 53).

I found that this was essentially forcing any female capable of making her own decisions into marrying whatever individual her patriarchs wished for. It was a simple yet effective method of controlling what kind of man she would be exposed to. I was immediately reminded of a part introduced in Armstrong’s Desire and Domestic Fiction piece, where she touched upon how women were represented as both “economic and political objects,” rather than tools to be used in their own, private households. (15.)

In her piece, Armstrong argued that the work of the Edgeworths’, which is outlined in the work, Practical Education from 1801, showed an antithesis to these registries, which I saw as a form of indoctrination for arranged marriages. In their program, the Edgeworths’ prioritized the “schoolroom and parlor over the church and courts in regulating all human behavior.” (14) Given the span of a 50-year difference between the two works, it showed how much political power and the different kinds of identities that could be obtained by such a small change of where the “subservient” members of society were sent in such a small amount of time.

Given the amount of time and effort that Cother put into describing the requirements and tasks of these registries, I was taken aback when he introduced something completely out of the blue: his own objections and rules on how these registries should be used. Up until this point, the document had largely been an informal talk to describe the various cogs of dating and in my opinion, had fit women into the bubble brilliantly described by Carole Pateman. In her article, The Disorder of Women, Pateman notes that women’s “sexual embodiment prevents them enjoying the same political standing as men.” (4.) This goes along well with how men at these one of these facilities treated woman: not as political equals, but as a means to an end in a their own schemes. However, Cother was now describing what he thought was okay to do to a woman and what wasn’t.

In this objection he came up with what I took as his own version of a woman’s virtue that I’d gotten so used to hearing from our readings: a woman’s delicacy. Cother explained that this delicacy made any lady “free from all matrimonial engagements,” and allowed her to marry only when she herself had “no-objections to.” (66) Reading this for the first time, I wondered why everything I’d read from section XXIV was being backtracked, but once I had reread both the section and his new protests, I realized that he wasn’t contradicting himself, but expanding on his idea of courtship.

Though he makes the registries the main topic of his discussion during the early part of his article, he never advocated his support of these registries, but only gave a detailed overview of how they operated. Once I recognized this idea, I came to circle back to his intimate language in the document, and remembered that as a male author writing about this topic, more of his readers would be men rather than women. This idea came to make sense with me, as more men would have been educated than women during this time, and would have been more likely to read through the entire document to hear his support for free-minded women. Cother is appealing to the nature of men during this time: listing the possibilities and then the potential wrongdoings that these possibilities pose of attempting to subjugate a woman through these registries.

A later point that Cother’s made supported my thinking, where he appeared to take pride in how English women specifically, had acquired a much more “liberal and free a way of thinking, talking, and acting, in point of religious matters than was ever so much as dreamt of by their simple Grand-Mothers,” (p. 69). Here, he settles on the idea that women have become more liberal and free-willed in their entire persons than women two generations back. While it is a bit sexist on his part, believing that women didn’t deserve this right a couple generations back, it shows his growth as man believing that women deserve to choose for themselves who they spend the rest of their life with, since their delicacy triumphs everything else, a point that Ms. Pateman also agrees on, as she adamantly states in the same article that “consent is at least, if not much more, important in private as in public life.” (12.) Both these authors, although centuries apart, agree that consent/delicacy must be the key way in which relationships move forward in society. Both individuals in a couple must be comfortable engaging in activities of romance rather one overruling the other, and it is satisfying to see this agreement between the two writers, since it is something I agree with as well.

Works Cited:

Armstrong, N. (February 1990) “Introduction: The Politics of Domesticating Culture, Then and Now.” Desire and Domestic Fiction. (pp. 3-27), Published by Oxford University Press.

Pateman, C. (1989) “The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism, & Political Theory. (pp. 2-16), Published by Stanford University Press, Stanford California.

Cother, E. (1750) “A serious proposal for promoting lawful and honourable marriage. Address’d to the unmarried, of both sexes.” (pp. 75) Published by W. Owen, at Homer’s Head, near Temple-Bar