Tag Archives: gender

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 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.

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.