VICE OR VIRTUE? AMERICAN INTERPRETATIONS OF ELIZABETH WHITMAN AND

MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT IN THE LATE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY

By Cassondra F. Harris

A thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate Studies Division Ohio Dominican University Columbus, Ohio

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH

MAY 2019

ii

iii

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iv

INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1

CHAPTER 1………………………………………………………………………………………7

CHAPTER 2……………………………………………………………………………………..17

CHAPTER 3………………………………………….………………………………………….29

CONCLUSION…………………………………………………………………………………..43

WORKS CITED…………...…………………………………………………………………….44

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I must acknowledge Elizabeth Whitman and Mary Wollstonecraft, who displayed courage and intelligence in a time when women were given little voice. I feel inspired by your life and writing; I hope I served you well through this project. I would like to thank Dr. Kelsey Squire for being so open and receptive to my idea for this project. It was from her class that I thought of the idea to write about Whitman and Wollstonecraft. Dr. Squire has offered a wealth of knowledge on this topic and I cannot thank her enough for both her guidance with this thesis and for conducting such organized and interesting classes throughout my program at Ohio Dominican University. Much thanks to Dr. Imali Abala, who provided feedback from an outside perspective that was vital in completing this thesis. Her detailed comments motivated me to delve even further into my analysis and to build a stronger argument. My mom was told by her high school counselor that college would be a waste of her time, but went on to earn a bachelor’s degree and two master’s degrees. She encourages me to take advantage of every opportunity life presents. I am grateful to have her as a role model, mother, friend, and grandmother to my son. My mother and father-in-law have continually offered me words of encouragement and cared from my son when I needed to study. I thank them both for their helping hands. My son, Jameson, was born just a few weeks before I started this program. Although I do not think he would sit still through them now, up until he was six months old I was reading him critical essays I had to read for class. He is my biggest joy and I thank him for his patience and understanding when Mommy could not play, but had to complete homework. Most of all I thank my husband, Kevin, for his dedication to our family and for being a continued source of support. He has had to pick up the slack in caring for our son and home and has never once complained. Without his support I would not have been able to complete this degree.

1

INTRODUCTION

Women’s Roles in Late Eighteenth Century America

The years of Whitman and Wollstonecraft’s later adulthood and death, the 1780’s and

1790’s, were the two decades following the American Revolution. During the years of war, many women proved to themselves and others that they could be self-sufficient; they cared for their families, property and finances in their husbands’ absence. As a result of the war, men achieved freedom, but women were not recognized as such under the law. Historian Jan Lewis explains that women, unless widowed, could not hold property. When married, they went from being subordinate to their father to being under the authority of their husband. It was typical and expected for a woman to marry, have children, and care for her family and home (23-24).

It is not surprising that men were held to lower moral standards than women in the late eighteenth century, but it is important to note that these moral standards were defined by the private sphere for women and the public sphere for men. Ruth H. Bloch argues that women were thought to be as rational as men, but only in their private virtue of “temperance, prudence, faith and charity” (Bloch 42). They were considered more able to regulate their sexual desires, which is why female virtue for unmarried women was closely tied to being chaste. Women were expected to instill morality in their children and were thought to be responsible for the morality of America. These discrepancies in virtue denied power to women of all social classes (Bloch

58). Men had the ability to engage in business and politics. Male virtue was defined as “the willingness of citizens to engage in civic life and to sacrifice individual interests for the common good” and achieve glory and notoriety for public service (Bloch 38, 44). Men who were cowardly, dependent, luxurious, or idle were considered feminine, as they were weak qualities of feminine men, furthering the notion that females were the weaker sex (Bloch 44-45). On the 2 other hand, as Betsey Erikkila explains in her article “Revolutionary Women,” females who entered into politics or business were seen as manly, but this was not a positive thing as their homes and families were thought to be neglected (190).

During this time books were more readily available and the moral values illustrated in popular works of fiction were questioned. Cathy Davidson argues that due to the growing popularity of libraries in America, as well as the more cost effective methods of printing, books were more accessible to people of all social classes, including women (Revolution and the Word

10, 27). Fiction was popular in many of the libraries and was criticized, mostly by those of the upper, educated social class. There was a fear that those who were not formally educated, undoubtedly including women who did not have access to universities, would emulate the unvirtuous behavior illustrated in some of the novels they were reading (Davidson Revolution and the Word 49-50).

Background and Biographical History of Elizabeth Whitman and Mary Wollstonecraft It is hard to ignore the parallels between the fate of Elizabeth Whitman and that of Mary

Wollstonecraft. Both women died in their late 30’s after complications from childbirth, Elizabeth

Whitman in 1788 and Mary Wollstonecraft in 1797. Whitman was the daughter of a respected clergyman from Connecticut, and members of her mother’s side of the family had led the government in that state for generations. She was known in her community for being both intelligent and amiable (Davidson Revolution and the Word 141). Despite her good reputation,

Whitman secretly fled to the Bell Tavern in Danvers, Massachusetts where she gave birth, and waited for a man who never came. She died around two weeks after delivering a stillborn child.

Wollstonecraft faced a somewhat similar disappointment when she was rejected by her first lover, Gilbert Imlay, several months after giving birth to his child out of wedlock. 3

Wollstonecraft met Imlay in Paris in the spring of 1793. She was already well known as the author of the feminist text, The Vindication of the Rights of Woman, published in 1792 in

England. Imlay was an American and a writer. She understood herself to be in a monogamous partnership with Imlay and hoped to move with him to America. Their relationship was complicated by his absence during business trips and his affairs with other women.

Wollstonecraft later married British writer and philosopher William Godwin in March of

1797, after becoming pregnant with her second child. Godwin and Wollstonecraft were devoted to each other, but did not believe in the traditional concept of marriage. As Peter Marshall describes in his biography of Godwin, Wollstonecraft did not want to “face once again the social ostracism of bringing an illegitimate child into the world,” so the two conceded to marry (185).

Wollstonecraft died from an infection almost two weeks after the birth of her second daughter.

The life choices made by Whitman and Wollstonecraft would have been discussed around the same general time period due to the texts published about each woman’s life. The

Coquette, by Hannah Webster Foster, was published in 1797, just one year before William

Godwin’s Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Memoirs was released in London in 1798, and later published in America in both 1799 and 1804. Given that the full title of Foster’s novel is The Coquette; or The History of Eliza Wharton; a Novel

Founded on Fact, many thought the text to depict Whitman’s life accurately through the fictional character, Eliza Wharton. The account of Whitman’s death was a topic of discussion and rumor, even before Foster’s epistolary novel was published, as it was documented in newspaper reports throughout the east coast (Davidson Revolution and the Word 141). Wollstonecraft’s reputation was tainted after Godwin published Memoirs, which exposed her affairs, mental instability, and suicide attempts (Davidson Revolution and the Word 132-133). Godwin included details about 4 the ways in which his wife courageously supported her friends, family, and even herself.

However, these points were overlooked by much of the public. The narrative of the lives of

Whitman and Wollstonecraft quickly turned into cautionary tales about the dangers for women who lived an egalitarian lifestyle and desired freedom from being subordinate to a man.

Research Interest

When completing coursework for my master’s degree, I read Hannah Webster Foster’s

The Coquette, published in 1797 and loosely based on the life of Elizabeth Whitman. I was struck by the way Mary Wollstonecraft’s argument in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, printed in America in 1792 and reprinted in 1794, resonated through Hannah Webster Foster’s novel. Foster’s seemingly cautionary text appeared to provide subtle questions about a woman’s role and limitations in society. I became interested in the lives, works, and texts written about these women, who in many ways, led parallel lives. I was surprised to find that most research discussing Whitman and Wollstonecraft focused on them separately, or together only on a superficial level. Scholar Bryan Waterman has done extensive research on the life and works of

Elizabeth Whitman as well as the articles that describe her disappearance and death. He mentions

Wollstonecraft, but only in the connection to the correspondence both women had with the same family. Three letters from Wollstonecraft to Ruth Barlow, and fourteen letters from Whitman to

Joel Barlow, as well as one from Whitman to Ruth, were discovered in Barlow’s writing desk among a group of manuscripts that came to be known as “The Baldwin Collection” (Waterman

“The Letters” 565). This collection holds the only known works written in Whitman’s hand.

Waterman examines Whitman’s letters, but does not compare them to Wollstonecraft’s. Another prominent scholar, Cathy Davidson, makes a brief connection between the similarities in the 5

“reactionary moral” drawn from the public response after the deaths of Whitman and

Wollstonecraft (Revolution and the Word 140). Davidson analyzes notices and articles that mention each woman, however, she does not compare these specific examples from American newspapers. A closer examination reveals not only that the Whitman and Wollstonecraft had friends in common and suffered a similar death, but that both women attempted to reject the female norms regarding marriage, independence, and separate spheres to gain freedom and autonomy. Whitman and Wollstonecraft were human beings strong enough to resist the laws and customs that limited women; they were not debauched, irrational, or masculine, as they were characterized after their deaths. It was then that American society slowly changed the women’s narratives to illustrate the negative consequences of female liberation.

Chapter one will explore the ways in which Whitman and Wollstonecraft challenged the social norms concerning marriage and the separate spheres as evidenced through their letters to

Ruth and Joel Barlow. The Barlows seem to be a progressive, and open-minded audience as

Barlow shares his written works with Whitman and Ruth seems to be privy to the business ventures of her husband.

Chapter two will analyze the ways in which Foster, in The Coquette, and Wollstonecraft, in The Vindication of the Rights of Woman illustrate the dangers of irrational behavior in women, and question the societal values that limit them in the late eighteenth century. The two texts may at first appear dissimilar, one a seemingly cautionary text, and the other an informative piece discussing the ways in which women’s roles in terms of marriage, education, and personal autonomy, must be redefined; however, they both illustrate similar messages in regard to the foundation for a woman’s marriage, education, and need for freedom. 6

Chapter three will examine the public response to the deaths of both women, as well as the texts written about them, The Coquette and Memoirs. These public responses reflect the

American society’s value of a woman’s private virtue much more than they reflect the ways in which Wollstonecraft and Whitman were immoral. Through this written reaction, that was often male-authored, the public reaction shifted from being positive or neutral, to negative. The lives of Whitman and Wollstonecraft were turned into cautionary tales, and served the agenda of warning women who may challenge traditional female norms.

7

CHAPTER 1

OPPOSITES OR COUNTERPARTS? LOOKING AT THE LETTERS OF WHITMAN AND

WOLLSTONECRAFT WRITTEN TO THE BARLOW FAMILY

The similar defiance of female norms as evidenced through the letters of Whitman and

Wollstonecraft has been overlooked by scholars. Each woman corresponded with the Barlows during different periods of time; the letters surviving from Whitman were written between

February of 1779 and May of 1781, and those from Wollstonecraft between February of 1793 and July of 1794. However many similarities, some subtle and some apparent, can be noted through each woman’s written communication with this family. By examining these letters together, we can note that Whitman and Wollstonecraft valued the idea of egalitarian marriage and had experience in the male sphere of business and publishing.

Elizabeth Whitman met both Joel and Ruth Barlow before they were married, in 1778 when she was visiting Betsy Stiles in New Haven, who was the daughter of Yale President Ezra

Stiles. Joel Barlow was the fourth son to a farm family in Connecticut. He graduated from Yale and was serving as a tutor to her brothers when he became acquainted with his wife, Ruth, in fall of 1778. As recounted by biographer Richard Buel, both of Joel’s parents died while he was at college. He was not left with a great inheritance, and had many school bills (15-16). At the time when he was corresponding with Whitman, Joel was an aspiring writer and poet. Ruth’s mother died when she was a child, and when her father, a blacksmith, remarried ten years later, he moved his family to New Haven where four of his sons would go to college (Buel 30-31). Ruth’s father, Michael Baldwin, did not approve of their relationship, and the two wed in secret on

January 26, 1781, not revealing to their families that they were married until a year later. 8

Whitman may or may not have had feelings toward Joel, and flirts playfully with him in their early letters, referring to him as her husband, probably instigated by the evening they were asked to pretend to be husband and wife during a game of forfeits (Buel 32). In any case,

Whitman respected the relationship of Joel and Ruth, especially as their marriage became imminent. She may have even conspired with him on ways in which he and Ruth could secretly meet (Waterman “Coquetry and Correspondence” 552).

Wollstonecraft became friends with Ruth and Joel Barlow later, in 1791 as she was finishing Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Barlow’s book, Advice to the Privileged Orders, was published in London one month after Wollstonecraft’s Vindication. He and Wollstonecraft worked with the same publisher, Joseph Johnson. Barlow and Wollstonecraft respected each other’s ideas, and quickly became friends. Wollstonecraft was particularly close with Ruth

(Gordon 163-164). Joel Barlow was a friend of Gilbert Imlay, with whom Wollstonecraft became acquainted in Paris in 1793 and would eventually have a romantic relationship.

Wollstonecraft was in France at the time in order write a first-hand account of the French

Revolution. She received a commission from Joseph Johnson to write a series of letters based on her experiences and observations (Gordon 180-181). Imlay was already well known for his

Topical Description of the Western Territory of North America, published in 1792, in which he describes the land of the American frontier in the area of Kentucky. In addition to being an author, he was a land speculator, so his writing perhaps, as Cynthia Richards asserts, served a dual purpose of encouraging readers to purchase land in the tract he owned (77). During the time of Wollstonecraft’s correspondence with Ruth, Barlow and Imlay had been living in Paris, working as land surveyors. Barlow was not successful, as he was involved in a scheme selling land in Ohio that the Scioto Company did not truly own (Gordon 168-169). As mentioned in one 9 of Wollstonecraft’s letters, it also seems that Barlow and Imlay were working together in 1794 to transport a cargo of confiscated treasure (Buel 186-187).

Marriage as a Partnership

Representations of the relationship between a man and woman in the letters of Whitman and Wollstonecraft illustrate an atypical idea of marriage and a partnership of equals. Both

Whitman and Wollstonecraft use the term “husband” to refer to men to whom they are not legally wed. Although they were probably not romantically involved, Whitman refers to herself as Barlow’s “wife” and speaks of Ruth as being his “second wife” throughout their correspondence. Again, this conceit probably originated from a game of forfeits in which

Whitman and Barlow pretended to be married (Buel 32). However, these descriptions seem to suggest a Wollstoncraftian partnership between men and women, not a romantic relationship. In a letter dated February 16th, 1779, Whitman writes that Barlow is “the paragon of Husbands- were all married men like you, what a happy world for our Sex!” (qtd. in Waterman “The

Letters” 569). Whitman feels that Barlow is the epitome of a perfect man. She references his

“genius” and “noble” behavior several times within the letters (qtd. in Waterman “The Letters”

584), but here she seems to believe that this perfection is uncommon as it is tied to the way in which it can help women to lead more fulfilling lives. Here “married man” appears to be code for true friend, as it relates to Barlows respect and partnership with women. At this time he was not formally wed to Ruth either. Whitman may feel that the world would be a better place if all men could reach this state of perfection.

Wollstonecraft was romantically involved with her male companion, Gilbert Imlay, however the two never married. Wollstonecraft’s premarital relations with Imlay would be one 10 of the reasons her name would later be associated with scandal after her death, as he eventually left her. Wollstonecraft felt married to someone to whom she was not legally married, which is perhaps how Whitman felt towards the man who did not meet her at the Bell Tavern in Danvers,

Massachusetts in 1788. The first two of the six letters of Wollstonecraft to Ruth are signed “M.

W.” and “M. Wollstonecraft.” At the closing of her third letter to Ruth, written on February 3,

1794, Wollstonecraft signs her name as “Mary Imlay,” denoting a change in the way she thought about her commitment and relationship to Imlay from her previous letter written in mid-1793.

Her following three letters are simply signed “Mary.” There are several explanations as to why she may have changed her signature. Biographer Lyndall Gordon explains that during the time of the French Revolution, British subjects were in danger. Imlay registered Wollstonecraft at the

American Embassy as his wife so she could have the protection of being considered an American citizen. Shortly after, they took up a home together in Paris and she became pregnant (Gordon

210-211). This indicates that Wollstonecraft felt completely committed to a monogamous relationship with Imlay, even though they were not married by law. On April 27 of 1794,

Wollstonecraft writes to Ruth, “you perceive that I am acquiring the matrimonial phraseology without having clogged my soul by promising obedience” (Collected Letters 253). This is probable due to the laws that limited women and considered them not as individuals but covered by the umbrella of their husband under the law. Lyndall Gordon believes it illustrates

Wollstonecraft’s “need for commitment as well as freedom” (213). In their text, New Letters of

Mary Wollstonecraft and Helen M. Williams, Kurtz and Autrey acknowledge Wollstonecraft’s need to be protected as an American under the law, but also believe this may indicate that

Wollstonecraft felt a marriage would no longer exist when affection had diminished (68-69).

Gordan’s point seems the most likely. The sentence suggests that Wollstonecraft is committed to 11 her partnership with Imlay, but is still able to resist the law and custom of being submissive to him. Her phraseology supports her the idea that to truly be partners, men and women must treat each other with respect and as equals.

Part of the equal partnership illustrated in the letters is the idea of fruitfully contributing to the world together. For Whitman this means literary productivity. Whitman refers to the

“muses” as the children of she and Barlow, suggesting that together they will create pieces of writing that are of strong merit, reflecting a partnership of equals. Her letter dated February 22,

1779 questions, “Pray how does our family of muses do? & what do they do? I hope you do not keep them in idleness” (Waterman “The Letters” 572). This is a lighthearted way for her to inquire about how much writing Barlow has completed and a way for her to indirectly encourage him to be productive. The idea that the muses are their family implies that Whitman has a role in the creation of Barlow’s writing. The conceit continues as she asks for an update on July 1 of

1779 by writing, “What is become of the muses? I begin to grow very impatient for some account from Parnassus” (Waterman “The Letters” 583). As Bryan Waterman explains in his notes to this letter, Mount Parnassus is associated with Greek mythology as the home of the muses and could be used to represent the location in which Barlow was living (“The Letters”

598). Several of the letters, including the one mentioned above, refer to the ways in which the two critiqued each other’s work. This idea of marriage seems to imply that there is a sense of intimacy and trust that exists between the couple.

Barlow entrusts Whitman with his work and values her opinion, as illustrated in her response to the reading of his pieces in her letter dated March 29, 1779. She refers to one of his poems she has read recently, commenting that she is “flattered by the liberty which you allow me of critiquing yours.” She compliments him by pointing out her favorite lines of the poem, but 12 does not hesitate to add, I have made two or three slight alterations in it too trifling to mention only of single words. I will show you when I see you” (qtd. in Waterman “The Letters” 575). In her letter dated December 28, 1779, Whitman provides Barlow with one of her own poems for critique, and other letters mention works she has sent him previously. This reminds me very much of the way people refer to colleagues today as their “work spouse.” The productive, yet platonic union Whitman describes is one of mutual respect and a partnership of equals.

Part of this relationship seems to be the way Whitman advocates for Barlow’s writing.

She provides him feedback on his work, as he does for hers. She follows through with this commitment as we even see her encourage Barlow’s writing through her letter to Ruth. Whitman explains to Ruth on November 25, 1782, “men of genius with whom you have a right to class your Husband, they have always been poor from time immemorial, I need not mention Homer, the prince of them” (qtd. in Waterman “The Letters” 591). Ruth had presumably confided her fears about poverty to Whitman. Whitman tries to calm Ruth’s anxiety by justifying Barlow’s career as a poet in stating that men who are the most successful writers and thinkers have often been poor. During the time of their correspondence, Barlow was also becoming distressed about his lack of resources and insufficient time to write. He desired a career as a poet, but was unable to find a patron. Due to his need for money, he became a brigade chaplain in 1780, during which time he continued to write poetry (Buel 40). Several of Barlow’s poems were published in

American newspapers in the years shortly thereafter.

In contrast to Whitman, Wollstonecraft and the “husband” she notes in her letters produce together a true offspring, one that they both seem to hope will cultivate the same intelligence and strength that Wollstonecraft sets forth in her famous literature. On May 23, 1794, Wollstonecraft adds the note on to her original letter written on May 20 that Fanny nurses, “so manfully that her 13 father reckons saucily on her writing the second part of the R-ts of Woman” (Collected Letters

256). Here it does not seem that Imlay is criticizing his daughter, but stating that she is sturdy of body because she is so healthy, and strong of mind due to the fact that he compares her abilities to those of her intellectual mother. Earlier in the letter, Wollstonecraft tells Ruth that she has a

“vigorous little Girl” and goes on to state that Ruth underestimated the “quantity of brains she was to have, and the skull it would require to contain them” because she made most of the caps for her too small (Collected Letters 255). Like Imlay, she acknowledges her daughter’s potential as an intellectual by suggesting that she will be capable of reason and critical thought.

Wollstonecraft mentions her own strength as a woman in this letter, as Cynthia D. Richards points out that “After the birth of Fanny, [Wollstonecraft] continues to represent herself as particularly fecund” (85). Richards’ argument is valid as Wollstonecraft explains to Ruth that the birth natural method of childbirth was somewhat easy. Lyndall Gordon explains that this process included experienced female midwives, as well as the baby’s father (229). Wollstonecraft states that her midwife, “twenty years in this employment, and tells me, she never knew a woman so well- adding…that I ought to make children for the Republic” (Collected Letters 255). Even here

Wollstonecraft characterizes herself as being robust and more self-sufficient than other women.

It seems that she may have gained some of this strength from her partner, whom she assumed to think of her as an equal, and created a female child who would be physically strong and intellectually productive, like her mother.

Education, Business, and the Separate Spheres

Wollstonecraft and Whitman surrounded themselves with educated people, and this led to their productivity of work. They both had the desire to cultivate their mind. Although Whitman 14 is portrayed as a lover of sentimental novels in the articles that followed her death, as well as in

The Coquette, the letters include references to poets and works of well-known authors such as that of Shenstone, Rochefoucauld, and Addison (574, 575, 585-586). Bryan Waterman notes that due to her travels around New England, Whitman and Barlow had many of the same educated friends. They were both well acquainted with Abraham Baldwin, Yale graduate and brother of

Ruth, and Timothy Dwight, another Yale graduate who was a poet and educator who would later write a satirical piece, “Morpheus,” in which he criticized Wollstonecraft. It seems apparent through her letters that Whitman was an avid reader of multiple genres and that she was a respected member of a literary society that was made up primarily of men.

It is well known that Wollstonecraft was a writer who worked outside of the traditional female private sphere, and famous both in her time and presently. The importance she placed on her career is evidenced in a letter written on February 3, 1794, when she mentions to Ruth, “I should be much obliged to Mr. Barlow, if he would get me the debates and decrees, from the commencement of that publication and order them to be sent here” (Collected Letters 250).

Kurtz and Autrey note that she is referring to the publication from the National Convention which she referenced when including factual information in writing, An Historical and Moral

View of the Origin and Process of the French Revolution and of the Effect it has Produced in

Europe (63). Wollstonecraft also states that she is “in want of my poor books” which she probably left in Paris, given that she is writing from Havre (Collected Letters 250).

Wollstonecraft educated herself through her reading, was serious about her career outside of the female sphere, and took time to meticulously prepare for the publication of her work.

Both women seem to understand business and cross the line of keeping separate spheres.

Part of Whitman’s advocacy for Barlow’s work is helping him find job placements, and to 15 become noticed as a poet. She seems to especially use her knowledge of Timothy Dwight, who was a poet and educator, to her advantage. In her letter written on May 10, 1779, Whitman writes

Barlow that she spoke with Dwight and that he would be traveling near New Haven, where

Barlow was living. Whitman encourages Barlow to attempt to meet with Dwight, as to, “consult him your self I sincearly [sic] wish you may for I know of no person so capable of advising or assisting you either in fixing a plan or executing” (qtd. in Waterman “The Letters” 579-580). The plan she refers to is his wish to become a published writer. This reveals that she knows enough about the publishing world to steer Barlow in the direction of a person knowledgeable in the field. In a letter written on December 18, 1779, Whitman tells Barlow of a potential job opening at Dwight’s school, which she feels would be a good opportunity due to the “advantages of study

[he] can have no where else” (qtd in Waterman “The Letters” 1779). Barlow had already spent a month teaching at Dwight’s school earlier that year (Waterman “Coquetry and Correspondence”

552). Whitman is advocating for Barlow, with the understanding that he could learn much about writing and become an even stronger poet under the guidance of Dwight.

It is also apparent that Wollstonecraft and Ruth are privy to the business ventures of their male partners. As biographer Richard Buel describes, Imlay and Barlow were involved in a secret business in which they were “exporting confiscated treasure and importing provisions.”

He points out that it is unclear as to if the venture was “official[ly] sanctioned” (186).

Wollstonecraft alludes to her knowledge of this business several times in the letters, including her note on April 27, 1794, “There has been some plague about the shipping of the goods, which

Mr. Imlay will doubtless fully explain- but the delay is not of much consequence as I hope to hear that Mr. B. enters fully into the whole interest” (Collected Letters 253). Wollstonecraft appears to know even more than she writes because she includes that Imlay will explain the 16 delay himself. She reaches out to Ruth to perhaps encourage Ruth’s husband Barlow to be partners with Imlay. She writes later on May 20 of the “continual hindrances” that stress Imlay due to the “mismanagement of some of the people intrusted [sic] with the concerns of the party”

(Collected Letters 255). His stress seems to make him “feverish” on July 8, 1794, as

Wollstonecraft includes, “his mind has been harass [sic] by continual disappointments- ships do not return, and the government is perpetually throwing impediments in the way of business”

(Collected Letters 257). As is apparent in the letters, Wollstonecraft has a clear understanding of her partner’s business, and even a hand in some decisions. Furthermore, it seems as if Ruth has been trusted by her husband to have some knowledge of his male sphere of business ventures as well.

The Barlows seem to be an open and receptive audience who respect and value women who challenge social norms. Even after the correspondence seems to have ended, Wollstonecraft was still on the minds of the Barlows. In a letter to his wife written on July 8, 1796, Joel writes of Wollstonecraft, stating, “You know her worth, her virtues, her talent...She has friends...But they may forsake her for reasons which your enlightened and benevolent mind would rather be an additional inducement to contribute to her happiness” (qtd. in Gordon 307). At this point in his life, Barlow was traveling and wanted to relay his final wishes, as he feared that he would become ill. His sentiment regarding Wollstonecraft conveys Barlow’s progressive attitude as he is able to recognize her intelligence and merit while subtly acknowledging fault with those who may criticize her. We can hope the same acknowledgement of worth, virtues, and talent would also extended to Whitman.

17

CHAPTER 2

SYMPATHETIC OR CAUTIONARY? A READING OF THE COQUETTE IN

CONJUNCTION WITH A VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN

Both The Coquette, by Hannah Webster Foster, and A Vindication of the Rights of

Woman, by Mary Wollstonecraft, explore the roles and limitations of women in the late eighteenth century. The Coquette appears to be a cautionary tale about the consequences of women who behave immorally and irrationally. The protagonist, Eliza Wharton, who is loosely based on Elizabeth Whitman, allows herself to be seduced even after being cautioned by friends, has a child out of wedlock, and dies shortly after childbirth. A Vindication of the Rights of

Woman is an informative piece that attempts to redefine women’s roles in terms of marriage, education, and personal autonomy. At first the texts have the appearance of being in opposition.

However, Foster’s seemingly moral ending raises similar, subtle questions about a woman’s place in society. Many scholars have debated as to whether or not The Coquette should be read as a sympathetic text, or as cautionary. Through the fictional character of Eliza Wharton, Foster presents a sympathetic view of Elizabeth Whitman, while simultaneously criticizing the restrictions imposed on women. Foster and Wollstonecraft illustrate the dangers of irrational behavior in women and question the societal values that limit them in the late eighteenth century.

The Coquette and A Vindication of the Rights of Woman explore the need for women to exercise both freedom and restraint. Wollstonecraft argues that women will never "become enlightened citizens, till they become free by being enabled to earn their own subsistence, independent of men" (Wollstonecraft 289). Wollstonecraft’s idea is illustrated through the character of Eliza Wharton. Eliza’s issues with freedom stem from the fact that she is obliged to follow her father’s wishes because she is unable to support herself. She must rely on a man while 18 single, and is encouraged to continue to do so through marriage. Foster portrays Eliza as a victim of her society right from the very beginning of the The Coquette, in that she, in her mid-thirties, is forced to become engaged and care for a man to whom she felt "shackled” because “parental authority imposed" the match (Foster 13). Eliza believes marriage to be a "very selfish state"

(24), probably because she feels the imbalance of freedom in the union that would have occurred should her fiancé, Reverend Haly, have lived. It is not until Eliza’s father dies that she experiences the “pleasure on leaving [her] paternal roof” (Foster 5). The combination of her father’s passing, as well as the death of her fiancé, of whom she nursed, result in this complete feeling of liberation. After being courted by both Reverend Boyer and Major Sanford, she explains to her close friend, Lucy Freeman, that she does “not intend to give [her] hand to any man at present… and wish[es], for a while, to enjoy... freedom, in the participation of pleasures, suited to [her] age and sex” (Foster 50). Even after, Eliza struggles with this new found independence because she feels pressured to secure a husband to safeguard her future. Eliza overcompensates due to this pressure and her desire for freedom makes her behave irrationally.

She allows Major Sanford, a rake, to manipulate her despite the fact that he has makes her suspicious when requesting that she break off her “connection with Reverend Boyer, and to engage not to marry him without his consent or knowledge" (87). Eliza’s behavior is particularly frustrating when she does not consider the rational input of her family or friends, even after claiming that she needs "advice more than ever" (87). Her lack of experience with freedom leaves her confused and searching for a way to maintain her false sense of independence.

The only way for Eliza Wharton to remain in control is by becoming coquettish, the very behavior Wollstonecraft warns against in Vindication. Wollstonecraft argues that “strength of body and mind are sacrificed to libertine notions of beauty, to the desire to get themselves settled 19 by marriage—the only way women can rise in the world” (83). Ruth Abbey reads

Wollstonecraft’s argument as stating, “To acquire a husband, women are encouraged to be coquettes, to flirt, and to conceal their true feelings from the men who court them” (81). She notes that Wollstonecraft emphasizes “an imbalance between partners- one enters the relationship out of necessity while the other exercises greater choice” (81). Abbey’s argument is reasonable. Because men often have the privilege of the “greater choice” it is implied that they will have more power and control in a marriage. In The Coquette, Eliza writes to her friend, Mrs.

Richman, that she will marry Reverend Boyer “after a while (when I have sowed all my wild oats)” (Foster 68). Eliza accepts that she will one day need to marry, but postpones any marriage proposal in order to remain in control for as long as possible. Being free from a man is the only way Eliza can exercise power in her society. However, she puts off marrying Reverend Boyer to seek pleasure with Major Sanford. Ruth Abbey’s argument about imbalance goes hand-in-hand with Gillian Brown’s idea about consent in The Coquette. Abbey argues that all of the characters in The Coquette encourage Eliza to consent to their wishes for her “they differ only in the consequences to which they want her to consent” (638). Because Eliza does not wish to consent to the male driven norms of her society, she faces an “entanglement of freedom and constraint”

(Brown 639). The problem with her resisting consent is that Eliza “never quite say[s] yes or no,”

(Brown 639) resulting in the loss of her courtship with Reverend Boyer and becoming the mistress of Major Sanford even after he marries.

In both Foster and Wollstonecraft’s texts, successful marriages must be based on mutual affection and respect. In Vindication, Wollstonecraft asserts that “marriage will never be held sacred till women, by being brought up with men, are prepared to be their companions rather than their mistresses” (289). She takes this argument a step further by stating, “Fondness is a 20 poor substitute for friendship!” (112). Wollstonecraft advocates for a marriage in which both spouses are considered equal partners. The word “friendship” implies that both husband and wife will respect each other. Ruth Abbey points out that Wollstonecraft’s ideal relationship might not be as passionate as those founded on a high romance, but will result in a truer, longer lasting relationship because it is founded on a “rational approach” of friendship (84). Cathy Davidson argues that Eliza Wharton desires a marriage that would fit into this definition. Davidson asserts that Eliza believes in Wollstonecraft's ideal, as she “determines to marry in the future only if reason and fancy, in her mind and heart, are both engaged” (“Flirting with Destiny” 29). This is why Eliza is not able to marry Reverend Boyer or Major Sanford. Eliza “can esteem the

Reverend Boyer’s moral nature, admire Major Sanford’s easy manners, but...Neither really meets her requirements, and those requirements are not invalidated over the course of the novel”

(Davidson, “Flirting with Destiny” 29). This is also why she would not have been happy if married to Reverend Haly, her fiancé who passed away before the opening of the story. Eliza tells Lucy Freeman that “Mr. Haly was a man of worth; a man of real and substantial merit”

(Foster 5). However, he was selected by her parents. Their union would have been founded on her parents’ respect and affection for Reverend Haly, not her own. Part of the sympathy generated for Eliza is that she is not really presented with a man who would suit her. Readers get the sense that a marriage to either man would not be in Eliza’s best interest.

The importance of respect, friendship, and companionship in marriage is illustrated through the failure and success of unions in The Coquette. The failure of Major Sanford and

Nancy Sanford’s marriage illustrates what happens in a relationship where men and women do not have mutual affection and do not consider each other equal partners. The Sanfords’ marriage is doomed from the beginning due to Major Sanford’s outlook on the subject. Major Sanford 21 explains in Letter XI to his friend, Mr. Charles Deighton that "marriage is no part of [his] plan, so long as [he] can keep out of the noose" (Foster 23). He plans to marry for the sole reason that it is "a necessity of mending [his] fortune" (Foster 23). He only views marriage as a kind of confinement. Davidson argues that in The Coquette, even virtuous women are not able to have a happy marriage if their husband does not enter the union for the right reasons. Davidson’s assessment is valid, as the behavior of Major Sanford results in financial ruin for Nancy, “a woman shown to be intelligent, kind, honest, and attractive” (Revolution and the Word 144).

Even though Nancy is wealthy, Davidson argues that she "fares almost as disastrously as Eliza"

(144) because she was seduced by a man who only wanted her for her wealth, and has no control of her wealth after she brings it to the marriage. Nancy’s situation can be read as a critique of the laws that perpetuate a man’s power by forcing women to relinquish control of their wealth to their husband after marriage.

However, it is important to note that Major Sanford’s decisions resulted in his ruin.

Foster sets up the situation so that what is destructive for a woman also results in negative consequences for a man. Major Sanford did not commit to a marriage of partnership. Foster illustrates that when a man takes advantage of women, it will result in the destruction of the man’s character as well, which readers see this through Major Sanford’s demise. Sanford feels guilty, but this guilt does not redeem him. He endures the “disgraceful and torturing effects of

[his] guilt” (Foster 116) and thinks himself to be a "vagabond in the earth" who is "debarred from every kind of happiness" (Foster 166). Major Sanford warns his friend, Mr. Deighton, to learn from his mistakes and “shun the dangerous paths which [he] has trodden” (Foster 166).

Davidson agrees that through Major Sanford’s situation, Foster illustrates the negative consequences for both men and women. Davidson argues that because of his failure in marriage, 22

“he has lost everything- his wife, his mistress, his legitimate child, his illegitimate child, and the fortune for which he has married… [it is only then] that he can...estimate his true worth”

(Davidson, “Flirting with Destiny” 30). Foster’s illustration of Major Sanford’s downfall adds to the sympathetic reading of the text. Foster chose to place the blame for Eliza’s fate not only on her decisions, but also based on the choices of the unvirtuous man who seduced her.

Foster portrays a marriage of companionship that Wollstonecraft would idealize through the illustration of the Richmans. Cathy Davidson recognizes that, “the Richmans, whose marriage exemplifies the Wollstonecraftian ideal of a partnership of equals” is also admired by

Eliza (Revolution and the Word 143). Eliza feels their marriage is "The purest and most ardent affection, the greatest consonance of taste and disposition, and the most congenial virtue and wishes distinguish this lovely couple" (Foster 14). If Eliza ever marries, she hopes to “be thus united” (Foster 14). This seems to convey that Eliza has some hope for the possibility of a happy marriage. Their union appears less “selfish” than some others that Eliza criticizes. I agree with

Davidson’s argument that Eliza does not set her standards too high, but “encounters no equivalent of General Richman” (Revolution and the Word 143). Foster does not offer Eliza an alternative who she finds worthy of a marriage of companionship. General Richman is not only higher ranking than the other men, but assumes a higher sense of morality and character

(Davidson, Revolution and the Word 143).

Foster characterizes Mrs. Richman as the ideal, rational, and intelligent woman. Mrs.

Richman’s rationality in encouraging Eliza to marry Reverend Boyer, a man she does not love, may be due to the fact that she has found so much happiness in her own marriage. Although Mr.

Richman abides by some of the gender norms in regards to marriage, Mrs. Richman challenges 23 the idea that women belong out of the male sphere of politics. Mrs. Richman explains to a group of men and women in her home:

We think ourselves interested in the welfare and prosperity of our country; and,

consequently, claim the right of inquiring into those affairs...We shall not be called into

the senate or the field to assert its privileges, and defend its rights, but we should feel for

the honor and safety of our friends who as thus employed. (Foster 44)

The audience is inclined to respect the fact that she is a woman who is interested in the world outside of her home, as well as respect the men who “applauded Mrs. Richman’s sentiments”

(Foster 44). General Richman seems to dislike the idea of separate spheres as Eliza explains that, “he would rather enjoy her [Mrs. Richman’s] company at home, than any which is found abroad” (Foster 61). Eliza goes on to state, “I despise the married man or woman, who harbors an inclination to partake of separate pleasures” (61). This relates closely to Wollstonecraft’s argument that men and women should not exist in separate spheres, but together in all areas of society. Wollstonecraft believes, “that to improve both sexes they ought, not only in private families, but in public schools, to be educated together. If marriage be the cement of society, mankind should all be educated after the same model, or the intercourse of the sexes will never deserve the name of fellowship” (289). Scholar Gillian Brown makes the case that Mrs. Richman does not want “political equality for women,” and feels that Mrs. Richman insinuates that their role as women is not in the “senate” or “field” (642). This argument seems unlikely. Mrs.

Richman is not stating that women should be barred from being “called into the senate or field,” but simply that they do not have access to those roles and should invest their interest in politics in any way possible. Foster appears to be making a similar argument to Wollstonecraft through the character of Mrs. Richman in that women and men need to be seen and treated as equals to 24 better themselves and society as a whole. Eliza is presented with men who would not allow her this type of freedom.

Foster and Wollstonecraft’s texts showcase the ways in which a woman’s education impacts the success or failure of a marriage. In Vindication Wollstonecraft argues that men have designed an education for women that places value on being “alluring mistresses rather than affectionate wives and rational mothers” (79). Ruth Abbey points out that this type of education is not helpful to men either. She believes that the implication of Wollstonecraft’s statement is that “Rational and virtuous men are also disadvantaged, for women are not educated to value their minds and merits” (82). Abbey goes on to stress that with this type of education, men of good merit will lose out to those who are “superficially attractive,” resulting in a marriage that has a faulty foundation (Abbey 82). Abbey’s point is conveyed in The Coquette through the love triangle of Reverend Boyer, Major Sanford, and Eliza Wharton. Reverend Boyer, who is

“happier in her company than anywhere else… [and who is] a reasonable creature” (Foster 17), is a man of sincere affection for Eliza. Reverend Boyer is slighted by Eliza when the charming and seemingly gallant Major Sanford shows interest in her. Lucy Freeman warns Eliza that although Major Sanford might appear to be a “finished gentleman,” he is in fact “well practised in the arts of seduction; by triumphing in the destruction of innocence” (Foster 20). He knows how to flatter and attract women, despite his true intentions. Major Sanford never plans to marry

Eliza. His “art of seduction” is illustrated further through Nancy, whom he “deceived ...into marriage by insincere professions of love” (Foster 130). The marriage of Major Sanford and

Nancy has a faulty foundation. Wollstonecraft’s argument aligns with Foster’s negative portrayal of their marriage: “A man or woman of any feeling must always wish to convince a beloved object that it is the caresses of the individual, not the sex, that are received and returned with 25 pleasure; and, that the heart, rather than the senses, is moved” (203). If a marriage is founded on the merit of one’s mind, men and women are more likely to be committed and not stray from their partners because they would “value one another for their virtues of character rather than their physical beauty, status, wealth, or femininity or masculinity (Abbey 84). The Sanford’s marriage declines because Nancy was taken in by Major Sanford’s act. He strays from Nancy because he marries her for monetary reasons, not for the intelligence of her mind. Foster and

Wollstonecraft both showcase the need for women to be educated and the need for rational women and men to seek partners of merit.

Foster illustrates the redemptive qualities of Eliza’s education as well as the downfalls, which subtly support Wollstonecraft’s argument about a woman’s education. Shelley Jarenski believes that “the negative side of female education in [The Coquette] is presented as a foil for the positive, redemptive qualities granted to education within them” (64). She argues that Eliza’s intelligence is mentioned often in the novel to “explain both men’s attractions to her and her opinions toward them” (63). This makes sense, as Mr. Selby, a friend of Reverend Boyer, reports after meeting Eliza that she has “a fund of useful knowledge, and extensive reading which render her particularly entertaining; while the brilliancy of her wit, fluency of her language, the vivacity and ease of her manners, are inexpressibly engaging” (Foster 46). Earlier in the text, Reverend

Boyer is taken by Eliza’s “accomplished mind” (Foster 10). This type of intelligence is what men of good character find attractive and what could potentially lead to a strong marriage by

Wollstonecraft’s standards. Eliza claims that she is attracted to educated “men of letters” (Foster

50). Jarenski notes that Eliza is “often critical and skeptical of Major Sanford in his education and abilities” (64). Jarenski cites Eliza’s letter to Lucy Freeman in which she mentions “During tea, the conversation turned on literary subjects, in which I cannot say that Major bore a very 26 distinguished part” (Foster qtd. in Jarenski 64). Eliza is intelligent enough to recognize Major

Sanford’s faults. She has the potential to see beyond Major Sanford’s seduction, but she ignores her intuition because she is limited by her society. Eliza has the choice between two men who are not a good match for her. What Eliza does not have is the ability to reach her academic potential through education. Through Eliza’s situation, Foster implicitly critiques the limited education available to women in America in the late eighteenth century. Jarenski analyzes Foster’s argument as “vigorously against those who believed that education would ruin women for marriage…[Eliza’s] fate show[s] that it is precisely the refusal of available education that ruins women” (Jarenski 65). This subtly applies to Wollstonecraft’s argument, as women and men would benefit from having access to the same education. If they had equal access to education, the result would only be a more productive, successful society.

It makes sense that The Coquette closes with a letter from Julia Granby, a single woman who has the purest moral standards and who tries to reason with Eliza throughout the text. Julia

Granby pleas with Eliza at many times in the novel to not be seduced by Major Sanford, “a man of debauched principles” (Foster 136). Julia’s ability to see through Major Sanford, even at their first meeting, indicates that she possesses the same traits that Wollstonecraft values in women.

Julia is reasonable, moral, and a pillar of friendship. Even Major Stanford notes her ability to discern the truth. He explains in a letter to Charles Deighton that her, “inquisitional eye” (Foster

140) will soon see his plan to escape with Eliza. He goes on to state:

there is a girl...I should never attempt to seduce; yet she is the most alluring object...the

dignity of her manners forbid all assaults upon her virtue….the very expression of her

eye ...tells you plainly, that the first insinuation of the kind would be punished with

eternal banishment and displeasure! (140) 27

Julia is noted by Stanford as being unseducible, which implies that her character is even stronger than that of Eliza or Nancy. She is a woman who is not taken in by his appearance and who judges him truly for his merits, of which he has none. She is someone who would want for both her friend and herself to be in a marriage where they would be “companions rather than their mistresses” (Wollstonecraft 289). In the last letter of the novel, Julia Granby writes to Mrs.

Wharton to inform her that she respectfully visited Eliza’s grave. While there, Julia shed “tears of friendship” (Foster 168). Julia also gives credit to another reasonable friend, Lucy Sumner, for

“giv[ing] orders for a decent stone to be erected over [Eliza’s] grave” (Foster 168). These women truly care for Eliza, listen to her concerns about marriage and family, and advise her to behave rationally throughout The Coquette. Wollstonecraft believes that “the main pillars of friendship, are respect and confidence” (290). Foster seems to illustrate the same, as Julia Granby is Eliza’s confidant, who shows her respect even after her death by visiting her grave, and giving her mother an account of the stone so that it might “alleviate her grief” (Foster 169). Gillian Brown argues that this letter serves to end a cautionary tale, as it “mark[s] Eliza’s end… [as] another fallen woman” (644). Brown asserts that women such as Julia Granby are “annoying exponents of gender and class properties rather than advocates of the rights of...women” (643). I disagree, as I see Julia Granby, although extremely moral, as an advocate for women’s independence and education. Julia intelligently advises Eliza, and has the ability to see through the motivations of men such as Major Sanford. Julia remains single and is not swayed by the pressures of her society, at any point, to attempt to attract a husband.

Hannah Webster Foster and Mary Wollstonecraft skillfully argue that women in the late eighteenth century deserve the same rights as men. Although some believe that Foster is the proponent of a moral message about women who attempt to step out of the gender roles of their 28 society, her argument is subtly embedded in her sentimental novel, The Coquette. Women in the late eighteenth century, and all time periods, should be able to have access to education and the ability to be independent. Women should be encouraged to marry for affection and only if they desire. These rights would only serve to elevate the society of both men and women.

It is difficult to tell if Foster was somehow influenced by the writing of Wollstonecraft.

She may have been more likely to borrow from Wollstonecraft’s ideas during the time in which she wrote the novel, as it was published in 1797 a year before Godwin’s Memoirs. In Cathy

Davidson’s, Revolution and the Word, she describes that after the public response to Memoirs was so negative, “American sentimental writers were quick to deny that they might be guilty of borrowing from Wollstonecraft. The contretemps over the Memoirs also effectively silenced many of the advocates of women’s rights in America” (134). In any case, The Coquette is an anomaly; much writing in association with Whitman and Wollstonecraft after their deaths is male authored and unsympathetic to women of their position and hardship.

29

CHAPTER 3

TRUTH OR FICTION? WHY THE NARRATIVE CHANGED: THE PUBLIC RECEPTION

OF THE LIVES OF WHITMAN AND WOLLSTONECRAFT

The caution against coquetry and furthermore, women who stepped out of the feminine norm, was on the minds of the American public previous to the deaths of Whitman and

Wollstonecraft, and much before the publication of The Coquette or Memoirs.

The satirical article “A Modern Coquette’s Account of Herself,” published in 1786 in both The Salem Chronicle and the Essex Adviser, displays a good indication of traits that were both valued, and scorned in a woman in America in the late eighteenth century. In this article, the fictitious coquette describes herself as “hav[ing] a mutual taste for extravagance and pleasure …

[being] passionately fond of running into debt, and hav[ing] an utter aversion to going to church”

(265). Descriptions such as “a mutual taste for extravagance and pleasure” indicate the value of the opposite; a woman was supposed to be humble, not showy in her wealth. The word

“pleasure” could relate to indulgence as it is associated with sex, recreation, and idleness. The value of a woman’s private virtue is stressed here, as it suggests that women who do not go to church have loose morals. The speaker of the piece states she is “bewitching,” insinuating that these types of women could be manipulative and take advantage of others, especially men. The self-proclaimed coquette says that these types of women are so immoral that they focus on pleasure to the point where they will flirt with men, even if they themselves are married (265).

For all of these reasons, women who exhibited coquettish behavior could be deemed as dangerous.

Similar descriptions were used in association with both Whitman and Wollstonecraft as their life choices became public knowledge following their deaths. Articles that describe them in 30 this way were often male authored and unsympathetic. Their achievements in writing, and previous positive reputations were overlooked as their stories were slowly painted into cautionary tales for women. The public response to the deaths of Wollstonecraft and Whitman, as well as the response to the major texts written about them, The Coquette and Memoirs, reflect the American society’s value of a woman’s virginity, private virtue, and submissiveness.

Reputation before their death

Before noting the rumors, myths, and speculations set forth after their deaths, we must consider what we absolutely know to be true. Overall, Whitman and Wollstonecraft appeared to enjoy a strong reputation previous to their deaths. Elizabeth Whitman’s life was not recorded in the same way as Mary Wollstonecraft’s, but we know she was a poet who exchanged her work with friends. Whitman was close with scholars, including Joel Barlow, and Ruth’s brother,

Abraham Baldwin, as is mentioned in her letters. She was intimate friends with Betsy Stiles, who was the daughter of the president of Yale. As Bryan Waterman notes, Whitman “knew something about the inner workings of revolutionary America’s nascent publishing industries” because she advised Barlow on how to publish his work and be better known as a poet

(“Elizabeth Whitman’s Disappearance” 331). Whitman’s strong reputation was mentioned in many articles that outlined her death, as well as the fact that she was a minister’s daughter.

There is more recorded in regard to Wollstonecraft’s reputation in comparison to that of

Whitman. Wollstonecraft was then, and is today, more widely known than Whitman, so the further record of her life seems reasonable. Previous to her death, Wollstonecraft was known publicly by the ideas she set forth in her published writing. After the publication of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, the text for which she was most well-known, Wollstonecraft did face 31 some criticism, but much of the American public response to the text, and associations with her character, were positive, as evidenced through American essays, reviews, and illustrations.

Support for Wollstonecraft’s argument in A Vindication of the Rights of Woman can be noted in magazines from the time previous to her death. The first volume of The Lady’s

Magazine and Repository of Entertaining Knowledge, published in 1792, includes a tribute to

Wollstonecraft on its frontispiece. In this artwork, as scholar Betsy Erkkila describes, ‘“The

Genius of the Ladies Magazine” presents a petition for the Rights of Woman to American

Liberty, and passages from Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman are excerpted within it” (219). In this illustration, another woman, carrying a laurel wreath, also approaches the woman personifying liberty, but stands in the background, seemingly waiting to crown women with the victory wreath after American liberty grants women this true freedom.

Here, Wollstonecraft’s notions about a woman’s freedom are essential to understanding the value of female liberty in the country. However, the male reviewer of Vindication in this magazine explains that he “perused this volume with great pleasure” and found “a vast variety of reflections, solid and entertaining.” He recommends the text, although he was not able to “agree with our fair authoress in all the points she contends for” (qtd. in James 102). Although the reviewer disagrees with some of Wollstonecraft’s ideas, he conveys that the work is of value.

There is nothing insulting included towards the book or its author. An editor of The Lady and

Gentleman’s Pocket Magazine of Literature and Polite Amusement writes in the first issue, published in New York in 1796, that Wollstonecraft is the “champion of her sex” and supports her ideas by stating that there is “nothing of higher importance to the nation than education, the habits, the amusements of the Fair Sex” (qtd. in James 102). This reviewer supports

Wollstonecraft’s argument completely, even including the word “champion” to indicate that she 32 herself has triumphed over the usual limitations dealing with a woman’s education and habits in writing and publishing this reasonable argument.

Further admiration for Wollstonecraft can be seen through the writing of Charles

Brockden Brown. He published his essay “The Rights of Woman” in both pamphlet form, titled

“Alcuin; A Dialogue,” and in the Philadelphia publication, Weekly Magazine, in 1798 after being inspired by his reading of Wollstonecraft’s, Vindication. The essay presents a fictitious conversation in which the speaker has a dialogue with a female. Scholar Janet James describes that this speaker “discussed every phase of the women problem, the question of intellectual equality, education, occupations, political rights, and marriage” (115). Brown’s ideas set forth in this essay seem to align with the authors’ of the previous reviews, acknowledging the validity of

Wollstonecraft’s argument about female equality. Although Wollstonecraft had died in 1797, the first publication of Memoirs in America was in 1799, but was published in London in 1798.

Because Brown was American, it is unclear as to if he had access to Memoirs at the time he published his essay in 1798. Therefore, there is no telling if Brown was in any way influenced by the knowledge, or lack thereof, of Wollstonecraft’s choices that were criticized following the publication of Memoirs.

It seems ironic that the life choices of both women would not have been public knowledge if they did not die. The fact that both women had children out of wedlock and may have been associated with men who did not have the best intentions was not publicized until after their deaths. For Whitman, this knowledge was circulated through the detailed newspaper accounts that disclosed information, some of which was false, about her habits and connections.

For Wollstonecraft, the criticism came through articles in response to Godwin’s biography,

Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in which he discussed positive 33 aspects, such as Wollstonecraft’s integrity, but also the fact that she had children with men to whom she was not married and suffered mental breakdowns. If they had not died, perhaps

Whitman nor Wollstonecraft would have suffered a change in their reputation, as their questionable decisions would not have been recorded in books or newspaper articles.

Memoirs, Newspaper Articles, and The Coquette

The publication of Godwin’s Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of

Woman was very much responsible for the negative response to Wollstonecraft, both in America and across the Atlantic. It appears as though Godwin truly wanted to honor his wife. He does acknowledge her struggles, but focuses primarily on her intelligence, charm, and ability to overcome obstacles. In many ways, he describes Wollstonecraft as heroic. He includes details about her defending her family against her physically abusive father, “often throw[ing] herself between the despot and his victim” (4) the way in which she was “considerate and kind” to servants, and how she displayed “the mirror of patience with children” (12). Godwin acknowledges the social assumption that a woman who desires equality and acceptance in a male sphere must physically appear manly. He explains that most “expected to find a sturdy, muscular, raw-boned virago; and they were not a little surprised, when…they found a woman, lovely in her person, and, in the best and most engaging sense, feminine in her manners” (20-21).

Still, after the publication of Memoirs, Wollstonecraft was described and illustrated in caricatures as being manly in appearance, as if a woman who as Godwin describes, was the “champion of her sex” (20) could not possibly appear or act feminine. He explains that due to her experience as a writer, travels, and time spent living in France, many enjoyed conversing with her: “Wherever

Mary appeared, admiration attended upon her” (38). Despite the fact she never married Imlay, 34 many of her acquaintances pretended she was a married woman. After acknowledging that she was not married in fact, and went forth with her marriage to Godwin, she retained more friends than she lost, keeping those who she “principally valued” (38). The public response overlooked many of these details. The criticism of her romantic choices, sexual behavior, and work outside of the private sphere were recorded in many newspaper articles following the publication of

Memoirs.

The public knowledge of Whitman and the events surrounding her death, came from articles widely published throughout the east coast, although not in her hometown of Hartford, or in New Haven, where she had many friends (Waterman “The Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail”

302). In his essay, “Elizabeth Whitman’s Disappearance and her ‘Disappointment,”’ Bryan

Waterman examines what he calls the “three waves” of reception that showcase, “an eagerness to convert the story of her death…into moral lectures” (330). The first notice of Whitman’s death, published in the Salem Mercury on July 29 of 1788, presented only what was factually known about her death, the circumstances surrounding it, and painted her in a neutral light. The unnamed writer of the Salem Mercury states that her “writings and manners, bespoke the advantage of a respectable family and good reputation” and she was “amiable & engaging…though in a state of anxiety and suspense” (qtd. in Waterman “The Elizabeth

Whitman Paper Trail” 302). It is important to note that this article does not directly criticize

Whitman.

The narrative in regard to Whitman’s death started to change after this first notice.

Waterman argues that the narrative is altered “into a cautionary tale circulated by informed gentlemen for the benefit of the public, especially young women readers” (“Elizabeth Whitman’s

Disappearance” 334). The most notable works are the published letters of correspondence in 35

August of 1798 between Jeremy Belknap, a minister from Boston, and Benjamin Rush, a physician and social reformer who was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. Belknap directly writes, “the story may serve as a good moral lecture to young ladies- for this lady…was handsome, genteel, and sensible, but vain and coquettish; a great reader of romances…and having coquetted it ‘till past her bloom, fell into criminal indulgences” (qtd. in Waterman “The

Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail” 303). These letters were followed by the publication of two poems attributed to Whitman, one titled “Disappointment,” directed to her lover who never arrived, and a new year’s poem, dedicated to Joel Barlow. After the publication of these poems an anonymous writer using the name “Curiosos” published an article in the Massachusetts

Centinel on September 24, 1788. He mentions the merit of Whitman’s writing but also that she was irrational, much like the sentiment expressed by Belknap and Rush (Waterman “The

Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail” 304-305).

The way in which Hannah Webster Foster was identified, or pseudonymously identified as the author of The Coquette both in advertisements for the novel and the cover of the novel itself, perpetuated the male-authored, unsympathetic reading and further spun the book as cautionary. The first advertisement for The Coquette was published in the Massachusetts

Mercury on August 22, 1797. The advertisement read, “Just Published (In 1 vol. neatly bound and lettered, price 1 Dollar,) Sold by E. LARKIN, No. 47, Cornhill, THE COQUETTE; or The

History of Eliza Wharton, a Novel, founded on fact. By a Lady of Massachusetts” (qtd. In

Shelnutt 420). As Cathy Davidson asserts, it was not uncommon for a woman’s name to be omitted from the novel she authored due to the negative stigma associated with fiction, especially romance, and because a name would identify a women with a career, which was typically considered to be outside the realm of her feminine duties (Revolution and the Word 31- 36

32). However, it is interesting that the author of The Coquette is identified as being from

Massachusetts, suggesting that she may have some connection, or knowledge of Whitman due to the fact that Whitman died in the writer’s home state. Even the title of the novel included the words “founded on fact” as many readers assumed the tale to be a true and factual representation of Elizabeth Whitman’s life (Waterman “Whitman’s Disappearance” 331). The idea that the novel was “founded on fact” adds to the idea that this female author from Massachusetts writes with a sort of authority or knowledge of Whitman.

Much like the notices discussing Elizabeth Whitman’s death continuously published more information about her, the advertisements for The Coquette continued to include more detailed information about the identity of Foster. The information disclosed about Foster in the advertisements for her novel suggest that she is a woman of private virtue and strong morality, and furthermore that her novel will reflect that character. The language describing the novel and its author suggests that it should not be associated with the other texts dealing with romance as it illustrated moral values. On August 30 1797, the Massachusetts Spy published that The Coquette was “written by a Lady near Boston, and is much admired” (qtd. in Shulnutt 422), and on

November 11, 1797, Greenleaf’s New York Journal advertised that the book was, “An original, new, and excellent novel…by the Lady of a Clergyman in Massachusetts” (qtd. in Shelnutt 422-

423). This further description immediately associated the author with an assumed religious faith because she was the “Lady of a Clergyman” and it promotes the content of the novel as being wholesome because it is “excellent.”

The most detailed description of both Foster, and the content of her novel, was published in The Dairy and Mercantile Advertiser on November 8 of 1797, and includes language that promotes Foster and her novel to be the pillar of morality. The advertisement specifically states 37 that she is the “wife of a Clergyman of Massachusetts,” an occupation that Whitman was accused of resisting due to monetary reasons. This could be perceived as having the duel consequence of illustrating Foster to be religious woman, and highlighting the idea that she was not vain as

Foster. Unlike the real life counterpart of her novel, Foster accepted the proposal of a man from occupation and status of a minister. The article goes on to describe the author as having an excellent reputation and ability for writing as she is “A lady whose literary talents are held in high estimation by those who have the pleasure of her acquaintance” (qtd. in Shelnutt 423). The same article directly references the plot of The Coquette as being one of merit. The writer describes:

As much…as truth is of more value than fiction, so much is this novel more estimable

than romantic tales, the offspring of extravagant imagination, which bear no resemblance

to real life. In this work the understanding is not insulted with an exhibition of enchanted

castles, witches or ghosts, but possibilities and realities are presented in it, in that familiar

and elegant language which is ever the characteristic of true taste. (qtd. in Shelnutt 423)

The author of this piece indirectly proposes that the novel is cautionary by suggesting that it poses a moral message. Even though the novel is really a historical fiction, the writer of the advertisement deems it as “truth” and this truth is seemingly of more value than its contemporary counterparts. In reading this story, a reader will not indulge in the same way they would in reading other novels of romance because the plot of this novel describes events that resemble

“real life” not the fantasy world of “enchant[ment].” Readers familiar with the articles that described the events surrounding Whitman’s death would know that she was often characterized as being an avid reader of fiction, and this indulgence was considered to be a contributing factor 38 to her downfall. In turn, the reading of this novel would ironically serve the opposite agenda, to warn against such irrational behavior.

Reputation After Death

Articles describing Wollstonecraft or Whitman after their deaths often depict them as being irrational, sometimes even incapable of making logical choices because they did not exhibit certain aspects of private virtue. The criticism of Whitman and Wollstonecraft was primarily tied to their sexual behavior and the fact that each woman had children out of wedlock.

For Whitman, part of the question seems to be how a woman of such a strong upbringing and reputation could even be capable of consenting to premarital sex. Wollstonecraft was accused of being irrational because she was painted as being a woman who could not live up to the independent values she proposed in her writing.

Whitman’s upbringing was juxtaposed against her sexual decisions in many articles, including the published correspondence between Belknap and Rush. Belknap states in his letter to Rush in the Pennsylvania Mercury, dated August 16, 1788, which was published in at least nine additional newspapers, that “she was the daughter of a deceased clergyman in Connecticut” who appeared to be “handsome, genteel, and sensible but vain and coquettish.” Belknap proposes the idea that Whitman’s appearance was not quite reality in the sense that she was tempted to allure men with premarital sex due to the fact that she “coquetted it ‘till past her bloom.” As a result of this behavior she, “Fell into criminal indulgences, proved pregnant, and then eloped- pretending…to be married, and carried on the deception ‘till death” (qtd. in Waterman “The

Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail” 303). Here, Belknap paints Whitman as a sexually promiscuous woman whose indulgences in premarital sex are equated to a crime. Without literally stating it, 39 by placing the idea of her “criminal indulgences” in the same sentence with her “death” he insinuates that these “crimes” lead to her fate, death. This seems to add to the element of the

“moral lecture,” the words I borrow from the same letter. If a woman of this religious and upright background could be capable of making such poor decisions, it is suggested that women of any class must be careful of this trap. Also, Belknap insinuates that if a woman waits too long to marry she may give in to these “criminal” desires.

This idea was perpetuated through later articles as well. An anonymous letter to the editor of the Massachusetts Centinel, Benjamin Russell, written under the name “Curiosos” and published on September 24, 1788, recounts a very similar message. However, this later article directly identifies the lady as “Whitman.” The anonymous writer adds the phrase “In her younger days” before mentioning “she was admired for beauty and good sense,” drawing further connection to the idea that both her sense and youthful appearance had faded with her “visible” pregnancy. The article also draws attention to the idea that Whitman had intellectual potential in that the “sensibility and education of this lady are evident from the following Poem written by her before her death” (Curiosos qtd. in Waterman “The Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail” 304-

305). Curiosos states that part of the motivation for writing the article is to draw attention to the true writer, Whitman. The poem was previously attributed to Frances Theodora Althorp, who committed suicide after supposedly becoming pregnant with her brother –in-law’s child. The poem, “Disappointment” discusses a man, under the name of “Fidelio” who did not meet his lover when she expected him. Curiosos draws attention to the literary merit of the poem to further emphasize that Whitman was educated and because of this education, was seemingly capable of making moral decisions, but who unfortunately fell into the trap of coquetry (qtd. in

Waterman “The Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail” 304-305). 40

Wollstonecraft’s sexual decisions were also seen as irrational and more or less equated to

“criminal indulgences” by male writers. An article written by Benjamin Stillman printed in 1801 in the New York Commercial Adviser and reprinted in the Columbian Centinel in Boston in 1802 states, “She indeed professes a high regard for chastity; but unfortunately the practice of her life was at war with her precepts. She admitted one sentimental lover after another” (qtd. in Botting

279). Here, Stillman attempts to suggest that Wollstonecraft’s argument about female equality and the rights of women should not be given credence given that she seemed to unreasonably resist her own advice.

Wollstonecraft was equated to a criminal by Timothy Dwight, who would later become president of Yale, in a series of satirical essays called “Morpheus.” The first of these essays, published in the Mercury and N. E. Palladium in March of 1802, included a fictitious conversation between a male speaker and Wollstonecraft, newly arrived in America. The male speaker calls her a “strumpet” equating her sexual encounters with illegal prostitution. When she defends herself by stating that she is, “too free to brook the restraints of marriage,” the speaker responds by insinuating that her comment makes no sense. He replies, “We call them strumpets here, Madam- no offence, I hope” (qtd in. Kerber 282-283). Wollstonecraft was never in any way a prostitute, but her fictitious male acquaintance deems her defense illogical, and he sees a woman who has premarital sex as a lawbreaker.

Whitman and Wollstonecraft were both accused of being insensible in that they desired to be a part of a social grouping that was not naturally their own. Part of the blame for Whitman’s irrational thought was placed on the fact that she was “a great reader of Romances” and therefore, Belknap informs Rush that “She refused two as good offers of Marriage as she deserved because she aspired higher than to be a Clergyman’s Wife” (qtd. in Waterman “The 41

Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail” 303). This line suggests that Whitman was irrational in that she could not separate the behaviors demonstrated in her own life to that of the novels she was reading. It also insinuates that women should and were expected to marry, and that Whitman was not rational enough to secure a good husband in that she was foolishly waiting for a man who could provide her with wealth and a higher social standing. Bryan Waterman also draws attention to the idea that this interpretation places the sole blame on Whitman, not on a man who may have seduced her. This seems true, as Whitman is illustrated as the one who was foolish enough to think her life could be lived as if she was the subject of a fictional romance. She was the one who attempted to attract a man of a higher social class, who made the decision to have premarital sex, and who despite the values her religious parents instilled in her, decided to flee to another town to give birth (“Elizabeth Whitman’s Disappearance” 338).

Wollstonecraft was associated not with the idea of being a social climber, but irrationally trying to enter a male sphere of business and politics in which women were not seen as welcome.

An issue of Boston’s Columbian Centinel and Massachusetts Federalist, published on June 21,

1800, expresses a distain for followers of Wollstonecraft’s ideals. The unnamed writer argues against the “moral deformity of those arrogant and audacious, literary, political, philosophical courtesans, who emulous the fame of Mrs. Woolstonecraft [sic], have striven to divest the sex of their ancient character… and invite women to become amazons and statesmen, and directors and harlots, upon philosophical principals” (qtd. in Botting 277). This article links women who enter the public male sphere to female promiscuity and even prostitution by stating that they will be like “harlots.” The suggestion is that once they give into the temptation of participating in the traditionally male field of politics, they will not be able to resist sexual promiscuity. In Cathy

Davidson’s Revolution and the Word, she includes an article printed in the New England 42

Palladium in 1802 which describes Wollstonecraft lecturing women on “nature versus nurture and…that given the right physical conditioning, women can be as strong as men” (132) In this article Wollstonecraft herself is fictitiously lecturing that “women are entitled to all the rights of men and are capable of assuming the character of the manly woman” (132). The criticism here insinuates a similar, but slightly different message, that a woman must sacrifice her feminine traits and become physically masculine if she wants to be a part of a male sphere.

It is interesting that publishers’ advertisements for Vindication were included in the back of many early American novels, “more often than any other philosophical tract,” indicating that their audience would also be interested in Wollstonecraft’s argument (Davidson Revolution and the Word 131). Perhaps this suggests that women, who made up a large group of the people who read fiction, would have been more interested in female liberation than abiding by the social norms that limited women.

43

CONCLUSION

Even their children seemed to fit into a cautionary tale; Whitman’s child was stillborn,

Wollstonecraft’s eldest daughter, Fanny, took her own life at twenty two, leaving a note that stated, “the best thing I could do was to put an end to the existence of a being whose birth was unfortunate” (qtd. in Gordon 425). Mary, the most well-known of the offspring for writing

Frankenstein, ran away with the already married Percy Shelly at only sixteen, bore four of his children, three of whom died, and was made a widow herself at only twenty four. Would the lives of Wollstonecraft’s daughters have differed if she had not died while they were children?

Could she have prevented them from being the victims of female restrictions in their society? For the same reason that the world found out about their so called indiscretions, the world will never know what Whitman or Wollstonecraft could have accomplished should they have lived.

It would be interesting to see how the fate and reputation of women such as Elizabeth

Whitman or Mary Wollstonecraft might have differed in modern society. In many ways, we have seen progress in terms of women’s rights, but unfortunately we are still hearing echoes of Foster and Wollstonecraft’s arguments today in regards to marriage, females in the workplace, and consent. Whitman and Wollstonecraft must be recognized for their strength in rejecting the female norms regarding marriage, independence, and separate spheres, not as women whose lives illustrate the negative consequences of female liberation.

44

WORKS CITED

Abbey, Ruth. “Back to the Future: Marriage as Friendship in the Thought of Mary

Wollstonecraft.” Hypatia, vol. 14, no. 3, 1999, pp. 78–95. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/3810487.

Bloch, Ruth H. “The Gendered Meanings of Virtue in Revolutionary America.” Signs, vol. 13,

no. 1, 1987, pp. 37–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3174026.

Botting, Eileen Hunt. “Making an American Feminist Icon: Mary

Wollstonecraft's Reception in US Newspapers, 1800–1869.” History of

Political Thought, vol. 34, no. 2, 2013, pp. 273–295. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/26225826.

Brown, Gillian. “Consent, Coquetry, and Consequences.” American Literary History, vol. 9, no.

4, 1997, pp. 625–652. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/490186.

Buel, Richard. Joel Barlow: American Citizen in a Revolutionary World. Johns Hopkins UP,

2011.

Davidson, Cathy N. "Flirting with Destiny: Ambivalence and Form in the Early American

Sentimental Novel." Studies in American Fiction, vol. 10 no. 1, 1982, pp. 17-39. Project

MUSE, doi:10.1353/saf.1982.0027.

Davidson, Cathy. Revolution and the Word: The Rise of the Novel in America. Oxford UP, 1986.

Erkkila, Betsy. “Revolutionary Women.” Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, vol. 6, no. 2,

1987, pp. 189–223. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/464269.

Foster, Hannah W. The Coquette. Edited by Cathy Davidson, Oxford UP, 1986.

Godwin, William. Memoirs of the Author of a Vindication of the Rights of Woman. CreateSpace 45

Independent Platform, 2013.

Gordon, Lyndall. Vindication: A Life of Mary Wollstonecraft. HarperCollins, 2005.

James, Janet Wilson. Changing Ideas About Women in The United States, 1776-1825. Garland

Publishing, 1981.

Jarenski, Shelly. “The Voice of the Preceptress: Female Education in and as the Seduction

Novel.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 37, no. 1, 2004,

pp. 59–68. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/1315378.

Kerber, Linda K. Women of the Republic. University of North Carolina Press, 1980.

Kurtz, Benjamin P. and Carrie C. Autrey. New Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft and Helen M.

Williams. University of California Press, 1937.

Lewis, Jan. “Women and the American Revolution.” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 8, no. 4,

1994, pp. 23–26. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25162982.

Marshall, Peter H. William Godwin. Yale UP, 1984.

“A Modern Coquette’s Account of Herself.” The Coquette and The Boarding School. Edited by

Jennifer Harris and Bryan Waterman. Norton, 2013. pp. 265.

Richards, Cynthia D. “Romancing the Sublime: Why Mary Wollstonecraft Fell in Love with

That Cad, Gilbert Imlay.” Tulsa Studies in Women's Literature, vol. 25, no. 1, 2006, pp.

71–91. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20455262.

Shelnutt, Blevin. “The Coquette and Pseudonymous Attribution.” The Coquette and The

Boarding School. Edited by Jennifer Harris and Bryan Waterman. Norton, 2013. pp. 419-

427.

Waterman, Bryan. “Coquetry and Correspondence in Revolutionary-Era Connecticut: Reading 46

Elizabeth Whitman's Letters.” Early American Literature, vol. 46, no. 3, 2011, pp. 541–

563. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41348728.

Waterman, Bryan. “Elizabeth Whitman's Disappearance and Her ‘Disappointment.’” The

William and Mary Quarterly, vol. 66, no. 2, 2009, pp. 325–364. JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/40212056.

Waterman, Bryan. “The Elizabeth Whitman Paper Trail.” The Coquette and The Boarding

School. Edited by Jennifer Harris and Bryan Waterman. Norton, 2013.

Waterman, Bryan. “The Letters of Elizabeth Whitman to Joel and Ruth Barlow, 1779-1783.”

Early American Literature, vol. 46, no. 3, 2011, pp. 565–600. JSTOR, JSTOR,

www.jstor.org/stable/41348729.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. Collected Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft. Edited by Ralph M. Wardle,

Cornell University Press, 1979.

Wollstonecraft, Mary. A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Edited by Miriam Brody, Penguin

Books, 1992.