INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings of^pitterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 46106 73-26,887 PALMER, Phyllis Marynick, 1944- FRANCES WRIGHT D'ARUSMONT: CASE STUDY OF A REFORMER. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1973 History, modern University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan , © 1973 Phyllis Marynick Palmer ALL RIGHTS RESERVED FRANCES WRIGHT D'ARUSMONT: CASE STUDY OF A REFORMER DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Phyllis Marynick Palmer, A.B., M.A. ******* The Ohio State University 1973 Approved by Deittu-bincmujl m u tu ry ACKNOWLEDGMENTS My career as historian began as a child listening to stories told by my grandmother. My deepest gratitude is to a remarkable family that valued edu­ cation and history. My academic career has been guided and enhanced by two professors at Oberlin College, John D. Lewis, who made political theory seem a valuable pursuit, and Geoffrey Blodgett, who taught me about Perry Miller and intellec­ tual history. During my time at Ohio State, I was fortunate to. know Professor Robert Bremner, a kind person and historian of catholic interests; Professor I Paul Bowers, Professor Merton Dillon; and Professor Peter Larmour, who first interested me in problems of methodology. For Professor Mary Young, I can say only that she is a remarkable model — as teacher, historian and human-being. My students, friends, and history-department colleagues at Mount Holy­ oke College gave me inspiration and immeasureable support. They convinced me of the value and joy of teaching history. Mrs. Josephine Elliott of New Harmony helped me to learn my way around that important collection, and became a friend in the process. Finally, a number of loving friends made this effort possible, even en­ joyable for me. Special thanks are due to Jean and Richard Benz, David Palmer, Sam Walker, Carol Rose, and Howard Kushner, who first introduced me to psycho-history and confirmed my belief in the importance of work. VITA April 5, 1944 ........................................ Born - Dallas, Texas 1966 ........................................................ A .B ., Oberiin College, Oberlin, Ohio 1967 ........................................................ M. A ., The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 1967-1969 .............................................. Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University 1970-1971 .............................................. Instructor, State University of New York at Fredonia, Fredonia, New York 1971-1972 .............................................. Teaching Associate, Department of History, The Ohio State University 1972-1973 .............................................. Instructor, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Massachusetts FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: American History Nineteenth-Century American History. Professor Mary E, Young Nineteenth-Century South. Professor Merton Dillon Colonial America. Professor Paul Bowers iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................................................ ii VITA............................................................................... ....................... iv Chapter I. Introduction........................................................ .............. 1 II. Frances Wright at Home and Abroad .................................... 25 HI. Friendships: Bentham and Lafayette ...................................... 66 IV. Practical Reformer: The Nashoba Experiment .................... 85 V. The Public Person: Editor and Lecturer.............................. 119 VI. The Marriage Relationship ...................................................... 167 VH. Conclusion.................................................................................. 204 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................... 221 v CHAPTER ONE Introduction Frances Wright was a minor reformer of the Jacksonian era who es­ poused causes that invariably failed, and is noted primarily for being the first at » woman to lecture publicly to mixed audiences of males and females. Labelled an infamous radical by many of her contemporaries, she has been described more sensibly if not more courteously by recent historians. Two biographies of her have been written in the twentieth century that record the major events and activities of her life. * To engage in further study of a relatively unimpor­ tant figure seems to require some explanation. A new biography of Frances Wright, feminist and reformer, offers an opportunity to develop and to test new methods for understanding the process of an individual's social and intellectual development and the commitment to cer­ tain ideological positions and forms of behavior in a particular historical period. Wright is especially attractive because her development reveals concerns, interests, and problems less well-known women may have faced in the early nineteenth century, while her notoriety guaranteed that a record of her activities ^William Randall Waterman, Frances Wright (New York, 1924), stressed Wright's political activities in a scholarly monograph. A. J.G. Perkins and Theresa Wolfson, Francos Wright Free Enquirer; The Study of a Temperament (New York, 1939), pretends to be a psychological study, although the analysis consists of a liberal use of the term passionate as descriptive of Wright's friendships, hatreds, and activities. would be kept. Her large output of fictional and prose writing allows for a more thorough analysis of her personality development than would be the case with less prolific public figures. Her involvement with a number of reform efforts—antislavery, communitarian, educational, and anti-monopoly—offers a chance to determine what concerns linked a variety of reform interests within • the mind and career of at least one person. A study of Wright, then, is useful for isolating factors which may reveal more about the lives of other women, other reformers, and the attraction of certain sorts of reform in one era. The insights to be used in analyzing Wright’s development and activ­ ities are taken from Karl Mannheim’s theory of sociology and Erik Erikson's system of psychoanalysis. Mannheim's value is to remind historians that choices exist among ideological elements at any given historical period and that the selection of certain elements is the result of environmental factors or the needs of a particular group and is not necessarily dependent on the logical con­ sistency or superiority of the ideas chosen. Eriksonian analysis offers a theory of personality development which may reveal particular concerns and interests that motivate one reformer to support or to formulate the program he does. The necessity for describing a theoretical framework to use in the study of Wright may not be apparent, unless it is recognized that most studies of reformers and reform in early nineteenth-century America have not done so. In fact, debate over whether it is legitimate or useful for the historian to bind himself with social science theories and how the choice is to be made among 3 theories, even within psychology, is still in progress. Too often descriptions are offered in such a way as to imply that they are explanations, and explana­ tions are offered in such an offhand manner that the experiences of one person or group cannot be related to those of another. A survey of the literature on the enthusiastic period of nineteenth-century reform will clarify the weak­ nesses involved in working without a consciously