Ashley J. Johnson
AML 4101
Dr. Logan
5 December 2008
Republican Visions of Undermining Patriarchy in Isaac Mitchell’s The Asylum
Often a subject of discourse in early American literature, the prominent theme of patriarchy as an oppressive force has not been overlooked by distinguished scholars. Shirley Samuels writes in her text Romances of the Republic that “the main feminist treatments of the period…see women variously as victims of the ideology of domesticity,” and she reinforces the prevalence of such literature in the early Republic. However, not all texts of the Republic containing discussion on patriarchy were in favor of its practice. Republican authors, Isaac Mitchell particularly, were able to covertly unlace the binds of patriarchy while seemingly upholding the patriarchal canon. Mitchell honors the patriarchal code of eighteenth century literature in his sentimental, gothic novel, The Asylum, by promoting patriarchy as an oppressive force on female characters and a force of masculinity for the male characters with the communication of such themes as American nationalism, medical practice, education, reason and duty, religion, marriage, family structure, gender roles, and nature. Yet, the text undermines itself in showing the not-so dire results of resisting patriarchal force, thus proving the text a true novel of the Republican Republic.
The Republican Republic held to the values of the Republican Party (1792-1824) which was popular with farmers who favored state-run government, agriculture over trade, and distrusted British patriarchy. Also called the Democratic–Republican Party, it was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792 in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists, a party created a year or so earlier by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. The term Democratic–Republican is a historian's usage. Its members identified the party as the Republicans, Jeffersonians, Democrats (), or combinations of these. It was the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 to 1824, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern Democratic Party.
Mitchell condemns the patriarchal force, the federalist and “the unfeeling father,” for his domineering presence over his daughter^1. Through the backdrop of the American Revolution, the Jeffersonian Republican portrayal of patriarchy and the unfeeling father, the happily ever after ending for the undutiful daughters, and his own history of political publishing condemning Federalist principles, Mitchell undermines the traditional code. Analyzing Mitchell’s non-traditional text is vital in determining how, in the early nineteenth century, the patriarchal institution operated and was challenged, how feminist thought was addressed, and how the rise of feminist novels came about. As females of the 1800s were transforming the traditional gender roles set before them so too did Mitchell’s characters confront and damage masculine expectations. As Joseph Fichtelberg states, “Mitchell's text…was able to articulate a new set of ideological problems in comforting and familiar terms. It used the language of sentiment in an attempt to understand an emerging liberal world.”
As a Republican—a Democratic-Republican, or Jeffersonian —Mitchell was largely involved in the writing, editing, publishing, and distribution of Republican texts. His name appears in the New England publications American Farmer and Dutchess County Advertiser, The Guardian, which was renamed the Political Barometer, Republican Crisis, and Republican Herald^2. The names alone of each publication are telling enough to show Mitchell’s political perspectives as a Republican. During the time of Mitchell’s revision of the serialized publication of Alonso and Melissa, “Republicans were still firmly in control of Congress, [yet] there was a nagging sense that they were not in control of national destiny” (Fichtelberg).
Not by accident is the story of Alonzo and Melissa set against the background of the American Revolution. As their wedding day approaches and preparations are beginning, so is the American Revolution firing up. Alonzo expects his services to be needed and hastens the nuptial day, yet because of the British impounding of his father’s ships he does not enlist in the Revolution. He does, however, play out a revolution of his own against Melissa’s tyrannical, unfeeling father. In the text, Colonel Bloomsfield and the Baron represent the patriarchy of the British Empire attempting to control the welfare of the independent United States, Melissa and Selina. He is the “king” who fights for his own preservation and the command of his troops and kingdom (1:154). He embodies the ideals of the new nation, and the Federalist, when he states that “by prudence and perseverance any man in this country may become independent. It is the idle and the dissipated only, who are poor” (1:30). Mitchell’s early depiction of Colonel Bloomsfield also represents what Cynthia Jordan would term “a new form of patriarchy” in her text “Old Words" in "New Circumstances” (Evans). This “newly defined patriarchy” was not the old, British patriarch that used oppression to gain respect, but a middle-class Republican patriarch who gained submission from his offspring through his fatherly role. Jordan is right and wrong on this point. Mitchell does portray Colonel Bloomfield and the Baron as loving father figures who through conscious rearing achieve the respect of their children. Yet, upon their daughter’s revolt, they revert back to the traditional, authoritative patriarch. Like the new nation, they have yet to gain control of their subjects, and like Britain, they end up losing their subjects because of their cruelty.
Alonzo and Bergher, in assuming the patriarchal role of their lover’s fathers, as husbands, become a true rendering of the “new form patriarchy” Jordan describes. Eleanor Wikborg expresses this definition as patriarchy’s ability “to replace crass authoritarianism with a tenderness that subtly vindicated their continuing authority over women” (10). When Selina is kidnapped by her father’s preferred suitor, Count Hubert, the old definition of patriarchy is still in play with Hubert’s coercion. Yet, with Bergher’s rescue of Selina, he becomes the patriarchal figure now in charge of her being. He fights and wounds Count Hubert to avenge her, assert his masculinity, and claim her, and, on his and her behalf, moves them across the Atlantic Ocean to America in order to escape the Baron and Count’s chase. Upon Alonzo’s discovery of Melissa at the mansion he implores her to let him remove her from her “solitary confinement” and “the unusual severity with which [she is] oppressed” by censuring her father and assuming his role as advisor to her well-being (2:103-104).
Although Mitchell was commenting on the American Revolution in Alonso and Melissa, he was also remarking on the economic and political turmoil of his day. Contextually during its writing and publication, Colonel Bloomsfield represents the patriarchal Federalists who were steadily loosing control to the patriarchal-opposing Republicans. Fichtelberg agrees that “although The Asylum is set during the Revolutionary period, there is ample evidence that it is very much of its own time.” (So, throughout the text the reader can analyze the events not only in relation to the American Revolution but also to the fight between the parties of the Republican and Federalist.) As Mitchell was busy penning commentary on the Federalists' signal failures in congress, he was also composing a novel sentimental to the plight of the liberal-minded American. Not unlike the Republicans opposing large, central government and advocating a strict interpretation of the freedom granting constitution and the right to state government, Mitchell’s characters opposed the dictating, imposing patriarchal figure and advocated for the liberty to govern themselves. The patriarchal government of the Bloomsfield family is summed up with this description of Colonel Bloomsfield’s familial dictatorship:
“his advice was to be taken as law, his injunctions were not to be disputed, the line of conduct marked out by him was to be undeviatingly pursued. His will need only to be known, to be strictly obeyed” (1:35).
Akin to the Federalists and British monarchy, Colonel Bloomsfield was a proponent of a strong, central government, himself. Like the governing of states beneath his federal righteousness, Melissa’s “choice [in marriage and other aspects of life], he had ever trusted and believed, would comport with his own” (1:45). Melissa, the lowly colony, could only petition her kingly father through her brother (1:88), who, however another figure of patriarchy, can not alter that Colonel Bloomsfield commands obedience to his will (2:40-43). Eventually, the “barbarity” of Colonel Bloomsfield leads to his daughter’s excessive distress, deceit, and fake death (2:176). She, like the runaways of the colonies, was suffering under a tyrannical rule, deceived her ruler to escape oppression, yet eventually made amends in being recognized as sovereign.
Examples of patriarchal females in the text are not to be overshadowed by the patriarchal males though. Where Selina could stand up to no male patriarch, she could sass her tongue to her female patriarch, Lady Du Ruyter, by such retorts as, “when you married the baron did you consult your own interests and feelings, or leave others to do it for you” (1:87). Readers also see Lady Du Ruyter’s extent of power in shaping the Baron’s choice of Selina’s suitor, whom not even her brother-patriarch could change, and in her ability to gain Doria’s allegiance against Selina’s. Doria, Selina’s maid, was seduced to betray her mistress by large amounts of money and the promise of more rewards. The note which led to Selina’s capture was written by Du Ruyter and Hubert and delivered by Doria. Lady Du Ruyter, in exalting her own patriarchy, kept the plan secret from the Baron. This female patriarch is undermined in her untimely death after her descent from familial rule. Aunt Martha’s medicinal herbs failing to alleviate Melissa undermine the influence of the Colonel as she is his assistant in locking Melissa in the mansion. When Melissa assumes a powerful role in being able to choose between her two suitors, she is doomed when in due course she is restricted from making that choice by her father. Yet, Melissa’s female rule eventually overpowers that of her father when she is able to fake her death, fool her father, and, in ultimate payback, reveal her trick to him and gain his blessing. She undermines patriarchy by these actions, but by still desiring her father’s approval by calling out to him moments before the nuptial ceremony concluded, she, and Alonzo by way of asking his permission, yields to his authority. Wikborg sums up this failed revolt by saying
“the father-lover’s willingness to curb his power for the sake of this beloved is so often depicted as one of the his most valuable demonstrations of love…it implies a recognition on the part of male authority of the desirability of the heroine as an autonomous person and hence of her right to a measure of self-determination” (10-11).
Yet, it is still the male authority giving the right of independence to the female. Mitchell is showing that yes, the female can be somewhat independent, but the patriarch is subtly morphing his rule to keeping his daughter, or bride, in her place. He reinforces Wikborg’s assertion that “in a situation where patriarchal rulers in both the public and the private sphere were confronted by revolutionary beliefs in the rights of the individual, a daughter figure’s deeply felt devotion served to allay anxieties over the legitimacy of their power”(9). The message Mitchell sends his readers is that it is not so much that the daughter complies with her father, nay she can revolt if so inclined, but that she wants to comply with him.
Still, with the stories of Selina and Melissa, the happily ever after ending greatly undermines the fate of the traditional, undutiful daughter. After Selina resists her aristocrat father’s wishes she lives out her middle-class life with husband, of her choice, and children, not ending up the stereotypical fallen woman destined to die, such as are depicted in representations of fallen women in other early American novels, namely, Susanna Rowson’s Charlotte Temple (1794), and Hannah W. Foster’s The Coquette (1797) which both tell of the innocent seduction and unfortunate, though fateful, death of their young female characters. Although Selina was tested by hardships, pursued for years by an unwanted suitor, and ultimately lived a life far from family and friends, she recollects “we were not unhappy” (1:173). She reminisces she had “experienced severe distress, encountered formidable calamities and suffered deep afflictions” but providence gave her a haven of rest and crowned her day with comfort, serenity, and peace (1:205). For Melissa, after being denounced by her father, locked away in a mansion, frightened by fake ghosts, subject to fainting, sent farther away, and propelled to fake her death, she was at last able to marry her choice of suitor with her patriarch’s approval. The text culminates with Melissa and Alonzo setting up house annd the narrator stating, “here [at the Asylum] did they realize all the happiness which the sublunary hand of time apportions to mortals. The happy termination of the war soon removed all cause of inquietudes.” The couple was “frequently visited by their parents…all rejoiced in their felicity, after such a diversity of troubles” (2:276).
^1 Daniel Jackson, Jr. of Plattsburgh, New York pirated Mitchell’s text in 1811 and published the work under the title of Alonzo and Melissa; or the Unfeeling Father: An American Tale. The pirated version was reprinted 32 times through 1876. It was this pirated edition that created the book's modest literary fame and somewhat higher public popularity. an eight-page poetical treatment by Alonzo G. Allen, published in 1844. (Cooper and Fichtelberg)
^2 American Farmer and Dutchess County Advertiser, which Mitchell edited, was published weekly in Poughkeepsie from June 8, 1798 to July 22, 1800 . The Guardian was published weekly in Poughkeepsie, New York from 1807-1808. Upon Mitchell’s purchase of the paper he renamed it Political Barometer and edited and published it weekly from June 8, 1802 to Aug. 21, 1811. The Asylum first appeared in print in this publication under the title of Alonso and Melissa in serialized form during 1804. Mitchell’s name also appears in some publications of Republican Crisis of Albany and Saratoga, New York, Plebean (Pleb was a derogatory English term for someone thought of as inferior, common or ignorant or middle and lower class people.) of Kingston, New York, and as editor of Republican Herald of Poughkeepsie, New York weekly from 1808-1811 (A.A.S., Fichtelberg).
Monday, December 8, 2008
Final Conference Paper
Friday, December 5, 2008
Amanda's Evaluation of y My Rough Draft
Manuscript Title: Republican Visions of Undermining Patriarchy in Isaac Mitchell’s The Asylum
Recommendation:
Accept _____
Revise and resubmit _X
Reject _____
Specific Suggestions for Revision:
I think you make a lot of legitimate arguments but I am confused as to why you would try to argue that the text both undermines and condones patriarchy. Perhaps instead you should argue that he does both, but does one insincerely. Your style and use of elevated language are impressive. The only thing I have a concern about is that sometimes you neglect to relate your argument to your textual support. Make sure if you are giving us textual evidence that you are clarifying how it relates to and supports your initial argument. Also, be sure to quote the text and avoid merely paraphrasing. Another thing to consider is your organization. Look at all of your arguments and make sure that the way you have arranged them is best suited to your overall point. For instance, you wait until the third or fourth paragraph to define “republican” and that is something you should really do right away, perhaps in your introduction, because it is something that defines the legitimacy of your argument. Be careful to avoid using filler sentences that say something about the text but are not necessarily relevant to your point. Overall this is a good paper and you have an excellent foundation for a great argument.
Date sent to Reader:
Date Returned:
Reader's Signature: Amanda Dickson
Mallory's Evaluation of My Rough Draft
Manuscript Title: Republican Visions of Undermining Patriarchy in Isaac Mitchell’s The Asylum
Recommendation:
Accept _____
Revise and resubmit _X
Reject _____
Evaluation: I enjoyed reading your paper. I thought you had a lot of information to present which shows your hard work and extensive research. I had never heard of your novel before I read your essay and I was enlightened to the novel and was happy to read your thoughts and opinions.
Specific Suggestions for Revision: As I mentioned before, your essay is full of useful information. However, I was confused by what ideas you were trying to convey. You jumped between critics and explanations so quickly I was lost as to what you were trying to say with each presentation of information. Also, you had some sentences that were very lengthy and their wording made it difficult to understand. Please consider revising these. Additionally, your footnotes added to my confusion, I had to keep stopping to read what you really meant at the bottom of the paper instead of just reading it in the actual essay. Towards the end of your essay, I felt like you started summarizing and adding too many quotations, especially on pages 7 and 8. As much as I enjoyed reading proof of your argument, I felt that the excessive evidence overshadowed your direct argument. You never lost my interest, I was just constantly unsure of where my interest was supposed to be. I am looking forward to reading your final draft and hearing what you have to say at the conference!
Date Returned: 2 December 2008
Reader's Signature: Mallory Beatson
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Rough Draft of Conference Paper
Republican Visions of Undermining Patriarchy in Isaac Mitchell’s The Asylum
Often a subject of discourse in early American literature, the prominent theme of patriarchy as an oppressive force has not been overlooked by prominent scholars. Shirley Samuels writes in her text Romances of the Republic that “the main feminist treatments of the period…see women variously as victims of the ideology of domesticity,” and she reinforces the prevalence of such literature in the early Republic. However, not all texts of the Republic containing discussion on patriarchy were in favor of its practice. Republican authors, Isaac Mitchell particularly, were able to covertly unlace the binds of patriarchy while seemingly upholding the patriarchal canon. Mitchell honors the patriarchal code of eighteenth century literature in his sentimental, gothic novel, The Asylum, by promoting patriarchy as an oppressive force on female characters and a force of masculinity for the male characters with the communication of such themes as American nationalism, medical practice, education, reason and duty, religion, marriage, family structure, gender roles, and nature. Yet, the text undermines itself in showing the not-so dire results of resisting patriarchal force, thus proving the text a true novel of the Republican Republic. Mitchell condemns the patriarchal force, “the unfeeling father,” for his domineering presence over his daughter . Through the backdrop of the American Revolution, the Jeffersonian Republican portrayal of patriarchy and the unfeeling father, the happily ever after ending for the undutiful daughters, and his own history of political publishing condemning Federalist principles, Mitchell undermines the traditional code. Analyzing Mitchell’s non-traditional text is vital in determining how, in the early nineteenth century, the patriarchal institution operated and was challenged, how feminist thought was addressed, and how the rise of feminist novels came about. As females of the 1800s were transforming the traditional gender roles set before them so too did Mitchell’s characters confront and damage masculine expectations. As Joseph Fichtelberg states, “Mitchell's text…was able to articulate a new set of ideological problems in comforting and familiar terms. It used the language of sentiment in an attempt to understand an emerging liberal world.”
As a Republican—a Democratic-Republican, or Jeffersonian —Mitchell was largely involved in the writing, editing, publishing, and distribution of Republican texts. His name appears in the New England publications American Farmer and Dutchess County Advertiser, The Guardian, which was renamed the Political Barometer, Republican Crisis, and Republican Herald . The names alone of each publication are telling enough to show Mitchell’s political perspectives as a Republican. The Republican Party (1792-1824) was popular with farmers who favored state-run government, agriculture over trade, and distrusted British patriarchy. During the time of Mitchell’s revision of the serialized publication of Alonso and Melissa, “Republicans were still firmly in control of Congress, [yet] there was a nagging sense that they were not in control of national destiny” (Fichtelberg).
Not by accident is the story of Alonzo and Melissa set against the background of the American Revolution. As their wedding day approaches and preparations are beginning, so is the American Revolution firing up. Alonzo expects his services to be needed and hastens the nuptial day, yet because of the British impounding of his father’s ships he does not enlist in the Revolution. He does, however, play out a revolution of his own against Melissa’s tyrannical, unfeeling father. In the text, Colonel Bloomsfield and the Baron represent the patriarchy of the British Empire attempting to control the welfare of the independent United States, Melissa and Selina. He is the “king” who fights for his own preservation and the command of his troops and kingdom (1:154). He embodies the ideals of the new nation, and the Federalist, when he states that “by prudence and perseverance any man in this country may become independent. It is the idle and the dissipated only, who are poor” (1:30). Mitchell’s early depiction of Colonel Bloomsfield also represents what Cynthia Jordan would term “a new form of patriarchy” (509). This “newly defined patriarchy” was not the old, British patriarch that used oppression to gain respect, but a middle-class Republican patriarch who gained submission from his offspring through his fatherly role. Jordan is right and wrong on this point. Mitchell does portray Colonel Bloomfield and the Baron as loving father figures who through conscious rearing achieve the respect of their children. Yet, upon their daughter’s revolt, they revert back to the traditional, authoritative patriarch. Like the new nation, they have yet to gain control of their subjects, and like Britain, they end up losing their subjects because of their cruelty.
Alonzo and Bergher, in assuming the patriarchal role of their lover’s fathers, as husbands, become a true rendering of the “new form patriarchy” Jordan describes. Eleanor Wikborg expresses this definition as patriarchy’s ability “to replace crass authoritarianism with a tenderness that subtly vindicated their continuing authority over women” (10). When Selina is kidnapped by her father’s preferred suitor, Count Hubert, the old definition of patriarchy is still in play with Hubert’s coercion. Yet, with Bergher’s rescue of Selina, he becomes the patriarchal figure now in charge of her being. He fights and wounds Count Hubert to avenge her, assert his masculinity, and claim her, and, on his and her behalf, moves them across the Atlantic Ocean to America in order to escape the Baron and Count’s chase. Upon Alonzo’s discovery of Melissa at the mansion he implores her to let him remove her from her “solitary confinement” and “the unusual severity with which [she is] oppressed” by censuring her father and assuming his role as advisor to her well-being (2:103-104).
Although Mitchell was commenting on the American Revolution in Alonso and Melissa, he was also remarking on the economic and political turmoil of his day. Contextually during its writing and publication, Colonel Bloomsfield represents the patriarchal Federalists who were steadily loosing control to the patriarchal-opposing Republicans. Fichtelberg agrees that “although The Asylum is set during the Revolutionary period, there is ample evidence that it is very much of its own time.” (So, throughout the text the reader can analyze the events not only in relation to the American Revolution but also to the fight between the parties of the Republican and Federalist.) As Mitchell was busy penning commentary on the Federalists' signal failures in congress, he was also composing a novel sentimental to the plight of the liberal-minded American. Not unlike the Republicans opposing large, central government and advocating a strict interpretation of the freedom granting constitution and the right to state government, Mitchell’s characters opposed the dictating, imposing patriarchal figure and advocated for the liberty to govern themselves. The patriarchal government of the Bloomsfield family is summed up with this description of Colonel Bloomsfield’s familial dictatorship:
“his advice was to be taken as law, his injunctions were not to be disputed, the line of conduct marked out by him was to be undeviatingly pursued. His will need only to be known, to be strictly obeyed” (1:35).
Akin to the Federalists and British monarchy, Colonel Bloomsfield was a proponent of a strong, central government, himself. Like the governing of states beneath his federal righteousness, Melissa’s “choice [in marriage and other aspects of life], he had ever trusted and believed, would comport with his own” (1:45). Melissa, the lowly colony, could only petition her kingly father through her brother (1:88), who, however another figure of patriarchy, can not alter that Colonel Bloomsfield commands obedience to his will (2:40-43). Eventually, the “barbarity” of Colonel Bloomsfield leads to his daughter’s excessive distress, deceit, and fake death (2:176). She, like the runaways of the colonies, was suffering under a tyrannical rule, deceived her ruler to escape oppression, yet eventually made amends in being recognized as sovereign.
Examples of patriarchal females in the text are not to be overshadowed by the patriarchal males though. Where Selina could stand up to no male patriarch, she could sass her tongue to her female patriarch, Lady Du Ruyter, by such retorts as, “when you married the baron did you consult your own interests and feelings, or leave others to do it for you” (87). Readers also see Lady Du Ruyter’s extent of power in shaping the Baron’s choice of Selina’s suitor, whom not even her brother-patriarch could change, and in her ability to gain Doria’s allegiance against Selina’s . This female patriarch is undermined in her untimely death after her descent from familial rule. Aunt Martha’s medicinal herbs failing to alleviate Melissa undermine the influence of the Colonel as she is his assistant in locking Melissa in the mansion. When Melissa assumes a powerful role in being able to choose between her two suitors, she is doomed when in due course she is restricted from making that choice by her father. Yet, Melissa’s female rule eventually overpowers that of her father when she is able to fake her death, fool her father, and, in ultimate payback, reveal her trick to him and gain his blessing. She undermines patriarchy by these actions, but by still desiring her father’s approval by calling out to him moments before the nuptial ceremony concluded, she, and Alonzo by way of asking his permission, yields to his authority. Jordan sums up this failed revolt by saying
“the father-lover’s willingness to curb his power for the sake of this beloved is so often depicted as one of the his most valuable demonstrations of love…it implies a recognition on the part of male authority of the desirability of the heroine as an autonomous person and hence of her right to a measure of self-determination” (10-11).
Yet, it is still the male authority giving the right of independence to the female. Mitchell is showing that yes, the female can be somewhat independent, but the patriarch is subtly morphing his rule to keeping his daughter, or bride, in her place. He reinforces Jordan’s assertion that “in a situation where patriarchal rulers in both the public and the private sphere were confronted by revolutionary beliefs in the rights of the individual, a daughter figure’s deeply felt devotion served to allay anxieties over the legitimacy of their power”(9). The message Mitchell sends his readers is that it is not so much that the daughter complies with her father, nay she can revolt if so inclined, but that she wants to comply with him.
Still, with the stories of Selina and Melissa, the happily ever after ending greatly undermines the fate of the traditional, undutiful daughter. After Selina resists her aristocrat father’s wishes she lives out her middle-class life with husband, of her choice, and children, not ending up the stereotypical fallen woman destined to die, such as are depicted in representations of fallen women in other early American novels, namely, Susanna Rowson’s Charlotte Temple (1794), and Hannah W. Foster’s The Coquette (1797) . Although Selina was tested by hardships, pursued for years by an unwanted suitor, and ultimately lived a life far from family and friends, she recollects “we were not unhappy” (173). She reminisces she had “experienced severe distress, encountered formidable calamities and suffered deep afflictions” but providence gave her a haven of rest and crowned her day with comfort, serenity, and peace (205). For Melissa, after being denounced by her father, locked away in a mansion, frightened by fake ghosts, subject to fainting, sent farther away, and propelled to fake her death, she was at last able to marry her choice of suitor with her patriarch’s approval. The text culminates with Melissa and Alonzo setting up house and the narrator stating, “here [at the asylum] did they realize all the happiness which the sublunary hand of time apportions to mortals. The happy termination of the war soon removed all cause of inquietudes.” The couple was “frequently visited by their parents…all rejoiced in their felicity, after such a diversity of troubles” (2:276).
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I have been writing on Mitchell's undermining of patriarchy in his text by use of themes of American nationalism, medical practice, reason and duty, religion, marriage, family structure, gender roles, and nature, yet I branched into using Mitchell's political publishing history and the backdrop of the American Revolution to further the patriarchal themes and his subversion of them. The following are some musings so far.
Mitchell was largely involved in the writing, editing, publishing, and distribution of anti-patriarchal Republican texts. American Farmer and Dutchess County Advertiser, which Mitchell edited, was published weekly in Poughkeepsie from June 8, 1798 to July 22, 1800 . The Guardian was published weekly in Poughkeepsie, New York from 1807-1808. Upon Mitchell’s purchase of the paper he renamed it Political Barometer and edited and published it weekly from June 8, 1802 to Aug. 21, 1811. The Asylum first appeared in print in this publication under the title of Alonso and Melissa. Mitchell’s name also appears in some publications of Republican Crisis of Albany and Saratoga, New York, Plebean (Plebeans are middle or lower class people. Pleb was a derogatory English term for someone thought of as inferior, common or ignorant.) of Kingston, New York, and as editor of Republican Herald of Poughkeepsie, New York weekly from 1808-1811. While the even the most telling of sources, the American Antiquarian Society, was only able to afford the previous information, the names alone of each publication are telling enough to show Mitchell’s political perspectives as a Jeffersonian Republican. The Federalist Party (1792-1816) was popular with New England businessmen who distrusted the public, were undemocratic, and favored factories, a national bank, trade, and a strong central government. The Democratic-Republican Party (1792-1824) was popular with farmers who favored state-run government, agriculture over trade, and distrusted British patriarchy.
Not by accident is the story of Alonzo and Melissa set against the background of the American Revolution. As their wedding day approaches and preparations are beginning, so is the American Revolution firing up. Alonzo expects his services to be needed and hastens the nuptial day, yet because of the British impounding of his father’s ships he does not enlist in the Revolution. He does, however, play out a revolution of his own against Melissa’s tyrannical, unfeeling father. In the text, Colonel Bloomsfield and the Baron represent the patriarchy of the British Empire attempting to control the welfare of the independent United States, Melissa and Selina. Contextually during its writing and publication, Colonel Bloomsfield represents the patriarchal Federalists who are steadily loosing control to the patriarchal-opposing Democratic-Republicans.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Regency Dress
One Regency version of "long stays." Note that even in the case of these long stays, the object was not to produce a narrow waist like those corsets of the mid and later 19th century.
Called "short stays" at the time. Not really a "brassiere" (despite having side straps), since breasts were supported by pushing up from below.
An overview of woman's fashions during the period 1794-1887. First row: 1794, 1796, 1800, 1805.Second row: 1813, 1820, 1830, 1840. Third row: 1850, 1860, 1864, 1868. Fourth row: 1872, 1877, 1881, 1887
Ball gown from Ackermann's Repository (1810), an illustrated, British periodical published from 1809-1829 by Rudolph Ackermann. In its day, it had great influence on English taste in fashion, architecture, and literature.
Although being from an English publication, the style of dress and dance would have been copied by ladies and gentlemen of the
"The Country Wedding", is an 1820 painting by German-American artist John Lewis Krimmel, depicting the marriage (at home) of the daughter of a moderately prosperous
The bridesmaid is holding the bride's right glove, which she's taken off so that she can clasp the groom's hand directly skin-to-skin (something which at the time would be considered an inappropriate display in many other contexts, but not here).
Symbolic lovebirds are in a cage above the bride and groom. The cat is hiding away on top of the cupboard. The whip-like thing that the little boy is holding is for spinning children's tops very fast.
The following is commentary which accompanied an engraving of the painting that was printed in the Analectic Magazine in 1820:
"The Country Wedding is engraved from a painting by Krimmel, an artist not sufficiently known to be duly appreciated. He is a native of
In the picture here presented he has delineated a scene of no rare occurrence in the dwelling of our native yeomanry. The whole is in admirable keeping. The furniture and decorations of the rooms, the costume and attitudes of the characters show perfectly the inside of a farmer's dwelling, and the business that occupies the group. The old clergyman appears to have just arrived, his saddlebags, hat and whip, lie on the chair near the door, the bride stands in all her rustic finery, rustic bloom and rustic bashfulness. The bride-groom's hand on her shoulder, seems intended to revive her courage, while the manner in which he grasps her hand is at once affectionate and awkward. The distress of the mother solaced by the father, who points to the younger daughter, as if indicating her as the successor to her sister's rank in the family, is well expressed. And the by-play at the door, which is opened by a servant girl to admit an old woman, the awkward affectation of grace and importance in the bride's-maid, whose attention seems to be attracted by what is passing between the young man and young woman on the other side of the room, all are full of life and true character of painting."
