A choice not to wed? Unmarried women in eighteenth-century France

Journal of Social History

Volumn 29, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 883-894

  Adams, Christine ^a  

^a Department of History ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040519639     PISSN: 00224529     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1353/jsh/29.4.883     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. John Hajnal coined the term "European Marriage Pattern" in his seminal article, "European Marriage Patterns in Perspective," in D.V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley, eds., Population in History (London, 1965), pp. 101-43. According to French demographer, Jacques Dupâquier, approximately 14% of the generation born in France between 1785 and 1789 remained permanently celibate. Jacques Dupâquier, La Population française au XVII et XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1979), pp. 60-61.
2. John Hajnal coined the term "European Marriage Pattern" in his seminal article, "European Marriage Patterns in Perspective," in D.V. Glass and D. E. C. Eversley, eds., Population in History (London, 1965), pp. 101-43. According to French demographer, Jacques Dupâquier, approximately 14% of the generation born in France between 1785 and 1789 remained permanently celibate. Jacques Dupâquier, La Population française au XVII et XVIIIe siècles (Paris, 1979), pp. 60-61.
3. Anonymous, The Lawes of Resolution of Women's Rights (London, 1632), quoted in Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993), p. 41.
4. Anonymous, The Lawes of Resolution of Women's Rights (London, 1632), quoted in Merry E. Wiesner, Women and Gender in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge, 1993), p. 41.
5. Olwen Hufton found that only about 56,000 women were nuns in 1789, suggesting that only a small minority of single women entered the convent. See "Women Without Men: Widows and Spinsters in Britain and France in the Eighteenth Century," Journal of Family History 9:4 (1984): 355-76, esp. p. 369.
6. There are a few exceptions to this general neglect. See for example, Hufton, "Women Without Men"; and Arlette Farge and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, eds., Madame ou Mademoiselle? Itinéraires de la solitude féminine, 18e-20e siècles (Paris, 1984). An article by Cécile Dauphin on "Single Women" appears in Geneviève Fraisse and Michelle Perrot, eds., A History of Women in the West, Vol. IV: Emerging Feminism from Revolution to World War (Cambridge, MA, 1993), pp. 427-42, but focuses on the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
7. There are a few exceptions to this general neglect. See for example, Hufton, "Women Without Men"; and Arlette Farge and Christiane Klapisch-Zuber, eds., Madame ou Mademoiselle? Itinéraires de la solitude féminine, 18e-20e siècles (Paris, 1984). An article by Cécile Dauphin on "Single Women" appears in Geneviève Fraisse and Michelle Perrot, eds., A History of Women in the West, Vol. IV: Emerging Feminism from Revolution to World War (Cambridge, MA, 1993), pp. 427-42, but focuses on the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
8. Wiesner, Women and Gender, pp. 30-35 and 41-42.
9. See, for example, Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller, Liberty, a Better Husband: Single Women in America: the Generations of 1780-1840 (New Haven and London, 1984). Both Ruth Freeman and Patricia Klaus, "Blessed or Not? The New Spinster in England and the United States in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," Journal of Family History 9:4 (1984): 394-414, and Patricia Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters: Dutiful Daughters, Desperate Rebels and the Transition to the New Women," in Patricia Crawford, ed., Exploring Women's Post: Essays in Social History (Sydney and Boston, 1984), pp. 129-70, take a more positive view of spinsterhood, while acknowledging the social pressures and difficulties facing unmarried women.
10. See, for example, Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller, Liberty, a Better Husband: Single Women in America: the Generations of 1780-1840 (New Haven and London, 1984). Both Ruth Freeman and Patricia Klaus, "Blessed or Not? The New Spinster in England and the United States in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," Journal of Family History 9:4 (1984): 394-414, and Patricia Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters: Dutiful Daughters, Desperate Rebels and the Transition to the New Women," in Patricia Crawford, ed., Exploring Women's Post: Essays in Social History (Sydney and Boston, 1984), pp. 129-70, take a more positive view of spinsterhood, while acknowledging the social pressures and difficulties facing unmarried women.
11. See, for example, Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller, Liberty, a Better Husband: Single Women in America: the Generations of 1780-1840 (New Haven and London, 1984). Both Ruth Freeman and Patricia Klaus, "Blessed or Not? The New Spinster in England and the United States in the Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries," Journal of Family History 9:4 (1984): 394-414, and Patricia Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters: Dutiful Daughters, Desperate Rebels and the Transition to the New Women," in Patricia Crawford, ed., Exploring Women's Post: Essays in Social History (Sydney and Boston, 1984), pp. 129-70, take a more positive view of spinsterhood, while acknowledging the social pressures and difficulties facing unmarried women.
12. Hufton, "Women Without Men," p. 356.
13. See Dauphin, "Single Women," pp. 427-28 and 441-42; Steven Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations: The Family in Victorian Culture (New York and London, 1983), p. 150; and Priscilla Robertson, An Experience of Women: Pattern and Change in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Philadelphia, 1982), p. 252.
14. See Dauphin, "Single Women," pp. 427-28 and 441-42; Steven Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations: The Family in Victorian Culture (New York and London, 1983), p. 150; and Priscilla Robertson, An Experience of Women: Pattern and Change in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Philadelphia, 1982), p. 252.
15. See Dauphin, "Single Women," pp. 427-28 and 441-42; Steven Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations: The Family in Victorian Culture (New York and London, 1983), p. 150; and Priscilla Robertson, An Experience of Women: Pattern and Change in Nineteenth-Century Europe (Philadelphia, 1982), p. 252.
16. See Hufton, "Women Without Men" for a discussion of the various options available to unmarried women.
17. Miriam Slater, Family Life in the Seventeenth Century: The Verneys of Claydon House (London, 1984), p. 84.
18. Patricia Jalland's "Victorian Spinsters" and Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller's Liberty, a Better Husband do a much better job of getting beyond the statistics at the roles of spinster women and their feelings about their function in life, but focus on the nineteenth century.
19. Patricia Jalland's "Victorian Spinsters" and Lee Virginia Chambers-Schiller's Liberty, a Better Husband do a much better job of getting beyond the statistics at the roles of spinster women and their feelings about their function in life, but focus on the nineteenth century.
20. The collected letters of the Lamothe family are located in the Manuscripts Division of the Library of Congress. This study of Marie and Marianne Lamothe is part of a larger study on the personal, professional, and cultural lives of the Lamothe family. See Christine Adams, "Bourgeois Identity in Early Modern France: A Professional Family in Eighteenth-Century Bordeaux," (Ph.D. diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1993). Hereafter, the letters will be cited simply by the name of the letter writer and recipient, along with the date.
21. Steven Mintz provides support for this view in an interesting vignette from the life of Catharine Sedgwick, a nineteenth-century Englishwoman who did not marry. Her brothers and sisters noted that her present situation was "certainly a singularly happy one" and that her brothers and sisters "would be unhappy if she changed her marital status." Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations, p. 166.
22. Ralph Giesey's "Rules of Inheritance and Strategies of Mobility in Pre-Revolutionary France," American Historical Review 82 (1977): 271-89 and J. G. C. Blacker's "Social Ambitions of the Bourgeoisie in 18th-Century France and their Relation to Family Limitation," Population Studies 11 (1957): 46-63, are useful analyses of strategies for upward mobility among non-noble families. See also my "Defining État in Eighteenth-Century France: The Lamothe Family of Bordeaux," Journal of Family History 17:1 (1992): 25-45.
23. Ralph Giesey's "Rules of Inheritance and Strategies of Mobility in Pre-Revolutionary France," American Historical Review 82 (1977): 271-89 and J. G. C. Blacker's "Social Ambitions of the Bourgeoisie in 18th-Century France and their Relation to Family Limitation," Population Studies 11 (1957): 46-63, are useful analyses of strategies for upward mobility among non-noble families. See also my "Defining État in Eighteenth-Century France: The Lamothe Family of Bordeaux," Journal of Family History 17:1 (1992): 25-45.
24. Ralph Giesey's "Rules of Inheritance and Strategies of Mobility in Pre-Revolutionary France," American Historical Review 82 (1977): 271-89 and J. G. C. Blacker's "Social Ambitions of the Bourgeoisie in 18th-Century France and their Relation to Family Limitation," Population Studies 11 (1957): 46-63, are useful analyses of strategies for upward mobility among non-noble families. See also my "Defining État in Eighteenth-Century France: The Lamothe Family of Bordeaux," Journal of Family History 17:1 (1992): 25-45.
25. See for example, Margaret Darrow, Revolution in the House: Family, Class and Inheritance in Southern France, 1775-1825 (Princeton, 1989), p. 109; and Angus McLaren, Sexuality and Social Order: The Debate over the Fertility of Women and Workers in France, 1770-1920 (New York and London, 1983), pp. 12-13.
26. See for example, Margaret Darrow, Revolution in the House: Family, Class and Inheritance in Southern France, 1775-1825 (Princeton, 1989), p. 109; and Angus McLaren, Sexuality and Social Order: The Debate over the Fertility of Women and Workers in France, 1770-1920 (New York and London, 1983), pp. 12-13.
27. For the family's carefully moderate approach to life, see my "Defining État in Eighteenth-Century France," esp. pp. 37-40.
28. The concept of "family economy," in which the family operates both as a unit of production and consumption, dependent upon the contributions of each member, has most often been discussed in the context of the working poor and farm families, but seems to apply to the Lamothe family as well. See Olwen Hufton, "Women and the Family Economy," French Historical Studies 9 (1975): 1-22; Louise Tilly, "The Family Wage Economy of a French Textile City: Roubaix, 1872-1906," Journal of Family History (Winter 1979): 381-94.
29. The concept of "family economy," in which the family operates both as a unit of production and consumption, dependent upon the contributions of each member, has most often been discussed in the context of the working poor and farm families, but seems to apply to the Lamothe family as well. See Olwen Hufton, "Women and the Family Economy," French Historical Studies 9 (1975): 1-22; Louise Tilly, "The Family Wage Economy of a French Textile City: Roubaix, 1872-1906," Journal of Family History (Winter 1979): 381-94.
30. Marie to Victor, 10 December 1757; 4 May 1758; 6 January 1759; 8 May 1759; 7 September 1762; 16 July 1763. Marianne to Victor, 1 April 1758; 10 March 1764. Delphin to Victor, 19 December 1758; 11 August 1759; 8 June 1764; 29 June 1764. Alexis to Victor, 13 November 1764. Alexandre to Victor, February 1766.
31. Marie to Victor, 6 December 1764.
32. Marianne to Victor, 24 March 1761; 23 January 1762.
33. Marie to Victor, 18 February 1758. See also 17 March 1758.
34. Margaret Darrow suggests that French women have traditionally held a more positive view of their function as maîtresse de la maison than English women had of "domestic drudgery." Darrow, "French Noblewomen and the New Domesticity, 1750-1850," Feminist Studies 5:1 (1979): 41-65, esp. pp. 57-58. See also Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, The Fruits of Merchant Capital: Slavery and Bourgeois Property in the Rise and Expansion of Capitalism (Oxford, 1983), pp. 302-03.
35. Margaret Darrow suggests that French women have traditionally held a more positive view of their function as maîtresse de la maison than English women had of "domestic drudgery." Darrow, "French Noblewomen and the New Domesticity, 1750-1850," Feminist Studies 5:1 (1979): 41-65, esp. pp. 57-58. See also Elizabeth Fox-Genovese and Eugene D. Genovese, The Fruits of Merchant Capital: Slavery and Bourgeois Property in the Rise and Expansion of Capitalism (Oxford, 1983), pp. 302-03.
36. Marie to Victor, 23 February 1762.
37. Delpin to Victor and Alexandre, 11 March 1763. Daniel left 92,500 livres in property and liquid assets when he died to be divided among his seven children. Marie and Marianne were bequeathed 10,500 and 10,000 livres respectively, along with their room furnishings, some silver place settings, and other domestic goods. Larger portions were left to their two younger brothers, while their two older brothers were made chief heirs.
38. It is evident that their father and brothers relied upon them to help economize and to persuade their brothers in Paris to spend money wisely. See for example, Marianne to Victor, 20 April 1757. Marie to Victor, 1 December 1756; 24 January 1757; 25 November 1761; and passim.
39. Delphin and Alexis to Victor, Undated 1764.
40. Leonore Davidoff and Catherine Hall analyze brother-sister relations in nineteenth-century England, noting that sisters frequently filled in as substitute spouses to unmarried brothers. Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes: Men and Women of the English Middle Class, 1780-1850 (London, 1987), pp. 348-51.
41. Marie to Victor, 11 January 1763. See also Marianne to Victor, 24 January 1757; 1 March 1757; 2 December 1758; 26 May 1759. Marie to Victor, 28 May 1757.
42. Archives Municipales de Bordeaux, Ms. 684, Fonds Meller, Tome I records the early deaths of the Lamothe sisters. A number of historians have observed the despair that the marriage of a brother could cause for a woman who saw herself as chief caretaker and "surrogate spouse" to that sibling. Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations, pp. 164-65 and Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters," pp. 142-43.
43. Archives Municipales de Bordeaux, Ms. 684, Fonds Meller, Tome I records the early deaths of the Lamothe sisters. A number of historians have observed the despair that the marriage of a brother could cause for a woman who saw herself as chief caretaker and "surrogate spouse" to that sibling. Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations, pp. 164-65 and Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters," pp. 142-43.
44. Marie to Victor, 27 November 1760. See also 14 April 1760; 7 September 1762; 11 January 1763; and 22 July 1766.
45. Marianne to Victor, 19 October 1760.
46. This substitution of siblings for spouse and the "romanticization of sibling love" was perhaps not unusual. See Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations, pp. 161 and 164.
47. Jalland examines the importance of the role of the "dutiful daughter," and notes that many regarded service to a father in his old age as the primary duty of the spinster. Victorian Spinsters," pp. 137-41. See also Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations, pp. 158 and 181.
48. Jalland examines the importance of the role of the "dutiful daughter," and notes that many regarded service to a father in his old age as the primary duty of the spinster. Victorian Spinsters," pp. 137-41. See also Mintz, A Prisoner of Expectations, pp. 158 and 181.
49. Marianne to Victor, 23 January 1762.
50. Marianne to Victor, 7 August 1762.
51. Chambers-Schiller, Liberty, a Better Husband, pp. 127-56; Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters," p. 140-41; Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes, pp. 351-52.
52. Chambers-Schiller, Liberty, a Better Husband, pp. 127-56; Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters," p. 140-41; Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes, pp. 351-52.
53. Chambers-Schiller, Liberty, a Better Husband, pp. 127-56; Jalland, "Victorian Spinsters," p. 140-41; Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes, pp. 351-52.
54. Marie to Victor, 29 April 1766 and passim.
55. For example, Marie to Victor, 17 January 1757.
56. Marie to Victor, 28 May 1757; and passim.
57. For example, Marie to Victor, 17 January 1757; 1 March 1757; 2 April 1757; 18 February 1758; 17 March 1758; 16 March 1759; 24 August 1759; 4 March 1760; 23 July 1762. Marianne to Victor, 24 January 1757; 7 August 1759; 2 February 1761.
58. At no point in their letters does Marie or Marianne suggest that she would like either to marry or enter a convent.
59. Hufton, "Women Without Men," pp. 369-70.
60. Marie to Victor, 20 October 1757; 21 January 1758; 22 August 1758; 24 March 1760; 23 February 1762. Marianne to Victor, 6 February 1758.
61. Marianne to Victor, 2 February 1761.
62. Marie to Victor, 23 February 1762.
63. Marie to Victor, 7 July 1760.
64. Marie to Victor, 2 April 1757. This disapproving attitude towards aristocratic women was quite common among women of the middle and even lower classes. Fox-Genovese and Genovese, Fruits of Merchant Capital, p. 330; Darrow, "French Women and the New Domesticity"; and Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes, p. 22.
65. Marie to Victor, 2 April 1757. This disapproving attitude towards aristocratic women was quite common among women of the middle and even lower classes. Fox-Genovese and Genovese, Fruits of Merchant Capital, p. 330; Darrow, "French Women and the New Domesticity"; and Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes, p. 22.
66. Marie to Victor, 2 April 1757. This disapproving attitude towards aristocratic women was quite common among women of the middle and even lower classes. Fox-Genovese and Genovese, Fruits of Merchant Capital, p. 330; Darrow, "French Women and the New Domesticity"; and Davidoff and Hall, Family Fortunes, p. 22.
67. See for example, Marie to Victor, 2 April 1757.
68. For a more detailed discussion of the care that went into the career choices of the Lamothe sons, see my "Bourgeois Identity in Early Modern France," Part II, passim.
69. Robert Forster, The Nobility of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore, 1960), pp. 125-36; Darrow, Revolution in the House, pp. 105-10; Lenard Berlanstein, The Barristers of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century (1740-1793) (Baltimore and London, 1975), p. 65.
70. Robert Forster, The Nobility of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore, 1960), pp. 125-36; Darrow, Revolution in the House, pp. 105-10; Lenard Berlanstein, The Barristers of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century (1740-1793) (Baltimore and London, 1975), p. 65.
71. Robert Forster, The Nobility of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century: A Social and Economic Study (Baltimore, 1960), pp. 125-36; Darrow, Revolution in the House, pp. 105-10; Lenard Berlanstein, The Barristers of Toulouse in the Eighteenth Century (1740-1793) (Baltimore and London, 1975), p. 65.
72. Marianne to Victor, 29 June 1764.
73. Marie to Victor, 11 August 1760.
74. Marie to Victor, 25 September 1761.
75. Marie to Victor, 30 July 1765.
76. Marianne to Victor, 17 October 1764; Undated 1765.
77. See Marianne to Victor, 2 December 1758.
78. Marianne to Victor, Undated 1765.
79. Alexis to Victor, 22 July 1755.
80. Miriam Slater, Family Life in the Seventeenth Century, p. 90.