Charity and Sylvia in the Context of Religion and Gender Roles

Chapter 13: Wild Affections 1811

C&S were not immune from the sense that their relationship was, to some degree, sinful—even beyond the general Protestant attitude that everyone was sinful. There are references to hoping that repentance and Christ’s forgiveness would see them through. Their local Congregational church required a confession and being “born again” to be admitted to taking communion, and this was something they both sought in connection with their “wild affections”—a term they used, taken from a phrase that referred to extramarital sex. To some extent, the struggles they recorded around feeling sinful provide some of the strongest arguments for the sexual nature of their relationship (and that they classified what they were engaging in as “sex”). [Note: At the same time, this struggle should not be interpreted as indicating that they felt uniquely sinful for their relationship. All people were sinful, after all. One could find writings from a similar era by people in heterosexual marriages who felt that some aspect of their sex lives was “sinful.”]

It appears that C&S spent their entire relationship suspended in a balance of considering their sexual relations to be sinful, repenting their transgressions, and continuing to enjoy the erotic aspect of their union. Such are the contradictions of life. [Note: The latter part of this chapter engages in a close textual analysis to find coded euphemisms in their writing that would indicate specific sexual techniques they might have engaged in.]

Chapter 14: Miss Bryant Was the Man 1820

In the 1820 census records, Charity is listed as the “head of household” with “another woman” (Sylvia) also living at the residence. This was repeated for the 1830 census. In 1840, there was the addition of an employee residing there. Only the head of household was recorded by name until 1850 when the census began including the names of dependents.

The chapter goes on to explore the extent to which C&S inhabited gendered roles within their relationship. Although certain aspects assigned Charity the “husband” role and Sylvia the “wife,” this was not a case of a “female husband.” Charity always dressed in conventionally feminine ways. But being older, taking the lead in business, and a certain boldness in social interactions led to the community labeling her “the man” of the couple. And the language Charity used in addressing and referring to Sylvia matched language typically used by a man for his wife.

Local tax and land records listed Charity’s name first in the household, but also included Sylvia’s name (where a wife’s name would not have been listed). Yet their property was recognized as belonging to them in common.

(There follows a discussion of the structure of economic transactions in the early 19th century, including a constant economy of gift exchanges of food, carefully recorded.)