Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 85 (previously 29d) - Queen Anne - transcript
(Originally aired 2018/12/22 - listen here)
Inspired by the release of the movie The Favourite, I decided to do this month’s essay on its subject: Queen Anne, her circle of female favorites especially Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough and Abigail Masham, and the rumors of lesbianism that circled around them. Originally, I was going to include a review of the movie as part of this episode, but the essay ran long enough that I’m saving the review for later.
The Historic Outline
Queen Anne of England reigned for a bare dozen years at the very beginning of the 18th century, marking the end of the Stuart dynasty and participating in the complex wrangling over the intersection of politics and religion that had disrupted much of the later 17th century and would continue in the unsuccessful claims of the Catholic branch of the Stuarts well into the mid-18th century. All this has only the barest relevance to the topic of today’s essay, but it may help to set the stage a little and lay out the major players and timelines.
Anne was the younger daughter of King James II of England, who had succeeded his dashing brother, King Charles II. Charles had restored the monarchy to England after the English Civil War, and the label Restoration with all its licentious associations covers the period of Anne’s birth and childhood. Though Charles fathered over a dozen children by his various mistresses, he left no legitimate children to inherit the throne.
Charles had treated religious adherence as something of a political strategy, flirting with Catholicism when it might secure French support, but bowing to Parliament’s pressure to support the Anglican church. But his brother James had converted to Catholicism in mid-life, which didn’t sit well with the English establishment, which was virulently anti-Catholic at a time when religious and political loyalties could not be entirely separated. James’s Catholicism and support for the inclusion of Catholics in government led to his ouster only three years after his coronation, in what was called “The Glorious Revolution.” The idea of deposing monarchs was still a touchy subject after the execution of Charles and James’s father, King Charles I earlier in the century. The Glorious Revolution was led by James’s Dutch son-in-law, William of Orange, resulting in the co-rule of William and Mary. The degree to which William came down on the anti-Catholic side still leaves traces today in how both the name and color Orange is associated with anti-Catholic political groups in Northern Ireland.
To appease the anti-Catholic elements in parliament, King Charles II had required that James’s two surviving children from his first marriage, Mary and Anne, be raised in the Church of England, while allowing the children James had from his second marriage to be raised Catholic. Religion would complicate the succession in various ways.
William and Mary had reigned jointly as equal monarchs -- an unusual approach, given that typically the monarch’s spouse would not have any independent claim to the throne. When Queen Mary died childless, William continued reigning but with the stipulation that if he re-married, his children from that marriage would come after Anne’s children in the succession. This left Anne and her descendents as the next in line. But by 1700, Anne had gone through 17 pregnancies that ended in 7 miscarriages, 7 stillbirths or deaths within a day or so of birth, and 2 early deaths from smallpox. The only child who lived beyond his first couple of years had just died at age 11. The 18th century was not a kind time to be a monarch trying to produce heirs. Anne and Mary were the only survivors of their mother’s 8 pregnancies. Mary did not bring any pregnancies to term.
Faced with the prospect of the next prospective heirs being Catholic, an Act of Parliament stipulated that after Anne the succession would pass to her cousin, Sophia of Hannover, and Sophia’s protestant descendents (thus the sequence of King Georges). A year later, at William’s death, Anne came to the throne. She just barely missed having to deal with the continuing claims by her father James, who had died the year before. Her half-brother James Stuart, known later as “The Old Pretender” was supported by several Catholic monarchs on the continent, but saved most of his active opposition until after Anne’s death in 1714.
So. That’s the political and family background of Anne’s life and reign. So why are we talking about her in a lesbian-themed podcast?
Passionate Friendships and Libertine Sex
You’ll often hear about the phenomenon of Romantic Friendship in the context of the Victorian era--the later 19th century. The term describes a social context where women were expected to have passionate same-sex friendships that were expressed in language and behavior similar to that expected of male-female romantic couples. In fact, female pairs could be even more intense in the expression of their emotional bond than was considered proper between heterosexual couples.
But there have been regular cycles throughout history of a public culture of passionate friendships between women. One of those cycles occurred in the second half of the 17th century. It can be seen expressed in the “Society of Friendship” of Katherine Phillips and the poems she addressed to her closest female friends, or the somewhat more erotic poetry of Aphra Behn. It can be seen in the préciosité movement brought from the Paris salons and associated with Queen Henrietta Maria (the wife of Charles I) that elevated women’s platonic friendships over marriage and heterosexual lust. And it can be seen in female authors toying with the idea of women-only societies, such as in Margaret Cavendish’s The Convent of Pleasure or Delariviere Manley’s The New Atalantis, though not so much in a utopian sense in the latter work as a satirical one. We’ll come back to The New Atalantis in a little bit.
Especially among the aristocracy and literati, the idea of passionate attachments between women was normalized. So when a young Princess Mary (Anne’s sister) wrote the following to courtier Frances Apsley, it was not considered outside acceptable forms of expression:
“I love you with a flame more lasting than the Vestals’ fire. Thou art my life, my soul, my all that heaven can give. Death’s life with you; without you, death to live. What can I say to persuade you that I love you with more zeal than any lover can? I love you with a love that ne’er was known by man. I have for you excess of friendship--more of love then any woman can for woman and more love then even the constantest lover had for his mistress. You are loved more than can be expressed by your ever obedient wife, very affectionate friend, humble servant, to kiss the ground where once you go.”
The young Princess Anne had passionate correspondences with several older female friends (including a rivalry with her sister over Frances Apsley’s affection). There’s some indication that those around her felt that some of these attachments were more intense than was desirable. Mary Cornwallis was a Lady of the Bedchamber (a type of lady in waiting) to Princess Anne but was dismissed from service by Anne’s father due to concerns about the relationship. This doesn’t necessarily mean sexual concerns--there are always reasons to be concerned when someone appears to have an undue influence on a potential heir to the throne--but King Charles was later said to have commented that “No man ever loved his Mistress as his niece Anne did Mrs Cornwallis.” which certainly has suggestions of erotic overtones.
But Anne’s deepest and longest lasting such relationship began when she was perhaps six years old with a girl named Sarah Jennings who would have been eleven at the time. Sarah was a great beauty, ferociously intelligent and witty, and politically savvy, though not without her blind spots. The friendship must have seemed something of an odd couple, though the later stereotype of Anne as dull, frumpy, and overweight does her something of a disservice, and comes in part from the biased memoirs Sarah wrote after their break-up. Anne would become a dedicated and knowledgeable participant in government, and in later years she dealt with crippling chronic pain and illness which contributed to her physical problems. But I get ahead of myself.
18th century society interacted with women’s same-sex relationships on several different layers. There was the mode of intense platonic friendship that might use the language of romance but was treated as being sexless. There was something of a middle ground where people might acknowledge erotic possibilities but deflect their potential in various ways. This can be seen in a poem of 1670 about two women in a “marriage of two beauties” written by a male author in a female voice. The poem’s persona expresses jealousy of male rivals and laments that the “too great resemblance” between her and her friend prevent any romantic success. Other poems written from a male point of view address intimate female couples urging them to consider their love impossible to fulfill so that they will accept the poet’s attentions instead. I’ve included these poems in a previous podcast on homoerotic poetry of the 17th century.
But this was also the era of libertine sexual excess and an era when the concept of binary sexuality--the idea that one had either heterosexual or homosexual desires--had not yet taken solid hold. In the court of Charles II it was no secret that women might engage in sexual affairs with other women. A French visitor to the court reported on love affairs between the maids of honor to the queen and the king’s mistresses. When King Charles discovered that his mistress Hortense Mancini was having an affair with Anne, Countess of Sussex, his disapproval was only because the Countess of Sussex was his illegitimate daughter. (I had fun including this affair in my historic novelette “The Mazarinette and the Musketeer.”)
This isn’t to say that there was no stigma attached to same-sex relationships. Anne’s brother in law, King William also attracted rumors of homosexual relationships with close friends after Queen Mary’s death, in part because of his lack of female mistresses--a striking lack in that era--and in part because it was a popular political weapon against relationships that were felt to exert undue influence or reap undue rewards such as titles. When Anne’s favorites came in for criticism, the primary reason was due to their political influence. Accusations of lesbianism were only a tool to bring to bear on that concern. On the other hand, extra-marital relationships with the opposite sex were similarly looked askance when influence and profit were involved. It’s unclear whether there was any basis to the rumors about William’s relationships, but they contribute to our understanding of the socio-political climate of the times. Note that, unlike sexual relations between women, those between men were a crime under English law.
This climate of romantic and even sexual possibilities between women doesn’t mean that we should interpret the subjects of rumor as being “lesbian” in the modern exclusive sense. Both Anne and Sarah were happy in their marriages, though of course they would have had little choice but to marry even if they hadn’t been. There is plenty of evidence that Sarah and John Churchill were passionately in love and during their long separations due to his military career, their correspondence smoulders so furiously it’s a wonder it didn’t spontaneously combust. Anne was, perhaps, less overt in expressions of affection to her husband, but she regularly supported Prince George against the criticism of her family. And Anne’s 17 pregnancies in their first 17 years of marriage attest to a consistently active sex life.
I’ll discuss further evidence for the public image of women’s same-sex relationships a bit later when I talk about Delariviere Manley’s political fantasy The New Atalantis.
Having looked at the social context of sexuality in the later 17th century, let’s introduce several other major players besides Anne.
Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough
Anne’s childhood friend Sarah Jennings married an able and ambitious army officer named John Churchill and devoted much of her energy to furthering his career. Shortly after, Anne married her cousin, a Danish prince named George, (she almost married a different cousin George--the Hanoverian prince who would later succeed her as George I) and as a married woman, she was entitled to set up her own household. Sarah Churchill became Anne’s Lady of the Bedchamber, serving not only as friend and confidante but as an able and loyal advisor--though one who made no distinctions between what she wanted and what she thought the princess should want. The position of Lady of the Bedchamber always had political implications due to the direct access it provided to royal women. Anne’s father James disapproved of Sarah’s appointment, fearing that the strong-willed Sarah would dominate his daughter’s opinions and decisions. He wasn’t wrong. Anne was infatuated with her friend Sarah and several times defied pressure to send her away. But Sarah, in turn, provided a rock of loyalty and support in a turbulent social context when Anne had few people she could rely on that utterly.
Princess Anne wanted the illusion of equality between the two of them in private--the ideal concept of platonic philosophy. A year after Anne’s marriage she wrote to Sarah, “Let me beg of you that you not call me your highness at every word, but be free with me as one friend ought to be with another, and you can never give me greater proof of your friendship than in telling me your mind freely in all things, which I do beg you to do.” They had pet names for each other to emphasize this informality. Anne was “Mrs. Morley” and Sarah was “Mrs. Freeman.” For the rest of Anne’s life, both the strength and weakness of their relationship was that Sarah took her at her word and told her her mind freely in all things, speaking without distinction of rank.
Two years after Anne’s marriage, her uncle King Charles II died and her father James came to the throne. Three years later, King James was deposed by his daughter Mary and son-in-law William. Through the turmoil of the transition, Sarah was at Anne’s side, advising her to distance herself from her father and helping her escape the palace by night, to go join the opposition. Sarah was also behind Anne’s maneuverings to achieve a financial independence from William and Mary’s purse strings, and as a result contributed to a falling out between the sisters that rebounded on her. The Churchills were moving up in the world--he had been named Earl of Marlborough--but between Queen Mary’s hostility and the work of political enemies they had a reversal of fortunes. Marlborough was accused of conspiring with the exiled James and dismissed from his post, though the accusation was later found to be based on forged documents. Anne’s loyalty to them was unshaken and she moved out of the palace rather than obey Queen Mary’s command to dismiss Sarah from her service.
Anne wrote to Sarah, “I have a thousand melancholy thoughts, and cannot help fearing they should hinder you from coming to me; though how they can do that without making you a prisoner I cannot imagine. But let them do what they please, nothing shall ever vex me so I can have the satisfaction of seeing dear Mrs Freeman; and I swear I would live on bread and water between four walls, with her, without repining; for as long as you continue kind, nothing can ever be a real mortification to your faithful Mrs Morley, who wishes she may never enjoy a moment’s happiness in this world or the next, if ever she proves false to you.”
In a presentiment of the later dynamics of their relationship, when Sarah suggested they might go along with Queen Mary’s demand that they separate for a time, Anne replied, “If ever you should do so cruel a thing as to leave me, from that moment I shall never enjoy one quiet hour. And should you do it without asking my consent… I will shut myself up and never see the world more but live where I may be forgotten by human kind.”
The royal sisters never reconciled from the conflict over Sarah Churchill and Mary died of smallpox two years later, leaving no living children. Anne was now officially the next in succession.
Abigail Hill Masham
Now we come to Abigail Hill Masham.
At some point during this period--I haven’t been able to pin down exactly when--Sarah Churchill took into her household a poor relation named Abigail Hill along with two of Abigail’s siblings. The impulse may have been one of charity, but the two must have developed a close and strong relationship because Sarah was happy to promote Abigail’s career. I haven’t found a reference to what position Abigail held in the Churchill household, but some time later Sarah got her appointed as one of Princess Anne’s bedchamber women.
To be clear, there was a distinction between Sarah’s position as Lady of the Bedchamber and the post of Woman of the Bedchamber, which was less ceremonial and involved more of the duties of a personal maid. But both were positions typically filled by upper class women and involved regular intimate access to the person they served.
In addition to whatever family loyalty prompted Sarah to place Abigail in this position, she clearly expected Abigail to serve as her surrogate and representative in Anne’s household, especially when Sarah’s other obligations took her away from court for extended periods. This would be a mistake. Sarah’s other major mistake with regard to Abigail was to assume that they were aligned on the same political side. I’ll talk more about that when we move on to the political context.
Unlike for Sarah Churchill, we don’t have much documentary evidence from Abigail herself regarding her life and position. Contemporary descriptions of her personality and motivations align very strongly to political allegiance: those who considered her an ally said she was, “a person of a plain sound understanding, of great truth and sincerity, without the least mixture of falsehood or disguise, of an honest boldness and courage superior to her sex, firm and disinterested in her friendship and full of love, duty and veneration for the queen her mistress.” Those on the opposite political side described her as, “exceedingly mean and vulgar in her manners, of an unequal temper, childishly exceptious, and passionate.”
Since we don’t have Sarah’s letters sent to Anne--only the memoirs she wrote after they became estranged--we don’t have an even-handed image of what she thought about Abigail before they became rivals. And after that estrangement, Sarah’s opinions were sharply personal, viewing Abigail as a traitor and a viper who failed in proper gratitude to Sarah for furthering her career.
Some time after Anne became queen, Abigail married Samuel Masham, but that belongs to the discussion of how Anne and Sarah began falling out, so we’ll come back to it later.
Delariviere Manley
Another woman who is useful for understanding why lesbian rumors stuck to Queen Anne’s court is a writer named Delariviere Manley, who combined entertainment with political satire and walked a perilous line between being a paid political operative and drawing legal censure for the pointedness of her works. Manley was not a member of Queen Anne’s circle--quite the contrary--but she was a sharp observer of the court.
In 1709--near the middle of Anne’s reign--Delariviere Manley published a roman à clef The New Atalantis, which was a satire of British politics set on the fictional island of Atlantis. Manley so clearly depicted the targets of her critique that she was arrested and questioned about it in preparation for a libel case against her. She steadfastly maintained the work was entirely fictional and the case was eventually dropped, but no one was fooled. The primary targets of her satires were the ruling Whig party, and in particular the Marlboroughs. Among the material incorporated into The New Atalantis was a skit entitled The Secret History of Queen Zarah--that’s “Zarah with a Z”, which gives you a sense of how flimsily disguised the characters were.
The New Atalantis focused heavily on sex and relationships as an alleged driver of the workings of government and of the aristocratic social circles that were intertwined with the official structures. Delariviere knew something of interpersonal drama herself. After a peripatetic childhood accompanying her father’s military postings, at his death she and her sister became wards of a cousin, John Manley. Within a few years, Manley had married her, apparently forgetting that he was already married. A few years after the birth of their son, Delariviere left her husband for the household of Barbara Villiers, Duchess of Cleveland, the one-time mistress of King Charles II. Villiers threw her out half a year later, allegedly for flirting with her son. Delariviere spent several years after that writing plays, but only became famous after the publication of The New Atalantis. From there she moved on to a career as a political pamphleteer, though she returned later to drama and sensational novels.
Although the criticisms encoded in The New Atalantis were wide-ranging, the section that concerns us here focuses on a group of women identified as “The New Cabal.” The work makes clear the homoerotic sexual exploits of the group while entirely avoiding any description of specific physical acts, invoking the reader’s imagination to fill in the silences. The targets of this satire are Queen Anne and her court, especially her female favorites. Manley perhaps felt more free to write about the topic than most authors of the day because her own moral position was fairly abandoned, but she was also writing from a position of criticism, rather than depicting desires she shared. The crucial aspect of her writing is that it reflects ideas and images that were in currency during Anne’s reign.
Although the descriptions of the women’s activities in the novel mostly go no further than “kisses and embraces”, the rules of the New Cabal not only exclude men, but exclude women who have voluntary romantic relationships with men (marriage is grudgingly tolerated as a necessary evil, but male lovers are right out).
The women join in loving couples who pledge not only devotion (and secrecy) but a sharing of property and wealth between them. Most of the descriptions of the women (including those meant to represent contemporary figures) don’t mention gender role play or cross-dressing (cross-dressing wasn’t yet a trope strongly associated with lesbian relationships) but there are a few exceptions. One woman is described as mannish in behavior (though not in dress), and another is described as preferring to “mask her diversions in the habit [i.e., clothing] of the other sex”. But this is not as part of a butch-femme relationship, for her female partner also cross-dresses and together they are said to wander through the seedy parts of the city picking up prostitutes for their shared enjoyment. But for the most part, the women described in the satire are feminine-presenting and partner with other feminine-presenting women.
The exclusively female nature of the group is only emphasized by a grudging allowance for one bisexual member who is intended to represent Lucy Wharton who, in real life, had a female lover in opera singer Catherine Tofts. Another real-life couple in The New Atalantis represents Catherine Colyear, Duchess of Portmore and Dorchester who is paired with a character representing playwright Catharine Trotter, whose work Agnes de Castro also has themes of passionate friendship between women.
One thing in common between all the women depicted in this satire is that they were associated with the Whig political party. And now it’s time to talk about English politics around 1700.
Politics and Power in the Reign of Queen Anne
I’m going to really, really oversimplify this discussion, but it’s kind of important to have at least a vague idea of the sides. At the time, England was only starting to develop something identifiable as political parties. The underlying power struggle between absolute and constitutional monarchy was in full swing--keep in mind that the 17th century was when Parliament flexed its muscles and executed a king--so general interest groups and affinities were just starting to aggregate and align as fixed political parties that competed for control of Parliament. Ministers of State were still generally appointed directly by the monarch, though influenced by the practical need to gain cooperation for goals and policies. The concept of a Prime Minister hadn’t really gelled yet. But we can identify two named political parties during Anne’s reign and the direct competition between them set the stage for the more personal conflicts within Anne’s household.
The Whig party--which, by the way, had nothing to do with the male fashion for wearing elaborate artificial hairpieces at this time--played a major role in ousting James II in the Glorious Revolution. They were strongly anti-Catholic (although that changed in later centuries), often aligned with commercial interests and Protestant dissenters, and promoted the concept of constitutional monarchy.
Their rivals, the Tory party, supported the primacy of the Anglican church against a more broadminded acceptance of religious diversity, and were more inclined to support royal power, having their origins in royalist elements during the English Civil War.
Although the key players during Anne’s reign sometimes fell indeterminately in the moderate middle between these parties and sometimes shifted allegiance, I’m going to oversimplify and identify them by party affiliation toward the latter part of her reign. Three powerful men were the core of Queen Anne’s first government: Sidney Godolphin as First Lord of the Treasury and the Duke of Marlborough--did I mention that the Churchills were elevated to a duchy when Anne came to the throne? He was named commander of the armies. Both had begun as moderate Tories but became increasingly associated with the Whigs due to that party’s support for the ongoing wars on the continent. Oh, and due to Sarah Churchill’s overwhelming support for the Whig party. So let’s just consider them functionally Whigs for the purpose.
The third important man in Anne’s initial government was Robert Harley, Speaker of the House of Commons, who started out a moderate Whig but then shifted to Tory allegiance, so we’re going to consider him the primary Tory figure in this struggle. Confusing, I know.
Queen Anne leaned toward the Tories--that whole royalist thing, you know--but was under significant pressure, not only from Sarah Churchill, to appoint more Whigs to her administration. This pressure was all the more painful as she personally disliked some of the prominent Whig leaders.
Harley initially came into power through the influence of Godolphin and Marlborough but as their interests diverged, he engaged the power of political writers like Daniel Defoe, Jonathan Swift, and Delariviere Manley to influence public opinion toward the Tory side via satirical pamphlets. He also engaged the services of a cousin...Abigail Hill, now Abigail Masham after marrying one of Prince George’s grooms.
Sarah Churchill was perhaps the most influential person at court at the beginning of Anne’s reign--far more influential than the official ministers. Marlborough and Godolphin treated her as a political equal and she was trusted to represent Marlborough’s interests at court while he was abroad with the military. Sarah not only had the queen’s ear, but she was a powerful gatekeeper. She could decide who the queen had time and interest to meet with and who she was too busy for.
Sarah Churchill’s power was not only unofficial. Anne had named her Keeper of the Privy Purse--the official in charge of finances for the royal household. If Wikipedia is to be believed, in the entire history of the English monarchy, only one monarch has ever named a woman to this post: Queen Anne. And she named two: Sarah Churchill, and then later as her replacement, Abigail Masham. The anxieties around the queen’s favorites were not simply about social influence but about real financial and political power. And to some extent about men freaking out over women holding that power and excluding them from the innermost circles of decision-making.
So when Sarah threw her considerable influence in on the side of the Whigs, people took notice and worried. And when Harley saw a chance to counter that influence with an agent inside the queen’s inner circle of favorites and confidantes, you can bet he took that chance, especially after he was forced out of office in 1708 by Whig pressure. By then, Abigail Masham was displacing Sarah Churchill in the queen’s affections, though Sarah hadn’t realized that yet. Abigail might have family feelings and personal loyalty for Sarah, but her own political inclinations were solidly on the Tory side. She didn’t need persuading to act as Harley’s agent within the court.
And with that, we move on to how the inter-personal dynamics played out as Abigail displaced Sarah in Queen Anne’s life.
The Break-Up
The relationship between Anne and Sarah had always been lopsided, but not always in the same way. As noted previously, Sarah was beautiful, brilliant, savvy, and charming. She also had, as one historian puts it, “an almost pathological inability to admit the validity of anyone else’s point of view.” She was certain of the rightness of her opinions and positions and considered it her duty to make Anne see the light and agree with her. She had promised Anne that she would always treat her as an equal and be forthright with her.
But Anne didn’t always want brutal honesty; sometimes she wanted support, companionship, and comfort. Sarah had provided that support and companionship in Anne’s youth and that built up a lot of credit. But when Anne came to the throne, Sarah’s advice and persuasion was no longer directed at helping Anne navigate tricky political waters from a vulnerable position, now it was directed at shaping Anne’s government and policy into the Marlboroughs’ desired form. Sarah ordered Anne to appoint her own Whig allies to cabinet posts, lectured her about affairs of state, and generally treated her like a child.
Anne wanted to please her closest friend but she had her own ideas about government and was developing the will and stubbornness to pursue them. And Sarah was increasingly spending her time away from the court, something that became a sore point between them. Anne’s independence caused immediate friction. In the first year of her reign, a courtier noted, “The dutchess of Marlborough has lately had two terrible Battles with the Queen and she came out from her in great heat, and when the Queen was seen afterwards her eyes were red, and it was plain she had been crying very much.”
Such conflicts were all the more painful because of the bond between them. What we know of the internal dynamics of Anne and Sarah’s relationship comes largely from Sarah’s memoirs written at a time of separation and bitterness. But that bitterness itself gives evidence of the depth of Sarah’s attachment, even if not as single-minded as Anne’s was to her. Anne was besotted with Sarah, writing, “If I writ whole volumes I could never express how well I love you.” Sarah later complained that Anne “desired to possess her wholly.”
Anne was jealous of Sarah’s other female friends, and her expectations regarding Sarah’s attention and presence would become part of their fracture. Anne wrote, “I know I have a great many rivals which makes me sometimes fear losing what I so value.” And regarding one specific friend, Lady Anne Sunderland, “You have often told me that I have no reason to be jealous of her and therefore I will not complain any more till I see more reasons for it, but I assure you I have been a little troubled at it.”
The earliest surviving mention of Abigail Hill in the correspondence Sarah received from Anne appears to portray Abigail as one of those other friends that Anne is jealous of. (Keep in mind here that references to Mrs. Freeman are to Sarah, and Anne’s references to Mrs. Morley are to herself.)
“My fever is not quite gone and I am still lame, I cannot go without limping. I hope Mrs Freeman has no thoughts of going to the opera with Mrs Hill, and will have a care of engaging herself too much in her company, for, if you will give way to that, it is a thing that will insensibly grow upon you… for your own sake, as well as poor Mrs Morley’s, have as little to do with that enchantress as ’tis possible and pray pardon me for saying this.”
But Anne herself was already under the spell of the enchantress Abigail Hill, though her enchantments may have been as simple as being attentive and kind and far more circumspect in how she attempted to use political influence with the queen. By around 1706, the queen’s irritation with the Marlboroughs led her to turn to their rival Harley for political advice. And though they weren’t aware of it at the time, Abigail was a conduit for those communications. This personal and political defection may have given Anne something of a guilty conscience.
In a letter to Sarah she wrote, “I cannot forbear telling you why I disowned my being in a spleen this morning and the cause of my being so. My poor heart is so tender that I durst not tell you what was the matter with me, because I knew if I had begun to speak I should not have been fit to be seen by anybody… The reason of my being in the spleen was that I fancied by your looks and things you have sometimes let fall, that you have hard and wrong thoughts of me. I should be very glad to know what they are that I might clear myself, but let it be in writing for I dare not venture to speak to you for the reason I have told you already… don’t let anybody see this strange scrawl.”
Sarah later annotated this letter with, “she was under the witchcraft of Mrs Hill, however she says she does not deserve the hard thoughts I may have of her and… she adds that she will not be uneasy if I would come to her and calls me unkind, but nobody of common sense can believe that I did not do all that was possible to be well with her, it was my interest to do so. And though I had all the gratitude imaginable for the kindness she had expressed to me for so many years, I could have no passion for her that could blind me so much as to make me do anything that was extravagant. But it wasn’t possible for me to go to her as often as I had done in private, for let her write what she will, she never was free with me after she was fond of Mrs Hill, and whoever reads her letters will find a great difference in the style of them when she really loved me, from those where she only pretended to do so.”
What were the “extravagant” things Sarah declined to do? Was it only a matter of not feeling required to dance constant attendance on the queen? Historians have sometimes seen coded references in texts like this, but it’s hard to be certain. What is certain is that Sarah felt hurt and rejected...even if the reason for that hurt was Anne’s refusal to obey and forgive her at every turn.
A year later in 1707 Abigail’s betrayal became overt. While Sarah was absent from court, Abigail Hill married Samuel Masham, a member of Prince George’s household. It was something of a secret wedding--secret at least from Sarah Churchill, though not from the queen who was present as a witness. But Sarah was blindsided and belatedly came to understand how solidly embedded Abigail was in the queen’s confidence.
Sarah recorded her outrage that ''her cousin was become an absolute favorite, that the queen herself was present at her marriage in Dr. Arbuthnot's lodgings, at which time her majesty had called for a round sum out of the privy purse; that Mrs. Masham came often to the queen when the prince was asleep, and was generally two hours every day in private with her; and I likewise then discovered beyond all dispute Mr. Harley's correspondence and interest at court by means of this woman.'' (I’ve seen some writers interpret the bit about Abigail “coming to the queen and being private with her” as referring to sexual encounters, but it looks more ambiguous to me. The simple personal intimacy of private time together would be enough of a challenge to Sarah’s position.)
The Duke of Marlborough, more wisely, cautioned Sarah to let things be, writing, “What you say of [Abigail] is very odd, and if you think she is a good weather cock, it is high time to leave off struggling; for believe me nothing is worth rowing against wind and tide; at least you will think so when you come to my age.” But Sarah had no intention of ceding the field so easily. She raged, “To see a woman whom I had raised out of the dust put on such a superior air and hear her assure me by way of consolation that the queen would always be kind to me! At length I went on to reproach her for her ingratitude and her secret management with the queen to undermine those who had so long and with so much honour served her majesty. To this she replied that she never spoke to her majesty on business.”
Whether or not Abigail was truthful about not advising the queen on the business of government, Sarah saw her hand at work in Anne’s loss of confidence in the Whig leaders and pressured Marlborough and Godolphin to force Harley to resign from his government positions. But she was no more successful in pressuring Anne to dismiss Abigail than anyone had ever been in pressuring Anne to dismiss Sarah herself.
With relations strained, the beginning of the end came in 1708 in the context of a church service celebrating a significant military victory on the continent. As part of her formal office for the queen, it was Sarah’s duty to select the jewels that Anne would wear for the event. In the coach ride to the church, she discovered that the pieces she’d chosen were not being worn and she concluded that Abigail had contradicted her directions. She and the queen had a terrible quarrel, spilling over in public as they arrived at the Cathedral. And Sarah did an unforgivable thing: impatient with Anne’s continued argument, she told the queen to “Be quiet!”
Even Sarah realized she’d gone too far. She tried unsuccessfully to apologize but Anne refused to respond to her letters or allow her into her presence, saying that she had been told to be quiet and therefore she would give no answer. The only reason that Sarah was not immediately stripped of her court offices was to avoid a public break with her husband who was still a vital part of the war efforts.
If that weren’t bad enough, later that year, Prince George died, and even as Sarah used the logistics of the funeral as a context for coming back into contact with Anne, she made the event all about her continuing conflict with Abigail. And we now get a glimpse of Abigail’s viewpoint, in a letter to an ally indicating that she, too, was more concerned about using Anne’s bereavement as a site for their power struggle, rather than being concerned about comforting the queen.
The break played out in correspondence for some time, with Anne alternately begging for a reconciliation and standing fast against Sarah’s demands that she dismiss Abigail. Some of Abigail Masham’s enemies even suggested putting the matter of her influence over the queen before Parliament, though one prominent Whig objected, “it is impossible for any man of sense, honour, or honesty to come in to an address to remove a dresser from the Queen… only to gratify Lady Marlborough’s passions.” Perhaps even Sarah realized that her campaign against Abigail could only bring ridicule and ruin on herself.
By the end of 1710, Sarah had lost her official positions at court. The prestigious post of Keeper of the Privy Purse was given to her rival Abigail while the posts of Mistress of the Robes and Groom of the Stole were transferred to a new favorite, Elizabeth Seymour, Duchess of Somerset. Like Abigail, Seymour’s closeness to the queen made her a target of political attacks. Even as Sarah lost her struggle, Seymore was moving into Abigail’s place as favorite, due to the latter often being away from court on family business, although there’s no evidence that the two of them had the sort of personal rivalry that had marked the transition from Sarah to Abigail.
With the end of the war in Europe, the Duke of Marlborough became somewhat more dispensable and by the end of 1711 he too had lost his government offices, based on a trumped up charge of embezzlement. With the decline of the Marlboroughs and the Whig party, Harley again climbed in power and influence though his resurgence was short-lived. He fell out of favor shortly before Queen Anne’s death in 1714. But this essay isn’t about the men.
Where Did the Accusations Come From?
Emma Donoghue’s book Passions Between Women opens with the contradictory use of the word “passion” in the correspondence between Queen Anne and Sarah Churchill. For years, their letters had concluded with salutations assuring each other that they were “most passionately and tenderly yours” and speaking of “a sincere and tender passion” felt between them. But when Sarah turned her poison pen against Abigail Masham, she warned that people were linking Anne and Abigail’s names together with descriptions of “stuff not fit to be mentioned of passions between women” with additional insinuations that made it clear that sexual relations were the topic.
Did these two uses of “passion” have separate and distinct meanings to the two women? Or did they represent two points on a continuum of meaning for the word? If Queen Anne became associated in the public mind with lesbian relationships with her favorites, the irony is that Sarah Churchill was one of the sources of that association, even though she herself was an obvious candidate for the same suspicions.
How was that association built? And do we have the evidence to determine whether it was true, either in Abigail Masham’s case or in Sarah Churchill’s? Donoghue’s book tackles the general background to the relationship between romantic friendship and sexual relations across the long 18th century. But we’re concerned with a narrower slice of history here.
The dichotomy between an acceptable image of chaste but emotional friendship between women and an unacceptable image of sordid same-sex erotics has often been used to shield the upper class women who participated in the culture of romantic friendship from accusations of lesbianism. The argument is that the openness and pervasiveness of romantic friendships must mean that they could not have been accompanied by sexual desire or sexual activity. This thinking has a strong streak of “nice girls don’t” in which women capable of expressing the elevated sentiments of friendship in literature or in their own lives are thought incapable of engaging in anything so perverted as lesbian sex. These interpretations are not only complicated by the prejudices that modern historians bring to their studies, but also by the different attitudes and language used by women in history for physical expressions of love. When women speak of “chaste kisses” it can mean something rather different for a woman who classifies only penetrative sex with a man as unchaste.
Suspending judgment regarding any sexual component of the relationship between Anne and Sarah, it’s clear the overall shape of that relationship--including its intense expressions and fierce jealousies--is indistinguishable from a romantic and sexual one. And yet Sarah Churchill was a major source of the rumors that Abigail Masham participated in a lesbian relationship with the queen--or at least that their relationship was being interpreted as such.
Sarah wrote to Anne warning her, “I remember you said… of all things in the world you valued most your reputation, which I confess, surprised me very much, that your majesty should so mention the word after having discovered so great a passion for such a woman, for sure there can be no great reputation in a thing so strange and unaccountable… nor can I think that having no inclination for anyone but one’s own sex is enough to maintain such a character as I wish may still be yours.”
That seems quite unambiguous in terms of what is being implied. The word “unacountable” is something of a code-word for sexually suspect relationships between women. But the word often brings in issues of class as well as gender. When Sarah complains of “so great a passion for such a woman” is it specifically the homoerotic aspect of the relationship that she’s targeting? Or might there be an element of considering Abigail too low-class to be worthy of the queen’s affections? Although Sarah and Abigail were cousins, there was a clear distinction of birth between the two branches of the family.
As I noted earlier in this essay, the sexual possibilities between women were solidly in evidence in the Restoration court that Anne was born into. Given this, can Sarah’s accusations be taken as evidence that her own relationship with Anne was not sexual? Or was Sarah simply so deeply invested in using any tool necessary to dislodge Abigail that she was unconcerned with the implication? After all, Sarah derided Abigail as an ungrateful bitch, a viper, and concerned with her own political interests above the queen’s welfare--which all could reasonably be applied to Sarah as well.
In any event, Anne’s response to the previous was “Sure, I may love whom I please.”
But Sarah wasn’t done. An anonymous ally--quite probably her secretary Mr. Mainwaring-- wrote an long scurrilous ballad ranting about Abigail Masham’s offenses: her ingratitude, her political connivance with Harley, her devoted allegiance to the Anglican church, and with only the thinnest of veils over the suggestiveness, the assertion that she performed “sweet service” and “dark deeds at night” to gain her place. The publication of this ballad was no longer a serious campaign to win back Anne’s attention, it was intended to discredit Abigail and to hurt and humiliate the queen in revenge for the slights Sarah believed herself to have received.
The ballad is given “to the tune of Fair Rosamund” and here are a few of the more suggestive of the 35 verses. I’ve expanded the coded references that were given as initials in the original. The ballad tune itself carries meaning, as the Rosamund of the title (and the original ballad) was a mistress of King Henry II and the song tells of how she was poisoned by the queen, Eleanor of Aquitaine. Did Sarah see herself as the avenging spouse, poisoning her partner’s mistress?
A new ballad to the tune of Fair Rosamund [the tune is also known as “Flying Fame”]
I
When as Qu[een] A[nne] of Great Renown
Great Britain’s Scepter sway’d,
Besides the Church she dearly lov’d
A Dirty Chamber Maid.
II
O! Abi[gail] that was her Name,
She starched and stitch’d full well,
But how she pierc’d this Royal Heart,
No Mortal Man can tell.
III
However for sweet Service done
And Causes of great Weight,
Her Royal Mistress made her, Oh!
A Minister of State.
IV
Her Secretary she was not,
Because she could not write;
But had the conduct and the Care
Of some dark deeds at Night.
V
The Important Pass of the Back-Stairs
Was put into her Hand;
And up she brought the greatest R[ogue]
Grew in this fruitful land.
VI
And what am I to do, quoth he,
Oh! for this Favour great!
You are to teach me how, quoth she,
To be a sl[ut] of State.
And so on at great length, concluding with a hopeful, if irrational, prediction that the subject of the song would be rejected and cast out.
Another likely output of Sarah and Mainwaring’s collaboration was a pamphlet entitled The Rival Duchesses with an imagined conversation between Abigail Masham and Madame de Maintenon, the official mistress of King Louis XIV of France. In it, Abigail boasts, “Especially at court I was taken for a more modish lady, was rather addicted to another sort of passion, of having too great a regard for my own sex, in as much that few people thought I would ever have married. But to free myself from that aspersion some of our sex labor under, for being too fond of one another, I was resolved to marry as soon as I could fix to my advantage or inclination.”
At which Madame de Maintenon asks, “And does that female vice, which is the most detestable in nature, reign among you, as it does with us in France?”
To which Abigail responds, “O Madam, we are arrived to as great perfection in sinning that way as you can pretend to!”
Having almost certainly participated in the creation and circulation of these two items, Sarah Churchill then called them to the queen’s attention, writing with studied casualness, “I had almost forgot to tell you of a new book that is come out: ... the subject is ridiculous, and the book not well written, but that looks so much the worse, for it shews that the notion is extensively spread among all sorts of people. It is a dialogue between Madame Maintenon and Madam Masham...and there is stuff, not fit to be mentioned, of passions between women...”
Sarah even brought Anne’s physician into the matter, confiding to him, “I hear there is some [pamphlet] lately come out, which they said were not fit for me to see, by which I guess they are upon that subject that you may remember I complained to you, and really it troubled me very much upon my own account as well as others, because it was very disagreeable and what I know to be a lie, but something of that disagreeable turn there was in an odious ballad to the tune of fair Rosamund, printed a good while ago… but that which I hated was the disrespect to the Queen and the disagreeable expressions of the dark deeds in the night.”
Sarah was not the only one implying lesbian goings on among the court. As noted before, in the midst of the conflict between Sarah and Abigail, Delariviere Manley’s satire The New Atalantis was published, implying romantic and erotic relationships among an all-female cabal who were clearly identifiable with prominent women of the Whig party. (I plan to do an entire episode on The New Atalantis at some point, so I won’t hunt down excerpts for this episode.)
Were lesbian relationships actually common in those circles? Or was it simply a smear tactic? Was the satire inspired by Anne’s close relationships with her female favorites? Or was it simply one more example of anxieties about power and class being translated into anxieties about sex?
When King William III was rumored to have a homosexual relationship with a close male friend, one can trace some of the motivation for the rumors in jealousy over the man’s rapid rise to high rank. The power and influence that both Sarah Churchill and Abigail Masham had with the queen certainly provoked jealousy and anxiety, not only in each other, but among the male establishment, who felt shut out of the largely female structure of Anne’s household. Sexual accusations have always been handy weapons to use against women who are felt to have risen above their rightful station.
This isn’t to say that the free-floating motivations for people to make sexual accusations against Anne and her favorites makes those accusations untrue. Only that it provides a context in which the rumors stuck, to the point where the Dowager Duchess of Orleans in France, writing after Anne’s death, reported, “English men and women depict Queen Anne horribly here, saying she would get drunk, after which she’d make love with women, being, however, fickle and changing often. Lady Sandwich did not tell me anything, but she told my son. I had little contact with her, because she disgusted me, admitting that she had allowed herself to be used for such perversions.”
Queen Anne gets something of a bad rap in all this. She seems through it all to have been doing her best to balance personal desires with what she believed to be the good of the State, all while suffering in terrible pain from chronic illnesses. If she shifted her affections regularly from the women who left her to the women who were there to comfort and support her, who can blame her?
When one digs through the coded language, the self-deception, the imagery, and the strength of the emotional reactions, it seems quite plausible to me that Anne’s relationships with women had an erotic component. And that the gymnastics gone through to exclude that possibility in historic analysis most often reflect the biases of the analyst.
Even if one takes an extremely conservative position that the sexual allegations were all politically motivated, it’s undeniable that Anne’s deepest and most lasting emotional relationships were with women like Sarah Churchill and Abigail Masham and that those relationships existed in a cultural context where other women with such bonds definitely were engaging in sexual relationships.
So, lesbian or not? The distinction seems scarcely worth making.
The social and historic context of Queen Anne of England and the basis for the rumors of lesbianism associated with her court.
In this episode we talk about
Links mentioned in the text:
LHMP publications used in this research
Other research sources
This topic is discussed in one or more entries of the Lesbian Historic Motif Project here:
Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online
Links to Heather Online
'Tis the season for the giving of gifts. And so, completely randomly, I want to give some person a gift. Comment here with the title of one of the books covered on the Lesbian Historic Motif Project blog that you desperately want to own. I will pick a winner semi-randomly (*) and send it to you. This offer is not limited by geography but applies to either hard-copy or (if available) e-book, as preferred.
(*) The "semi" random aspect is that if the first chosen recipient wants a book that simply can't be had for love or money, I'll move on to the next. But I don't think I've covered any books that are totally unobtainable.
Entries may be commented at any time up through the end of 2018, after which a winner will be announced.
(Yes, this is really a test to see if anyone actually reads this blog.)
Here's the index of books covered by the project, for browsing purposes. Only books, not individual journal articles, because I have no idea how to fulfill those.
Rando porno-bots are not eligible.
Yes, I'm serious about this.
P.S., if you're reading this through the RSS feed (like, on Dreamwidth or something) you have to click through to comment on the blog.
I've rearranged the order the next several publications come in, because this one seemed like a good one to kick off the sequence of material on Asia. I feel very self-conscious about how thoroughly Euro-centric the majority of the Project is, but at the same time, I have many of the same limitations discussed in this article. In particular, I'm largely limited to material published in English. But I've added half a dozen new items to my to-do list and maybe they'll point me towards some other useful sources.
Garber, Linda. 2005. “Where in the World are the Lesbians?” in Journal of the History of Sexuality 14.1-2: 28-50.
Garber details the thought process that went into developing an LGBTQ course for her university’s “global” core requirement, resulting in a course on Asian Gay and Lesbian Cultures. Garber’s academic focus was 20th century US lesbian writers so she worked in collaboration with a colleague with a focus on Asian history and literature.
Developing the curriculum ran into two major challenges: needing to use source material available in English (based on the target student body) and what Garber introduces as “the Woman Problem in Queer Studies”, that is the historic overwhelming focus on men and male issues in both academic and politically-oriented groups addressing issues of sexuality. This has regularly become a viscious circle where male domination of supposedly inclusive groups and fields has resulted in those interested in female topics branching off and forming separate, woman-focused groups, which only intensifies the tendency for the “general” field to be left to men’s issues (which then intensifies the impression that men's experiences are the "default" while women are a special case). These twin issues of participation and representation have shaped the nature of both academic queer studies and political activism. The study of the history of homosexuality too often becomes the study of the history of male homosexuality, with women relegated to footnotes or ignored with a shrug as being a complication. (In the introduction to one author’s book on same-sex sexuality in Japan, he notes that “female-female sexuality in Japan demands a more thoroughgoing treatment than I am able to give it here.” after devoting an entire tome to male-male sexuality.)
This tendency has been recapitulated as queer studies and politics expand into a more global focus, even as many non-western cultures resist the hegemony of specifically western images and understandings of variant sexuality. What Garber found while developing her syllabus was that nearly all book-length studies about queer topics in Asia were written by and about men, and even anthologies favored men over women significantly. The connection between male authors and male topics is not solely one of personal interest: there are often social barriers to men doing sociological research among female homosexual communities.
The authors frequently excuse their exclusive focus by noting that the cultures they study did not view male and female homosexuality as having common factors (and therefore that it doesn't make sense to treat them together), or simply that material on women is scarce (which it is, when you're looking in male-oriented spaces). This last argument, made by Bret Hinsch in Passions of the Cut Sleeve: The Male Homosexual Tradition in China is contradicted by the sources discussed by Sang Tze-lan in The Emerging Lesbian: Female Same-Sex Desire in Modern China.
Another hazard of the field is studying the ways in which non-western approaches to sexuality differ from western ones, as well as how the introduction of western medical and psychological theories changed those regional understandings. Thus, for example, the problem of interpreting Japanese discussions of women’s same-sex or cross-gender behavior without forcing it into English terminology. Another face of this problem is in using Foucault’s approach to the definition of homosexuality, which, when applied in a strict sense, excludes any consideration of sexuality prior to 1870 or outside the West. That is, if one defines the topic of one’s study as “homosexuality” and defines “homosexuality” as a concept of fixed personal orientation specific to post-1870 western culture, then it isn’t possible to research, for example, “homosexuality in pre-modern China.”
There are historic traditions of acceptance of same-sex love in China, Japan, and India, but in all cases these traditions were disrupted by the introduction of western pathologizing of homosexuality, enforced via colonialsm. Or, alternately, by a transfer of association of same-sex love to western influence, which erased the pre-existing tradition of tolerance. The “Foucauldian Orthodoxy” is being challenged by scholars of sexuality working within their own cultures and rediscovering those pre-existing historic traditions, such as work by Ruth Vanita and Gita Thadani on India.
Vanita points out that works such as the Kamasutra treat male and female sexuality in parallel, and work to develop a categorization of identities based on sexual behavior and desires. Other literary traditions from the subcontinent include medieval Perso-Urdu poems in the ghazal (love poem) genre (though usually involving love between men), or the use in Urdu poetry of the term chapti (clining or sticking together) for sex between woman and for women who engage in it.
Considerations of terminology and the categories they imply are central to any study of this type. Garber notes Judith Halberstram’s discussion in Female Masculinity about how to develop a framework for studying pre-modern cross-gender behavior in a way that doesn’t evaluate individuals against a modern template of the “lesbian”. Issues of anachronistic application of terminology are always present in historical studies, of course, even when working with more everyday concepts like “family, marriage, slave, master, law, woman, or man.”
This approach to historic subjectivity can come in conflict with modern social movements that see the claiming of international identity terms like “lesbian” as a refusal to accept a social tolerance that requires silence and anonymity. But at the same time, the development of a culturally-specific vocabulary for queer sexuality can founder on the rocks of a multitude of nuanced terms with no clear agreement on umbrella terms. (Examples are given from Japan and China.) The study of this vocabulary and its cultural context--even when it fails to align with western concepts of homosexuality--provides a path for the inclusion of women’s lives and voices in studies of sexuality.
Garber closes with a literature review of resources she considered for her syllabus. I’ve included the ones that look relevant and interesting to my readership below (as well as adding them to the “shopping list” for the Project). There is also a catalog of modern (20th century) writers who represented their own love for women in their work, such as Japanese poet Yosano Akiko, feminist Miyamoto Yuriko and her partner jounalist Yuasa Yoshiko. Authors from India include Kamala Das (writing in English and Malayalam), Urdu novelist Ismat Chughtai. Diasporic writers mentioned include Anchee Min’s memoir of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, Gail Tsukiyama’s historic novels, and Margaret Topley’s historical essays.
Garber also discusses representations of same-sex love in modern television and cinema in Asia.
Readings mentioned that are of particular interest
Tze-Lan, Sang. 2003. The Emerging Lesbian: Female Same-Sex Desire in Modern China. Chicago. pp.44-45
Robertson, Jennifer. 1998. Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan. Berkeley. p.68
Vanita, Ruth and Saleem Kidwai, eds. 2000. Same-Sex Love in India: Readings from Literature and History. St. Martin’s, New York.
Vanita, Ruth (ed). 2002. Queering India: Same-Sex Love and Eroticism in Indian Culture and Society. New York.
Thadani, Giti. 1996. Sakhiyani: Lesbian Desire in Ancient and Modern India. Cassell, London. ISBN 0-304-33452-9
Ng, Vivien. 1997. “Looking for Lesbians in Chinese History” in Duberman, Martin (ed) A Queer World. New York.
Robertson, Jennifer. 1999. “Dying to Tell: Sexuality and Suicide in Imperial Japan” in Signs 25, no. 1: 1-35.
Robertson, Jennifer (ed). 2004. Same-Sex Cultures and Sexualities. Malden MA.
(Originally aired 2018/12/15 - listen here)
Heather Rose Jones: Last week, we had Carrie Pack on the show to talk about her own writing. In this episode, she's here to talk about queer women in historically based books by other authors that she's particularly enjoyed. Welcome back, Carrie.
Carrie Pack: Hi, good to be back.
H: So, let's punch right in. What's your first book?
C: Actually, my first one is kind of incidentally historical because it feels historical. I’m not sure it was intended to be, but I’m a big fan of Malinda Lo. Her stuff is largely contemporary, but if you look at some of her fantasy stuff, Ash is one of my all-time faves, and it feels historical because it's the Cinderella retelling. If anyone listening hasn't read that yet, it's just a really great, different take on Cinderella where Cinderella kinda falls for, basically, the huntress that's been hired to – oh, that’s Snow White – never mind, [Laughter] but, yeah, Ash falls for another woman in that book. It was one of the very first lesbian stories that I read. And for that reason, it just holds a really special place in my heart.
H: Yeah, she takes a very common fantasy approach of setting it in a vaguely mishmash historical, medieval sort of thing.
C: Yes.
H: Yeah, absolutely. I read that when it first came out. It’s fabulous.
C: There's another one I’m really looking forward to that doesn't come out until November 13th, but it is Robin Talley who is a very well-known lesbian YA author and she previously, I think her previous historical was Lies We Tell Ourselves, takes place in the 1950s. She's got a new one coming out in November called Pulp, and I’m really interested in it because like with Grrrls on the Side, it's very much rooted in some literary history of queer culture, but it's kind of a half and half. So, it’s half contemporary, half historical where one of her point of view characters is in the past. I’m really looking forward to it, but, obviously, I haven't read it yet because it doesn't come out until November.
H: So, is it more of a parallel story or is it an actual time slip with consciousness going back and forth or…?
C: The way that I read it is that it’s kind of they're both dealing with – it kind of reminded me of, gosh, what's the one where like they’re reading letters from…?
H: Lake House or something like that?
C: Yeah, but I don't think it's got that supernatural kind of element, might be a little more kind of like Julie & Julia where she's like inspired by reading this writing of —
H: Ah, so, parallel? Parallel lives, it’s sort of.
C: Yeah, I think it is.
H: Yeah, that works really nicely as a way of doing the compare and contrast thing.
C: Yeah, it's about a character in the 1950s who’s gay or who’s queer – it doesn't really kind of say for sure – but she discovers a series of books about women falling in love with other women. And then, the contemporary part of the story is that she’s, the character, is doing a senior project on 1950s lesbian pulp fiction. So, the two are intertwined in that way, but they’re parallel in that sense. I just thought that was really fascinating, too, because it’s kind of like what I said I did with Grrrls on the Side which is kind of looking at some history through the lens of a contemporary approach. So, that's why I’m really excited about it.
H: Cool.
C: Plus, I love all those old lesbian cult novels. They just had such – they were so lurid and tantalizing but also just what a great cultural point to really talk about. So, I think it can be a really fun, interesting novel.
H: Uh-huh. Anything else?
C: That's kind of it. I still have immense guilt that I had a friend recommend to me Tipping the Velvet many, many times. I have it on my kindle, and I have not read it. And I’m like, I want to read it so desperately, but it's one of those, like, I want it to be as good as it is in my mind. And I just – [Laughter] I know. It’s the same reason I never read Gone with the Wind when I was a big fan of the movie. It’s like I didn't want something to ruin the idea I had in my head.
H: Yeah, and I think it's one of those books where if you're gonna read the book, read it before you see the movie because you can't unsee, and movies always change things. But, yeah, it's a very different flavor of book than, say, the run-of-the-mill les fic. It's very dark and bleak in some ways even though it has a happy ending. It's interesting.
C: I mean, I think that's the part for me writing anything historical that I wanna get away from is the bleakness. I feel like we've had so much bleakness. There's a place for that. There’s a place for telling those authentic struggles, but I want some happy stuff, and I wanna write some happy stuff. So, I think that's where my writing will probably go next and where my reading is really focused, too. So, hopefully there's more of that stuff coming out.
H: Yeah, and I think one of the things that's unfair is people say, “Oh, well, life was horrible in history for queer people,” but life was horrible in history for 99.9% of people. So, if we're gonna allow ourselves to write happy endings for straight characters all throughout history, then we should have the same right to completely ignore the historical awfulness and write happy stories for queer people in history.
C: Yeah. I mean look at all the historical romances and some of them cover, like, a 20-year time period. It's like if all those women who couldn't own land or vote or had to submit to their husbands, all that stuff, if they can have happy endings, so can all the lesbian and bisexual women out there. They can.
H: Uh-huh, absolutely.
C: You know? Come on. Come on.
H: So, I'll put links to the books you mentioned in the show notes and thank you so much for coming on the show to share your favorite books with us.
C: Thank you.
In the Book Appreciation segments, our featured authors (or your host) will talk about one or more favorite books with queer female characters in a historic setting.
In this episode Carrie Pack recommends some favorite queer historical novels:
Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online
Links to Heather Online
Links to Carrie Pack Online
This is the article that Donoghue references with respect to possible evidence of 18th century women in Amsterdam having meeting places for engaging in same-sex activities. The evidence is fairly tenuous but at least indicates that there may have been clusters of women who came together around this shared interest. But in considering the women discussed in this article one needs to keep in mind the nature of the record. When you’re looking at evidence for sexual behavior from trial records, one is necessarily going to be considering the lives of people who have done something they’ve been put on trial for. And in the way of the world, the question of who gets put on trial for transgressive sexual behavior is not neutral with respect to things like class and occupation. All of these women were poor, had marginal roles in society, and had a history of socially disruptive behavior.
Van der Meer comes to a tentative conclusion that there was a tradition of sex between women that was strongly associated with socially disruptive behaviors (e.g., drunkenness) and with prostitution. But I think he fails to consider the extent to which most women whose lives were detailed in court records had similar backgrounds, even when the offenses didn’t involve same-sex activities. These records certainly indicate that there was a general awareness of the possibilities (and techniques) of sex between women, and that people of that time don’t seem to have considered homosexual acts to require a specific and restricted interest in women as partners. But I don’t think that this set of data necessarily gives us an accurate picture of all sexual possibilities between women in that time and place, any more than the theories of late 19th century physicians about their homosexual patients did. A "respectable" middle-class woman who did not engage in public drunkenness or brawling wasn't going to end up in a court record discussing her sex life regardless of what went on in her bed. So a thoery of the development of lesbian identity in the Netherlands that looks narrowly at the evidence of trial records is going to come up with flawed conclusions.
But the larger historical picture is made up of small, specific individual topics like this. Then to see the whole, we need to put them together and take a few steps back.
Van der Meer, Theo. 1991. “Tribades on Trial: Female Same-Sex Offenders in Late Eighteenth-Century Amsterdam” in Journal of the History of Sexuality 1:3 424-445.
[The following is duplicated from the associated blog. I'm trying to standardize the organization of associated content.]
This is the article that Donoghue references with respect to possible evidence of 18th century women in Amsterdam having meeting places for engaging in same-sex activities. The evidence is fairly tenuous but at least indicates that there may have been clusters of women who came together around this shared interest. But in considering the women discussed in this article one needs to keep in mind the nature of the record. When you’re looking at evidence for sexual behavior from trial records, one is necessarily going to be considering the lives of people who have done something they’ve been put on trial for. And in the way of the world, the question of who gets put on trial for transgressive sexual behavior is not neutral with respect to things like class and occupation. All of these women were poor, had marginal roles in society, and had a history of socially disruptive behavior.
Van der Meer comes to a tentative conclusion that there was a tradition of sex between women that was strongly associated with socially disruptive behaviors (e.g., drunkenness) and with prostitution. But I think he fails to consider the extent to which most women whose lives were detailed in court records had similar backgrounds, even when the offenses didn’t involve same-sex activities. These records certainly indicate that there was a general awareness of the possibilities (and techniques) of sex between women, and that people of that time don’t seem to have considered homosexual acts to require a specific and restricted interest in women as partners. But I don’t think that this set of data necessarily gives us an accurate picture of all sexual possibilities between women in that time and place, any more than the theories of late 19th century physicians about their homosexual patients did. A "respectable" middle-class woman who did not engage in public drunkenness or brawling wasn't going to end up in a court record discussing her sex life regardless of what went on in her bed. So a thoery of the development of lesbian identity in the Netherlands that looks narrowly at the evidence of trial records is going to come up with flawed conclusions.
But the larger historical picture is made up of small, specific individual topics like this. Then to see the whole, we need to put them together and take a few steps back.
# # #
Van der Meer presents the details and circumstances of trial records from several late 18th century cases in Amsterdam, Netherlands of women arrested for events involving sexual activity with women. Sodomy trials of men were not uncommon in this context, often occurring in “waves” when some particularly eager administration pursued the cases. But the conviction and exile in 1792 of Bets Wiebes for lying upon another woman “in the way a man is used to do when he has carnal conversation with his wife” appears to be the first case of that type known from records.
The trial of Bets Wiebes falls just before one of the periods of prosecutions for sodomy, and given that there were also three other trials for “tribadism” in the following years, they seem to have been part of a general uptick in pursuing moral offenses. One of the judges involved in the cases kept a private journal in which he describes the accused of engaging in “caresses and filthy things”, “sodomitical filthiness” or “evil malignities”.
In all, Van der Meer identified cases involving 12 women, out of a total of about 600 total people prosecuted for same-sex offenses in the Netherlands in the 18th century. Such prosecutions ended in 1811 with the introduction of the French penal code in Holland, which did not criminalize same-sex acts.
Prior to the 1792 prosecution of Wiebes, there were certainly references to women having sex with women, as in the following observation from 1750 by the former landlady of two Amsterdam women (age 50 and 60). They were “living as if they were man and wife...feeling and touching one another under their skirts and at their bosoms....yes, she had even seen how in broad daylight while committing several brutalities Mooije Marijtje lay down on Dirkje Vis, having both of them lifted their skirts and their front bodies being completely naked, Marijtje made movements as if she were a male person having to do with a female.”
Van der Meer also refers the reader to the cases involving both cross-dressing and same-sex acts in Dekker and van de Pol 1989. In particular, the famous case of Hendrikje Verschuur “the heroine of Breda” who joined the army as a man and took part in the siege of Breda in 1637. Hendrikje had sexual relations with several women, including Trijntje Barends about whom it was said “they had been so besotted with one another that they would have liked to marry if it had been possible.” [Note: On reviewing this entry to reference it, I realize that Van der Meer appears to have conflated Hendrikje Verschuur who did indeed serve in the army in the 1630s, with Maria van Antwerpen, who served in the army in male disguise in the 1760s and was nicknamed "the heroine of Breda" after her identity was discovered.]
But the 18th c. cases described in the present article did not involve cross-dressing and the women involved were prosecuted specifically for sexual activity, though in some cases it came to light in the context of a different charge. As in the trial records of male sodomites, the sexual acts are recorded in explicit detail (providing a type of data that is otherwise rare for women). In general, reports of women’s same-sex activities come from popular literature or pornography and focus on the motif of unusually large clitorises or the use of dildoes.
The following are summaries of the trial evidence and background. In circumstances, the cases were all fairly different from each other apart from the sexual accusations. Although physical acts were discussed, the emotional relationships between the women were generally not noted unless used as leverage to persuade testimony.
Bets Wiebes & Martha Schuurman
Bets Wiebes was involved in a romantic and sexual triangle with two other women: Catharina de Haan and Bartha Schuurman. Wiebes and Schuurman lived together and had a sexual relationship, but Wiebes had begun a separate covert relationship with de Haan. Schuurman, in a jealous rage, murdered de Haan. Initially Schuurman accused Wiebes of the murder (and so was released) at which Wiebes went into hiding dressed as a man and with cropped hair in order to avoid testifying against Schuurman. When finally arrested, Wiebes claimed she was too drunk to remember what happened on the night in question, but Schuurman was arrested again for further interrogation and three months later Wiebes changed her testimony to accuse Schuurman, after which Schuurman confessed. (There were various threats of torture involved in these interrogations and confessions but torture was never actually used.) When asked about her shifting testimony, Wiebes indicated she was trying to protect Schuurman who had a child to care for.
Schuurman testified that she had been jealous of de Haan because of the “dirty lusts” that Wiebes had engaged in with both of them. She described how “during the time they had lived together, Bets Wiebes many a time had lain upon her in the way a man is used to do withen he had carnal conversation with this wife and that they had known one another in this way.” Wiebes denied the sexual relationship, even when neighbors testified that “she used to caress Schuurman’s breasts and put her head in her lap.”
Schuurman was executed (for the murder) and Wiebes was exiled from the city for 6 years (for the sexual offense).
There is more information about the backstory of these women. Wiebes seems to have had long-term behavioral problems. Her mother had her committed to a workhouse for habitual drunkenness and theft. On her release, her mother had re-married, so Wiebes needed a new place to live. Schuurman offered her lodgings, and when Schuurman’s husband died at sea, the two relocated to a cheaper place together and set up in business selling news broadsides.
Wiebes had met de Haan in the workhouse and paid her regular visits after they both got out, which made Schuurman jealous. Schuurman burst into de Haan’s house to find the two of them drinking together and began quarreling. The upset continued for several days, with Schuurman shouting that she’d “make short work of this.” Schuurman again showed up at de Haan’s house when Weibes was there, but in a more friendly mood, which made the other two suspicious. But Weibes left them together. Later, Weibes returned to the home she shared with Schuurman only to find both Schuurman and de Haan there. At the moment of her entrance, Schuurman stabbed de Haan to death.
A possible complication? The coroner later described de Haan as being naked from the waist up. And why was de Haan at Schuurman’s place at all? Might the final side of the “triangle” have been completed?
The extent to which Weibes was willing to protect Schuurman, even to her own peril, suggests a strong emotional attachment.
Gesina Dekker, Willemijntje van der Steen, Pietertje Groenhof, Engeltje Blauwpaard
These four women, who apparently shared a house, were arrested in 1796 but the circumstances of their accusation were unclear. The house was rumored to be “a place where disreputable people gathered” possibly a brothel. The house was said to be one where women came to caress and kiss one another and feel under each other’s skirts. Gesina Dekker admitted that she lay on the floor with Engeltje Blauwpaard who performed digital stimulation in her vagina. Groenhof admitted to taking part in the caressing “after having been seduced with coffee and alcohol”. Blauwpaard, though she denied the accusations, was said to be very jealous over Dekker.
Other authors have interpreted these events as possibly indicating that the house was a known meeting place for women to have sex with each other.
Anna Grabou
Arrested in 1797 after her neighbors complained about verbal aggression. Grabou seems to have been generally bad-tempered, but also prone to making indecent proposals to her female neighbors. To one she suggested that they should hook up for sex when Grabou’s husband was away from home, with additional comments that she wanted to see her naked. To another she made comments about what she looked like “below your skirt.” To a third, she said, “you have something in your being that attracts both male and female” and expressed her love. To a fourth, Grabou boasted that she had sex every morning with her maid and that the maid preferred her to a man.
Christina Knip
Arrested in 1797 for raping a 14-year-old girl with a dildo. She invited the girl into her home, threw her on the bed, and forcibly penetrated her with a dildo tied around her body.
Anna Schreuder, Anna de Reus, Catrina Mantels, Anna Schierboom, Maria Smit
Arrested in 1798 for their own protection from a mob. Neighbors had suspected Schreuder and Smit of unspecified activities for some time and spied on them through a hole from a neighboring room while they were engaging in sex. The neighbors later testified that the two had lain together with their lower bodies naked, had kissed and caressed each other “like a man is used to do to a woman”, had moved up and down on each other, and finally that one had lifted her leg over the other’s shoulder who had then performed oral sex on her.
Evidently the peeping went on for several hours, with other neighbors being invited to watch, until finally one of the watchers yelled accusations at them. Schreuder and Smit left the room but the neighbors assembled a mob outside the house until the constables came and took all five women to the police station. Schreuer at first confessed to the neighbors’ accusations but later recanted claiming the police had threatened her with mutilation. The neighbors also accused the women of singing banned political songs but this does not appear to have been converted into a legal charge.
A regular theme across the trials appears to have been requests from the prosecution to be allowed to torture the women for confessions, which permission was never granted. Few of the women confessed to anything and most were released with a warning.
Susanna Marrevelt
This case never went to trial, but in a deposition, her husband’s uncle said he’d found Marrevelt and her maid embracing each other with “unnatural movements”, and one of the uncle’s servants said she’d seen Marrevelt and her maid touching each other’s genitals. Marrevelt's maid was also accused of fondling the other servant against her will, and took exception to this and pushed the other woman down the stairs, injuring her.
General observations
Many of the women in these accusations were married (as were many of the men prosecuted as sodomites) and in some cases had children. Most of them were impoverished, with marginal jobs, if any. Several had spent time in a workhouse for drunkenness or anti-social behavior. Some had worked as prostitutes, and in some cases their eventual sentence was for heterosexual sex work rather than homosexual acts. Unlike the men prosecuted for sodomy, the women don’t seem to have had a pattern of participating in a homosexual network, or having other behavioral characteristics suggesting a sexuality-related identity. The exception being van der Steen’s house, which may have been a regular meeting place for lesbian encounters.
Looking at the timeline of prosecutions of sodomites (including women), when the first wave occurred in 1730 there was a lack of public interest in the issue. People didn’t perceive sodomy as criminal and weren’t eager to turn their neighbors in to the authorities for it, even when they’d been aware of their habits for years. Generally the law was invoked when there was also verbal or physical aggression. But in some cases extra-legal punishments were committed by those same neighbors.
The women involved in these cases were often considered a bit crazy by their neighbors, though examples given of this may seem sane to us, as when Knip’s neighbor asked why she hadn’t married and her response was, “Just to fuck? I can do that myself.” The mob peeping at Schreuder and her partner may not have intended to involve the authorities at all, but that became unavoidable when a riot broke out. When Susanna Marrevelt’s husband was complained to by his uncle, he replied it was none of the uncle's business.
But that doesn’t mean that the women’s sexual activities were treated as of no consequence by their families. While Gersina Dekker was in prison, her husband began separation proceedings. Anna Grabou’s husband used the trial evidence to initiate a divorce. Overall, though, sex between women was treated less severely than sex between men with sentences being about half the length and often reduced further.
But as the century progressed, both law and religion began to develop a framing of sodomy as being part of an expected progression of moral failing. Once one had fallen into drunkenness, gambling, swearing, etc., sodomy was sure to follow. It represented “the world turned upside down” and in the last quarter of the century, stereotypical ideas of “manliness” became equated with the health of the state. This made sodomites a social hazard. Sex between women was not viewed as presenting this same social hazard.
There is a review of vocabulary associated with sex between women (including the mistaken claim that the word “lesbian” didn’t exist in the 18th century). In addition to the usual Latin terms (tribades, fricatrices, subigatrices) that were generally restricted to legal or theological contexts, the court records discussed here used vernacular terms translated as “tribadism”, “evil malignities”, “sodomitical filthiness” and two Dutch terms are mentioned: sodomieterije (sodomy) only once used in reference to a woman, and terms derived from the verb lollen (to foul) which the article notes as “no longer existing” evidently meaning in the modern language.
The verb stem lol- appears in a number of sex-related compounds with a sense of disapproval: lolhoeren (foul whores), lolder (sodomite, but apparently only for men?), lolhuis (literally “foul house”, brothel). Possibly by the 19th century, certainly in the 20th, the compound lollepot was used for lesbians and in contemporary word pot is used similarly to “dyke”. (Van der Meer suggests that like the origin of “bugger” in a reference to a specific religious heresy, lollen may have its roots from the medieval Lollard heretical sect.) While references to male sodomites tended to treat them as an identifiable behavior-based category, tribadism was viewed as part of a general pattern of female misbehavior associated with drunkenness and prostitution.
Although Dutch laws of the 18th century did not specifically include women under the topic of sodomy, commentary on the law indicated that individuals prosecutors considered that sex between women was covered. But although the prescribed penalty for sodomy was death, this was rarely the sentence unless anal intercourse was involved, which may explain why the women’s sentences were fairly lenient. Furthermore, all the cases that went to trial involved some sort of public nuisance beyond simple sexual behavior. There may also have been personal discretion on the part of individual prosecutors whether they chose to pursue women under the sodomy statute. After the French invasion of 1795 there was a period of increased prosecution of same-sex acts which seems to have been driven by the zeal of a specific official. Another aspect of the distribution of prosecutions was the large proportion of women’s charges that were for moral offenses, with a substantial increase in the last decade of the 18th century. These were frequently driven by the request of family or community that a person be confined for “immoral behavior” that was felt to be disruptive.
This increased focus on the role of individual morality in the context of social welfare and good citizenship was occurring throughout western Europe at the end of the 18th century. For men, the pressure was to avoid the appearance of effeminacy, for women, to avoid any association with prostitution. Because of the popular association of tribadism with prostitution, it came in for scrutiny as a general marker of immorality.
Lesbian Identity?
The final part of the article considers whether any of the court cases provide evidence for the existence of something recognizable as a “lesbian identity” in the modern sense, proposing a genealogy rooted separately in the traditions of romantic friendship and female transvestism that then developed a stage of butch/femme roles in the 19th century and eventually produced the modern lesbian identity. [Note: I’m going to go ahead and say that I think this is a flawed question to begin with and assumes a linear and teleological development of modern identity.]
The romantic friendship tradition in the Netherlands is represented by authors Betje Wolff and Aagje Deken who lived together in the last quarter of the 18th century and also courted other women both before and during their cohabitation. They were not perceived as having a sexual relationship or having any conceptual connection to the sort of women being prosecuted for tribadism. (The zealous prosecutor of the 1790s was a personal friend of theirs.)
The article also points to the long tradition of female cross-dressers documented by Dekker and van de Pol. But van der Meer accepts the claim of those authors that cross-dressing women who engaged in relationships with other women would necessarily have perceived themselves to be “male” and that this could only be considered a precursor to the development of a concept of lesbianism, rather than a type of lesbian identity itself. [Note: Van der Meer doesn't seem to consider the parallel question of the development of a concept of transgender identity.]
But the women being prosecuted in the 18th century don’t fit neatly into either the romantic friendship tradition nor the cross-dressing tradition. Van der Meer suggests that this third tradition should be considered: one organized around generalized lewd behavior and association with prostitution. He compares the interpretations of Faderman and Trumbach with regard to the various factors at play around 1800, and with regard to women’s sexual identities, and leans toward a suggestion that if the sexual component of lesbian identity is considered the most important, above romantic bonds or butch/femme-type partnerships, then his “third category” may be the actual true precursor for modern lesbian identity. [Note: there are so many flaws in this line of reasoning I hardly know where to start, so I’ll just end.]
(Originally aired 2018/12/08 - listen here)
Heather Rose Jones: This month the Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast welcomes author Carrie Pack. Hi, Carrie.
Carrie Pack: Hi, nice to be here.
H: Carrie's YA novel Grrrls on the Side raises the question: Just how do we define historical fiction? I want to explore that a bit later in the podcast, but for now, why don't you tell us a bit about the book?
C: Sure, Grrrls on the Side is actually kind of, well, it takes place during the ‘90s during the Riot Grrrl movement so if anybody's familiar with that particular wave of feminism, these girls are very into their punk music, and their zines, and their feminist ideals. The main character, Tabitha, of course, kind of falls in love a couple times over the course of the book and discovering her own identity as a bisexual woman and an understanding kind of what that means for her, so it's a coming-of-age story and, apparently, the ‘90s are historical. [Laughter]
H: Yeah, so that's an interesting question of categories. You'd said that when we first talked that because it's set in the 90s for a YA market, that's considered historical. Is that because it’s history in terms of the target readership or history because you had to research it as history?
C: Predominantly, the first part of that. I lived it. I mean I was a – my main character is only a year older than me, so I was very familiar with. I mean I used descriptions of the lockers in the locker room of the gym of my high school, but my publisher was the one that said, “Well, this is historical YA,” and I was like, “Historical? It's the 90s.” I mean when someone calls your own high school experience, “historical,” I mean it just, you kind of go, “Oh, gosh, I didn't realize I'd gotten old.”
H: Yeah, I had that experience with another recent interview where the author was saying, “Well, this is set in the ‘70s, so it's really historical,” and I think it's like, “Oh, my god, that's me. That was my college years,” like, “What do you mean?”
C: Right, absolutely, and I think when we're talking about YA, it's kind of like you need to view it like classic cars, like anything over 20 to 25 years ago is considered a classic because if you're talking specifically about teenagers, they weren't even alive; it is historical to them so, yeah, I mean when you classify it that way – my book also got cross categorized though as women's fiction because there's a whole, you know, a lot of the people that I or my contemporaries definitely were very into it because they remember the time period. But, in general, when you talk about publishing, “historical” tends to be anything from pre-mid-century so like you're talking World War II or earlier, so it kind of just depends.
H: Because my personal definition is it's not historical if I was alive.
C: [Laughter] I think that's all of us which is probably why in YA it goes that way. I mean I did have to do some research, so it's not like I didn't do any, but, again, when you've lived the experience, it's a little easier to draw from your own personal. Since with Grrrls on the Side, I basically was giving myself a do-over. I didn’t know that I was bisexual until I was 35, so I didn't get to live my high school years as an out queer person. I didn't know it was an identity that I could have although I knew I wasn't a lesbian, you know what I mean? Like, I knew enough to know that, but I couldn't figure out why, why am I attracted to my female friends? [Laughter] But, because I was also attracted to boys my age, I thought, “Well, obviously, I'm not gay,” and that was the only two options that I knew of. I obviously wanted to give Tabitha her own experience that I didn't get to have.
H: Well, thinking about that and thinking about it as historical fiction because, okay, this is me as an old person talking, but you know it seems like sexuality and identity culture just changes minute-to-minute these days.
C: Oh, yeah.
H: The 90s are a different country in terms of kids these days, but so was it a challenge to try to represent the experience of sexuality in the 90s in a way that would both be true to the era and make sense to today's readers?
C: Oh, absolutely, absolutely, because any time you're writing historical, I think it's a good idea to remember that even though you're writing about a time period in the past, you're still writing for a contemporary audience so while there are things that might have occurred in that time period that at that time were widely accepted, we know in a modern society they're not. That covers everything from if you're writing historical and using the n-word to… or like what I had to do which was--and this is really minor for most of us--but for a modern audience, I had the word, you know when I was a kid there was a lot of, “Oh, that's lame,” but I had someone point out to me that that was ableist language. Now, for me, that's still something that I say and I feel in knowing that now I try to control it but that it could be construed as offensive among modern audiences, so I went back and took that out, but would a girl in the 90s have said that? Well, yeah –
H: Absolutely.
C: She absolutely would have and so I mean it's not – I don't want to ever tell anyone, “Oh, you can't write that,” but I think it's important to consider as a modern sensibility when you're, or a contemporary sensibility I guess I should say, when you're writing historically because there's language that would have been historically accurate, and then there's language that's just harmful. You can still be historically accurate enough without using modern language that wouldn't necessarily been have used in that period. Like, for example, I had someone ask me very early on if I was going to address trans issues because that was [Cross-talk].
H: Yeah, that's what I was just about to bring up. It’s another minefield where the attitudes and the language and just the understanding has changed so radically in the last couple decades.
C: Oh, absolutely, and someone asked me if I was going to address that and I said I didn't want to because it was such a different time even the terminology was different, but what I did do was put in some subtle contextual things about gender identity. Because I was really wanting to focus on the bisexuality aspect of it, I wanted to give examples of different expressions of that, and I have one girl who is very much equally interested in all genders. She does not really, you know, she falls for the person, she falls for the person, so in modern terms, she might refer to herself – she might even choose pansexual, maybe, even though I think bisexual still covers that, but she might choose that whereas I had another character who was probably more demisexual when it comes to women but also use the term “bisexual.” She definitely had to have a connection with a woman, but she certainly could appreciate and would not rule out a relationship with a woman but predominantly attracted to men. Then my main character Tabitha who’s predominantly attracted to women and only incidentally, occasionally, kind of would find herself interested in a guy, so I wanted to give those representations and also wanted to explore gender identity.
One of the girls is very, very feminine and another character is a little more butch and the kind of – I don’t want to say “struggles.” They don't really struggle with it, but the criticism they would get from their friends about that, the one girl being so hyper feminine, and wearing nail polish, and makeup, and, “Oh, you can't possibly be queer,” and the other one being butch, “You're too masculine,” and so those kinds of conversations were had, but, yeah, it's not – for me, I didn't know that I didn't think that I could do it authentically and in a way that wouldn't also be harmful to the trans community.
H: Yeah, yeah, that is a consideration. The issue of identities and how we talk about those identities, like you were talking about, yeah, well, bisexual versus pansexual. It means different things to different people. I know that in you talking about your own podcast, so you have a podcast called Bi Sci-Fi, and one of the things you first said to me when you talked about it was, “Well, it's not just bi, and it's not just sci-fi.”
C: Yeah.
H: And, I have that same thing with my podcast because I've got the word lesbian emblazoned over everything because for me it's a good brand, but I always make it very clear that I'm not talking about the narrow definition of lesbian. I am using that to stand in for, you know, women whose primary emotional and romantic relationships are oriented towards other women within the context of the story that I'm talking about, but it’s way too wordy.
C: Right.
H: So, thinking about that kind of – I don't want to say “labeling” because that brings up a different way of thinking about it but “branding,” thinking about branding and what are the difficulties you have in using bi as a brand on your podcast and trying to communicate that you have a broader interest?
C: I mean I think you kind of said it. I think exactly what you said which is you have to kind of give the short description and then a long description. Ultimately, it came down to a branding thing for me. I had a Twitter chat that I'd started with a group of friends that was called Bi Sci-Fi because we all identify, I think almost all the authors identified as bisexual and or had main characters in our novels that were bisexual, and so we had started a Twitter chat. Bi Sci-Fi was a great… you know, it's a rhyme first of all.
H: It rhymes. [Laughter]
C: Yeah, and I had been forever trying to come up with an idea for a podcast. I just felt like I don't know what I would want to talk about. I don't know, and I just realized I had such an interest in speculative fiction in general. I kept the brand that I already had going, and I identify as bisexual, so it worked for me and also Queer Sci-Fi was taken so [Laughter] yeah, yeah, Scott Coatsworth and Angel Martinez have a wonderful…
H: Yes, I’m part of the Facebook group for that.
C: Yeah, absolutely, they have a Facebook group. They have a wonderful blog and online presence, and it's great branding, but I can't steal their name. Then there's nothing, you can’t like, “Queer Spec Fic,” you know, it doesn't roll off the tongue so, yes, there's always the long explanation. What I always say is that it's queer positive speculative fiction. If the author is an ally, if they write and they write spec fic, if the author identifies as queer and write spec fic, if the characters are queer and in the spec fic, I will cover it because I think that, for me, the biggest draw to speculative fiction of all kinds is the possibility for everything and nothing to exist at once. If you identify as agender, or trans, or gay, or just identify as queer, there is a place for you in that realm of fiction. The long and short of it is that I wanted to keep my branding from the chat, and it was a catchier name but that I’d always have to explain this, always. [Laughter]
H: So, what do you envision as the scope of your show? Why don't you talk about it a little bit?
C: Yeah, sure, right now it's mostly just me and other authors chatting about what we write and what we read, but I hope to, eventually, also have fans come on and talk about what they love and things that they're doing. I had someone message me wanting to talk about the new Doctor Who because now that the Doctor is a woman that canonically makes her pansexual or bisexual so that opens up a whole new realm. The Doctor is married to a woman and has been multiple times in canon, so I think that, for me, is – I want to explore how fans look at other spec fic, and I'd like people to come on and talk about movies and television as well, comics and things like that. Right now, it's really geared toward the written word, towards fiction, but that doesn't mean that I won't go there in the future but, for right now, it's a lot of authors talking about what they write and why they write it, and how that reflects our ideal, I think, of what queer fiction should be.
H: So, you’ve written both the, whether you want to call it contemporary historical for Grrrls on the Side, but also you've written a pair of speculative books, I know.
C: Right.
H: I think one of them is just about to come out or just came out or…?
C: Came out in August, yeah.
H: Okay, yeah, and I was interested in what's your experience of the different flavors of the book world between speculative fiction and realistic fiction?
C: In my experience, this is my personal experience, I don't want to say that this is necessarily a universality but that I found it harder to kind of break into adult speculative fiction than it was in any place in YA. The YA community was much more welcoming to my book. Now, I don't know. That could simply be the way that it was pitched, the way that it was marketed. I couldn't even tell you but so, for me, that's kind of where I found the difference to be, and I think because even though it is technically, like we were talking about it being historical, it's contemporary historical. It's more modern, and there's not the elements of speculation on top of it whereas my other, that duology is time travel. Both have won awards, both the historical contemporary and the time travel, but the YA book sold a lot better. I don't know if one market is clamoring more for the FF YA because that's certainly a place where – the YA community is, right now, very, very into their women loving women stories so that could be it, too. I don't know. That's been my experience, but both technically are contemporary. I mean they both, again, one is contemporary historical and the other one is contemporary science fiction, but they take place in very modern contemporary societies.
H: So, what was it like to research this book? I mean I know you said that it represents your life to some extent, but what parts of it did you have to research?
C: I mean the easiest stuff was, of course, looking into music and looking into my cultural references in the time period, but I think my favorite thing that I had to look into was and writing these zines from the point of views of characters who are having these, basically, if you've never read a zine especially ones from the 90s very much like just screed about whatever the writer wanted to rant about. There's one that is actually my favorite segment that I wrote in the whole book, and it's called “Of Mice and Menses” and my character is ranting about how her period has been commodified. In other words, it's the idea that she menstruates every month is both asexual and hyper sexualized, and she has to pay for these things that she doesn't understand and are obviously created by men, and I had to look up when wings were put on maxi pads.
H: [Laughter] Oh, my god, I'm thinking of the entire history of experimental menstrual products that I lived through.
C: Right? This is a generation that, thank God, did not have to deal with the sanitary belt, right? Although I am very familiar because my mom obviously dealt with that, and just a variety of different things and the horror of reading the packaging on tampons and worrying about toxic shock syndrome, but the thing for me that's always been baffling is the wing on a maxi pad. It serves no purpose. It does not keep it from leaking. All it does is get caught in your pubic hair and stick to your thighs, pardon my bluntness, especially if you don't have a thigh gap, that thing is just going to stick to things. So, literally, that's what my character is venting about, but I did have to look it up, and, thankfully, they were added to pads in the 80s so I was not like – I was pretty sure that I remembered them being on pads when I was a teenager, but I couldn't be sure, so I had to look it up and it was sometime in the 80s. Obviously, that was invented by a man, obviously, someone who had never worn a maxi pad in their lives.
H: [Laughter] Anything else you had to research in that way to get the details right, the realism?
C: Well, the most fun, I think, was getting to read old zines. There's a book called, I believe it's called The Riot Grrrl Collection. I'm trying to see if I can see it on my shelves here, but it's literally a collection of zines that has been compiled. It's everything from some of the more famous ones like Bikini Kill and those very early Riot Grrrl zines to some obscure ones. There's some in there from black women and other people of color, and all of the elements of that. For me, that was the most fun was going back through and reliving it through that… first-person historical accounts is essentially what you're reading.
H: It's sort of proto-blogging in a way.
C: Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah, yeah, when I explained what zines are to teenagers and young adults, I teach college right now, and so my students weren't alive. They were born in ’95, ’96. When I talked to them about it, I always say, “Well, it's blogging, but it was before the internet was wide enough spread that people blogged, pretty much.” It was the bridge between journaling and blogging, and so, yes, photocopying your clip together magazine pieces and type or handwritten journal entries and things like that. It's fun to read these young women, and it was mostly driven by young people, young people in the punk scene were the forefront of these zines. I mean zines have a longer history than that, of course.
H: Yeah, fan zines in the science fiction community, yeah.
C: Absolutely, going all the way back to the original Star Trek series, and maybe even prior to that, but to see, again, it's like if you're researching past presidents and you pull out their letters and you can go find letters from Thomas Jefferson and his journal entries, and things like that. It's the same thing but instead of it being about the day to days of a politician, it's about the day to day of a teenage girl. It's amazing. One of the best, as a matter-of-fact the epigraph of my book is a quote from a book about Riot Grrrl. It is, “The 90s were a rough time to be a girl,” I'm paraphrasing here but, “so little has changed,” and it's true.
That's one of the reasons I wanted to write this book is that, yeah, that was 20 years ago, but you would be surprised how little has changed in that intervening time for young women to be… they’re taunted, they’re oversexualized, they’re infantilized, and treated like their opinions are the bottom of the barrel. It's always like, “Oh, yeah, some teenage girls.” I mean we saw it with Taylor Swift. She voices her political opinion and there's other issues with that, but the primary thing that people were pointing out was like, and I think there was – who was the politician that was like, “Oh, well, 13-year-old girls can't vote.” Her fans aren't 13, and that's not an insult. 13-year-old girls are allowed to have opinions.
H: Yeah, any other projects that you're working on currently that you are able and willing to talk about?
C: Well, I'm still trying to finish up a contemporary horror novella, but, in the back of my mind, I do have another historical I wanna conquer. Back in my recent fandom past, I wrote a historical M/M for a fandom that I was in and what sparked it was it takes place during the Gilded Age which is basically the late Victorian period but in America, and what I love about that society was how easy – and this is the time period where Oscar Wilde was at his peak of his running around Europe, looking at the way society was structured was that men socialize with men and women socialize with women, and you only were really with the opposite sex once you were married, and how easy that really was for gay, lesbian, and bisexual individuals to have relationships, have companionships with same gendered genders.
H: Oh, yeah, I am constantly trying to impress this upon my listeners and my blog readers that you don't have to go through shenanigans to get your two same-sex people together because that would be the norm of life for them.
C: Absolutely, it would not be – and one of the reasons why Oscar Wilde was ever “caught” was kind of because a noble had kind of a personal vendetta, but, otherwise, it was not rare that, you know, no one thought twice about him hanging out with young men all the time. Also, they didn't have, the way we do in contemporary society that view of homosexuality. It wasn't defined, so it wasn't really – if you had a gay uncle, it was just kind of like, “Oh, well, he's just that way,” and really was just we just don’t talk about it.
H: A confirmed bachelor.
C: A confirmed bachelor, absolutely. [Laughter] My mom tells a great story from when she lived with, I think probably in the 60s, and they had neighbors down the street who she called, “the bachelors,” and she didn’t realize until many years later that they were a gay couple because, again, it was a don't-ask-don't-tell kind of thing, and we just didn't talk about it. There were quite a few young men and young women who engaged in these kinds of relationships. So, I kind of was thinking I wanted to maybe make it a two-parter of a gay couple and a lesbian couple, kind of having that opportunity to explore these relationships because of the structure of society and how that was not noticed as an impropriety because they were forced into these same-sex social groups. So, that's my dream project. [Laughter]
H: If you get around to writing the lesbian couple, drop me a note. Let me know.
C: Definitely, definitely.
H: So, other than your podcast which I will put the links to in the show notes, where can listeners find you online?
C: Sure, the easiest way probably is I'm on Twitter. I'm @carriepack on Twitter, and that's probably the easiest way because it's a good direct communication, but, basically, I'm on all social media so anywhere you can find a person named Carrie Pack, it’s likely me, likely. [Laughter] There are others out there. They're scientists though. They're much cooler than me.
H: Yeah, I think I found a website for you as well, probably linked from your Twitter, so I'll put links to all of that in the show notes. Thank you so much, Carrie, for joining us this month.
C: Thank you.
A series of interviews with authors of historically-based fiction featuring queer women.
In this episode we talk about
Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online
Links to Heather Online
Links to Carrie Pack Online
Across many authors there’s a confusing assertion that lesbian possibilities have regularly gone from being considered impossible, to being recognized, then resulting in the demonization of demonstrations of affection. To some extent, this article deals with the reverse swing of the pendulum: how was that awareness suppressed again, such that there could be a later re-awakening of suspicion? Traub and Andreadis discuss how lesbian possibilities were identified and articulated in the 17th century, resulting in a genteel avoidance-discourse among authors like Katherine Phillips. Lanser and others examine a similar dynamic in the 18th century leading to the "sex panic" of the 1790s that rolled over into an erasure of female sexual possibilities in general in the 19th century...only to have a focus on lesbian possibilities revived in the late 19th century with the decadent movement and the sexologists, who once again raised the spectre that any close female relationships were suspect.
It almost makes me wonder to what extent this apparent pendulum swing is a real phenomenon in lived experience and to what extent it's an artifact of changing fasions in "official discourse." Were there actual ups and downs in the average person's awareness of the possibilities of female same-sex relations? Or were there only ups and downs in the degree of official scrutiny those possibilities were given? Other authors have pointed out that shifts in the attitudes of the patriarchal establishment toward relationships between women were often dictated by the extent to which those relationships defused or exacerbated women's challenges to their authority.
When Craft-Fairchild asserts "the lack of a coherent, codified model" of sapphic identity in the 18th century, could we not just as reasonably assert that 18th century English writers did not have a single stereotype for "real lesbians" while clearly having an awareness of desire between women? Rather than this lack of coherence indicating the absense of a sense of lesbian identity, might it rather indicate that 18th century lesbian identity was rooted in the experience of desire itself and had as wide a variety of expressions of that desire as were available for heterosexual desire? Does "lesbian erasure" come from the absence of a single, agreed-upon stereotypical image? Or does real erasure come from the idea that there must be a single, agreed-upon sterotypical image in order for "lesbian identity" to exist?
I think these are questions that might usefully be considered by comparison to 20th-21st century concepts and images of lesbian identity. Is there currently a "coherent, codified model" of lesbian identity of the sort that Craft-Fairchild is looking for in the 18th century? Or are there many different flavors of identity that connect to each other by a variety of similarity-links without the need or ability to define a sharp-edged category? (I'm always happy to insert cognitive approaches category theory into a discussion!)
One significant challenge that articles like this one raise is against the idea that "absence of evidence" for unambiguous lesbian-like identities can ever be considered evidence of absence. But another important challenge is to the idea that an overall picture of historic concepts of same-sex love and desire can come from studying individual historic periods. If any given defined historic period appears to recapitulate a cycle of covert identity, growing awareness, public identification, demonization, and suppression, then maybe we need to stop thinking in terms of "development". It's reminiscent of Traub's concept of "cycles of salience" (Traub 2011) as well as Lanser's point that in every age lesbianism was framed as being both "an ancient vice" and "a new fashion" (Lanser 2014).
When I started this Project, I truly thought of my own work as being the isolated summary and presentation of individual publications, but more and more I find myself developing my own over-arching image of the state of sapphic consciousness across time and space, and find myself challenging more narrow conclusions based on focused data. Not that I think there is a single unified field theory of lesbianism, but that I have an image of the connections and continuities as well as the disruptions and disjunctions that helps me make sense of how individual women in different times and places might have understood their own lives. It's a rich tapestry and has a lot of space for making up new stories that are woven seamlessly into the existing ground.
Craft-Fairchild, Catherine. 2006. “Sexual and Textual Indeterminacy: Eighteenth-Century English Representations of Sapphism” in Journal of the History of Sexuality 15:3
[The following is duplicated from the associated blog. I'm trying to standardize the organization of associated content.]
Across many authors there’s a confusing assertion that lesbian possibilities have regularly gone from being considered impossible, to being recognized, then resulting in the demonization of demonstrations of affection. To some extent, this article deals with the reverse swing of the pendulum: how was that awareness suppressed again, such that there could be a later re-awakening of suspicion? Traub and Andreadis discuss how lesbian possibilities were identified and articulated in the 17th century, resulting in a genteel avoidance-discourse among authors like Katherine Phillips. Lanser and others examine a similar dynamic in the 18th century leading to the "sex panic" of the 1790s that rolled over into an erasure of female sexual possibilities in general in the 19th century...only to have a focus on lesbian possibilities revived in the late 19th century with the decadent movement and the sexologists, who once again raised the spectre that any close female relationships were suspect.
It almost makes me wonder to what extent this apparent pendulum swing is a real phenomenon in lived experience and to what extent it's an artifact of changing fasions in "official discourse." Were there actual ups and downs in the average person's awareness of the possibilities of female same-sex relations? Or were there only ups and downs in the degree of official scrutiny those possibilities were given? Other authors have pointed out that shifts in the attitudes of the patriarchal establishment toward relationships between women were often dictated by the extent to which those relationships defused or exacerbated women's challenges to their authority.
When Craft-Fairchild asserts "the lack of a coherent, codified model" of sapphic identity in the 18th century, could we not just as reasonably assert that 18th century English writers did not have a single stereotype for "real lesbians" while clearly having an awareness of desire between women? Rather than this lack of coherence indicating the absense of a sense of lesbian identity, might it rather indicate that 18th century lesbian identity was rooted in the experience of desire itself and had as wide a variety of expressions of that desire as were available for heterosexual desire? Does "lesbian erasure" come from the absence of a single, agreed-upon stereotypical image? Or does real erasure come from the idea that there must be a single, agreed-upon sterotypical image in order for "lesbian identity" to exist?
I think these are questions that might usefully be considered by comparison to 20th-21st century concepts and images of lesbian identity. Is there currently a "coherent, codified model" of lesbian identity of the sort that Craft-Fairchild is looking for in the 18th century? Or are there many different flavors of identity that connect to each other by a variety of similarity-links without the need or ability to define a sharp-edged category? (I'm always happy to insert cognitive approaches category theory into a discussion!)
One significant challenge that articles like this one raise is against the idea that "absence of evidence" for unambiguous lesbian-like identities can ever be considered evidence of absence. But another important challenge is to the idea that an overall picture of historic concepts of same-sex love and desire can come from studying individual historic periods. If any given defined historic period appears to recapitulate a cycle of covert identity, growing awareness, public identification, demonization, and suppression, then maybe we need to stop thinking in terms of "development". It's reminiscent of Traub's concept of "cycles of salience" (Traub 2011) as well as Lanser's point that in every age lesbianism was framed as being both "an ancient vice" and "a new fashion" (Lanser 2014).
When I started this Project, I truly thought of my own work as being the isolated summary and presentation of individual publications, but more and more I find myself developing my own over-arching image of the state of sapphic consciousness across time and space, and find myself challenging more narrow conclusions based on focused data. Not that I think there is a single unified field theory of lesbianism, but that I have an image of the connections and continuities as well as the disruptions and disjunctions that helps me make sense of how individual women in different times and places might have understood their own lives. It's a rich tapestry and has a lot of space for making up new stories that are woven seamlessly into the existing ground.
# # #
A comparison of the popular reactions in 18th century English literature to “sapphists” as contrasted with male homosexual institutions like molly houses gives the appearance of unconcern about women’s relationships, as does the absence of English laws against sex between women. When women in same-sex relationships ran afoul of the law, they were typically charged with fraud. Nor were women who cross-dressed as men treated with the same public scorn as effeminate men. Various scholar have suggested that it was possible for people in that era to be entirely ignorant of the sexual possibilities between women.
Terry Castle’s The Apparitional Lesbian took a contrasting position: that lesbians were absent from the historic record because they generated an anxiety too extreme to be articulated. Other scholars, such as Elizabeth Susan Wahl assert that homosexual possibilities between women were an “open secret” during the 18th century that was encoded into a variety of literary genres while still being elusive. Similarly, Valerie Traub maps out how 17th century English texts used a set of classical idioms, tropes, and motifs to create a means of making female homoeroticism intelligible, but that very visibility led to increasing social sanction. Knowledge about female same-sex possibilities then cast suspicion on forms of intimacy such as bed-sharing, kissing and caressing, and close friendships that had previously been considered “chaste”.
Harriette Andreadis argues that this conflict provided an impetus for inhibiting open discussion of same-sex relations by the mid-17th century. Accusations of female same-sex relations could be used for social control to support a binary, heteronormative sexual imperative. This resulted in a self-protective evasiveness among women writers who depicted eroticized female relationships.
Thus we find an apparent contradiction where female homoeroticism is expressed in a variety of 18th century genres while simultaneously beginning to fade to deniability. The anxiety around same-sex discourse affected the authors as well as their audiences, resulting in an ambivalent and indeterminate treatment of lesbian-like characters. This article looks at the nature of how that ambivalence and indeterminacy was expressed. Rather than taking a position that textual same-sex desire existed but has been erased and must be re-discovered, Craft-Fairchild looks at the textual nature of the presence of same-sex desire.
Were women “struggling to find a language with which to define their love for one another”? Or were they using the approved models of female friendship to conceal or dodge the issue while still expressing those emotions? Was lesbian identity being developed or was a developed model being concealed? If 18th century texts appear to present an incoherent articulation of same-sex desire, is that due to the incoherence of the writers or of today’s readers? Craft-Fairchild argues that the apparent tolerance of the 18th century sapphist was due to the lack of a coherent, codified model that defined her. This same lack is what makes her difficult for modern readers to identify.
The first case study is Delariviere Manley’s The New Atalantis (1709), which ridicules the lesbian behavior of “the new Cabal,” a fictional cadre of women who have turned their emotional focus on each other. The resulting relationships are varied in nature, including both mannish women and traditional feminine ones, “butch-femme” couples as well as “femme-femme” ones, hierarchical relationships and egalitarian ones and with a variety of expressed motivations for disdaining men (or embracing both men and women).
Manley’s text both asserts that female homoeroticism is an “impossibility” while simultaneously treating it as a threat. The all-female society is presented in both utopian and satirical lights. She sees the line between female friendship and “irregularity” as both impossible to identify and clearly transgressible. Manley’s text asserts both that the “real” sapphist can be identified by physical signs (masculine appearance and behavior) and that one can be both traditionally feminine and inclined toward women.
The second case study is John Cleland’s Fanny Hill in which the innocent Fanny is initiated into sexual pleasure by an older prostitute, Phoebe, who is described variously as having “an arbitrary taste” for women that she takes the opportunity to gratify, while also taking pleasure “without distinction of sexes.” While Fanny is depicted as preferring to move on from her female initiation to the “more solid food” of men, Phoebe is assigned a contradictory array of motivations for her active interest in same-sex erotics. Nor is she depicted as being in any way masculinized. Rather than resolving the problem, Cleland simply abandons the character.
The third case study is Henry Fielding’s The Female Husband, a highly fictionalized story of Mary Hamilton, a woman tried for fraud for marrying another woman while in male disguise. Fielding presents Hamilton as being traditionally feminine and attractive, as being innocent and properly brought up, but then being “corrupted” by a relationship with an older woman after which she had a fixed interest only in women. The actual court records of Hamilton’s case make it clear that the legal charge was fraud and that there was no suggestion of a sexual crime, while Fielding’s work revolves around a prurient interest in the sexual possibilities of her life.
Fielding lays out an incoherent theory of “natural” versus “unnatural” desire which fails to justify how Hamilton could be diverted to the “unnatural” despite having no physical or psychological predisposition before her own seduction. Fielding simultaneously asserts that such women will always turn back to preferring men when the option is available (illustrating the point with several of Hamilton’s partners who abandon her for men), but consistently depicts Hamilton herself as steadfastly preferring female partners, with no implication that she would have been unable to attract a man if she chose.
Perhaps the perfect encapsulation of male anxiety, as voiced by Fielding’s character, is when she offers her female partner “all the pleasures of marriage without the inconveniences.”
The anxiety provoked by the inability to “read” sapphism is illustrated by a fantasy by Jonathan Swift, who imagines a system of evaluating female virtue by means of the myth that a lion would not attack a true virgin. Thus all communities (he asserts) should keep a lion handy by the church. A woman would not be absolutely compelled to offer herself for the test, but if she refused she would be assumed to be a whore. He then spins a tale in which a woman embarked on the test believing herself secure, but when the lion attacked, as she was torn to pieces, she confessed “I am no true virgin! Oh Sappho, Sappho!” The text emphasizes the lack of any identifying signifier of sapphism other than the magical senses of the lions. The sapphist moves invisibly through society with no identifying characteristics, but the strength of the anxiety her existence provokes is measured in the viciousness of the fictional punishment she is subjected to.
Even condemnatory texts such as Manley, Swift, Cleland, and Fielding could not serve up a coherent image of female homoeroticism. But positive descriptions of women in committed relationships fared no better in characterizing their subjects. Susan Lanser asserts that women such as the Ladies of Llangollen or Anne Lister created an acceptable image of “lesbian” relationships but that the acceptability of intimate female relationships depended on manipulating the conventions through which they were interpreted. Positive depictions of female erotic relationships drew on the language of friendship and heterosexual romance, but in wavering between them might participate in their own erasure.
The anonymous The Travels and Adventures of Mademoiselle de Richelieu presents an example of the difficulty of interpreting textual intent, in part because the anonymous nature of the text and a lack of contemporary critical commentary makes it hard to determine the author’s intent or the expected reception. The story embeds the spicy tale of same-sex flirtation and love within an incoherent jumble of other literary genres, making it possible to overlook--or even deny--the sexually transgressive nature of the text. The protagonists (Alithea and Arabella) regularly disparage heterosexual marriage, but in a manner that is consistent with expected reactions for women of their class. Only their expressions of physical admiration and desire for each other then move their reactions into sapphic territory. The story is rife with expressions of physical affection between the two, teasing references between them to being lovers or each other’s husband, but avoids using any vocabulary that makes unambiguous reference to lesbianism (terms such as sapphist, tribade, fricatrice, etc.). And the two regularly pay lip service to same-sex love representing “impossibilities” and lamenting their inability to truly play the part of a husband. This leaves the reader suspended between an interpretation of the text as a covert lesbian love story and a misogynistic satire that denies the possibility of love between women.
There are parallel ambiguities in the fictionalized autobiography A Narrative of the Life of Mrs. Charlotte Charke by an actress best known for performing both “breeches roles” (roles in which a female character dresses in male clothing) and actual male roles. Charke cross-dressed off the stage as well at times in a variety of circumstances, including a long stint living as “Mr. Brown” in company with a female companion. Like the Richelieu story, the text combines multiple genres and refuses to adhere to a coherent through-line. Charke hints at a heterosexual context for her cross-dressing (which she refuses to disclose in detail) and depicts herself as dodging any attempt at consummation of romantic encounters with women while cross-dressing, but then relates in detail the loving and marriage-like relationship with Mrs. Brown. While critics have offered a number of events in support of Charke’s heterosexuality (marriage to a man, assertions that she didn’t share a bed with Mrs. Brown) Emma Donoghue points out the double standard that if a man and woman engaged in the relationship laid out for Charke and Mrs. Brown there would be no doubt it was a romantic and sexual one.
Across multiple 18th century texts, sapphic figures are presented in ambiguous and inexplicit terms that allow for plausible denial while requiring a significant amount of effort and hand-waving to perform that denial. Homoerotic relations between women were presented indirectly, both due to the lack of a consistent and coherent social model, but perhaps by the women themselves as a self-protective measure. Although explicit language was available to identify women involved in same-sex erotics, that language was avoided in more elevated literary registers both because it was taboo, and possibly because women writing of their own lives did not view themselves in the negative light associated with those terms. In doing so, they may have participated in their own literary erasure.
Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast - Episode 29a - On the Shelf for December 2018 - Transcript
(Originally aired 2018/12/01 - listen here)
Welcome to On the Shelf for December 2018.
December starts with a reminder that the podcast will be open for fiction submissions during the month of January. We’re looking for lesbian-themed historic short stories of up to 5000 words. We pay professional rates both for the story and to the narrators. See the link in the show notes for full details and please publicize this call to other venues so we have an even harder time choosing among the wonderful submissions than we did last year.
Conference
If you’re interested in the geekier academic side of researching and writing historical fiction, you might want to know about the Historical Fictions Research Network. They have a website and online journal at historicalfictionsresearch-dot-org and will be holding their fourth annual conference in Manchester England in February 2019. The website says the following about their conference:
“The Historical Fictions Research Network aims to create a place for the discussion of all aspects of the construction of the historical narrative. The focus of the conference is the way we construct history, the narratives and fictions people assemble and how. Recent keynotes have explored the experiences of excavations at Treblinka; the use of DNA to reconstruct historical narratives; explorations of memorial practices at battle fields; cookery as a means to explore the past; new insights resulting from a computer based re-construction of the battle of Trafalgar; and a discussion of new approaches at the Petrie Museum. We welcome both academic and practitioner presentations. We welcome people working on prose, drama, visual art, reception studies, musicology, museum displays, film, tv, gaming, wargaming, graphic novels, transformative works and any other areas engaged in the construction of narratives of the past.”
Publications on the Blog
In November, the blog started off with a mini-theme of classical Greek romance novels, starting with a translation of The Babyloniaka by Iamblichos, discussed in the podcast on sexuality in classical Rome, and a Christian adaptation of the genre for the apocryphal acts of the saints, where the romance arc is mapped onto two Christian women, Xanthippe and Polyxena.
Following this, I began a series of articles about the late 18th century to go along with last month’s essay on sculptor Anne Damer. These included the social and political forces that resulted in the Sex Panic of the 1790s, which precipitated a shift in English images of the feminine ideal to a domestic, sexless maternal figure. Another article looked into the contents of the French Mémoires secrets, a sort of politically-tinged gossip rag about doings at the French court in the time leading up to the Revolution.
Continuing the 18th century theme in December, we have an article on representations of sapphism in 18th century English literature. And as a contrast to sexuality among the middle and upper classes, Theo Van der Meer digs through legal archives in Amsterdam to turn up case histories of women who ran afoul of the law in the context of sexual relations with other women.
Fiction Series
I haven’t settled on what publications to cover at the end of the month, but I have a couple of books on the history of same-sex relations in India that would go nicely with the last of our original fiction series for 2018: “At the Mouth” by Gurmika Mann. Mann has written a delightful, if bittersweet story of young love and making hard choices.
Book Shopping! Oops, Movie Shopping!
I have no new book acquisitions to talk about, so I’ll take the time to talk up a new movie that listeners should definitely track down. The Favourite, starring Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and Emma Stone is a costume drama set in the early 18th century about England’s Queen Anne and her romantic friendships with two of her courtiers: the brillliant and politically savvy Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, and Churchill’s protégée and eventual rival for the queen’s affections, Abigail Masham. I can guarantee you at least a bit of homoerotic tension, possibly even more. It’s hard to know without having seen it yet. The movie is likely to have limited distribution in art-house theaters, though it’s already won some major awards, so do your research and track it down before it goes away.
Essay
And because it’s as good an inspiration as any other, I’m going to do the December essay on Queen Anne and the rumors of lesbianism that surrounded her intimate circle of favorites. I’ll have a book recommendation or two that tie in with the topic. And I may possibly rope in a guest to discuss the movie with. No promises, but I’ll do some sort of review to let you know what I thought of it. Would listeners be interested in regular episodes about historic movies of lesbian interest? Let me know--I have quite a collection on video, and if there’s enough interest I could do mini reviews on occasion.
Author Guest
This month’s author guest will be Carrie Pack, whose YA novel Grrrrls on the Side looks back at the riot girl movement of the 1990s and the rise of zine culture. The ‘90s may seem just a blink of an eye ago to some of us, but for the target teenage readership of the book, it’s ancient history. Carrie will also be doing our book appreciation show this month.
[Sponsor break]
Recent Lesbian Historical Fiction
For this month’s list of new and forthcoming historical fiction, I’ve turned up 9 books, starting with several I missed when they came out in October. Because lesbian books often don’t have Amazon listings or advance publicity until they’re actually released, the timing of when I put these shows together means that I may not be able to mention a book until the show two months later. If you know of any upcoming lesbian historical books, or if you have one coming up that has a scheduled release date, drop me an email to make sure I include it. People are starting to get the word that the Lesbian Historic Motif Podcast is a go-to resource for information about books, and I’d like to make it as complete as I can.
Back in October, we have book 2 in Olivia Lark’s “The Flowers” series, published by Three Bunny Farm Press. The title is Lavender Inn and it’s an independent story from the first of the series and is set in the 1890s somewhere on the Atlantic Coast. Here’s the blurb.
As Lavender Inn shakes under the hurricane's onslaught, other storms whirl within. Clara Winslow's struggling seaside inn needs a successful society wedding, but a big storm will take it out of her hands. Wedding guest Tillie Walker is stylish and kind, but she is harboring secrets, secrets that could get in the way of the growing fascination between her and glorious, windswept Clara. Can a catastrophe be the salvation of two women near ruin? Lavender Inn is a standalone romance set in 1890, with the kind of tender happily-ever-after readers enjoyed in Daisy Crown.
October also saw a couple of stories about hard-riding western women in male-coded professions.
Naomi Muse’s self-published Whiskey and Cinnamon has the following description:
Sloan had a hard enough time being a female bounty hunter in the West. With only her trusty steed Whiskey by her side, she went through town after town righting wrongs. Her methods worked well until she encountered the Franklin brothers terrorizing the women in a small town. Sloan always had a soft spot for women, and she will not let these ruffians have their way with them. Will enlisting the help of a local legend be enough to defeat her new foes?
Red Hope brought out The Triple L published by Little Red Wings.
In 1878, Landen Morrison is a wandering cowgirl with an ugly past that keeps finding her, even when she rides into Texas. She goes to the town of Paris, looking for work, alcohol, and sex but she accidentally lets her guard slip around Raleigh Baylor, the only female Ranger in Paris, Texas. Despite her attempts, Raleigh watches Landen leave Paris but is later shocked to learn Landen has suddenly joined the infamous Sam Bass Gang. Several train robberies later, a war ensues between the rangers and the Bass Gang, one that includes a personal battle of justice and betrayal between the two opposing women. As the conflict comes to a bloody end, the truth of Landen's lies is revealed. Can Raleigh's love conquer Landen's dark past, or has she lost her forever?
Author Emilie Blondel has two self-published erotic stories either out or just coming out. They appear to be in the short story range and look to have a fairly high heat rating.
In “Her Royal Servant” beautiful blonde Anne-Marie was born into a lowly life, working on a small market in the city of Paris. She dreams of one day escaping, and although she knows she can make an extra livre or two by giving the young men of Paris her favours, she has never felt interested in the company of men. When she buys herself a flirtatious new outfit one day, spending all her meagre savings, she is surprised to discover that it is not just men who seem interested in her now. In fact, she attracts the interest of one of the wealthiest, most beautiful women in the whole of France. When she is taken back to the Palace of Versailles, in order to be this gentlewoman's special servant, she is amazed how good it feels to finally find someone worth serving. Her world, from now on, is full of majesty.
And coming out in December from the same author is “Bellatrix's Slave”
When innocent eighteen-year-old Aurelia is told by her father that she must attend the Colosseum with him, to watch a gladiator fight, she is not pleased. Until, that is, she discovers that the gladiators are hot, strong, powerful women... The winning gladiator, a muscular and dominating warrior named Bellatrix is told that she may choose a man from the audience to be her slave for the night. But she chooses a woman. She chooses Aurelia. Aurelia soon learns what it is like to be completely under her Mistress' control...
November releases include another erotic short story, “The Queen's Gift” by Lara Zielinsky, published by LZ Media.
The brief blurb tells us: “Pirate Captain "Bloody Mary" Flint diverts Lady Anne Coleridge from her fate as a lady in waiting to the English Queen. A lesbian romantic adventure on the 18th century high seas.”
Hard on the heels of Vanda’s third book in the Juliana series is book 4 Heaven is to your Left published by Sans Merci Press. Here’s the blurb:
It’s 1956. In Heaven is to Your Left Alice (Al) and Juliana arrive home from a successful run at Le Lido in Paris, only to be greeted by Dan Schuyler who has threatened to reveal to the world the nature of their “immoral” relationship. Under this threat Schuyler has gotten Juliana to sign a contract with him to be in a Broadway play. Now, the control and manipulation begins. Al seeks a way to free Juliana from this man’s clutches. She turns to Max, accomplished businessman, owner of two night clubs, to help her. There must be something he can do; he has friends who are gangsters. Still, Max does nothing. Or does he? Al knows she has to act. She knows gangsters too.
There are two December releases in addition to the short story previously mentioned. Lily Maxon offers a novella that sounds like it has either a Regency or Victorian setting, the self-published A Lady’s Desire.
Lady Sarah Lark has never had much interest in any of the suitors that surround her. She’s decided that, instead of choosing a husband, she’ll save her pin money and travel like she’s always wanted to. However, her plans are interrupted when her family invites her cousin’s widow, Winifred Wakefield, to stay with them.
S. D. Simper offers us a re-imagining of Sheridan LeFanu’s classic lesbian vampire tale, in Carmilla and Laura published by Endless Night Publications. Here’s the blurb:
In the late 19th century, Laura lives a lonely life in a schloss by the forest, Styria, with only her doting father and two governesses for company. A chance accident brings a new companion, however – the eccentric and beautiful Carmilla. With charm unparalleled and habits as mysterious as her history, Carmilla’s allure is undeniable, drawing Laura closer with every affectionate touch and word. Attraction blossoms into a temptation Laura fears to name, a tantalizing passion burning brighter than the fires of hell. But when a mysterious plague begins stealing the lives of young women in her home and the village beyond, Laura wrestles to reconcile the truth – that the gentle, fragile woman she loves may be a monster cast out of heaven. Carmilla, the classic vampire novella written by J Sheridan LeFanu, receives new life in this gorgeous retelling, centered on the provocative, controversial leads of the original, Carmilla and Laura.
Ask Sappho
For this month’s Ask Sappho segment, I thought I’d pass on an interesting archaeological find that might spark some story ideas. I got this story from the website Ancient Origins, who cite articles in Discovery News and Mail Online among their sources.
The find comes from the latrine of an 18th century school of swordsmanship in the Baltic city of Gdańsk now part of Poland. Among finds such as wooden practice swords, broken pottery, and jewelry, they found a well-preserved leather dildo. It is about 8 inches long, is stuffed with hair, and has a carved wooden tip. The archaeologists suggest that given the location of the find and the construction of the object it was more likely “used for personal pleasure than for ...ritual.” The article has a more extensive discussion of the history of dildos both as ritual objects and as sex toys, if you’re interested in following the link in the show notes.
But when I read this article, I immediately thought of various historic records of female-bodied persons using an artificial penis as part of living a male role, including for having sexual relations with a woman. People like Katherina Hetzeldorfer in 15th century Germany, Eleno de Céspedes in 16th century Spain, Catherine Vizzani in 18th century Italy, and Catharina Margaretha Lincken in 18th century Germany. My imagination went spinning off into a gender-disguise story: a young woman who aspires to be a swordswoman masquerades as a man to enter the school, and then...
Well, someone will have to take up the tale and tell us the rest of it. 18th century Gdańsk was quite a happening place, with plenty of opportunity for adventure and peril, as well as the challenges of disguise and--dare we hope it--romance? In fact, there’s still time for someone to give it a try for next year’s fiction series!
Your monthly update on what the Lesbian Historic Motif Project has been doing.
In this episode we talk about:
Links to the Lesbian Historic Motif Project Online
Links to Heather Online
It wasn't quite meant as a direct exchange, but December's LHMPodcast guest is going to be Carrie Pack, and I'm appearing on her podcast show BiSciFi. Check it out!
As the 18th century progressed toward the "sex panic" that presaged a massive shift in attitudes towards women's sexuality, we see how images of sexual license--both heterosexual and homosexual--came to be viewed as signs of the decay and collapse of civil society itself. In France, these images got caught up in the larger upheavals that led to the Revolution. It becomes difficult to decipher exactly what the women of the French court were actually doing with each other, as opposed to what they were accused of doing as a symbolic displacement of hostility about other aspects of society and politics. The more I read about this era, the less I'm certain that I know. In some ways, the image of sapphic chaos in the later 18th century French court feels like a preview of the image of lesbian decadence that would bloom a century later. While attitudes towards relationships between women in western Europe share some trends and similarities, the specific form they take in particular countries is often shaped by local politics and anxieties. The Revolution not only employed the image of lesbian relations as an example of the destructive nature of uncontrolled women (whether in the aristocracy, or later among revolutionaries), but reaction to those images then shaped attitudes in England and elsewhere as we've seen in this current series of articles.
Merrick, Jeffrey. 1990. “Sexual Politics and Public Order in Late Eighteenth-Century France: the Mémoires secrets and the Correspondance secrète” in Journal of the History of Sexuality 1, 68-84.
[The following is duplicated from the associated blog. I'm trying to standardize the organization of associated content.]
As the 18th century progressed toward the "sex panic" that presaged a massive shift in attitudes towards women's sexuality, we see how images of sexual license--both heterosexual and homosexual--came to be viewed as signs of the decay and collapse of civil society itself. In France, these images got caught up in the larger upheavals that led to the Revolution. It becomes difficult to decipher exactly what the women of the French court were actually doing with each other, as opposed to what they were accused of doing as a symbolic displacement of hostility about other aspects of society and politics. The more I read about this era, the less I'm certain that I know. In some ways, the image of sapphic chaos in the later 18th century French court feels like a preview of the image of lesbian decadence that would bloom a century later. While attitudes towards relationships between women in western Europe share some trends and similarities, the specific form they take in particular countries is often shaped by local politics and anxieties. The Revolution not only employed the image of lesbian relations as an example of the destructive nature of uncontrolled women (whether in the aristocracy, or later among revolutionaries), but reaction to those images then shaped attitudes in England and elsewhere as we've seen in this current series of articles.
# # #
This article is an examination of the intersection of private and public morality within the ancien régime of France (i.e., the monarchy prior to the Revolution), and how the image of the family as a “miniature kingdom” created parallels such that transgressions against the state and transgressions against family members could be considered parallel. In turn, legal structures viewed the state (as embodied in the monarch and the legal system) as backing up paternal authority over family members with regard to clandestine marriages, female adultery, and the misbehavior of wives and children.
But this understanding can be seen most clearly when it is perceived as a failed system: in the later 18th century, patriarchalism (in both the state and family) was replaced by paternalism as secular authorities withdrew from the enforcement of morality. The perception of this as failure is woven throughout two collections of reports about moral transgressions and sexual scandals of the French court known as the Mémoires secrets and the Correspondance secrète, covering events of 1762-1787. Neither objective news reports nor simple personal memoirs, these documents assembled information about personal behavior from many sources but were selective and sensational in what they chose to include.
The collections are of interest to the Project due to a significant focus on sexual misconduct: “reports about homosexuality, unmanly men and unwomanly women, unruly and unchaste wives, marital separations, and misconduct involving members of the royal family." The conflation of private and state matters meant that these behaviors were seen as failures of the state itself.
Homosexuality, in particular, was seen as an index of the moral state and the references provide a view of the French vocabulary of the era regarding sexual preferences. The authors “recognized that pederasty and tribadism had always been popular among men and women respectively” but framed such practices as being newly popular and more open. The extensive anecdotes about male homosexuals provide evidence of something resembling an organized subculture, cutting across class backgrounds.
References to tribades, however, associated them more narrowly with theatrical performers and the associated fields of prostitution and pornography. Among the featured subjects were actress Françoise-Marie-Antoinette-Joseph Saucerotte, known as Mademoiselle de Raucourt, who enjoyed the patronage of Queen Marie Antoinette. She was said to dress like a man when sexually involved with women, and like a woman when involved with men. She was said to have “married” the singer Sophie Arnould.
The editorializing on lesbian inclinations (and the specific word “lesbian” is used at least once) asserted their essential bisexuality, but also noted that men sometimes acknowledged that a man was not capable of retrieving the affections of a lover who had turned to other women. Sex between women was not viewed as criminal (since the law didn’t recognize the possibility of sex with no man involved) but rather as “vice”. Sexual relationships between women disrupted the patriarchal social order by removing women from the marriage economy.
The vast majority of this article is concerned with topics unrelated to lesbianism, so the following is a very small item from a much longer discussion.
While the Mémoires secrets were preoccupied with sexual indiscretions, the authors also traced shifts in the part sex played in public opinion about various members of the court. Entries in 1776 condemned scurrilous verses that questioned Louis XVI’s virility and that “criminally” misrepresented the friendship between Queen Marie Antoinette and the princesse de Lamballe (they were rumored to be lovers). Public opinion attacked the queen from a number of angles, including her participation in the government, but a running them was sexual voracity with both men and women and with persons of all classes. She came to represent the archetype of the “disorderly female” who symbolized the ruin of society.