#18th-century history

[eighteenthcenturyfiction]

Now with links to the books added! I sent the files to press for ECF July 2024, so you know what that means: The July issue reviews section is free to read on the journal website -- ecf.humanities.mcmaster.ca/bookreviews/

#18thCentury Get your read on!

ECF 36.3 Book titles, authors, publishers, reviewers; ToC titles, etc.

England Re-Oriented: How Central and South Asian Travelers Imagined the West, 1750–1857 by Humberto Garcia

Review by Eun Kyung Min, Seoul National University

Literary Authority: An Eighteenth-Century Genealogy by Claude Willan

Review by Paul Keen, Carleton University

Backlash: Libel, Impeachment, and Populism in the Reign of Queen Anne by Rachel Carnell

Review by Nicola Parsons, University of Sydney

Death and the Body in the Eighteenth-Century Novel by Jolene Zigarovich

Review by Heather Meek, Université de Montréal

Daniel Defoe in Context, ed. Albert J. Rivero and George Justice

Review by Kit Kincade, Indiana State University

Women and Property Ownership in Jane Austen by Rita J. Dashwood

Review by Lise Gaston, Concordia University

Romantic Fiction and Literary Excess in the Minerva Press Era by Hannah Doherty Hudson

Review by Elizabeth Neiman, University of Maine

Romanticism and the Biopolitics of Modern War Writing by Neil Ramsey

Review by Matthew Reznicek, University of Minnesota

Decoding Anne Lister: From the Archives to “Gentleman Jack,” ed. Chris Roulston and Caroline Gonda

Review by Ula Lukszo Klein, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh

Theology in the Early British and Irish Gothic, 1764–1834 by Sam Hirst Review by Jarlath Killeen, Trinity College Dublin

[marzipanandminutiae]

I was about to be irritated at a shitty "kids' education" website on 1770s clothing but then I learned that there's a staymaker buried at King's Chapel and now I'm just delighted to know the gravesite of a clothing worker from that era and I want to take him flowers

[unapologeticallygay]

Two Women Engaged in Sexual Intercourse in a Neoclassical Canopied Bed. Etching, ca. 1780. via JSTOR

[beggars-opera]

On the road leading into the center of Concord, Massachusetts, there sits a house.

It is a plain, colonial-style house, of which there are many along this road. It has sea green and buff paint, a historical plaque, and one of the most multi-layered stories I have ever encountered to showcase that history is continuous, complicated, and most importantly, fragmentary, unless you know where to look.

So, where to start? The plaque.

There's some usual information here: Benjamin Barron built the house in 1716, and years later it was a "witness house" to the start of the American Revolution. And then, something unusual: a note about an enslaved man named John Jack whose epitaph is "world famous."

Where is this epitaph? Right around the corner in the town center.

It reads:

God wills us free; man wills us slaves. I will as God wills; God’s will be done. Here lies the body of JOHN JACK a native of Africa who died March 1773 aged about 60 years Tho’ born in a land of slavery, He was born free. Tho’ he lived in a land of liberty, He lived a slave. Till by his honest, tho’ stolen labors, He acquired the source of slavery, Which gave him his freedom; Tho’ not long before Death, the grand tyrant Gave him his final emancipation, And set him on a footing with kings. Tho’ a slave to vice, He practised those virtues Without which kings are but slaves.

We don't know precisely when the man first known only as Jack was purchased by Benjamin Barron. We do know that he, along with an enslaved woman named Violet, were listed in Barron's estate upon his death in 1754. Assuming his gravestone is accurate, at that time Jack would have been about 40 and had apparently learned the shoemaking trade from his enslaver. With his "honest, though stolen labors" he was then able to earn enough money to eventually purchase his freedom from the remaining Barron family and change his name to John, keeping Jack as a last name rather than using his enslaver's.

John Jack died, poor but free, in 1773, just two years before the Revolutionary War started. Presumably as part of setting up his own estate, he became a client of local lawyer Daniel Bliss, brother-in-law to the minister, William Emerson. Bliss and Emerson were in a massive family feud that spilled into the rest of the town, as Bliss was notoriously loyal to the crown, eventually letting British soldiers stay in his home and giving them information about Patriot activities.

Daniel Bliss also had abolitionist leanings. And after hearing John's story, he was angry.

Here was a man who had been kidnapped from his home country, dragged across the ocean, and treated as an animal for decades. Countless others were being brutalized in the same way, in the same town that claimed to love liberty and freedom. Reverend Emerson railed against the British government from the pulpit, and he himself was an enslaver.

It wouldn't do. John Jack deserved so much more. So, when he died, Bliss personally paid for a large gravestone and wrote its epitaph to blast the town's hypocrisy from the top of Burial Hill. When the British soldiers trudged through the cemetery on April 19th, 1775, they were so struck that they wrote the words down and published them in the British newspapers, and that hypocrisy passed around Europe as well. And the stone is still there today.

You know whose stone doesn't survive in the burial ground?

Benjamin Barron's.

Or any of his family that I know of. Which is absolutely astonishing, because this story is about to get even more complicated.

Benjamin Barron was a middle-class shoemaker in a suburb that wouldn't become famous until decades after his death. He lived a simple life only made possible by chattel slavery, and he will never show up in a U.S. history textbook.

But he had a wife, and a family. His widow, Betty Barron, from whom John purchased his freedom, whose name does not appear on her home's plaque or anywhere else in town, does appear either by name or in passing in every single one of those textbooks.

Terrible colonial spelling of all names in their marriage record aside, you may have heard her maiden name before:

Betty Parris was born into a slaveholding family in 1683, in a time when it was fairly common for not only Black, but also Indigenous people to be enslaved. It was also a time of war, religious extremism, and severe paranoia in a pre-scientific frontier. And so it was that at the age of nine, Betty pointed a finger at the Arawak woman enslaved in her Salem home, named Titibe, and accused her of witchcraft.

Yes, that Betty Parris.

Her accusations may have started the Salem Witch trials, but unlike her peers, she did not stay in the action for long. As a minor, she was not allowed to testify at court, and as the minister's daughter, she was too high-profile to be allowed near the courtroom circus. Betty's parents sent her to live with relatives during the proceedings, at which point her "bewitchment" was cured, though we're still unsure if she had psychosomatic problems solved by being away from stress, if she stopped because the public stopped listening, or if she stopped because she no longer had adults prompting her.

Following the witch hysteria, the Parrises moved several times as her infamous father struggled to hold down a job and deal with his family's reputation. Eventually they landed in Concord, where Betty met Benjamin and married him at the age of 26, presumably having had no more encounters with Satan in the preceding seventeen years. She lived an undocumented life and died, obscure and forgotten, in 1760, just five years before the Stamp Act crisis plunged America into a revolution, a living bridge between the old world and the new.

I often wonder how much Betty's story followed her throughout her life. People must have talked. Did they whisper in the town square, "Do you know what she did when she was a girl?" Did John Jack hear the stories of how she had previously treated the enslaved people in her life? Did that hasten his desperation to get out? And what of Daniel Bliss; did he know this history as well, seeing the double indignity of it all? Did he stop and think about how much in the world had changed in less than a century since his neighbor was born?

We'll never know.

All that's left is a gravestone, and a house with an insufficient plaque.

[prokopetz]

Today I found out that that alleged 18th Century woodcut of a woman saying "come out you bitch, I'll maul you" that's been doing the rounds is apparently 100% legitimate, and the reason nobody could source it is because the screenshot gets the title wrong. It's evidently from The new art and mystery of gossiping (the popularly circulated screenshot misspells "mystery" as "mastery"), and the full text is available here:

[amatesura]

Magic lantern slides (ca.1700 - ca.1830)

[ltwilliammowett]

The beautiful French frigate L'Hermione from 1780, sailing in line astern behind a modern French Aquitaine class frigate Provence, 2015

[enlitment]

Reblog game based on the 3 viable career paths available to clever commoners in the 18th century

[dogzcats]

pomegranates in still life (details)

[eirene]

Soap Bubbles, probably 1733-1734 Jean-Baptiste-Siméon Chardin

[avaisdramatic]

Putting this comment on here because I feel like I’m actually going insane…

It seems like nobody in the comments even watched the video, complaining about how paying for content is difficult in this economy, like, that's why they are doing this! They cannot continue to make the content they want for free based on ads and sponsors alone. If you have paid attention to the "Making Watcher"s of recent years, their company is not, and has not been profitable. They are so dependent on advertisers for funding that it is becoming a restriction to the content they want to make (y'a know, like Buzzfeed was), so they had to find a solution. I don't know why you all seem to think you are entitled to free content, I understand not everyone can afford it but Watcher doesn't owe you content personally. Frankly, I doubt they wanted to put their content behind a paywall, but if it's that or not make content at all, of course they are going to try to find a solution. So no, they aren't "turning into Buzzfeed” because the massive problem with Buzzfeed was its restrictions on creative freedom and exploitation of its workers. If Watcher wants to produce fulfilling content that gives their editors, designers, producers, etc full creative freedom and a livable wage, this is the best option. If you want them to pay their workers the bare minimum and tailor their content to advertiser interests just so you can watch it for free, that's fine. Just don't pretend that they are some evil media mega-corporation and you are the anti-capitalist shining hero for saying it. You don't have to like it, and you don't have to continue to support them, but don't try to shame and demonize them for making an already difficult decision.

Many of you DO have an understanding of the difficult position our current economic system puts people in because you have experienced it, but you are so unable to extend that understanding beyond your own point of view. Look past yourself for a moment and think critically, and maybe you will understand their perspective. Much love for all of the talented people within Watcher who are doing their best.

And just to add, their format going forward is almost IDENTICAL to CollegeHumor-Dropout's streaming service format (even down to the free premieres and advocating for sharing accounts with friends), which most people praise to high heaven as "the only ethical streaming service." As a huge fan of both companies the stark difference in response here is actually astounding...

[eighteenthcenturyfiction]

Great news for a Tuesday! The new ECF special issue "Refusing 18th-Century Fictions, Part 2" is now available to read at Project MUSE:

https://muse.jhu.edu/issue/52266

#18thCentury #ASECS2024 #asecs24

Cover caption: The image on the front cover is Young Woman with a Book, by Miyagawa (Katsukawa) Shunsui (mid-18th century). The digital file of this Public Domain painting is provided courtesy of The Met, New York.

[lionofchaeronea]

Black Bear Cub, Mori Shūhō, 1799

[yeoldenews]

While we’re on the subject of names, is there an explanation for how traditional nicknames came about that are seemingly unrelated to, or have little in common with, the original name?

ie- John/Jack, Richard/Dick, Henry/Harry/Hank, Charles/Chuck, Margaret/Peggy/Daisy, Sarah/Sally, Mary/Molly, Anne/Nan, etc

I am actually over a week into researching a huge follow-up post (probably more than one if I’m being honest) about the history of nickname usage, so I will be going into this in much, much more detail at a hopefully not-so-later date - if I have not lost my mind. (Two days ago I spent three hours chasing down a source lead that turned out to be a typographical error from 1727 that was then quoted in source after source for the next 150 years.)

As a preview though, here’s some info about the names you mentioned:

The origins of a good portion of common English nicknames come down to the simple fact that people really, really like rhyming things. Will 🠞Bill, Rob🠞Bob, Rick🠞Dick, Meg🠞Peg.

It may seem like a weird reason, but how many of you have known an Anna/Hannah-Banana? I exclusively refer to my Mom’s cat as Toes even though her name is Moe (Moesie-Toesies 🠞 Toesies 🠞 Toes).

Jack likely evolved from the use of the Middle English diminutive suffix “-chen” - pronounced (and often spelled) “-kyn” or “kin”. The use of -chen as a diminutive suffix still endures in modern German - as in “liebchen” = sweetheart (lieb “love” + -chen).

John (Jan) 🠞 Jankin 🠞 Jackin 🠞 Jack.

Hank was also originally a nickname for John from the same source. I and J were not distinct letters in English until the 17th Century. “Iankin” would have been nearly indistinguishable in pronunciation from “Hankin” due to H-dropping. It’s believed to have switched over to being a nickname for Henry in early Colonial America due to the English being exposed to the Dutch nickname for Henrik - “Henk”.

Harry is thought to be a remnant of how Henry was pronounced up until the early modern era. The name was introduced to England during the Norman conquest as the French Henri (On-REE). The already muted nasal n was dropped in the English pronunciation. With a lack of standardized spelling, the two names were used interchangeably in records throughout the middle ages. So all the early English King Henrys would have written their name Henry and pronounced it Harry.

Sally and Molly likely developed simply because little kids can’t say R’s or L���s. Mary 🠞 Mawy 🠞 Molly. Sary 🠞 Sawy 🠞 Sally.

Daisy became a nickname for Margaret because in French garden daisies are called marguerites.

Nan for Anne is an example of a very cool linguistic process called rebracketing, where two words that are often said/written together transfer letters/morphemes over time. The English use of “an” instead of “a” before words beginning with vowels is a common cause of rebracketing. For example: the Middle English “an eute” became “a newt”, and “a napron” became “an apron”. In the case of nicknames the use of the archaic possessive “mine” is often the culprit. “Mine Anne” over time became “My Nan” as “mine” fell out of use. Ned and Nell have the same origin.

Oddly enough the word “nickname” is itself a result of rebracketing, from the Middle English “an eke (meaning additional) name”.

I realized earlier this week that my cat (Toe’s sister) also has a rebracketing nickname. Her name is Mina, but I call her Nom Nom - formed by me being very annoying and saying her name a bunch of time in a row - miNAMiNAMiNAM.

Chuck is a very modern (20th century) nickname which I’ll have to get back to you on as I started my research in the 16th century and am only up to the 1810s so far lol.

[frostedmagnolias]

A turquoise-blue brocaded satin robe a l'Anglaise

“the silk 1760s, but heavily modified construction, woven with meandering white blossom, the ground figured with leaf sprigs, with 1770s front bodice closure, 19th century boning and alterations, later added lace engageants, together with a reticule made from matching fabric”

Kerry Taylor Auctions

[ltwilliammowett]

Old naval slang

A small collection of terms from the 18th - early 20th century that were and probably still are known among sailors.

Admiralty Ham - Royal Navy canned fish Batten your hatch - shut up Beachcomber - a good-for-nothing Cape Horn Fever - feigned illness Cheeseparer - a cheat Claw off - to avoid an embarrassing question or argument Cockbilled - drunk Cumshaw - small craft - Chinese version of scrimshaw Dead Marine - empty liquor bottle Donkey's Breakfast - mattress filled with straw Dunnage - personal equipment of a sailor Flying Fish sailor - sailor stationed in Asian waters Galley yarn - rumour, story Hog yoke- sextant Holy Joe - ship's chaplain Irish hurricane- dead calm Irish pennant - frayed line or piece of clothing Jamaican discipline - unruly behaviour Knock galley west - to knock a person out Leatherneck - a marine Limey - a British sailor Liverpool pennant - a piece of string used to replace a lost button Loaded to the guards - drunk Old Man - captain of the ship One and only - the sailor's best girl On the beach - ashore without a berth Pale Ale - drinking water Quarterdeck voice - the voice of authority Railroad Pants - uniform trousers with braid on the outer leg seam Railway tracks - badge of a first lieutenant Round bottomed chest - sea bag Schooner on the rocks - roast beef and roast potatoes Show a leg - rise and shine Sling it over - pass it to me Slip his cable - die Sundowner - unreasonable tough officer Swallow the anchor - retire Sweat the glass - shake the hour glass to make the time on watch pass quickly - strictly forbidden ! Tops'l buster - strong gale Trim the dish - balance the ship so that it sails on an even keel Turnpike sailor - beggar ashore, a landlubber claiming to be an old sailor in distress Water bewitched - weak tea White rat - sailor who curries favor with the officers

Sailors' Language, by W. Clark Russell, 1883 Soldier and Sailor Words and Phrases. Edward Fraser and John Gibbons, 1925 Sea Slang, by Frank C. Bowen, 1929 Royal Navalese, by Commander John Irving, 1946 Sea Slang of the 20th century, by Wilfried Granville, 1949 The Sailor's Word Book, by Admiral W.H. Smyth, 1967