#i do appreciate. she has such a wide knowledge base esp around world history that i can bumble thru explaining anything i just read about

[joelletwo]

i keep saying stuff to my roomie about the fucked up alt history manga i just read about the tokugawa shogunate and every time shes like gintama? and im like no listen we dont have nearly the time and u dont have nearly the interest for me to tell u what i think about gintama politics/gender/gender politics. however YOU have enough historical knowledge for me to tell u the insane shit they did to those real life guys-women and u to know exactly what im talking about. so its been 24/7 ooku lockdown in our conversations lately

[46ten]

Eliza Hamilton biography review

Tilar J. Mazzeo's Eliza Hamilton: The Extraordinary Life and Times of the Wife of Alexander Hamilton Let me preface this review by stating that I'm not the target audience for a book like this, but I’ll try to be fair. A major challenge in writing a biography of Elizabeth S. Hamilton is that the period of her life when the general public has the most interest - the years of her marriage to Alexander Hamilton - are those in which we largely only have contemporaneous sentimental accounts of her as a wife (letters from AH and P. Schuyler, brief mentions from McHenry and Stephen Van Rensselaer), daughter (letters from P. Schuyler), and sister (letters to/from Angelica S. Church and Margarita/Peggy S. Van Rensselaer, and letters between her siblings and father). But that's not all that EH - or any woman - was.  Based on the lack of information provided in this biography, Mazzeo's not terribly interested in the role of upperclass women in the late 18th century, the dynamics of marriage in that era, class distinctions between women, labor dynamics, childbearing and -rearing customs (she doesn't know about naming customs either), handicrafts, household management, women’s roles in education, the Republican Court, or any of a range of topics that would flesh out EH's world. Mazzeo doesn’t elaborate on the common conceit of the era that women had a political and social duty to the republic, including in helping to regulate the affairs of men through their “complementary” traits. She largely treats the social gatherings of women as arenas for gossip, titillation, and regular old social duty, not as opportunities for soft diplomacy, influence, and favor currying, which they most definitely also were. The women in this biography just sort of move across the stage of male dominance.* Since Mazzeo largely does not contextualize EH's 18th century life and seems to fall into the trap of, “the work of men is important; the work of women is only of side interest,” she's left repeating lots of gossip and conjecturing about romantic thoughts and feelings, as if these were largely all that women had to offer in the 18th century. Mazzeo clearly read letters that have not been included in the standard Hamilton narrative and found some things - mostly gossipy items - really interesting and was willing to go down the rabbit-hole on those, but was also comfortable relying on Hamilton biographies without going to primary sources on many subjects.  The Good Mazzeo does add some valuable context of the events in Albany especially.  She also adds Schuyler family voices to the narrative. I also liked how solidly she showed the interconnection of the Schuylers and AH with other wealthy and influential families. Although Mazzeo doesn't completely make the link, the tension of life near the frontier, wars, and the assassination attempts on her father's life may have played a role in EH's anxiety, such as it was, about being separated from her husband, esp. as he was also subject to threats of assassination at times. She could have more clearly made a counterargument to biographers' claims of EH's nervous anxiety by pointing out the terrors that EH really did face, but she does not do this. While for dubious reasons (based on how she sees EH as a character), Mazzeo raises issues around the Reynolds Pamphlet. It needs to be taken more seriously that Maria Reynolds denied - to at least two parties on the record - that an extramarital affair ever happened and volunteered a handwriting sample** to prove that the letters in AH's supposed possession were not written by her.  I appreciate that Mazzeo brought up that AH's explanation for his involvement with James Reynolds was not universally accepted at the time - Monroe had serious doubts, as did Callendar.  Unfortunately, some of Callendar's pamphlets detailing why he thought both were possible - AH was a sleaze who could have both had an affair with MR AND been engaged in shady financial dealings with her husband - are also lost to history.  I am also gleeful that I'm not the only person who has noticed that there is a similarity between EH's spelling style and MR's as re-printed. (I have also entertained the thought that EH forged those MR letters herself, or were AH forgeries copying parts of his wife's letters.)  I also appreciate that she points out that AH's claim of an affair with MR became widespread knowledge in the political sphere within a very short period of time. The Bad While Mazzeo adds to the record with facts from the Schuyler family letters, she relies heavily on Hamilton biographies, and not even the thorough, well-sourced ones, for others.  Based on the notes at the end of the book, she didn't bother to go to (or check for) primary sources for a lot of facts about AH. She states that Edward Stevens was "likely" AH's half-brother, which has largely been dismissed as a possibility. There are bizarre dating errors, wrong years, even wrong kids named - by my rough estimate, on average there are factual errors at least on every other page. Did Mazzeo not have a fact-checker - even someone decently acquainted with the facts around the persons she’s writing about? (She also contradicts herself on information she’s provided, so maybe she didn’t have a good proofreader either.) It's head-scratching that Mazzeo would do enough research to conjecture that "Polly" (from Tench Tilghman's May 1780 letter, recorded in his memoir) was Mary Tilghman, but not bother to read AH and GW letters to know more about EH's 1794 pregnancy.  Similarly, she gets it right that William S. Hamilton was born in NYC, but then thinks Eliza traveled to Albany right after. (Although a letter from PS to EH from late August contradicts that claim.)  She even repeats the shoe bow story, but claims it did happen in 1789 (incorrect), and says the person mistakenly thought Peggy was unmarried because of the way she behaved? Stephen Van Rensselaer was a reasonably well-known man. Back to the Reynolds Pamphlet: Mazzeo uses as evidence of AH's drafting of the MR letters the similarity between them and Pamela. It's not really evidence that someone - anyone - would write using common idioms and expressions of the time. AH did it quite frequently himself, as I've written about on this blog - he's doing it when he uses the popular phrase, "best of wives, best of women," not making some reference to the Nut-brown maid poem. This isn't proof that the MR letters were forged. Mazzeo hypothesizes that the real reason for the Pamphlet was further financial scandal cover-up, but never conjectures as to the wheres/hows. (If only she could see my many pages of notes on the interactions between AH, John Church, and Church's financial associates.) I'm also baffled as to Mazzeo's explanation for EH going along with the coverup of a financial scandal of the Reynolds Pamphet - because she was afraid of her husband going to jail? That this was EH's biggest fear? Where is the evidence for that? The Ugly The treatment of Peggy! Harsh and man hungry and scared of being a spinster - though a theme with Mazzeo is all of these women being obsessed with flirtations and afraid of ending up husband-less. The treatment of Angelica! The treatment of JOHN CHURCH, whom she describes as a "scoundrel." AH is a "rogue," seemingly with a drinking problem, visiting prostitutes (yet somehow having MR as a mistress would be too much), staying out late at night. It's a wonder that Mazzeo's AH ever accomplished anything in his life, with all of the 18th century character flaws and errors in judgement she gives him.  Most especially with sexual activities, she repeats gossip from AH detractors several times in the book, while her sources are John Adams (as much as two decades later) and Benjamin Latrobe (good friend to Jefferson).  Mazzeo repeats a story, more than once, about AH sexually assaulting Sarah L. Jay that Adams related decades later and that even Adams' cousin William Cunningham said sounded like nonsense, and guesses as to EH's parlor-room reaction to it.  Yet AH and Church would have had about zero social standing if this were really how they had behaved (or if these anecdotes had been widely known at the time). And then there's all of the fantasy treated as fact - without letters to draw on from the period of her childhood and marriage, Mazzeo spends a lot of time imagining EH's feelings and thoughts and presenting them as facts. As one illustration, Mazzeo invents a wedding scene in which Eliza and Alexander exchange rings. Nevermind that EH's actual wedding ring was interlocking and AH likely never had a ring - Mazzeo has AH give Eliza the "Elizabeth" ring, and her give him the "Alexander &" ring. Why would they exchange rings with their own names? Finally, there's a good deal of documentation of EH's life after AH, including more letters from her, more evidence of her financial management, and actually more about her beliefs, thoughts and feelings than are available during her marriage. This is the period when EH's "voice" is most clearly recorded, along with her actions outside the management of her household and her husband's public career. Yet this gets very short-shrift by Mazzeo. The Ugly left a strong impression - it doesn't seem that Mazzeo is neutral about the personages, but actively dislikes them. At various times, she slams pretty much everyone who made up EH's closest circle during her marriage: her parents, her sisters, her husband, her brother-in-law, and then goes against acceptance of the Reynolds Pamphlet not through analysis of the evidence but because she wants an EH that is more palatable to her.  EH, ultimately, comes across as a cypher. Mazzeo does have a strong narrative style, and I wish that this book could have been a collaboration between a historian (or at least someone with stronger scholarly skills) and herself, to at least tease out a real world.  I think we're a good 50 years past writing women from other eras as if they're completely unknowable except as wives, mothers, and daughters. *In patriarchal cultures, there are always women cooperating with the dominant culture as a means to their own ends. The compromises and nuances of how that plays out in societal rules are fascinating. But, I guess, not to Mazzeo.

**This really needs further comment in my epic John Church-AH shenanigans post, where Jeremiah Wadsworth gets more attention, but I’ll point out here that AH asked Wadsworth to confirm MR’s handwriting, from AH to Wadsworth, 28Jul1797 (in NYC, writing to Wadsworth in Hartford, CT): 

My Dear Wadsworth

I regretted much, that I did not find you here.

I know you have seen the late publications, in which the affair of Reynold’s is revived. I should have taken no notice of them had not the names of Mughlenberg Monroe & Venable given them an artificial importance. But I thought under this circumstance, I could not but attend to them. The affair has so turned that I am obliged to publish every thing.

But from the lapse of time I am somewhat embarrassed to prove Mrs. Reynold’s hand writing. Thinking it probable, as she was a great scribbler you must have received some notes from her when she applied to you for assistance, I send you one of her notes to me and if your recollection serves would be much obliged to you to return it with your affidavit annexed—“That you received letters from Mrs. Reynolds, conceived yourself to be acquainted with her hand writing & that you verily believe this letter to be of her hand writing.”

If your memory does not serve you then return the letter alone to me. If I remember right I never knew of your agency towards procuring Reynold’s relief, till after he was discharged. If your memory stands in the same way, I will thank you to add a declaration to this effect.

Dont neglect me nor lose time.

Yrs. truly

This was Wadsworth’s response (2Aug1796), truncated by me: 

your favor of the 28th July arrived late last evening. I have not the least knowledge of Mrs. Reynolds’s hand writing nor do I remember ever to have recd a line from her if I did they were destroyed but a letter or two for you which by Your request I returned to her or destroyed. ...[S]he immediately fell into a flood of Tears and told me a long storey about her application to You for Money when in distress in her husbands Absence & that it ended in a amour & was discovered by her husband from a letter she had written to you which fell into his hands. I told her I would see Mr. Woolcott & G Mifflin The next Morning I told Mr. Woolcott what had passed he then related the transaction for which Clingn & Reys had been committed. I then went to Mifflin and told him I came at ye request of Mrs. Reynolds. he imediately told me that she had told him the Story of the amour. ...A Mr. Clingman whom I had never seen before and seemed to have been sent for was present part of the time. From this interview I was fully confirmed in my Opinion before formed that the whole business was a combination among them to Swindle you. Mrs Reynolds called on me again and urged me deliver letters to You. You refused to receive them & desired me to return letters for You or destroy them I do not know which. I rec’d several Messages from her and again went to her house told her you would hold no correspondence with her and gave her my Opinion as at first that her husband must undergo a trial. I can not be particular as to time & date and I do not remember that I ever knew how he was liberated untill I lately saw Mr Woolcott. I certainly never considered myselfe as having any agency in procureing Reynolds’s relief nor do I remember ever to have had any conversation with You on the subject untill after your meeting with the Mess Munroe Melenburg & Venables. and had supposed Reynolds to have been ⟨released⟩ by their influence he was ⟨ashamed⟩ to have been so ⟨–⟩ after an Explanation with you. I am sorry you have found it necessary to publish any thing for it will be easy to invent new Calumnies & you may be kept continualy employed in answring. be Assured it never will be in the power of your enemies to give the public an opinion that you have Speculated in ye funds, nor do they expect it: I should have replied by this days Post—but the Mail arrives here at nine at night & goes out at Two in the Morning. I am D sir truly yours