The wooings and matrimonies of Theodore Sedgwick and of his seven kids span the American Revolution and the early democracy. with Theodore first marrying in 1767/68. his kids being born between 1775 and 1791. and all except Catharine get marrieding by their mid-thirtiess. In some ways. Kenslea’s findings are unsurprising. as ordered matrimonies gave manner to single pick: Sedgwick arranged his eldest daughters’ matrimonies in 1797 and 1801. while his boies enjoyed love lucifers within a decennary. But Kenslea’s focal point on the household adds a new dimension: male influence in set uping immature women’s matrimonies seemingly extended beyond male parents to brothers. Professing “so much pride and pleasance in contemplating her worth. that I want the universe to cognize what a sister I possess” ( 45 ) . Theodore II insisted Frances marry Ebenezer Watson. whom she did non love. When Watson turned out to be physically opprobrious. Frances’s brothers once more played a important function by utilizing their influence on her husband’s concern as a manner to command him and offering their places as a safety.
Merely as brothers influenced their sisters’ matrimonies. equals played a important function in love lucifers: in both instances. wooing took topographic point in a group context. Even when love superseded paternal pick. siblings made clear that matrimony to person was necessary: as Catharine Sedgwick asked her beat around the bushing brother. “What are you making? Sucking your pollexs. and edifice palaces while all the birds of the air are constructing their nests” ( 110 ) . Friends were every bit of import in determining wooing. The wondrous named “Friendlies”—a group of individual and married Boston adult females in their twenties—not merely provided the younger Sedgwicks with possible married womans. but advised them on how to take good.
Kenslea demonstrates that get marrieding for love by no agencies simplified pick ; alternatively. both work forces and adult females employed badinage as a manner of determining purpose without perpetrating themselves. and confederations shifted so rapidly that the Sedgwick work forces seem to hold courted all the Friendlies at one time. Such “dizzingly complex” male/female dealingss ( 119 ) —replete with humor. romantic potency. and power plays—suggest analogues to the assorted groups Catharine Allgor discovered in the early republic’s political salons ( 103 ) . At least during wooing. male/female domains had unusually porous boundaries. and Kenslea finds the beginnings of the “domestication of virtue” ( 169 ) in the early democracy. as personal felicity succeeded public good.
As twosomes became engaged. they retreated from friends and household and developed relationships Kenslea finds similar to those Karen Lystra discovered among Victorians two decennaries subsequently. In Harry Sedgwick and Jane Minot’s battle of 1816-17. they quit badinage for fairness. tested their relationship with a twelvemonth long separation as Sedgwick established himself financially. and created new egos by using letters as a signifier of physical contact and “ritual jubilation of their love” ( 131 ) . Like Lystra. Kenslea finds “fluidity of gender roles” ( 155 ) . with Jane congratulating Harry. “you are the nearest to a adult female in your feelings of any adult male I know” ( 144 ) . The Sedgwick manuscripts. nevertheless. let Kenslea to analyze such wooings through siblings’ and parents’ eyes. instead than merely from the couple’s position.
If the Sedgwicks provide much grounds of household and friends’ functions in court- ship and the eroding of distinguishable gender functions. they besides suggest the bounds of alteration. The Sedgwicks occupied a narrow cut of society—Federalist. Unitarian. and upper class—but male privilege framed their lives.