LHMP #491g Cleves 2014 Charity & Sylvia Chapter 11 & 12

Chapter 11: The Tie That Binds July 1807

In a later memoir, Charity described Sylvia’s agreement as becoming “my help-meet and…companion.” The language of this statement is the language of marriage, from “consent” to “help-meet.” (“Help-meet” was a gendered term, indicating a wife.) If they had been an opposite sex couple, a statement of this type could have constituted a legal common-law marriage contract at the time. Although their union had no legal status, it eventually acquired that social standing in their community. Neighbors described them “as if…married to each other.”

Initially, however, Charity was cautious about making the nature of their relationship clear, using the press of work as the reason for staying in Vermont when she had originally planned to return to Massachusetts, and omitting mention of Sylvia in her letters. Her poetry, however, celebrated the union. Gradually, Sylvia was introduced into her letters, and some made the correct conclusions.

That first year, Charity was anxious that something might happen to separate them, as had happened in previous relationships. To protect against this, when she finally made a visit back to relatives in Massachusetts, she brought Sylvia with her. There was a round of visits over the summer, starting with her most sympathetic sister, who immediately embraced Sylvia as Charity’s “constant companion” and supported her decision to return to Vermont after her travels.

The visits included a meeting with Lydia, which confirmed to the latter her fears that Charity had definitively moved on. After that, Lydia’s previously constant letters ceased for several months.

Another fraught visit was to Charity’s parents, who had begged for “one last visit” feeling their impending mortality. The reunion was far from joyous, but left relations open for future visits from the couple. A visit to the brother who had previously banished Charity was similarly cool but satisfactory in tacitly accepting Sylvia as a member of the family.

A second meeting with Lydia cemented the conversion from rejected lover to friend, with Lydia resuming correspondence and always sending her love to Sylvia.

The final errand of their travels before returning to Vermont was Charity asking her brother to buy a ring on her behalf on his next trip to Boston.

Chapter 12: Their Own Dwelling 1809

1809 started off with C&S (which I’m going to shorthand from here on out) moving into a house, built specifically for them, and combining living quarters and a tailor’s shop. Economic and social conditions made it difficult for women to own property, but they benefitted from a work-around where a neighbor woman had inherited land in trust for her sons (to protect the inheritance from her husband’s control) and she gave C&S a lifetime lease on a parcel of it where they could build. This arrangement also protected them from the gossip that having a male landlord might have provoked.

They were not entirely protected against a general social anxiety about unmarried women living alone or in couples. The book notes two Philadelphia women arrested in 1792 for “co-habiting”—a term more typically applied to an unmarried m/f couple sharing living quarters. Bed-sharing by relatives or friends of the same sex had long been considered unremarkable, especially under circumstances where rooms and furniture were at a premium. By the mid 19th century, however, advice manuals were beginning to suggest that bed-sharing might lead to “mutual masturbation”—a typical way that same-sex erotics were characterized. [Note: This is one of those places where it isn’t clear whether literature of this type would be in circulation in rural New England. Also we aren’t anywhere near the mid century yet. So I don’t know that it’s reasonable to suggest that this concern would be in people’s minds. No positive evidence for this concern in their case is offered.]

As comparatives, the text notes Hannah Catherall and Rebecca Jones, who cohabited in Philadelphia in the 1760-1780s (this appears to be a different couple than mentioned previously) who were referred to in the Quaker community as “yoke-fellows” (a term that could refer to spouses) with no indication of disapproval. The text also notes Ponsonby & Butler and Lister & Walker, but I have doubts that either of those couples are a useful comparison for attitudes or awareness in rural New England.

Another unexpected hazard was the admiration of other unmarried women, who not only saw in C&S a model for their own personal ambitions, but sometimes tried to insert themselves into the middle of the relationship, as with one Mary Harvey whose initial gushing admiration for their arrangement shifted to romantic advances on Charity alone, which resulted in Charity solidly rebuffing her.

The house became a symbol for C&S’s relatives of the solidity of their commitments, and its upkeep (largely falling to Sylvia as the wife-analog) was a metric of their respectability. Despite some gendering of their roles, they always emphasized co-ownership of the house and of their resources.

It wasn’t long before they were financially able to expand the original 2-room structure to create a greater separation of public and private, and to allow for hosting the visits of relatives and friends. By 1821, they had the space and resources to hold a family Christmas dinner with perhaps a dozen guests. The tailor’s shop had expanded to include female apprentices, who were treated like daughters.

The surface acceptance did not entirely conceal underlying uneasiness and tensions. Sylvia’s mother came for an extended visit, but both were relieved when it concluded. Sylvia’s local brother, who had been the means for the couple to meet initially, rarely visited and Sylvia evidently called him out about it, then wrote remorsefully about her reaction.

On the other hand, when the couple were in the midst of expanding and renovating their house, community support was enthusiastic, and letters indicate they were on excellent terms with their landlady’s sons, who would eventually own the property.

[Note: Some of the relatives may have been influenced by the underlying expectations of homosociality. Two of Sylvia’s brothers noted that they stayed away because “there was no man to visit.” It could be possible to interpret this as feeling socially awkward about gender issues rather than sexuality issues.]

Eventually, the tensions eased and family loyalty proved stronger than disapproval.