Bad Seeds

So, I didn't blog this morning - sorry about that. I'm down in Chattanooga for the Symposium on the 19th Century Press, the Civil War, and Free Expression and this is my first free moment!  So without further ado, today's fare:

An honest gentleman (30) would like the acquaintance of an unmercenary lady; object matrimony.  FAITHFUL, 815 Herald office.

A cultured gentleman solicits the acquaintance of a sensible, well bred lady, matrimonially inclined; one looking for high attainment and affinity; trifler, distressed or adventuress not noticed.  Address HOME, 158 4th av.

I've mentioned in the past that although there were a lot of women who married for money, there were also a lot of men who recognized that women had little choice in the matter.  These two ads are interesting to me because they address those issues so directly.  Do not contact me if you just want me for my money.  (Also don't contact me if you're not serious, or if you're just out to have fun!)  The fact that they feel it's necessary to specify that suggests that it's a problem they have encountered before, or that their friends have. 

Of course, it seems like a bit of a gesture in futility.  I mean, if a woman really does want to marry some guy for his money, she's not just going to say so!  How are these men going to know if the woman who contacts him is or is not mercenary, or a trifler, or an adventuress?  I'm actually not certain what people mean by "trifler" (a word both women and men used) or "adventuress."  I think of "trifler" in the sense of, trifling with one's feelings.  But they might have just meant people who answered ads for fun with no intention of following through (this definitely happened).  Adventuress - perhaps a girl who answered ads for fun and actually met the advertiser, but with no intention of getting married (also apparently happened, though the evidence I have on this is more anecdotal).  In any event, neither of those two are going to be stopped by this kind of warning, are they?

I wonder how much of the time people who answered ads weren't in earnest?  And how many people were only responding for mercenary reasons?  If it happened so much that it had to be addressed - why did people bother printing ads?  Or does this mean that despite the triflers and mercenaries and adventurers matrimonial advertisements really did work, so it was worth the risk?  Either way - ads like this raise more questions than answers...

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

Baby Bunting Bob

Blogging from 30,000 feet! In-flight internet!! So cool!

I never thought I would say this, but I really hope this ad is fake, because it disturbs me to think that anyone could write this and actually mean it. It's got to be a joke, or a code, or an advertisement; it just can't possibly be real...

My Bob, sweet Bob, pretty Bobby Miller,
Will you come to-night, Bob, you dear lady killer?
Shall I order fritters, Bob, you cooing, booing bubby,
Or will you bring me lozenges, you squeezy, squisy squbby?
If you disappoint me, pet, all night I'll cry and sob,
And never live to see you, Bob, my baby, bunting Bob.
Delamaine

Do you even need me to add my own commentary to this? Is there anything I can say that can possibly follow this piece of drivel? I feel, if anything, that this might be an advertisement, but as you can imagine, a Google search for Bobby Miller isn't too enlightening, given what a common name it is!

What do you make of this? I have nothing. All I can say is that if this was real, and I was Bob, I'd be so out of that relationship as soon as possible. Sounds more like a nursery rhyme for a kid than anything else. I don't know. I am out of clever ideas on this one.

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

Fine feathers!

For the record, I have trouble remembered what I wore three days ago.  So how can this guy remember what a woman was wearing in such detail after only meeting her for a few moments?  I don't know too many people - let alone men - who have this kind of memory:

 

If the young lady who got in a Broadway and Forty-second street omnibus, near the St. Nicholas Hotel, at noon yesterday, waring a small figured green and black silk dress, with purple velvet bonnet and feather, gray and red striped shawl, and who got out at West Thirty-sixth street, would like to make the acquaintance of the gentleman who sat on her left, and who handed her from the omnibus, she will please send a note through the Union square Post office, within three days, stating where an interview may be had; and she will greatly oblige an ardent admirer by addressing as above. Gustave.

Seriously, do you think he was taking notes on her outfit to remember all this so clearly?  Although, on the other hand, how could you not remember?  This young lady was decked out like a Christmas tree!  It's almost as bad as the lady dressed in high fashion whom I wrote about in September.  Green and black dress, purple bonnet and feather, gray and red striped shawl - good heavens!  Is there any color spectrum not represented here?  I guess no wonder he can't forget what she was wearing!

I'm still impressed though; beyond just the colors, he still had quite an eye for detail.  And I suppose when you've got seven missed connection ads on one day (as there were on this particular day), you need to be careful to make sure that there's no confusion.  I'm trying to imagine that red striped shawl next to the purple velvet bonnet and I'm getting dizzy.  I guess this was one way for a woman to find entertainment: how many different colors can I wear today without clashing too dreadfully?  I suppose being flamboyant and getting to dress like a peacock would make up for having to wander around New York in dresses like this!  Not that they aren't pretty, but can you imagine getting on and off omnibuses in a skirt this wide?

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

A good wife?

Clearly, this would no longer be the right way to advertise yourself when looking for a wife, but back in the day I suppose politics weren't quite as tainted as they are now:

A young, able politician, capable of going to the United States Senate, desires a matrimonial alliance with a young, wealthy lady; a political writer preferred.  Address Preston Firman, Boston, Mass.

It sure is interesting to see that political ambition hasn't changed a whole lot.  I also like how confident Preston is.  He's young, he's able, and he's capable of going all the way to the United States Senate.  I wonder why his ambitions stop there?  Why not the governor of a state?  Why not the presidency itself?  Now, in my very cursory internet research, I cannot find a former senator named Preston Firman, but I don't even know if that information is available online, where one would search for it if not, and whether or not I care enough to try.  It really doesn't matter much anyway.  What's really more intriguing to me is how straightforward he is.

He's not looking for a loving wife, he's not looking for a pretty wife, he's just looking for a wealthy wife, presumably to fund his campaigns or to support his lavish lifestyle while living on a senator's measly salary.  (Not that he'd be the only politician to take advantage of his rich wife.)  I guess there are some women who were equally ambitious and might be willing to marry a man they expected to be politically successful - since women couldn't really run for office they couldn't become senators themselves (the first elected female senator wasn't until 1931). 

I also like that he's hoping to marry a "political writer" (does this sound more like a job application than a marriage proposal to you?).  I'm not entirely sure what that means.  A woman who writes political speeches?  Or a journalist who writes on politics for the news?  Since neither of those were jobs considered appropriate or even possible for women, I'm not sure that makes any sense.  Maybe he just wants a woman who is politically savvy, although requesting a writer specifically suggests he means something else.  In a sense this is a somewhat progressive idea: rather than just a good wife who will stand by his side smiling and raising good, moral children, he apparently wants to meet someone who would be able to participate in his career.

Or, he figures he needs to be married to become a successful politician and why not get a free secretary in the process.

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

The Annuals

This is not actually a matrimonial, but I thought I'd throw it in today as it is quite entertaining. And, it's going to teach you how to get married - and whom not to marry. Given its length and relative legibility, I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing. Remember, click on it and a larger file will open...

Hee hee hee. These "Annuals" are like a Wal-Mart. Everything you want can be found inside. Now for anyone who doesn't know, Phrenology and Physiognomy are (or rather were) "sciences" that were quite popular in the mid-nineteenth and early twentieth-centuries that now no one takes seriously. Physiognomy was the "science" of figuring out a person's character by studying their appearance and assigning meaning to certain traits (a woman with thin lips would display masculine behavior, for example). Phrenology, a subset of Physiognomy, would determine character based on the shape of the skull. If you think I'm kidding, check out this "chart" from about the same time as this ad. If you look at it closely you'll see that each area of the brain has a specific purpose, and if that part of the skull is larger, I presume, than that particular trait is more enhanced.

But! The Annuals don't just handy information to feel the bumps on your skull and figure out what kind of person you are! No indeed; they will also help you stop stuttering, how to diet and "regulate the conditions of the body." They'll give you a 100 year almanac and wow, I wish I could see how accurate that turned out to be.

More pertinent to my work, they'll also teach you the very necessary lessons of "The Two Paths of Womanhood," (without reading the Annuals myself, I would hazard a guess that Path One is marriage, motherhood, and virtue; while Path Two is Sin, Avarice, Greed, and Prostitution). The Annuals will give you information on "Matrimonial Mistakes; Where to Find a Wife; Signs of Character in the Eyes."

And finally, more important than anything else, the Annuals asks the very good question: "WOULD YOU MARRY YOUR COUSIN?" If you're thinking about it, "read the Annuals, and be wise."

Oh lordy. What would I do for entertainment without stuff like this (don't answer that)? Honestly, this question is a wee bit ahead of its time. People were still marrying their cousins right and left when this ad came out, and I don't mean just in Hicksville, Nowhere. Not thirty years before, the writer Edgar Allen Poe married his 13-year-old cousin at the age of 26. (Although taking Poe as an example of "typical" American life is probably not the wisest idea.) In any event, it wasn't as common, but it was still acceptable, so it's interesting to me that you're starting to see a real push against that here. Like, you actually do still need to read a book to explain to you why it's a bad idea to marry a family member.

Anyway, this was a bit off topic, but it was one of the earliest ads I found when I started this project, and it had me feeling a bit of nostalgia for the good old days when I thought this dissertation wasn't going to take me a million years...

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

Rose is red, Violet is blue

Now I understand and honor you.  Let us assist each other.  Without letters I should break down.  Accept help in the pure spirit it is offered to make you and the children more comfortable.  Be ready to come when I can marry you.  I will wait hopefully.  Violet.

No message: lost my handkerchief; feel well; off for Fannie's; love and trust you supremely. Violet.

Okay, Violet's not really blue, but the title worked so well after the entry about Red Rose that I couldn't resist.

I'm not really sure what to make of this correspondence, though.  (I should add that these were written years before the more entertaining ad about Violet, so they are not the same people, alas.)  Every line doesn't quite fit with the ones around them.  Whose children is the first ad referring to?  It sounds like this guy (the tone feels masculine to me, but who knows) has some illegitimate family on the side and now wants - or at least claims to want - to marry his mistress.  But that seems kind of a stretch, especially because if there's some woman on the side with his own kids, why would he need to send her messages through the personals?  Seems like he could just write her, like I speculated with handkerchief?  It's a story that doesn't hold up.  And honestly, I think it's probably something much simpler that I just can't figure out.

This may have something to do with my recent stress level and lack of sleep!

So, tomorrow - posting might be hard.  If there's nothing in the morning, check back later...

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

Object not matrimony

Whatever these people claim, marriage was not on their minds.

Gentleman (28), independently situated, desires acquaintance young lady; object, matrimony. Hamilton, 254 Herald Main Office.

A young widow, unencumbered, would accept friendship of refined, temperate, elderly gentleman of means matrimonially inclined. Seamstress, 265 Herald 23d St. Branch

Too bad Hamilton is only 28, or these two would suit each other perfectly!

Here's the deal. They weren't looking to get married. Sure, they say "object matrimony" and "matrimonially inclined" and I could imagine that the seamstress might even desire it. But despite the sop to respectability, these advertisers don't expect anyone to respond really thinking they're going to meet their future spouse.

These ads were both from the very end of the 19th century, and by that time the columns, as I have mentioned before, were getting a lot racier. It was pretty much an open secret that ads weren't what they claimed to be. But of course, they can't be explicit. A prostitute becomes a "masseuse", for example. And a guy who wants a night on the town, or a woman who needs a little extra help to pay the rent claim that they're looking for a spouse.

This isn't guesswork on my part, either. There's some pretty convincing evidence to suggest that this particular paper was actually changing people's ads to include the "matrimony" bit if they didn't put it in themselves. This way the paper avoided printing ads which would otherwise be considered "obscene." Which is kind of amusing, because honestly? A girl can't even seek the "friendship" of some elderly gentleman without it being obscene? It's a pretty interesting sign of how times have changed, because other than agreeing to disclaimer that says you're 18 and don't mind looking at explicit material, you can go into any of the Craiglist personals and see this stuff all over the place - no "object matrimony" required.

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

Red Rose

Happy November!

So, these three ads are interesting because they read as if they were three totally unconnected people, but they're all within the same month, so it seems unlikely that there were actually three, or even two, people signing themselves "Red Rose" in the personals. What do you think?

"Red Rose Mouth - Please do not go to Eden's Paradise at three; am to polite, would disappoint not thee. Whoever - unknown man or woman - you may be, do not imagine you are fooling me! Red Rose"

This is so confusing. Starts out all romantic, the name, the poetry, the "thee." But then it switches over to an unknown man or woman, which is odd, and sounds like it's not romantic at all! Not really sure what to make of it, especially in the context of the next ad:

"Dearest Cornelia - Thanks for the photo. Everything ready; papers prepared. Three, sharp, on appointed day. Do not believe H. Do not receive Kate. At last, and forever, your devoted son. "Red Rose""

Why does this not sound like "Red Rose" is not really Cornelia's son? If so, I wonder about the nature of their relationship. Not to be gross, but does this really sound like a communication between a mother and son? I think there's something else going on here.

Then finally, and I really, really, really love this ad:

"You are all very nice people, but you would be still much nicer if you would mind your own business and leave me alone. Red Rose"

HA! That's good. Actually, that's great! But it really doesn't seem connected to the first two, does it? Either this person is dealing with some very complicated relationships, or, I don't know - maybe there's more than one Red Rose? Imagine how confusing that would be! What a comedy of errors would develop! After all, if you were Cornelia and saw the last ad - which in reality was from a totally different person - wouldn't you be hurt? Hee hee hee. (Okay, maybe I shouldn't laugh at Cornelia's potential suffering, but it's funny.)

It's like a soap opera. Beautiful.

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

An agent

There is a whole aspect of my dissertation that I haven't covered here yet - and probably won't much - which is the development of matrimonial "agencies," which were much more common than you'd expect.  They got especially popular, or at least much more common, by the turn of the twentieth century, but were around well before that.  Generally, they functioned more like eHarmony than like Match.com, if you wanted to make a modern-day comparison.  (Unlike both of those, however, most agencies that I've found were frauds).


So I thought I'd put up an ad or two now and then from some of these agencies, and figured I'd start with these two because they are so odd (and oddities are what this blog thrives on).

This one ran for several days.  It reads:

Matrimonial - Marriageble ladies and gentlemen everywhere. - For ten cents and stamp I will send my "proposed arrangement for mutual benefit" to any address, in sealed envelope.  This is no humbug, for I am governed by strictly Christian principles and mutually interested.  Address T. Samuel, New York Post office.

This is actually not a typical ad from an agency, which tended to be more straightforward and less mysterious.  The "proposed arrangement for mutual benefit" is, I assume, some kind of tract or, more likely, an offer to set men and women up with each other.  But it is a very weird way of putting it.

T. Samuel, I get the impression, was not quite right in the head.  Here is the follow-up to this ad. It reads:

Matrimonial. - My "proposed arrangement," (see Herald from 18th to 21st), meets with a response worth the object; from North and South, East and West, and is most truly a "Union Movement."  Send (for 10 cents and stamp) in sealed envelope, to any address.  Address T. Samuel, New York City Post office."

Apparently in just six days (this ad was printed on the 23rd), T. Samuel, despite his cryptic style, has received quite a lot of answers.  My guess on the "Union Movement" is that he is referring to the impending crisis of the Civil War, which is going to start in less than a year (everyone knew it was coming).  Love, says T. Samuel, knows no regional boundaries.  Too bad he's incapable of explaining himself in sentences that make sense.

Despite his promises that this is for real, I suspect it was a "humbug."  That 10 cents you're investing for his "proposed arrangement" is lining Samuel's pocket.  Whatever he's promised, it ain't coming.

Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!

©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...

Love

I think this guy is in love. Really, really in love. Or, alternately, mentally ill.

"Salina" -- I once loved you; but now --I love my holy, precious love
With all my heart and soul;
I love my sweet and darling love
With all my heart and soul;
I love my loving tender love
With all my heart and soul,
Through all His depths, around, above,
Where'er the [?] roll.
Please send me your present address, in love.
John Bishop Hall
Sweeny's Hotel

I...yeah.  I don't know.  I'm leaning toward mentally ill.  You know when you see or say a word too many times it sort of loses its meaning?  That's how I feel about "love" right now.  There are like so many other words that could have been used in this horrible little "poem" (I hardly want to grace it with that word) to express the same meaning, and much more effectively. 

Now there are a few words that are hard to make out - one I couldn't get at all - I'm not certain I'm right about the "His," but it makes sense in the context.  Can anyone figure out the one that starts with a "p"?  I swear, if I saw this in a newspaper or anywhere else addressed to me, I'd just fall down laughing.  This poor guy!  I can hardly believe it's for real.  It's just so bad!





Having trouble reading the ads? Click one to enlarge!


©2009 Pam Epstein

Read more...