My Biography Posting: Mary Eleanor Bowes, Countess of Strathmore

A Few Facts You Should Know About Mary Eleanor Bowes...

• b. 1749, d. 1800
• Became the wealthiest heiress in Britain (some said Europe) when her coal mining and entrepreneurial father died when she was 11; he left everything to her
• Before then was extremely well-educated and coddled from infancy onward
• Studied a wide variety of subjects, as well as becoming proficient in French and Italian
• Fostered a life-long passion for botany
• Participated in the exclusive French salons with other social ladies of her day
• Also pursued her literary interests and in 1769 published The Siege of Jerusalem
• Married twice: First unhappily married to John Lyon, the 9th Earl of Strathmore, a loveless marriage that produced 5 children
• Perhaps best remembered for her second marriage to Andrew Robinson Stoney

And Now, On To the Good Stuff...

• Ever-charming "Captain" Stoney participated in a previously arranged duel in which he pretended to defend her honor due to some scurrilous articles published about her
• He had almost certainly written the articles himself
• He managed to seduce his way into her bed, heart, and most importantly, father's fortune
• Plunged Mary into the most miserable of marriages
• Mercilessly beat her and controlled her every action (quite literally, as she was not allowed to enjoy her favorite beverage of tea)
• Mary attempted a divorce after 9 years of heinous beatings
• Due to the prevailing Georgian legal climate at the time, this was a nearly impossible task, especially for a woman
• Grounds for divorce since Henry VIII only included incest, impotence, or possibly infertility (maybe if by some miracle you could prove adultery)
• Always the wife's fault, of course (divorce only granted to 132 male plaintiffs before 1800)
• In the case of Mary and Stoney, exhaustive cross-examinations of many witnesses were required, who were frequently paid off by Stoney or refused to testify altogether out of both fear and lack of funds
• Mary ultimately did file for divorce through the ecclesiastical courts
• Finalized after many rounds of legal battle
• Included his abduction of her and attempted rape in the meantime
• Proved that he had repeatedly denied her basic liberties and had physically, emotionally, mentally, and sexually abused her

Why Should We Care About the Case of Mary Eleanor and Her Remarkable Divorce?

I think that Mary's escapade in trying to sever her chains (literally) to Stoney shows the extreme difficulty women like her in abusive relationships would have had to suffer and endure during her time in Georgian England. The truly sad part is that, while particularly violent, Mary's case was certainly one of many. Male violence and total dominance over their wives was somewhat accepted without question. I imagine that most of it went on behind closed doors. In fact, when, in some cases, mistreated wives emerged and tried to make known their husbands' violent ways, they were shunned as being "mad" and "insane;" indeed, some men managed to have their wives committed for trying to be vocal and escape from abusive relationships, especially by having their friends stand in on "committees" to declare the woman as such. Again, what was so difficult, I think, and important for us to remember about eighteenth century Georgian society at the time through our discussion for the campaign for women's rights was that society had such a tolerance for violence and male sexual freedom. This shows the need for an end to the faulty system in what was supposed to be the "sanctity of marriage."

Mandeville: The Fable of the Bees

Bernard Mandeville (1670-1733) was a philosopher, political economist, and satirist in the eighteenth century. Not a vast amount of details are known about his life, and today we do not even have an image of him (prompting me to upload the original cover). Although he was born and educated in Rotterdam in the Dutch Republic, he spent the majority of his life in England, where he became so fluent in English that most doubted his status as a foreigner. Mandeville actually began a practice as a doctor, and a well-respected one at that. He later took up writing and it was in England that he published his most famous work, The Fable of the Bees, in 1705. (In case you were wondering, he is not connected with Sir John Mandeville, the 14^th century author of Mandeville’s Travels.) More about the poem will follow in the paragraphs below. Initially, the Fable generated little public interest. However, as we have seen before, it was presented to the King’s court and was received as a “public nuisance” due to its apparent tendency to be morally corruptive. Of course, it then became immensely popular and was heartily debated upon. His insights also were put to use by the Scottish philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as David Hume and Adam Smith. Mandeville still maintained the idea that the pursuit of self-interest can have positive consequences when properly managed.

This poem was originally titled, "The Grumbling Hives or Knaves Turn'd Honest," but the one within the Enlightenment reader was the one published in 1714 with a new title (shown on the cover above) called The Fable of the Bees, or Private Vices, Public Benefits. Interestingly, the poem explains different key principles of economic thought, and becoming the hidden hand of economic development behind Adam Smith's theories. To put it simply, Mandeville defends the claim that private vices can lead to public benefits. In doing this, Mandeville examines human nature very meticulously. Consider this verse about "Physicians" (244-245):

"Physicians valued Fame and Wealth

Above the drooping Patient's Health,

Or their own Skill: The greatest Part

Study'd, instead of Rules of Art,

Grave pensive looks, and dull Behavior;

To gain th' Apothecary's Favor,

The Praise of id-wives, Priests, and all,

That served at Birth, or Funeral;

To bear with th' ever-talking Tribe,

And hear my Lady's Aunt prescribe;

With formal Smile, and kind How d'ye,

To fawn on all the Family;

And, which of all the greatest Curse is,

T'endure th'Impertinence of Nurses."

In Mandeville's view of human nature, he believes that man is a selfish creature who is governed wholly by his passions. Mandeville concludes that, "Thus every Part was full of Vice / Yet the whole Mass a Paradise" (247). So, we see that the beehive is morally corrupt, and yet prosperous, that "Lived in Luxury and Ease." (242). The beehive, however, notices this and desires a chance at virtue, saying,

"Good Gods, had we but Honesty!

Merc'ry smiled at th' Impudence;

And Others called it want of Sence,

Always to rail at what they loved:

But Jove, with Indignation moved,

At last in Anger swore, he'd rid

The bawling Hive of Fraud, and did."

Here, after having complained about their corrupt hive, God decides to give them the virtues they desired. The poem goes on to describe the newly paradise-esque ways of the hive, where Justice is served and those such as the physician from the previous verse exist "Knowing the Gods send no Disease / To Nations without Remedies." (250). However, because personal vice has now been vanished, the prosperity of the hive has dropped significantly: "The Price of Land, and Houses falls" (252). Apparently, however, the virtuous hive does not care about this, for "They counted Ease it self a Vice; / Which so improved their Temperance" (253).

Mandeville concludes that only fools would "strive to make a Great an honest Hive." (254). He shows why personal vice is the key to material progress and sociability, and that "Bare virtue can't make Nations live / In Splendor" (254). People like the Physician place a value on themselves which, in turn, makes them fit for society. Because, at the same time, people have an inexhaustible desire for goods that propel the industry, which increases the wealth of the nation. From this, we see that personal vanity/vice are what make society prosperous.

Discussion Questions

1. While researching Mandeville online, I found a quote from him in which he defines Vice as "every thing which Man should commit to gratify any of his Appetites." Do you agree with this definition? Would you re-write it somehow?

2. Does Mandeville's economic theories play into the bigger picture of the essence of the Enlightenment? In other words, what about his work here suggests and Enlightened point of view?

3. Do you truly think society's prosperity could come to an abrupt halt if everyone suddenly became wholly virtuous? Why or why not?

de Buffon and Reynolds

Comte de Buffon

Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon (1707-1788) was a French naturalist and encyclopedic author. Although he was a member of the prestigious French aristocracy and studied such subjects as mathematics, medicine, and law, his real interest was in nature and he was never content with the existing explanations of the natural world. Thus, due to his refusal to accept these certain explanations, he formulated his ideas and produced his own account of nature. For that, he is remembered by posterity for his highly comprehensive Histoire Naturelle, générale et particuliére (1749-1788). Among his participation in other schools devoted to art, he was invited to become a member of the Académie Française in 1753, the same year in which he wrote the Discourse on Style. True to his naturalist ways of thinking, he asserted in the essay that Nature was perfect and the ideal.

de Buffon's Discourse on Style

In this essay, de Buffon defines style as "the order and movement according to which a man arranges his thoughts." (319). He goes about mentioning things that will add to the style of your writing. The list includes:

• tight thoughts will lead to concise style, whereas loose thoughts will lead to a dragging style.
• there should be no divisions or interruptions in your writing that would detract from making it clearly understood (think: HUST essays!)
• comparing perfect nature with proper writing, de Buffon shows that true contemplation of nature will give rise to "the most sublime truths."
• in order to write well, you must possess your subject fully.
• truth is an important element that will lend to your style.
• therefore must write only about values that are important to us, that we fully believe in.

Consider, for example, our HUST papers. We cannot go about writing our papers without a plan or an outline. It wouldn't make any sense, the ideas could be all over the place, it probably wouldn't have any structure, and the point you are trying to get at would not be obvious. We also cannot write about something we do not believe in, or about something we have not read. In de Buffon's view, these would all be things to avoid.

Discourse on Style Discussion Questions

1. Do you agree with de Buffon's ways for achieving proper style? Why or why not?

2. Are there any other important steps in achieving enlightened style? In other words, what did de Buffon definitely leave out?

--

Reynolds, Discourse on Art

This selection I found more difficult to understand and more convoluted than the piece from de Buffon. I will try my best to narrow it down (and hopefully stay true to style!).

Reynolds begins by saying that the aim of art is to please. Taste is fixed in the nature of things. Nature, for its part, has a set template, apparently. There is a "set way" that nature should look, like a beautiful woman, for example. To him, we are supposed to paint (or whatever form of art) the most ideal and the most beautiful. A deformity, on the other hand, "is not nature, but an accidental deviation from her accustomed practice." (347). That's what you don't want to paint, what is bad taste. Good taste, then, you have to discover of your own accord. There exist inherently good qualities, and we have to use our enlightened reason to figure out what those are. Then, to keep up with the painting example, we will be able to produce a painting that reflect's nature's highest ideals. A good (and tasteful) painting would be well-proportioned and geometric, for example. I guess something completely unnatural would be wrong, because taste would then not agree with nature. A purple tree, maybe. In the end, I think we would all end up liking the same paintings and other works of art if we all had Reynolds' idea of proper taste.

The difference between taste and genius lies in that genius is the same thing, only plus the powers of execution. The art critic would then have discernment, but the painter would have discernment plus execution.

Basically, I have a problem with the biased way he views taste. It is as if you must learn taste, because the first opinions we receive are not the best - and therein lies the pursuit of taste. It can be either beautiful or deformed. I don't see why I or anyone else would have to adjust my ideas of taste to fit with that of Reynolds. In that case then I suppose many of history's great minds were tasteless. I don't see where Reynolds, while he had some good ideas, became the world's foremost authority on Art.

Discourse on Art Discussion Questions

1. Do you find Reynolds' ideas about taste at all restrictive, and that taste really can depend on many factors and can vary, for example, between cultures? Or, do you think that you can certainly be liking the wrong type of painting and that your taste needs some re-evaluating?

2. Where do you suppose you would learn about these "inherent good qualities" that Reynolds says would lead to having good taste?

Why does war remain...

...the so-called profession of kings? Why does war seem to be necessary for "glory?" What kind of glory is that? I am referring to the discussion I brought up in Cultural History on Friday... I cannot get past that whole "seeking glory through the agency of military conquest." Wouldn't a king be taking a huge gamble by embarking in warfare? I guess "glory" would only be achieved in the case of whopping success. Does that mean shame for failure in military pursuits? That just doesn't seem to make much sense to me, I suppose.

Thinking about Cultural Geography

A shot of the ginormous Bodhisattva in the Yungang Grottoes - Bodhisattva means "enlightened being,"

so I thought it was appropriate for here, and for this class overall.

Click on it for a much larger view!

My topic for tomorrow's mini-presentation is from the "Cultural Geography" chapter in the Othello book. What a great edition - it comes with so many resources and helpful additions to the text that really helped enhance my understanding of the play itself, even from the one chapter I read.

Speaking of my chapter, I enjoyed thinking about new aspects of geography that I hadn't really considered previously. Although I will detail more in class (I have not organized all my ideas as this time yet), I wanted to point out here how much geography really can have to do with the way a play works - i.e., characters' attitudes, setting of the play, and even the way the audience perceives the play (depending on who you are).

Or, the author mentions how mapmaking became like an art or a science, and that collectors "attempted to write the world by compiling and classifying accounts of European travelers from across the globe." Immediately I thought of Mandeville, so it came as no surprise to me that Mandeville was brought up later on. I think it really adds a lot to a story to have a traveler be a part of it. I can experience whatever they are experiencing from the comfort of my dorm room (which is kind of like a small nation in itself). On the other hand, much of what Mandeville reported was heavily (and hilariously!) embellished, or perhaps downright mythical. I guess this just shows how those travel writers were so heavily influenced by legends and stories.

In either case, no matter how people viewed foreigners, I think that imaginations were still wont to run wild with curiosity about unexplored lands. I think this can even hold true today. Clearly the travel bug bit me, and so there always remains the option of visiting a new land and, besides learning something about that new culture, I might learn something about myself too. Sounds cheesy, and it might be really insignificant, but sometimes travelers can be a curious bunch.

The Burdens Of Sister Margaret...

Honestly, I have enjoyed this book. There are a million details that I am trying to avoid getting too tangled up in, but I like reading about the scandal and the "oh-dear-what-will-happen-next" sort of style. I routinely find myself feeling bad for Sister Margaret and her many apparent troubles, because no one wants to be loathed like that "by pretty much everyone." Harline really seems to have done his research here with all those sources he found remaining from the convent of Bethlehem (I really want to go to the Netherlands, now, too!).

However, I have just one problem with the Burdens, and I wonder if anyone else felt the same way: I feel as though this is sort of like Cecilia Penifader, and that this huge and incredibly complicated story is being blown way out of proportion. I do not deny that it all happened, obviously (due to the treasure trove of letters Harline tells us about), but I feel like this entire thing is being dramatized and that we are creating this in our minds as we imagine it would have happened. I'm not saying that it didn't happen, but I feel like gleaning a story of this capacity seems to be... well, really difficult. I remember reading Cecilia Penifader and wondering how such a detailed account could have been written about her life, even given the facts we had about her. I don't know, maybe I am just rambling. Did anyone else find this story and the apparent scandal that went on within the 17th-century convents believable?