妻子不是奴隶:革命时代的父权制与现代性

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Sara T. Damiano
{"title":"妻子不是奴隶:革命时代的父权制与现代性","authors":"Sara T. Damiano","doi":"10.1353/wmq.2022.0028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In January 1774, the Boston News-Letter published paired notices by a husband, “Loyalty,” and his wife, “American Liberty” (206). Loyalty criticized his wife’s “licentious” (206) conduct and disavowed responsibility for her debts; Liberty countered that Loyalty had breached the terms of their marriage contract. These advertisements framed contemporary political debates by imitating a recurring component of midcentury newspapers: the desertion or elopement notices through which spouses publicized and defended informal separations.1 At first glance, Liberty’s and Loyalty’s announcements lend support to historical narratives that revolutionary ideologies destabilized notions of patriarchal authority. Yet as Kirsten Sword contends in Wives Not Slaves, deeper analysis confounds this interpretation. As she observes, the notices, which appeared in a loyalist rather than a patriot newspaper, ultimately underscored the power of marital bonds by suggesting that the couple should resolve their differences privately. Furthermore, colonial readers understood the News-Letter’s parody only because it continued long-standing discourses about the nature of patriarchal authority. In Sword’s telling, these conversations spanned the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, encompassing both sides of the Atlantic, and linked men’s authority over all dependents, including wives, servants, and slaves. Within this framework, the revolutionary era appears not as a turning point but rather as one of many moments in which household heads and lawmakers subtly reinvented patriarchy’s forms. Sword’s reappraisal of Liberty’s and Loyalty’s notices represents the sort of fine-grained, contextualized analysis at which she most excels. She assembles close readings of court records, legal treatises, and notices in newspapers in order to evaluate conceptions of patriarchal authority in seventeenthand eighteenth-century British North America. Though the book originated in the observation that colonial newspapers often included spouses’ desertion notices alongside advertisements for runaway servants and slaves, Sword’s primary contributions concern the history of the institution of marriage. Above all, Sword argues that the colonial and revolutionary eras were characterized by “continuities in practices of local justice” (286) that upheld husbandly power and limited wives’ recourse. The revolutionary era’s new discourses of","PeriodicalId":51566,"journal":{"name":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Wives Not Slaves: Patriarchy and Modernity in the Age of Revolutions by Kirsten Sword (review)\",\"authors\":\"Sara T. Damiano\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/wmq.2022.0028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In January 1774, the Boston News-Letter published paired notices by a husband, “Loyalty,” and his wife, “American Liberty” (206). Loyalty criticized his wife’s “licentious” (206) conduct and disavowed responsibility for her debts; Liberty countered that Loyalty had breached the terms of their marriage contract. These advertisements framed contemporary political debates by imitating a recurring component of midcentury newspapers: the desertion or elopement notices through which spouses publicized and defended informal separations.1 At first glance, Liberty’s and Loyalty’s announcements lend support to historical narratives that revolutionary ideologies destabilized notions of patriarchal authority. Yet as Kirsten Sword contends in Wives Not Slaves, deeper analysis confounds this interpretation. As she observes, the notices, which appeared in a loyalist rather than a patriot newspaper, ultimately underscored the power of marital bonds by suggesting that the couple should resolve their differences privately. Furthermore, colonial readers understood the News-Letter’s parody only because it continued long-standing discourses about the nature of patriarchal authority. In Sword’s telling, these conversations spanned the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, encompassing both sides of the Atlantic, and linked men’s authority over all dependents, including wives, servants, and slaves. Within this framework, the revolutionary era appears not as a turning point but rather as one of many moments in which household heads and lawmakers subtly reinvented patriarchy’s forms. Sword’s reappraisal of Liberty’s and Loyalty’s notices represents the sort of fine-grained, contextualized analysis at which she most excels. She assembles close readings of court records, legal treatises, and notices in newspapers in order to evaluate conceptions of patriarchal authority in seventeenthand eighteenth-century British North America. Though the book originated in the observation that colonial newspapers often included spouses’ desertion notices alongside advertisements for runaway servants and slaves, Sword’s primary contributions concern the history of the institution of marriage. Above all, Sword argues that the colonial and revolutionary eras were characterized by “continuities in practices of local justice” (286) that upheld husbandly power and limited wives’ recourse. The revolutionary era’s new discourses of\",\"PeriodicalId\":51566,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2022.0028\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"WILLIAM AND MARY QUARTERLY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/wmq.2022.0028","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1774年1月,《波士顿新闻快报》(Boston News-Letter)刊登了丈夫“忠诚”和妻子“美国自由”(American Liberty)的配对公告。忠诚批评他的妻子“放荡”(206)的行为,并否认对她的债务负责;Liberty反驳说,Loyalty违反了他们的婚姻合同条款。这些广告通过模仿上世纪中叶报纸上反复出现的内容来框框当代政治辩论:配偶们通过抛弃或私奔通知来宣传和捍卫非正式的分居乍一看,“自由”和“忠诚”的声明支持了一种历史叙事,即革命意识形态动摇了父权权威的观念。然而,正如克尔斯滕·斯宝剑在《妻子不是奴隶》一书中所说的那样,更深入的分析使这种解释变得混乱。正如她所观察到的,这些刊登在忠诚派而非爱国派报纸上的公告,最终强调了婚姻纽带的力量,暗示夫妻双方应该私下解决分歧。此外,殖民地读者之所以理解《新闻快报》的恶搞,只是因为它延续了长期以来关于父权权威本质的论述。在Sword的叙述中,这些对话跨越了17世纪到19世纪,涵盖了大西洋两岸,并将男人对包括妻子、仆人和奴隶在内的所有家属的权威联系起来。在这个框架内,革命时代似乎不是一个转折点,而是家庭户主和立法者巧妙地改造父权制形式的众多时刻之一。Sword对Liberty和Loyalty的通知的重新评估代表了她最擅长的那种精细的、情境化的分析。她仔细阅读了法庭记录、法律论文和报纸上的公告,以评估17、18世纪英属北美的父权观念。虽然这本书的灵感来自于一个观察,即殖民时期的报纸经常将配偶的遗弃公告与离家出走的仆人和奴隶的广告放在一起,但Sword的主要贡献是关注婚姻制度的历史。最重要的是,Sword认为殖民地和革命时代的特点是“地方司法实践的连续性”(286),它支持丈夫的权力,限制妻子的追索权。革命时代的新话语
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Wives Not Slaves: Patriarchy and Modernity in the Age of Revolutions by Kirsten Sword (review)
In January 1774, the Boston News-Letter published paired notices by a husband, “Loyalty,” and his wife, “American Liberty” (206). Loyalty criticized his wife’s “licentious” (206) conduct and disavowed responsibility for her debts; Liberty countered that Loyalty had breached the terms of their marriage contract. These advertisements framed contemporary political debates by imitating a recurring component of midcentury newspapers: the desertion or elopement notices through which spouses publicized and defended informal separations.1 At first glance, Liberty’s and Loyalty’s announcements lend support to historical narratives that revolutionary ideologies destabilized notions of patriarchal authority. Yet as Kirsten Sword contends in Wives Not Slaves, deeper analysis confounds this interpretation. As she observes, the notices, which appeared in a loyalist rather than a patriot newspaper, ultimately underscored the power of marital bonds by suggesting that the couple should resolve their differences privately. Furthermore, colonial readers understood the News-Letter’s parody only because it continued long-standing discourses about the nature of patriarchal authority. In Sword’s telling, these conversations spanned the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries, encompassing both sides of the Atlantic, and linked men’s authority over all dependents, including wives, servants, and slaves. Within this framework, the revolutionary era appears not as a turning point but rather as one of many moments in which household heads and lawmakers subtly reinvented patriarchy’s forms. Sword’s reappraisal of Liberty’s and Loyalty’s notices represents the sort of fine-grained, contextualized analysis at which she most excels. She assembles close readings of court records, legal treatises, and notices in newspapers in order to evaluate conceptions of patriarchal authority in seventeenthand eighteenth-century British North America. Though the book originated in the observation that colonial newspapers often included spouses’ desertion notices alongside advertisements for runaway servants and slaves, Sword’s primary contributions concern the history of the institution of marriage. Above all, Sword argues that the colonial and revolutionary eras were characterized by “continuities in practices of local justice” (286) that upheld husbandly power and limited wives’ recourse. The revolutionary era’s new discourses of
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.40
自引率
12.50%
发文量
52
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信