From our perspective on the cusp of the twenty-first century, the gallantry of men and the steadfast virtues of women during the eighteenth century may seem ridiculous and, sometimes, even chauvinistic. Opening the passenger door of a coach for a lady, for example, was the expectation for all social classes in the eighteenth century, but today, it is not uncommon for this manner of courtesy to be interpreted as a man’s air of superiority over a helpless woman. The same could be said for laying a coat down in a mud puddle so that a lady won’t soil her shoes. Many people would say that such behaviors are as outdated as the word "courtship" in the modern context. The truth, however, is that codes of conduct still exist today—they have simply evolved into different forms. (Click here to see the Modern Manual section of this site for more information.) On this page, we will examine some of the courtship values of eighteenth century England, and also how these values retained such an influence over a basic human impulse: sexual desire.
Of course, the most obvious way in which courtship values were instilled in English society was through the family structure. "…it is an incumbent duty on all Christian Parents to bring their Children up in all godliness, Virtue, and sobriety, so it would be very prudent in them when they come to the age of maturity to be very cautious what company they keep…" [13, p.42] Fathers would teach their sons the "proper" ways of treating women, attending to their needs, and reacting to their behavior. Mothers would teach their daughters the virtue of chastity, how to be civil to undesirable propositions, and the formula for attracting the "right" kind of man. As most psychologists agree, the importance of parental influence over the manners of their children is extraordinary. Consequently, it can be inferred that the perpetuation of courtship values in a familial setting greatly influenced children in their later romantic endeavors.
But the family isn’t everything; not all children will foster every value their parents encourage. Once the children become adolescents and head out into the world on their own, much of their attitudes and beliefs are shaped by the societal context they find themselves in. It appears that during the eighteenth century, a driving force for courtship values in the larger scope of English society was the upper class.
The subject of class in England is a long and complicated one, but if there were one word that could sum up the interactions between the three (upper, middle, and lower classes), it would be competition. The lower class competes with the middle and upper classes to be recognized and respected. The middle class competes to distinguish itself from the lower class, while at the same time trying to blend in with the upper class. The upper class competes to keep itself distinguished from the other two, for fear of losing its privileges to people of ‘lesser quality.’ All of this is important to keep in mind when considering the subject of courtship because, in a sense, the middle and lower classes were constantly trying to imitate the upper class lifestyle. It could be said that the British have a history of being so ‘class-conscious’ that each individual, wherever he or she fell in the social hierarchy, evaluated himself or herself against those in other social positions; they would emulate the actions of those they desired to become, and disparaged the actions of those they felt were ‘beneath’ them.
To gain a greater understanding of the origins of courtship values during the eighteenth century, then, it is necessary to look to the upper class. During the eighteenth century, literacy was slowly on the rise, but literacy rates were clearly divided along class lines. For one thing, books were expensive and viewed as a ‘luxury.’ Obviously, the upper class benefited from greater readership. Books like The Academy of Complements and the Wits Interpreter were designed to instruct young men on the art of becoming a refined gentleman, and women how the realm of love is ordered for them. The Wits Interpreter, for example, is basically a bachelor’s guide that includes information on how to play dice and cards, how to drink responsibly, how to write secret love letters, and, curiously, a diagram of witty responses to a variety of questions that were likely to be posed in conversation. Click here to see the diagram. Also, from The Wits Interpreter, you can learn how to write Love-letters secretly that they cannot be discovered. The Academy of Complements is described on the cover as a, "…variety of Love-Letters, very fit to be read of all Young Men and Maids, that desire to learn the true way of Complements." Click here to read an eighteenth-century love letter.
Evidence of the upper classes attempts to separate themselves from the lower classes can be found in two poems, where "Modern Courtship" is distinguished from "Village Courtship." In the poem titled Modern Courtship, readers are taught that they should "…teach her to dance" and "Cock [their] hat with a grace," as well as "…leer at her." Click here to see the entire poem. All of these lessons, though delivered in poetic form, serve as instruction to proper courtship. So a "conduct manual," then, wasn’t necessarily a book written with that purpose in mind. Instead, proper conduct was cleverly written into many different literary forms—just as it is today. In the Village Courtship poem, on the other hand, no instruction is given, either because the lower class was viewed as incapable of achieving a chivalrous code of conduct, or because the upper class wanted to separate their heightened sense of composure from the imbecilic knaves of the shops and fields. Furthermore, the even lines in Village Courtship contains a mocking, rhythmic, and entirely nonsensical phrase, such as "Glumpaty, glumpaty, glump," and "Humpaty, humpaty, hump," while the odd lines tell the story of how a villager attempts to woo a woman named Dolly. Dolly rejects him in the first few lines, and by the end of the poem, neither the villager nor Dolly is satisfied.
Determin’d to find a damsel more kind,
Plumpaty, plumpaty, plump;
While Dolly’s afraid she must die an old maid.
Mumpaty, mumpaty, mump.
(Click here to see the entire poem.)
Whether the upper class viewed the code of courtship as its own civilized method, and not one that could be shared with the lower classes is uncertain. It is apparent, however, that the upper class did view certain manners and virtues to be distinctly ‘civilized,’ forms of expressing attraction and desire. It is also apparent that the lower classes adopted these attitudes to not only be ‘civilized’ themselves, but to be better equipped to court above their station—particularly in the case of women.
One of the most important considerations in courtship was ‘thinking long term.’ This translated into ‘good breeding.’ [13, p.42] There was a sense during the eighteenth century that ‘bad company’ would produce bad offspring. The upper classes, being more civilized—meaning more inclined to duel with pistols than to brawl—were considered ‘good company.’ But other classes were capable of attaining this esteemed title as well. Some basic rules applied: avoid bad pronunciation, false English, and common proverbs, be attentive to detail and how you carry yourself, be aware of your surroundings without seeming like an observer, etc. [13, p.43] All of these qualities greatly increased your chances of successfully courting the object of your desire. Interestingly enough, while good breeding and attention to detail were lauded by all classes in England, it was not uncommon for a "gallant" man to have a mistress or two. [15, p.50]
The fact that a ‘civilized’ man could have a mistress and still be well-liked and in ‘good company’ points to an interesting mark in the code of courtship, and relationships in general: the dominance and superiority of the man, and the resulting hegemony. As George Savile, Marquis of Halifax, states in his manual Advice to a Daughter:
"You must fist lay it down for a Foundation in general, That there is Inequality in the Sexes, and that for the better Occonomy of the World, the Men, who were to be the Law-givers had the larger share of Reason bestow’d upon them; by which means your Sex is the better prepar’d for the Compliance that is necessary for the better performance of those Duties which seem’d to be most properly assign’d to it." (26)
It is important to note which words are emphasized by the author in this passage. This is not only a sexist statement; it is much more insidious because its goal is to teach young women their place in life—their place below men. Ultimately, it was the upper class men who were absorbed with their dominant position, and were obsessed with the control of the others—including the women that they supposedly loved. But it is not all power-lusting prejudice that riddles the pages of this manual; young women are taught that their power lies in the manipulation and persuasion of men:
…you have it in your power not only to free yourselves, but to subdue your Masters, and without violence throw both their Natural and Legal Authority at your Feet. We are made of differing Tempers, that our Defects might be mutually supplied: Your sex wanteth our reason for your Conduct, and our Strength for your Protection… (27)
So with this directive, courting (and any relationships that may develop from it) is not a commensurate giving and sharing of each other’s needs and desires. Instead, it is a virulent system of control and domination, of using the "natural abilities" of your sex for your own profit. In such cases, the notion of "love" gets lost in the shuffle.
The categorization of men and women closely parallels the class system in England. For the British, the most important thing that you could learn about yourself was your place. People who acted above or below their social standing were shunned and considered to be ‘bad company.’ The same went for men and women. It was completely absurd for a woman to be reasonable at any time, just as it was completely absurd for any man to be sensitive or gentle. Men were stoic and protective. Women were gentle and weak. These were the expectations that conduct manuals perpetuated. Though on the surface they provided good advice for how to attract a secret crush, underneath they enslaved the personality and vivacity of an entire society of men and women.
Look at yet another Conduct Manual.
