18th-century American Women: The proper English kitchen, when we were still the British American colonies...

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

The proper English kitchen, when we were still the British American colonies...

Frontispiece from Martha Bradley’s “The British Housewife or, The Cook Housekeeper’s and Gardiner’s Companion 1756

No comments:

How this blog works

President John Adams declared, “History is not the Province of the Ladies.” Oh well, I'll give it a try. Images & essays cluster around some chronological, social, cultural, or academic theme. Because I am a boring, old historian, I am interested in comparing & contrasting & looking at change over time. I try to choose images that justify their inclusion on aesthetic grounds. I do not offer complete image credit lines or footnotes, as my goal is to entice blog visitors to begin researching for themselves. (Graded enough papers as a TA to know that some undergrads are tempted to borrow.)

About this blog

This blog will focus on how the lives of women living along the American Atlantic coast changed over the 18th century. The blog will use first-hand accounts whenever possible; so that the reader can compare & contrast those changes over time.

History is certainly not a science. It is never the absolute truth. It is constantly changing as fresh evidence & new interpretations flash into view. As those looking at history peel away the tired, old suppositions, they add new (but already growing old) assumptions of their own.

History reflects not just the prejudices of the period under study, but also the biases of those studying it. Since each person focusing on a historical period brings a different perspective & goal to the task, historians often interpret the same period of the past in vastly different ways.

History before 1800 is often skewed; because only the few, the powerful, & the wealthy kept written records of events. And yet, events only advance & take a particular shape, because of the everyday actions of the nameless many who give them the energy to move forward.

Using Primary Sources

This blog will use as much original evidence as possible to allow the reader to draw conclusions.

Primary sources can give us a sense of the real differences between the past and the present; a context for understanding how ideas came about at a certain place in time; a realization that there are few neat linear narratives; a recognition of how our concept of the past has been shaped by people who have written about it.

Primary sources are written documents or artifacts created during the time being studied or shortly after by a participant as a memoir. They are infused with the fleeting spirit of the moment in which they were created.

First-hand accounts give a human voice to history, but they surely do not speak for themselves, they must be interpreted.

Primary sources force us to ask what those who created these surviving records must have believed or desired or deemed valuable in order to understand their ideas and actions.

Primary sources urge us to question the historical conclusions of others.

For a study of 18th century America, surviving manuscripts, letters, diaries, & journals; newpaper accounts; court, church & land records; and artifacts such as portraits & archaelogical finds, are the original evidence needed to compile good history.

Good history results from the examination of countless primary sources to reach a general conclusion about a time period or event.

Good history is not deciding a conclusion in advance and then picking only those sources which support that foregone interpretation.

The "least-best" theory of collecting the least amount of the best evidence to construct a convincing argument about an issue may be expedient in mathematics, but it does not work well in any serious study of history. Without gathering a hefty quantity of primary source evidence, how can the historian determine which is the best evidence?

Good history is not based on one or two anecdotal incidents or descriptions manipulated into a generalized conclusion about the whole.

In this blog we will be looking at snippets of history. Exploring individual anecdotal incidents may be fun; but they are not good history, until they are woven into the whole.

Using Portraits As Primary Sources

I enjoy using portraits as a tool to learn about the changing lives of comparatively wealthy women living along the British American Atlantic coast in the 18th century. As a historian, I am interested in how a portrait both reflects & influences contemporary political, social, cultural, & religious forces.

Aspiring colonial elite needed to portray themselves as morally & intellectually superior in order to establish & maintain their status & power in a fluid new environment, where heredity was not as important as it had been in mother England. A portrait could permanently present the sitter as one of genteel manner & bearing, naturally expected to be a leader in society. And the portrait would reflect the artist as well.

In portrait painting, both artist & consumer negotiate the final product, which then reflects each of their individual concepts of the social & economic idealogies around them. The product of that negotiation, the finished portrait, portrays the image both sitter & artist want to convey, & it can affect the aspirations of the audience.

Just a step outside the colonial artist's studio, it was apparent that the world was in flux. Colonization is not a static force of domination & exploitation, it is a constantly negotiated acccomodation between the colonizer & the colonized. In the same way, relationships between men & women living together in a paternalistic society are constantly negotiated.

The numerous American portraits of John Singleton Copley are particularly intriguing to examine in order to learn about both the artist & his clients, & how their perspectives change over time. Copley wanted to paint more than a likeness. Like many contemporary artists, Copley often invented images or copied them from British mezzotints rather than acting as a strict recorder; thereby becoming a commentator on his society & himself. He developed a variety of aesthetic conventions for people in different social, religious, & economic classes.

I know next to nothing about the technical aspects of examining paintings. And so, I look at portraits as social negotiations, reflections, & aspirations.

Portraits after 1750: More Painters, More Clients

From 1750 on, the supply of both portrait painters & clients increased dramatically in America, as more people--merchants, physicians, tradesmen, lawyers, & even artisans--amassed enough money & leisure time to hire a portratist.

Now, they, too, could hang a family portrait in the hall for visitors to admire & pass it on from generation to generation. In the fluid new Atlantic world, possibilites--normally constricted by tradition, genetics, & old wealth--were expanding. Social, educational, political, & economic growth were within reach for even the midling sort through their own creative initiative & hard work.

Before 1750, I have tried to group paintings in this blog from a variety of artists in each period together, so that the reader can compare & contrast costumes, styles, & tastes of both suppliers & their customers, usually gentry flushed with old money.

From 1750 on, generally I will group paintings by artist. Of course that will make comparisons a little more difficult; but also more fun, as increasing numbers of both patrons & painters offer a broadening perspective of America in the 18th century.

Emerging country-born painters may not know poses & costumes dictated by English & European tradition, and their clients may not wish to be portrayed in the latest fashion.

As the century progresses, nouveau riche consumers might chose a local countryman to paint their likeness. He may not be a genius; he may not long to paint the ultimate narrative history allegory; but he is nearby & available.