The Man Who Tried to Raise a Wife

[Boethius]

Thomas Day was wealthy and educated and ran in influential circles. But there was one problem. The 18th-century British philosopher’s lack of interest in polite manners and fashion—and, more important, personal hygiene—made it difficult for him to attract a suitable mate.


Day liked to quote a line from a poem titled “Advice to the Ladies”: “Wit like wine intoxicates the brain/Too strong for feeble women to sustain.” A great benefactor to the poor and a vocal champion of the American Revolution, Day wrote passionate diatribes about the need to free African slaves and lobbied to expand voting rights to include men of all classes. But where women were concerned, Day’s views were far less progressive. It seems only fitting that after his death, Day’s eccentric life story has been most vividly recounted by a series of women: first, by Anna Seward, a friend and contemporary; then by Maria Edgeworth, a celebrated novelist (and the daughter of Day’s best friend, Richard Edgeworth); and, most recently, biographer Wendy Moore. In How to Create the Perfect Wife, Moore retells the story of Day’s attempt to fashion the ideal bride out one of two 12-year-old orphans he took in as “maid apprentices” from London’s Foundling Hospital.


The notion of handcrafting a flawless spouse was nothing new—the Pygmalion myth dates back to ancient Greece. Still, Day’s scheme was shocking in its perverse simplicity. By the time he was a university student, Day had refined a strict set of ideas on what qualities defined the ideal woman. He wanted purity, docility, absolute devotion to her husband—and plump white arms. He had an idea about what the perfect marriage would look like, too: upon matrimony, his wife would, as Moore recounts, “renounce all her comforts and company to live with him in isolated penury devoting her life to doing good works.”


So, inspired by Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writings on education, Day hatched a scheme to mold an untrained, unattached young girl into a creature of the right temperament, disposition, and devotion to become his bride—or two of them. Unbeknownst to his apprentice maids, Day intended to test out the teaching methods laid out in Rousseau’s Émile—not an education manual, but a novel. Using a rigorous course of philosophy texts, chores, and exposure to the elements, he hoped to transform at least one of his unsuspecting young adoptees into a physically hardy, industrious, and chaste companion.


When Lucretia, the younger blonde, displayed a stubborn dislike for her studies, Day sent her away to be apprenticed to a milliner and doubled down on Sabrina, the brunette. Sabrina was studious and eager to please. And why wouldn’t she be? Day completely controlled her fate—he was employer, protector, and tutor all rolled into one. But her master’s demands were confusing. Moore finds no indication that Day took sexual advantage of his ward, but he commanded her body in other ways. He bizarrely poured hot wax on her skin and fired a pistol at her skirts to test her fearlessness. When Sabrina flinched, Day’s confidence in her faltered. Pausing the experiment, Day enrolled Sabrina in boarding school and turned his attention to other marital prospects.


Lo and behold, Sabrina returned a refined, charming lady, and Day promptly revealed his grand plan to wed her. Sabrina was initially horrified. But with no trade, no income, and no family, her options were limited.


Then, at the last minute, Day called off the wedding, accusing Sabrina of violating “particular injunctions.” It was his fourth broken engagement. Day’s search for the perfect woman—rather, his manipulation of a human being—wasn’t a means but an end in itself. After still one more failed engagement, Day married Esther Milnes, a brainy heiress who was utterly enchanted with his ideas. Day “tried endlessly to correct Esther to meet his strictures,” Moore writes. “He was forever disappointed.”


What’s surprising is how things end for Sabrina. Despite the havoc Day’s unconventional education wreaked on her reputation, his rejection finally gave her a chance to shape her own fate. After her “apprenticeship” ended, she married a friend of Day’s, raised two children, and worked as a housekeeper, saving up £2,000 (an amount worth more than half a million dollars today) to pass on to her children and seven grandchildren after her death. In light of the circumstances, her resilience seems nothing short of defiant. Nonetheless, Sabrina remains something of a cipher in Moore’s account. Day enjoyed the friendship of many prominent intellectuals (the grandfather of Charles Darwin, among others), and their gossipy letters provided Moore with much of the source material. But while Sabrina occasionally exchanged polite letters with members of Day’s circle, they reveal little about her own interpretation of the experiment apart from deep mortification at having her story told and retold.


How could Day himself remain blind to his hypocrisy? And why did none of his friends stop him? That’s a difficult question, and in the places where historical documentation falls short, Moore turns the gaps into opportunities to revel in the lurid injustice of Sabrina’s fate. Here, she follows a long tradition of writers. Henry James reshaped Day’s story for his first novel, Watch and Ward; Maria Edgeworth featured characters based on Day and Sabrina in her famous novel Belinda; Fanny Burney and Anthony Trollope riffed on the story too. These fictional renditions are largely love stories. Moore’s research suggests the real-life Sabrina got by not on love but on reserves of inner strength and dignity. If Day’s experiments shaped her, it was certainly not in the way he intended.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/19/the-man-who-tried-to-raise-a-wife.html

[TomT]

You are being far too subtle for your target audience.

[Slumba]

You are being far too subtle for your target audience.

Yes, I wonder which of the age-gappers extraordinaire, will be sure this doesn't apply to him ...

[SneakersAndHighHeels]

I see the point u r trying to make here. First of all, I don't understand why u want to bring some happily married folks down with such ridiculous parallels. It's wrong on your part to compare a grown up woman saying 'I do' to an orphaned child without a choice. It's just low...

Second, regardless of age and age gap two married people DO change each other. They influence each others thoughts and actions. After spending decades together they can finish each others sentences, they see things eye to eye. I wish for everyone to reach that kind of bond with one special person.

[Boethius]

Did I post I was making any parallels? 


Such is the influence which the condition of our own thoughts, exercises - Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist

[SneakersAndHighHeels]

You posted, others replied....

You must've had a reason to post this mile long article. So plz explain the point you r trying to make here.

[Boethius]

The more pertinent question is why you viewed it so personally.

[SneakersAndHighHeels]

The more pertinent question is why you viewed it so personally.

Ha ha I am just having fun!
You r the one now that trying to distance yourself from your post.

Just one more thing: do u always answer question with a question?

[Boethius]

I'm not distancing myself from my post.  You can interpret it any way you wish.  That you chose the most negative interpretation says more about you than me.

do u always answer question with a question?

Are you unfamiliar with my posts?

[SneakersAndHighHeels]

Is it?  Anything I have posted, I would have no issue saying to anyone face to face.

Neither would I!

Yada-yada! What about you original post here? Are u ever gonna make your point, or should I not hold my breath?

[Boethius]

Neither would I!

Yada-yada! What about you original post here? Are u ever gonna make your point, or should I not hold my breath?

I made my point. 

[BillyB]

The 18th-century British philosopher’s lack of interest in polite manners and fashion—and, more important, personal hygiene—made it difficult for him to attract a suitable mate.

Being dirty, stinky, poorly dressed and rude isn't attractive to ladies in the 18th century or even today. Not much to learn from that guy. I pretty much stopped reading after the first few sentences of that article. Loser written all over him.

[SneakersAndHighHeels]

Don't mistake me finding you amusing for something more.

Ha! This amusement starting to become boring. She ain't gonna get back to us on the main subject. Oh well...

[Kokopelli]

Boethius just started a new topic on a book that was just released.
It's an old story with a somewhat femist (not feminist) twist. Those evil white guys.
I would have to investigate it more because it appears the author of the article didn't. Nothing new.


Maybe we can do other wackos too.
The Marquis de Sade.
The story of Rasputin's dick, though I think Anthony Weiner's  wiener is more infamous in the U.S.

Maybe these guys?
http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/blog.aspx?blogentryid=615515&showcomments=true
And you thought Linus was bad.

http://thechive.com/2012/03/15/man-is-either-crazy-or-brilliant-to-marry-a-doll-12-photos-video/
I wonder if he hears, "You never take me anywhere."

You never shut your mouth.


I'm glad he didn't get a dog or cat. 
Of course he wouldn't get a parrot, they would talk.
"RAWRK, he f@cks me when you aren't here".

[Ade]

LOL @ no one in particular.

 

[Boethius]

Boethius just started a new topic on a book that was just released.
It's an old story with a somewhat femist (not feminist) twist. Those evil white guys.
I would have to investigate it more because it appears the author of the article didn't. Nothing new.

Maybe we can do other wackos too.
The Marquis de Sade.
The story of Rasputin's dick, though I think Anthony Weiner's  wiener is more infamous in the U.S.

Maybe these guys?
http://entertainment.msn.co.nz/blog.aspx?blogentryid=615515&showcomments=true
And you thought Linus was bad.


I wonder if he hears, "You never take me anywhere."You never shut your mouth.
I'm glad he didn't get a dog or cat. 
Of course he wouldn't get a parrot, they would talk.
"RAWRK, he f@cks me when you aren't here".

Most of those other topics, but for the Marquis de Sade, have already been covered here.




I find historical accounts fascinating, and each one provides new insights.  Some others should perhaps read a bit of history as well.  Then, they'd know that in 18th century England (France, too), pretty much everyone had poor hygiene.  That's one of the reasons the French used so many perfumes.   

[Boethius]

LOL @ no in particular.

 

I thought you'd like it.

[TomT]

Well, a handful of us were amused...

[Boethius]

Well, a handful of us were amused...

 

[ML]

That's one of the reasons the French used so many perfumes.

And continue to 'use.'

Look up stats on per capita consumption of soap vs perfume for various countries.

[Boethius]

I think it is cultural, rather than hygiene related now, although I know one poster who would disagree.     The French use more shower gels/body wash than anywhere else in Europe.  I noticed when in France that perfumes were cheaper than in the West. 

[Gator]

"12-yo orphans" says all that we need to know of Thomas Day.   The man was weird if not mentally ill.
 

I find historical accounts fascinating, and each one provides new insights.  Some others should perhaps read a bit of history as well.  Then, they'd know that in 18th century England (France, too), pretty much everyone had poor hygiene.  That's one of the reasons the French used so many perfumes.

They had more than perfumes.  Ladies and gentlemen would carry small finely crafted silver or gold cases termed a vinaigrette or pomander.   It would contain strong scents, usually aromatic herbs mixed with vinegar.  Upon encountering strong unsanitary odors (unwashed people, night soil, etc.), a lady would flip open her vinaigrette and take a whiff.   [We could use such at RWD. ]
 
While decorative arts and fine art were advanced in the 18th C, this was a time of pestilence.  For example, women and men used wax to fill their smallpox scars, and some claim they avoided high heat to prevent the wax from melting.   

[Lily]

Ha, ha, this young girl was probably raised by someone who understands in how to pick up husbands
 
English subtitles.
 

[Kokopelli]

Most of those other topics, but for the Marquis de Sade, have already been covered here.




I find historical accounts fascinating, and each one provides new insights.  Some others should perhaps read a bit of history as well.  Then, they'd know that in 18th century England (France, too), pretty much everyone had poor hygiene.  That's one of the reasons the French used so many perfumes.

I like history too,
But something about the way this article is written rubs me the wrong way. Not the topic but the tone of the article.
Some information left out:
Thomas Day (22 June 1748 – 28 September 1789) was a British author and abolitionist. He was well known for the children's book The History of Sandford and Merton (1783–1789) which emphasized Rousseauvian educational ideals.
Another reference to Rousseau.....
Rousseau's Emile, ou l'education
http://www.ilt.columbia.edu/pedagogies/rousseau/Contents2.html

Thomas Day was wealthy and educated and ran in influential circles. But there was one problem. The 18th-century British philosopher’s lack of interest in polite manners and fashion—and, more important, personal hygiene—made it difficult for him to attract a suitable mate.
He was not a philosopher. Not like the greats, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Andrew "Dice" Clay.....
From what I am finding his "lack of interest in polite manners and fashion—and, more important, personal hygiene—made it difficult for him to attract a suitable mate" is not what is stated by by Anna Seward, a friend and contemporary.
 

[Kokopelli]

Biographical Sketch of Thomas Day. Extracted from Anna Seward's Life of Dr. Darwin, and the Biographical Dictionary
http://www.jstor.org/stable/30074354