The Man Who Tried to Raise a Wife

[Boethius]

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.

Day was a philosopher of sorts, he was well known as such in his circles, and his life works had a philosophical, if misogynistic bent.  No, he was no Hegel, and I believe he misunderstood Rousseau quite profoundly, but that is a separate issue.

His lack of manners, bathing in streams, and desire to live in nature, to name but three qualities, did make him an unsuitable suitor, with one father even pointing to his lack of social graces as a reason why, despite his wealth, he was a "completely unsuitable" candidate for his daughter's hand in marriage.

Anna Seward, as you noted, was one of Day's friends, and was aware of his "experiment" with the two girls, including the fact he poured hot wax on Sabrina's arms, shoulders and back to determine if she would flinch.  Seward at no time objected to Day's "experiments" or the humiliations Sabrina endured.  In fact, Seward was the first author to "expose" Sabrina, naming her publicly without Sabrina's prior knowledge and thus, increasing the then widow's public humiliation. 

There are several other reviews of the book, in the WSJ, The Guardian, on Slate, to name but a few.  I just chose the one that was the shortest.  Slate quotes Day (who took the girls to France, so that they would not be able to communicate with those in their surroundings) on his views of well read French women, who were known to attend salons and even give their opinions in public:

“The most disgusting sight of all is to see that sex, whose weakness of body, and imbecility of mind, can only entitle them to our compassion and indulgence, assuming an unnatural dominance, and by regulating the customs, the manners, the lives and the opinions of the other sex, by their own caprices, weakness, and ignorance.”

Words evoking the sentiment of the highlighted words have oft appeared on this very forum, usually in descriptions of AW. [NB - Edited to appease the "literal" reading contingent of wankers on the forum.]


Plus ça change . . . 

[Gator]

If this  excerpt is intended to suggest a parallel between Thomas Day and MOBers, one should note some similarities and differences.
 
First, the stark differences:

-   Thomas died at the age of 41, and in contrast  to "old fart" MOBers, Thomas was a mere babe in the woods when imprinting his captive foundlings.
 
-   Thomas Day's physical abuse of the young girls surely is not a characteristic of MOBers other than one reported case in Belgium.

 
There are some similarities:

-   What are the other criteria for MOBer?  Social reject is one.   Even though he had a social circle, Thomas was certainly weird enough to qualify as a social reject. 
 
-  MOBers are accused of using their position of economic advantage to compel desperate women to overlook some of their shortcomings.  This seems to be the case with Thomas. 
 
-   Thomas Day's quest for perfection in a woman reminds me of the many comments made by some men at RWD who admit their requirements for thin bodies, traditional values, etc.

[Misha]

“assuming an unnatural dominance”

The highlighted words have oft appeared on this very forum, usually in descriptions of AW.

The words have often appeared? If they do, both this site's search engine's as well as Google's are skipping over them as nothing comes up. Even "unnatural dominance" produces zero results. Perhaps you can argue that this idea is expressed in other words, but the words themselves have not appeared...

[Ade]

The words have often appeared? If they do, both this site's search engine's as well as Google's are skipping over them as nothing comes up. Even "unnatural dominance" produces zero results. Perhaps you can argue that this idea is expressed in other words, but the words themselves have not appeared...

I think it's called paraphrasing.

[Kokopelli]

Day was a philosopher of sorts, he was well known as such in his circles, and his life works had a philosophical, if misogynistic bent.  No, he was no Hegel, and I believe he misunderstood Rousseau quite profoundly, but that is a separate issue.
Plus ça change . . . 

Of sorts, of what sorts?
WSJ review:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324445904578285521473011706.html
His life works were:
http://www.brycchancarey.com/slavery/dying.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Sandford_and_Merton
There is a misogynistic bend in there somewhere? In minor works?
The misunderstanding and misapplication of Emile is the issue after you brush away the femist, not feminist, yapping.
A severe case was when Eichmann quoted Kant's Categorical Imperative at his trial. So, Eichman was a philosopher?
The reviewer states: Rousseau’s Émile—not an education manual, but a novel.
During the French Revolution, Emile served as the inspiration for what became a new national system of education.
Emile was banned in Paris and Geneva and was publicly burned in 1762, the year of its first publication.
Rousseau also wrote this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pygmalion_(1762_play)
He was what, 21, when this so-called "experiment" started and it lasted what, 2 years maximum?
Yes, I imagine the hot wax is very unpleasant, somewhere someone is paying an $50 for this service, did it leave a scar?
Pointing a pistol, even loaded only with a powder charge, is a big no-no in basic gun safety. Maybe he should have had the pistol shoved into a certain body cavity? It may have helped his manners but you know someone would run in and call it torture.
I am not standing up for the guy, what he did was 100% wrong and he was unrealistic in his demands.

[Kokopelli]

His lack of manners, bathing in streams, and desire to live in nature, to name but three qualities, did make him an unsuitable suitor, with one father even pointing to his lack of social graces as a reason why, despite his wealth, he was a "completely unsuitable" candidate for his daughter's hand in marriage.
Plus ça change . . . 

Sounds like Grizzly Adams not Big Foot.
Unfit according to one, yes. So, what else is new? According to Steward it was the woman, not her father, who made that decision after Day failed to conform to her expectations. pg 385 on the Steward link.
He was a Frump. But he did meet his Frumpette.
They were married 10+ years until he died. She mourned then died 2 years later. Both were in their early 40s
How did he die? Training a horse in a humane way.
The femists missed a major twist here.
HE TREATED HORSIES BETTER THAN WOMEN.

[Kokopelli]

Anna Seward, as you noted, was one of Day's friends, and was aware of his "experiment" with the two girls, including the fact he poured hot wax on Sabrina's arms, shoulders and back to determine if she would flinch.  Seward at no time objected to Day's "experiments" or the humiliations Sabrina endured.  In fact, Seward was the first author to "expose" Sabrina, naming her publicly without Sabrina's prior knowledge and thus, increasing the then widow's public humiliation. 
Plus ça change . . . 

What became of Sabrina?
Day paid for her education.
She married the same man, Bicknel, who took her from the orphanage and they had two children. He had a stroke and died, the oldest son was 5 at the time. So, who helped her? Not the he-man women hater himself! And later, his widow continued this allowance and bequeathed its continuance from her own fortune for the duration of Sabrina's life.
Is that redemption? Is that accepting he made a mistake? Can money correct past wrongs?

[Kokopelli]

There are several other reviews of the book, in the WSJ, The Guardian, on Slate, to name but a few.  I just chose the one that was the shortest.  Slate quotes Day (who took the girls to France, so that they would not be able to communicate with those in their surroundings) on his views of well read French women, who were known to attend salons and even give their opinions in public:
Plus ça change . . . 

And Slate picks parts of a paragraph to quote.
The same as this other reviewer.
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.”
I was hoping the author was Anny Nominus. I love her work.
"A smiling young miss named Miranda"


It was wrtten by Lord Lyttelton, complete poem here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=d6UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=lord+lyttelton's+advice+to+a+lady&source=bl&ots=1shY75_Jg0&sig=osWYj7QOdxVKQRae9RRCBgYixtI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=y2R0UfOmOIrb0wGdg4G4Ag&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lord%20lyttelton's%20advice%20to%20a%20lady&f=false
Both reviews are written for the average reader to read while taking the average crap.

[Kokopelli]

“The most disgusting sight of all is to see that sex, whose weakness of body, and imbecility of mind, can only entitle them to our compassion and indulgence, assuming an unnatural dominance, and by regulating the customs, the manners, the lives and the opinions of the other sex, by their own caprices, weakness, and ignorance.”

Words evoking the sentiment of the highlighted words have oft appeared on this very forum, usually in descriptions of AW. [NB - Edited to appease the "literal" reading contingent of wankers on the forum.]


Plus ça change . . . 

From her book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=KEc36eNHl7AC&pg=PT11&lpg=PT11&dq=%E2%80%9CThe+most+disgusting+sight+of+all+is+to+see+that+sex,+whose+weakness+of+body,+and+imbecility+of+mind,+can+only+entitle+them+to+our+compassion+and+indulgence,+assuming+an+unnatural+dominance,+and+by+regulating+the+customs,+the+manners,+the+lives+and+the+opinions+of+the+other+sex,+by+their+own+caprices,+weakness,+and+ignorance.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=JplEZOSgAO&sig=vgzLTyNiUALFVXkKT6QnYqofBrk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=4m92UfTkPMHl4AOnu4CgDQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ

It appears he was not too impressed with French men either, or society in general.
The highlighted part reminds me of the "Story of Lilith".
How about doing a topic on Boudica next? Or maybe the Ancient Greek and Roman women whose virtues Day was trying to force on Sabrina?

[Kokopelli]

Repli-Kate


Be careful what you wish for.