June 18, 2024 • 45 mins
Catharine Maria Sedgwick to Eliza Cabot Follen, February 18, 1828. In which Sedgwick writes to her dear friend Cabot Follen about the need for a new minister, pieces she has recently read and written, and an exquisite Valentine.
Featuring Dr. Patricia Kalayjian and Dr. Lucinda Damon-Bach of The Catharine Maria Sedgwick Online Letters project. Dr. Kalayjian is a Professor Emerita of Interdisciplinary Studies at California State University and the editor and project director of the Sedgwick Online Letters project. Dr. Damon-Bach is an editor of the project and a professor of English at Salem State University.
Find the official transcript here.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Kathryn Gehred (00:04):
Hello, and welcome to Your Most Obedient
and Humble Servant. This is awomen's history podcast where we
feature 18th and early 19thcentury women's letters that
don't get as much attention aswe think they should. I'm your
host, Kathryn Gehred. Thisepisode is part of our season on
wit. Today I am so excited to bespeaking with Dr. Patricia
Kalayjian and Dr. LucindaDamon-Bach of The Catharine
(00:27):
Maria Sedgwick Online LettersProject. Dr. Kalayjian is
Professor Emerita ofInterdisciplinary Studies at
California State University andthe editor and project director
of the Sedgwick online lettersproject. Dr. Damon-Bach is an
editor of the project and aprofessor of English at Salem
State University. Thank you bothso much for being on the show.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (00:49):
Thank you.
Patricia Kalayjian (00:50):
Thanks so much for inviting us. We're
excited to talk about ourproject.
Kathryn Gehred (00:54):
I first heard about this at a conference of
the Association of documentaryediting. And I thought it just
seemed absolutely perfect. AndI've been using your website and
digging through these lettersever since Pat as the project
director, can you tell me alittle bit more about the
project? How did it come to be?
Patricia Kalayjian (01:11):
Well, thanks for asking. Our project is a
Kathryn Gehred (01:11):
When you say board digital, do you mean that
born digital edition of Americanauthor Catharine Maria
Sedgwick's outgoing letters.When Cindy and I with our third
editorial board member whocouldn't be here today, Deborah
Gussman started this project, wewere really motivated by the
absence of scholarlyinfrastructure for Sedgwick
(01:31):
scholars. There is no fullbiography for example, the bulk
of Sedgwick's letters are at theMassachusetts Historical
Society. And most of those havebeen scanned in microfilm. But
microfilm doesn't make thingseasy to access, and so they
remain out of reach for mostscholars, several 100 more
letters are scattered inarchives around the country and
(01:53):
in Europe. So making Sedgwick'sletters available in
transcription seemed like agreat way to encourage more
incisive research and analysis.Because we're trained as
literary scholars and nothistorians, we began by going to
camp edit, and editing workshopssponsored by the Association for
documentary editing. And then in2017, we were invited to be a
(02:15):
founding edition of a digitalhub that is now the primary
source cooperative at theMassachusetts Historical
Society. And then we receivedour first National Endowment for
the Humanities, it's called thescholarly editions and
translations grant, we receivedthat in 2019. And then we were
just recently refunded foranother two years this past January.
(02:40):
you're not planning onpublishing a paper edition?
Unknown (02:43):
That is correct. We did think about doing a print
edition. And it still may be alittle bit in the back of
Cindy's head anyway, not mine.With this technology, it just
makes things so much easier toaccess. And it's so much more
democratizing than just havingprint editions in university
libraries.
Kathryn Gehred (03:02):
I think that makes a ton of sense. So you
talked about how it's a littlebit difficult to access her
papers. And there may be hasn'tbeen a lot of study on Catharine
Maria Sedgwick, who wasCatherine Maria Sedgwick, and
why are we putting her papersonline.
Unknown (03:16):
She was the most highly regarded woman writer of the
early national period ofAmerican literature. By the mid
1820s, she was praised as thenation's premier author us we
put that in air quotes. Andwithin the next decade, her work
had been republished in Englandand translated to French and
German, Italian, Swedish, Dutchand Danish. She wrote in a lot
(03:39):
of different genres. She wrotenovels and short stories,
sketches, didactic novellas,biography, travel books, and she
wrote for a variety ofaudiences, she wrote for
educated adult audiences,juveniles, kind of an elite
class working class readers, shereally ran the gamut. She
(04:00):
published 20 books and more than150 Short works in her career.
And we always like to bring thisup as a measure of her really
exceptional fame. In 1834, shewas selected for inclusion in
the first volume of The NationalPortrait Gallery of
Distinguished Americans. She wasone of only four writers
(04:20):
included, and the only womanbesides Martha Washington.
Kathryn Gehred (04:23):
Wow. As a former editor of the Martha Washington
papers, were in an exclusiveclub.
Why do you think after this sortof exceptional level of fame,
she's translated and all theselanguages? I've never heard of
her. I imagine that a lot of ourlisteners will not have heard of
her. Why do you think that is?
Unknown (04:41):
Well, I think in spite of her fame among her
contemporaries, Sedgwick'sreputation and her work were
really this is like so many,like most women writers actually
either demeaned or ignored. Bythe late 19th and early 20th
Century Literary historians andand theologist there's a
(05:02):
demonstrable, masculines bias inthe development of the American
literary canon. And it takes alot of effort over time to
change the perception ofliterary history. Especially
after it's been there for like100 years. So we're working on
it. We're trying to change that.But, you know, it takes time.
(05:24):
But we think that this ischanging. Her work has been a
successful part of the womenwriters recovery movement that
was undertaken by literaryscholars from about 1980 on and
there's growing evidence thatshe's being reintegrated into
the canon and into literaryhistory. The Catharine Maria
Sedgwick Society that wasfounded by Cindy has been going
(05:46):
strong for more than 25 years.It encourages scholarship and
connects Sedgwick to otherwriters of her era, both men and
women. All six of her majornovels are now available in
print and scholarly editions anda couple in more popular
editions. And her short fictionis now in college level
(06:07):
anthologies. These are all bigimportant steps towards making
someone canonical. And in fact,one study found her to be among
the top 12 authors now taughtand 19th century American
literature survey courses. Sothat's great. It's working.
Kathryn Gehred (06:26):
That's fabulous. I've been saying Maria as a
Catharine Maria Sedgwick,
Patricia Kalayjian (06:30):
We don't really know. I say Mariah. You
say Maria doesn't matter.
Kathryn Gehred (06:35):
What does the Catherine Mariah centric
society? Do? Is it like a fanclub?
Patricia Kalayjian (06:39):
No. Well, yes. And no, it is a fan club.
But it says scholarly fan club.Cindy, you should talk about
this.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (06:47):
Well, our goal was to find each other
first in 1997, after our mazingconference on women writers at
Trinity College, you know, itwas important to meet people who
were already familiar withSedgwick. And now, Susan K.
Harris, complimented us at oneof conference when she was the
keynote speaker and said, youknow, now we can say there's
(07:09):
such a field as Sedgwickstudies. It's pretty, pretty
awesome. And we've mentoredyoung scholars now. And they're
now not so young and taking leadroles. After 20 years, I finally
stepped down. But it's goingstrong. I think I'm really
proud.
Kathryn Gehred (07:24):
That's fantastic. You mentioned that
your background is in sort ofEnglish and literary studies.
From that perspective. How wouldyou describe her letters? What
do you think is important aboutmaking her letters available?
And when you first sort ofdiscovered and started working
with her letters, what did ittell you about Katherine?
Patricia Kalayjian (07:45):
We think that her letters are fascinating
on a whole variety of levels. Westarted with the idea that it
would give insight into herwork, the situations she found
herself in and then weretransported into her fiction.
But you know, she's just anengaging writer. In her letters.
(08:05):
She's smart, and she's witty.She's snarky, at times, very
snarky. We, in fact, we jokearound that we need to have a
tag for her snark. She's reallyI mean, amazingly open about her
feelings, which I think issomething that maybe is a lost
art to write publicly, if youwill, I mean, at least to a
(08:27):
reader about how you're feeling.She doesn't seem to have a huge
ego. So there's none of thatsort of posing, or posturing
that you might find in others.In that context of the 19th
century or early 19th century.She's a single woman by choice
in a world that valued marriage.But she didn't live as a single
(08:50):
woman alone. She lived in thefamily homes of her brothers and
sisters. And she seems to havegotten along with just about
everybody in her family. She hadsix siblings, they all married,
and I think she had 37 niecesand nephews.
Kathryn Gehred (09:07):
wow
Patricia Kalayjian (09:08):
And she communicated with a lot of them
and helped raise a lot of them.On top of that, so she had this
intimate knowledge of theprivate world of women. But then
she also had this public side toher where she was extremely well
known. She traveled widely. Shewas a successful author, and
(09:28):
really could have livedindependently. She made plenty
of money to do that. She justseemed comfortable in that
family setting.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (09:38):
I think the one that we picked for today is
one of the best to use becauseit touches on her religion as a
Unitarian on her socialnetworks, people beyond her
immediate family, as well as herintimate relationships with the
people she's talking about inthe letter. And it talks about
what she's reading and whatshe's translating, which is
(09:59):
another whole I'd have her andwhat she's recently submitted
that I was trying to find thismorning, an unsigned piece. And
it's funny. I mean, we alsowish, not just a snarky label,
but just one for funny, youknow, making jokes. The Cedric
family was a fun family, peoplereally liked them. They had
great conversations, and theyplayed family games, and were
(10:20):
well loved in their towns. Andin New York City where she
lived. Two of her brothers werelawyers in New York City. So she
also talks about village lifeand urban life, which is pretty
extraordinary, as well as lifeabroad.
Kathryn Gehred (10:33):
It's interesting to me that she was so successful
and financially stable, and thenshe sort of chose to live that
lifestyle of staying with familymembers, which and a lot of the
other women's letters. So Icover sometimes it seems that
women are sort of forced to dothat, if their husband dies it
or something like that, they endup in debt, they sort of are
dependent on family, I imagined,it's just one of the few options
(10:54):
that women had at the timeperiod. But that she has such a
well connected, interestingfamily, it's less of something
that she's trapped in and mightbe something that she really
enjoyed.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (11:05):
I would say absolutely, that she was living
in a family totally by choice.She really wanted to have a
child this way she got children,for her to be useful was really
important and to be contributingmember and helping people. And
that was just a core of heridentity. So she wasn't sitting
around being a guest in hersiblings houses, she was a
(11:28):
crucial piece.
Kathryn Gehred (11:30):
Interesting. Do you feel like knowing more about
her life and interacting withyour letters and editing your
letters? Has that changed theway that you interact with her
fiction?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (11:39):
Definitely. Through her letters, you get to
see insights into scenes and hernovels and short stories. And
also her writing anxiety. Shewrites a fair number of
sketches, and they're closelybased on events in her own life.
So the conversations and thesettings and the current events.
(12:00):
It's been really fascinating tome,
Kathryn Gehred (12:02):
That's so fascinating. So what goals do
you have for the central papersonline project?
Patricia Kalayjian (12:08):
Our original goal was to publish the full
content of all her outgoingletters on expurgated, we don't
make any editorial choices otherthan Is this a dash or a comma?
We really try to stick to thecontent.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (12:23):
I'm quoting Pat, our biggest goal is to
rewrite American literaryhistory. She's clearly a crucial
piece. And the other goal is whowill use them, you know,
everyone besides Sedgwickscholars, or even scholars of
19th century women's literature,I think historians, I really
hope secondary school teachers,one of the things that
(12:44):
encouraged us was there was oneaddition of her letters
published in 1871. As a tributeto her she had died in 1867. I
did a search how many people hadsearched for Dewey's life and
letters of Catharine Sedgwick,and I found people from all
walks of life, you know, besidesdoctors and historians, you
(13:05):
know, and Women's Studiespeople, but there were people
interested in cooking andtravels.
Patricia Kalayjian (13:11):
Another goal that we kind of developed as we
were doing the digital editionand working with the metadata
and tagging and so on is thatwe've really committed ourselves
to identifying women that arementioned in this sometimes we
can only find them and somethinglike Find A Grave, you know,
it's not the world's mostreliable thing. But women don't
(13:32):
appear that much. And, forexample, the Library of Congress
names authority file, or snackor you know, any of the more
formal databases. So we'retrying to get as much
information as we can about thewomen, even women that are just
mentioned, aren't friends, oryou know, they're just mentioned
in a letter, we still try toidentify them.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (13:52):
Not yet Follen. She's gonna get married
Kathryn Gehred (13:52):
That's so important. I came across the
after this letter. Okay. In thesame year, they met in the 1820s
same thing working with lettersof Martha Washington and how
many people you'll have to findyou could find who their husband
is, and it's like, this is justsome guy who owned a house. Why
does he get it? She doesn't. Sothe letter we're going to reach
Day is a letter from CatharineMaria Sedgwick to Eliza Cabot
(14:13):
Follen, who was Follen. And whatwas the relationship like Eliza Cabot?
through Elisa's cousin, SusanHiggins and Channing, who was a
good friend of Sedgwick. SoSusan Channing is a little bit
(14:34):
older. And Eliza fallin is ayear and a half older than
Katherine. And at this point,Cedric is 38 Eliza is 39 and a
half and about to get married,which is pretty impressive. And
it was Catherine Cedric, whoactually set her up with her
future husband, Charles fallen,who was a German immigrant who
(14:57):
said he learned English readingCatharine Sedgwick's. Now we'll
read with her second publicationand was a Unitarian himself. So
they have been correspondingsince early 18, twice about six
or seven years into therelationship, and she was a
family favorite. Eliza was veryhigh spirited and fun loving and
good friend of Sedgwick'sbrother, Robert, and she's an
(15:21):
abolitionist. She's a writerherself. She's writing poetry
and Sedgwick quotes one of herpoems at the beginning of her
third novel published in 1827.Hope Leslie, and they, as you'll
hear in the letter, they talkabout their publication. They
really are very, very close. AndI think that there might have
been romantic feelings. However,we all know from Carol Smith
(15:43):
Rosenberg, that that was common.But boy does she gushed in some
of her letters about you knowhow much she misses this other
piece of her. She's definitely avery, very close friend.
I'm glad to hear you say that because I was
picking up on a little bit ofthat as well. So what's going on
in Sedgwick's life at the timethat she wrote this letter.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (16:02):
We can try piecing that together, maybe
together. She's writing from NewYork, where she is living either
with her brother Robert, who isa lawyer, and in partnership
with her brother Henry, a littlebit older than Robert Robert was
the closest to her in age aboveher, and then she has her
younger brother, Charles, you'llhear that she's a little
depressed at the beginning ofthe letter, and I'm guessing
(16:23):
it's she's in New York, andshe's finished one book, and
it's out. What am I gonna donext? I'm just guessing
Patricia Kalayjian (16:30):
Her oldest sister had died the previous
year, I kind of think she hadseasonal affective disorder.
Kathryn Gehred (16:37):
I was gonna say it's February.
Patricia Kalayjian (16:38):
Exactly. Exactly. And you know, her moods
change seasonally, as do mostpeople's.
Kathryn Gehred (16:46):
Are there any people mentioned in the letter
that you want to introduce thatit'll help people understand as
we're reading it.
Patricia Kalayjian (16:51):
I'll leave some of them out because there
are a lot of people mentioned inthis letter. And I think that
that's indicative of how manyintersections lives that Eliza
and Catherine had. So eventhough Katherine lived mainly in
Western Massachusetts, andStockbridge in Lenox, that's
where she was raised. And thenalso in New York, she had a
(17:13):
large number of friends in theBoston area, which is where
Eliza Cabot lived. And shementioned several of them. So
the first one she mentioned isSusan Channing, who, as Cindy
said, was the license cousin andSedgwick's friend. Then there's
another Susan, and a Mary. Andthose are Eliza, sisters. And
(17:34):
Harry, he was pretty much herliterary agent. And then Harry's
wife, Jane, is originally fromBoston, and a part of the circle
of friends. That includesanother person that's named
early on. And that's CarolineDanforth. And then the second
set of people that are mentionedtend to be writers and editors.
(17:54):
So Eliza was a writer, and atranslator, and she's about to
launch a serial publication forjuvenile readers called the
WellSpan hour. So there's sometalk back and forth about
contributions to them. And thenthe third intersection is the
Unitarian Church, and bothSedgwick and fallin were early
and important members of whatwas then still a relatively new
(18:18):
denomination. For example,towards the end of the letter,
she talks about what a mess thenew congregation is, the New
York is in.
Kathryn Gehred (18:28):
I appreciate that you put the effort into
trying to identify all thesepeople. And I think that does
help sort of to understandwhat's going on. And now let's
dig into the letter.
Catharine Maria Sedgwick toEliza Cabot Follen, February 18,
1828
My Dear Eliza, It is a greatwhile since I have written to
(18:49):
you but I have felt assured thatyou were happy within, & without
- ‘in the house, & by the way’ -I have been & am in a torpid
condition. Feeling no power torouse myself, and having nothing
to impart, I hope I shall notsink into absolute nonentity.
But my tendencies are all thatway… I intended to have
answered a very kind andgratuitous letter from Susan
(19:12):
Channing before I wrote to you,but when I write to her, as it
is a rare occasion, I must callforth my energies, if any poking
& raking can enliven them. Toyou I have the privilege of
being as slip-shod & as stupidas I feel & of knowing dear
Eliza that you will bear withme. I received Mary’s very
kind letter & was truly rejoicedto know that she was safe in the
(19:34):
narrow house & ‘screaming amongher fellows.’ I should, you know
dear Eliza, rejoice to pillow myhead once more on your pillow, &
I think I could resign myself toa week of your vigils. But this
is not the time for me to go toBoston, for many reasons, &
therefore being very reasonableI shall not go. 3d March I
(19:56):
can hardly believe that so muchtime has passed away since I
have written to you. & but forthe fixture of the date on my
first page I would not believeit. Since then how many sweet
letters have I received fromyou! Not so very many either.
But two, worth a gross of mine.I begin to fear dearest E. that,
for the punishment of my sins, Iam denied ever finishing another
(20:18):
letter to you. I was called awayyesterday & before I could
return again I sprained my thumb- & now I write with very
uncomfortable sensations, but Ithink the pain is easier to bear
than to repress the desire towrite. You have been very sick
but even that, as Jane writesme, has not checked the ever
living fountain of your sweetspirit. You have found out &
(20:41):
most beautifully expressed inyour last letter the secret of
happiness. I have no doubt ofit, and I believe that a great
proportion of the suffering inthis world results from a
constant opposition to the willof God. Not always know[n] to be
such, often, very blind &ignorant, but sometimes alas
perverse, wilful. I think if itwere only required of us to be
(21:02):
passive, to sit still & be actedupon we might always attain
acquiescence - but when it comesto resisting our strongest
inclinations, to going exactlycounter to a course in which we
are impelled by a force strongerthan wind & tide, then what can
get us on but “being fellowworkers with God”?
there's a little bit of letterdamage.
(21:23):
I am glad you have undertaken awork, for which no one is so
well qualified & which may be soimportant. It is not affectation
in me when I say that I do notconsider myself capable of
aiding you, or at least ascapable as those whose
contributions are at yourcommand. If I were in Boston
where I could be stimulated anddirected I might do something. I
(21:44):
do not exactly understand yourplan. After I have seen your
first Number I shall know betterwhat you want. I have, simply
because you requested it,written a little piece which I
shall send to you by the firstopportunity. And if it does not
suit your purpose dear Eliza…throw it under the table. My
author pride is not at stake, &I would not have your partiality
(22:04):
for me obscure your editorial[gusto?] though, Heaven knows,
there is little of the elder[Brutus?] in your composition.
Do you know anything of poorMrs. Hale’s fate? She wrote me a
piteous letter, asking aid forher magazine. To have refused
her would have been sending awaya ‘starving beggar’ so I have
translated an article for herfrom the French “Revue Cy-” &
(22:26):
partly promised to continuecontributions. But Harry tells
me the work is a hopeless affair& that to contribute to it is
only to protract losses. Hergreat patron seems to be a Mr.
Blake, Rector of some church inBoston, who, judging from a
letter he wrote me, has all thecomplacency of the hierarchy
concentrated in himself. Ihave just finished a little
(22:47):
story for Roy’s ‘Legendary.’ Iwas provoked with myself after I
promised, & being far enoughfrom the working mood it proved
a poor affair. If you can getat the ‘Revue’ do get the Number
for September 1827, & read thememoir of Mad Guizot. It is
excessively interesting, andwill be particularly so to you.
(23:08):
I have just finished CyrilThornton. There is a good dea of
talent & an air of truth andreality about it that makes it
deeply interesting. And then thehero tells his own story without
one particle of egotism. Doyou Bostonians know any thing
about the dismal state of thenew church here? Have you not
one young man of talent & pietyamong you? Alas that church
(23:30):
tells a far worse tale of usthan Lewis Tappan. My Marianne’s
criticism was quite piquant onMr. Tappan. “Why?” she said,
“Did he not find out sooner howbad he was?” What will dear
Jeanie do without you &Caroline? I hope you will
persuade her to remain tillApril I have had a letter from
poor Mrs. Howe. She seems calmin sorrow. So deep. So
(23:54):
overwhelming. My best love toMary & Susan. What is poor Mary
to do if both you & Susan arequill-bound. She had better call
in my aid for I am quiteinclined to return to the
distaff. The natural duty ofwomen. I have received the
most exquisite Valentine youever saw purporting to be from
Sir Walter Scott. That it is notfrom him is too true, & that its
(24:17):
graceful couplets are indited bya false Valentine, a woman is
true also. But it is exquisite.
And then normally, there's asignature at the end of these,
but there's no signature forthis one, it's unsaved. I think
it's fantastic. I think you geta lot of her personality.
Towards the end when she's justadding these little notes. If
(24:38):
you can see the actual paperthat the letter is written on,
she's just throwing in littlesentences and ideas and writing
all around the edges of themanuscripts and even on the page
where she has the address. She'sjust getting as much as she
possibly can into this letter.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (24:53):
I had a miserable experience. I was
studying her correspondence withAnna Jamison which is 16 years
which is really good Exciting.And we have to always use the
microfilm first the scan of themicrofilm. So it's like third
generation to begin with. And itwas cross written the entire
letter, meaning that she writeshorizontally across the page
then turns the page 90 degreesand writes slightly larger. Han
(25:18):
fills the entire page a secondtime. My eyes were going crazy.
And I went to the masshistorical and I said, Can I
please see the original, and itcame out, and it's always
Christmas when you go there. Butwhen the letter came out with
brown ink, covered by red ink, Iscreeched with happiness. I
squealed just like the girls inthis letter, like, oh, yeah,
Kathryn Gehred (25:40):
That was thoughtful of her. Yeah.
Patricia Kalayjian (25:43):
The other thing was that paper was
expensive, and not easilyavailable. Postage could be
pricey. And you know, she usedletter sheets that folded into
four pages. And she really triedto fill it as much as she can,
you can see from actualphotograph of it on the third
page, she indents. And that'sfor the sealing wax on the other
(26:04):
side, so it doesn't bleedthrough and ruin the letter. But
she's really trying to say asmuch as she possibly can and
make the letter worthwhilebecause sometimes the letters if
they weren't by mail would bepaid for by the recipient. So
you want to make it worthwhileto your recipient. Somebody
jokes at some point, I thinkit's her youngest brother
Charles, who gives her a hardtime sometimes about all the
(26:26):
marginal writing all overeverything and filling every
inch of the paper.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (26:31):
Well that said, her brother's at least
Robert would say that he hasreread her letter, and that her
letters are like bomb to him. Soshe really had high standards
for what a good letter was andand sometimes that's a subject
of self derision. She'll say,oh, my gosh, I have said nothing
worthwhile in this letter.
Kathryn Gehred (26:49):
I like those letters. That's great. I haven't
really thought about that aspectof it of if your page receive a
letter, you hope there'ssomething good in it. This is
the last episode that we'rerecording of the season and
having it open with a line abouthow torpid sinking into absolute
non entity I fully understandthat feeling.
(27:12):
I thought that was funny. Yeah.So we talked a little bit how
she sort of starts out perhapsit is feels like sort of a
seasonal depression just doesn'tfeel like writing and that comes
up again later where she saysshe wasn't in the mood to write
a story. So it turned out to benot a great piece. Do you know
anything about that one?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (27:31):
Well, that was the rabbit hole I fell into
this morning. So the irony hereis that Mrs. Hales adventure of
editing the Ladies Magazine,which was in Boston at that time
before it was turned intoGoodey's Lady Book and
Philadelphia, that onesucceeded. And Nathaniel
Willis's she calls it Roy'slegendary Well, it was edited by
(27:52):
Nathaniel Willis and Roy was thepublisher. And his folded after
just two volumes. So it took mesome time to find the one had
just come out was published inDecember of 1827. So it's just
hit the stands. It's a gift bookannual. So she can't have been
writing the one story that we doknow, she submitted to him,
which was a very long story. 43pages. But this morning I was
(28:16):
going through after I found thesecond and last volume, there's
a story in there called thestepmother and a scholar in 1959
had attributed it to Sedgwick,but I had no idea of the basis
of that. But I can see she'susing events and names that
she's used before. It's it isn'ta very great story, at least on
the first read. Now that one's80 pages long. So I think this
(28:40):
is another unwritten joke. I'vewritten a small affair, and it's
not very good. Well, it's notvery good, in part because it
goes on and on and on.
Kathryn Gehred (28:49):
That completely changes the meaning of that
sentence to me now that youfound the story and it's 80
pages, that's hysterical. Okay,that's great. For these papers,
publishing projects, people arelike, Why does it take so long
when you're just transcribing aletter? Why can't you just
transcribe it and put it online?Well, she's mentioning casually,
a magazine that only releasedtwo issues. It takes such
(29:10):
digging to find these things andidentify them. So if you want it
to be a usable project, and youwant to have any type of useful
annotation at all, it can takesome time, and then you find
these really cool littlediscoveries. I like when she
talks about her friendship withEliza and she says, You know,
when she's writing to hercousin, she feels like she has
(29:32):
to be putting on a show. Butwhen she's writing to her, she
can be as slipshod and as stupidas I feel. That's a timeless
feeling. When you are readingthis letter, what's something
that sort of struck you as sortof snarky and funny?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (29:44):
When she gets a letter from the rector,
who is the patron for SusanHale? Judging from a letter he
wrote me has all the complacencyof the hierarchy concentrated in
himself. It's like, quite to putdown
Kathryn Gehred (29:58):
So good. The project that she's working on
with Mrs. Hale, which magazinewas that?
Patricia Kalayjian (30:04):
So this is Sarah Josepha Hale. She was an
author herself. She wrote atleast one novel called
Northwood. And she's most famousactually for editing First
Lady's magazine, which was theone that Reverend John Blake
founded and then sought her outto edit. And she did that for
about eight years. And then theladies magazine and goatees were
(30:28):
merged and hailed became theeditor of that as well. She was
an editor for almost 50 years ofthe most important, I think it
was the highest selling magazinein the United States. It had a
huge impact. And Sedgwick was acontributor to it over time, but
there were a lot of womenwriters that contributed to
(30:50):
goatees the founder was acongregationalist minister and
this Calvinist I can imagine alittle pomposity there. I mean,
it also points out that Harrywasn't infallible her brother,
in His judgment, thinking thathers is bound to fail. And, and
then it turns out that the onethat Nathaniel Parker Willis,
(31:11):
edited was, you know, kind of abig name back then, again, not
so well known today. That didn'tmake it.
Kathryn Gehred (31:17):
Yeah thats another thing. So with each of
these letters, you're gettingone person's perspective at a
certain moment. And sometimesthat perspective, aligns with
reality, and sometimes not,sometimes not so much. When she
says, I begin to fear my dear E,that for the punishment of my
sins, I'm denied ever finishinganother letter to that made me
laugh, I imagine she's trying towrite this letter. It's been
(31:38):
almost a month, and then shehurts her thumb. So she's
powering through it, she's gonnawrite this letter,
Patricia Kalayjian (31:44):
and then some other intrusion comes along
to to interrupt. She complainsabout that a little bit. And her
letters, especially when she'sin New York, that it's difficult
for her to sit down and workwhether it's writing a story or
writing a letter to many socialrequirements, you know, for a
(32:04):
famous woman, and all thosenieces and nephew.
Kathryn Gehred (32:09):
When she talks about, I received Mary's very
kind glitter was rejoice to knowthat she was safe in the narrow
house and screaming among herfellows. Do you know what's
going on there?
Patricia Kalayjian (32:20):
You know she was happy to be back among
friends and so on. The narrowhouse is the name that they gave
to the house that Eliza and hersisters Mary and Susan lived in
together as single women. SoMary was just coming home, and
screaming among her fellows, hersisters, happy to be back home.
Kathryn Gehred (32:39):
Narrow house with all of the women that are
all screaming among theirfellows. That's a great little
image.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (32:45):
That would just add that it really was a
narrow house, I believe, in partbecause they had narrowed
circumstances, the both parentshad died. And that's why they're
all living together. So ofcourse, there aren't any extra
guest rooms, so and it wascommon for people to share a bed
and share a pillow.
Kathryn Gehred (33:05):
week of your vigils. And like all they're
She has the next section talking about resigning
very close,
Patricia Kalayjian (33:08):
they are very close.
yourself to God's will andthings like that. And so we've
talked several times about heras a Unitarian and Unitarian
faith, does that come up a lotin her correspondence?
It does with Eliza, especially about this
(33:30):
time period, because they aretrying to get a minister into
this new church that has startedin New York. And Cedric feels
like the Boston people had kindof cornered the market on the
the great ministers, you know,and needed to be a little bit
more generous in sharing thewealth, the real crowd gathering
(33:53):
kinds of ministers,
Kathryn Gehred (33:54):
Have you not one young man of talent and piety
Patricia Kalayjian (33:57):
Yeah, she's actually I mean, she even gets
among you?
to the point where she's hopingthat after Eliza marries Charles
Follen, that who was ordained ofUnitarian minister as well, that
they would move to New York, andkind of share the pulpit. Why
she adores Eliza so much I thinkis she must have had kind of
(34:19):
very strong, I hate to use theword spiritual because it has
such a vague, foggy meaning tous now. But I think she really
thought that Eliza just kind ofhad the corner on the market of
really understanding her placein the universe. And probably
she would have said in anotherlife, if she'd known that what
was possible today, she wouldhave encouraged Eliza to be
(34:42):
minister.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (34:43):
I just wanted to add to the passage
where she says, I believe that agreat proportion of the
suffering in this world resultsfrom a constant opposition to
the will of God, not always toknow to be such, I think if it
are only required of us to bepassive to sit still and be
acted upon We might alwaysattain acquiescence. And I think
(35:03):
this ties to her fiction becauseshe is always saying it is not a
woman's role to be passive. Weare not required to be passive
we are required to be useful andactive and transact and but if
we have to wait some times it'smore of a wait and work rather
than being passive. You're stilldoing something to move forward.
(35:25):
And that's where the beingfellows workers with God comes
in. Cedric is raising money tostart a school for poor
children, a Sunday school, not achurch school as much as it is
held on Sunday to teach poorkids how to read and write Eliza
two is very active benevolentworker
Kathryn Gehred (35:42):
Was Catherine an abolitionist, or Eliza and
abolitionist?
Patricia Kalayjian (35:45):
Eliza was an abolitionist, Charles Follen was
an abolitionist, he got kickedout of the faculty of Harvard
for being too ardent, anabolitionist, and a lot of
Citrix friends wereabolitionists, she was anti
Lucinda Damon-Bach (35:58):
She has a lot of company, I mean, Emerson
slavery.
and Hawthorne and other peoplelike that, because there are
other people, especially womenat the time, who are really
active abolitionists, we thinkthat everybody should have been
actually it's interesting. Thestory that I think she may have
written around this time wasabout a mixed race romance. It
turns out to be Sedgwick, Ishouldn't even talk about it
(36:19):
till I know for sure, but thatwas definitely on her mind. She
has an interracial relationshipin her most recent novel in
1827.
Patricia Kalayjian (36:27):
I don't know whether it has come up yet or
not. Because I'm reading furtherahead than where this letter is
so hard for me to remember wherethings land, but Eliza Cabot's
brother was in a relationshipwith a Creole woman in the
Caribbean. And in fact, the wifeand the stepdaughter came to New
York, I think, or Boston, and itwas quite a scandal that this
(36:51):
member of a very, veryinfluential family, the Cabot's
have an interracial marriage.That's so interesting. And
Cedric was very sympathetic,didn't seem at all judgy in the
letters that pertain to that,but that's another story.
Another letter.
Kathryn Gehred (37:06):
Wow. And that's why you should go online.
Catharine Maria Sedgwickletters.
Patricia Kalayjian (37:11):
All right, let me see. I know, I know. You
wanted to ask about MadamGuizot.
Kathryn Gehred (37:18):
Yes, yes.
Patricia Kalayjian (37:19):
Pauline Guizot, was French writer and
journalist. And this isspeculation, but then that's
what we do. But I think Sedwickmight have thought that Eliza
would enjoy this memoir, PaulineGuizot had recently passed away.
And so this was a someonewriting a memoir that included
her because Pauline married aman who was 14 years younger
(37:41):
than she was. And Eliza wasabout to marry someone who is
nine years her junior. So just aguess, but you know, but maybe.
Kathryn Gehred (37:51):
That makes sense. Okay. I did want to
mention she has the line whereshe says, returning to the
distaff, the natural duty of awoman. What's she saying?
Patricia Kalayjian (38:01):
I think it's a joke. Cindy doesn't
necessarily I don't think.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (38:04):
I'm convinced! She did do a lot of
sewing. But I don't know thatshe ever did any weaving. She
did cooking for the family. Andshe writes about that. But I
think this is definitely a joke.Pat convinced me.
Patricia Kalayjian (38:15):
It's a reference to the distaff side,
the female side of things. Ithink you wondered if it was a
kind of feminist joke. And I'dlove to say, I think everybody
who studies Sedgwick would loveto say that she was an early
feminist. And I think in manyways, she is kind of maybe a
proto feminist, I think, to callher a feminist is is a bit of a
(38:36):
stretch. I mean, she chose to besingle. But she also in all of
her novels, the women start out,the protagonist start out
believing that they are going tobe single, and figure out a way
to make a meaningful lifewithout marriage, and then they
ended up being married at theend. But she did like Cindy said
(38:59):
she did do a lot of domesticchores. She sewed, cooked and
she nursed the sick. She weanedtheir babies, for her sisters in
law. I think she had more of achoice. It wasn't a necessity,
right? She could say, I'll dothis for you. I'll help this
way, whatever. And a runningjoke between Katherine and Eliza
(39:20):
is that Eliza and her one sisterSusan, were artists and writers
and doing more traditionallymasculine kinds of tasks to earn
money because they needed itwhile Mary was left to do the
domestic work. And then it'salso that Mary really likes
doing the domestic work.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (39:41):
And I do think once this short sketches
and stories are stirred into themix, so that it's not heavily
the research and familiarity isnot heavily based in novels, but
it includes the rest of the bodyof her work. You're gonna see
that she celebrates in hernonfiction sketches you can
figure out who It's who she iscelebrating single women who did
(40:03):
humble things, who helped theircommunity. And she's also
featuring feminist men. ButSedgwick really loved being a
mother and an aunt. And that wasnot something she wanted to give
up. And one of her brothers didsay her eldest brother actually,
Theodore said, if you getmarried, you're not going to
(40:23):
have time to write. And so therewas some support from her own
brothers about choosing her ownpath. And, and she didn't like
being alone all the time. Thefrustration of being single and
number two in people's lives,comes up all the time in her
letters.
Kathryn Gehred (40:39):
Clearly, it would be inaccurate, to describe
her as what we would think of asa feminist. But I think just
looking at the way she livedyour life and all of that, but
she definitely seems like aprogressive minded person. And
you could look at things shedoes and make an argument about
the place of woman at her time,for sure. The very last thing
(41:02):
she writes, that we have isabout the Valentine, Valentine,
that is not from Sir WalterScott, do we know anything about
what's going on there?
Patricia Kalayjian (41:10):
No.
Kathryn Gehred (41:13):
That's fair.
Patricia Kalayjian (41:14):
I can guess. I know that Susan was something
of an artist, Eliza sister. Andmaybe that's who she's referring
to, because she does tell thisstory, right. And Sedwick was a
big fan of Scott and quoted fromhim a lot. And probably based
(41:35):
maybe some of her characters atleast were inspired by
characters and Scott,
Lucinda Damon-Bach (41:40):
Somebody in that three girl household, you
know, because she knows it's awoman and she knows whose house
it came from. Yeah. Somebodywrote her Valentine.
Patricia Kalayjian (41:48):
Someone who would know her well enough to
know that she adored Scott,right?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (41:53):
Yes. And we'd love the joke. Yeah.
Kathryn Gehred (41:58):
But I love the idea that these things are
something that was treasured bythe family that they would keep
reading and rereading. And it'slike having the person with you.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (42:06):
Yeah and thanks to all her friends and
family, every time someone died,they shipped the letters back to
the Sedgwick. So we have thesecorrespondences. Yeah, just
Patricia Kalayjian (42:16):
Yeah it's quite a trove of letters. She
amazing.
came from a well known family.But you know, she's really a
standalone person. She's notknown because she's married to
somebody famous. She is knownfor her work, really.
Kathryn Gehred (42:29):
If somebody was interested in reading her
fiction, or any of her work, Isthere someplace you would
recommend for people to start?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (42:39):
Well, the one I use frequently in my
literature survey classes,ironically, it's not hopelessly
which is quite long, but peoplelove that that's our best known
novel. Hopelessly, hopelessly.It's sort of third book 1827 set
in the Puritan times 25 yearsbefore Hawthorne wrote his
scarlet letter. But New Englandtale is 16 chapters, and
(42:59):
somewhat autobiographical, seemsto be set in her own childhood
home. It gives you a sense ofhow she both is writing. Well,
it's a very first attempt. Soshe's writing to see if she can
write more than a short story.But she's also going out of
bounds. And I won't spoil it anymore than to say, it's not what
you think.
Kathryn Gehred (43:19):
Intriguing. Yeah. I was thinking, I think
one of the ways to popularizeris if we could get the
miniseries made out of one ofher novels,
Patricia Kalayjian (43:28):
Absolutely.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (43:29):
Oh, yeah.
Patricia Kalayjian (43:30):
And I think hopeless, they would be a great
miniseries.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (43:34):
But I would also make sure we give a plug to
the Sedgwick stories onlinearchive, that I'm co editor of
Deborah Gussman started it andthen I have been assigning my
students to transcribe and makenotes. And there are almost 100
stories up maybe 70 stories upthere now. So it's
Sedgwickstories.org. So theycould find a title and read a
(43:57):
sketch or a short story.
Kathryn Gehred (43:59):
That's great. Yeah. We'll link to that in the
show notes so people can checkthat out, they'll check your
project out. I think this is afantastic way to end our season
on wit. It's a great woodyletter. And I hope everybody
goes and reads all of theCatharine Maria Sedgwick stories
that they can.
Patricia Kalayjian (44:13):
Katy, it's really been a pleasure to talk
Lucinda Damon-Bach (44:15):
Thank you so much for this opportunity,
to you.
really.
Kathryn Gehred (44:18):
Well thank you so much for coming on Pat and
Cindy. It's been just a delight.Thank you so much for listening.
To my listeners. I am as ever,your most obedient and humble
servant. Thank you very much.Your Most Obedient and Humble
Servant is a production of R2Studios part of the Roy
(44:38):
Rosenzweig Center for Historyand New Media at George Mason
University. I'm Kathryn Gehred,the creator and host of this
podcast. Jeanette Patrick andJim Ambuske are the executive
producers. If you enjoyed thisepisode, be sure to listen to
past episodes and check out moregreat podcasts from R2 Studios.
We tell unexpected story He'sbased on the latest research to
(45:01):
connect listeners with the past.So head to R2 studios.org to
start listening
Hello, and welcome to Your Most Obedient
and Humble Servant. This is awomen's history podcast where we
feature 18th and early 19thcentury women's letters that
don't get as much attention aswe think they should. I'm your
host, Kathryn Gehred. Thisepisode is part of our season on
wit. Today I am so excited to bespeaking with Dr. Patricia
Kalayjian and Dr. LucindaDamon-Bach of The Catharine
(00:27):
Maria Sedgwick Online LettersProject. Dr. Kalayjian is
Professor Emerita ofInterdisciplinary Studies at
California State University andthe editor and project director
of the Sedgwick online lettersproject. Dr. Damon-Bach is an
editor of the project and aprofessor of English at Salem
State University. Thank you bothso much for being on the show.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (00:49):
Thank you.
Patricia Kalayjian (00:50):
Thanks so much for inviting us. We're
excited to talk about ourproject.
Kathryn Gehred (00:54):
I first heard about this at a conference of
the Association of documentaryediting. And I thought it just
seemed absolutely perfect. AndI've been using your website and
digging through these lettersever since Pat as the project
director, can you tell me alittle bit more about the
project? How did it come to be?
Patricia Kalayjian (01:11):
Well, thanks for asking. Our project is a
Kathryn Gehred (01:11):
When you say board digital, do you mean that
born digital edition of Americanauthor Catharine Maria
Sedgwick's outgoing letters.When Cindy and I with our third
editorial board member whocouldn't be here today, Deborah
Gussman started this project, wewere really motivated by the
absence of scholarlyinfrastructure for Sedgwick
(01:31):
scholars. There is no fullbiography for example, the bulk
of Sedgwick's letters are at theMassachusetts Historical
Society. And most of those havebeen scanned in microfilm. But
microfilm doesn't make thingseasy to access, and so they
remain out of reach for mostscholars, several 100 more
letters are scattered inarchives around the country and
(01:53):
in Europe. So making Sedgwick'sletters available in
transcription seemed like agreat way to encourage more
incisive research and analysis.Because we're trained as
literary scholars and nothistorians, we began by going to
camp edit, and editing workshopssponsored by the Association for
documentary editing. And then in2017, we were invited to be a
(02:15):
founding edition of a digitalhub that is now the primary
source cooperative at theMassachusetts Historical
Society. And then we receivedour first National Endowment for
the Humanities, it's called thescholarly editions and
translations grant, we receivedthat in 2019. And then we were
just recently refunded foranother two years this past January.
(02:40):
you're not planning onpublishing a paper edition?
Unknown (02:43):
That is correct. We did think about doing a print
edition. And it still may be alittle bit in the back of
Cindy's head anyway, not mine.With this technology, it just
makes things so much easier toaccess. And it's so much more
democratizing than just havingprint editions in university
libraries.
Kathryn Gehred (03:02):
I think that makes a ton of sense. So you
talked about how it's a littlebit difficult to access her
papers. And there may be hasn'tbeen a lot of study on Catharine
Maria Sedgwick, who wasCatherine Maria Sedgwick, and
why are we putting her papersonline.
Unknown (03:16):
She was the most highly regarded woman writer of the
early national period ofAmerican literature. By the mid
1820s, she was praised as thenation's premier author us we
put that in air quotes. Andwithin the next decade, her work
had been republished in Englandand translated to French and
German, Italian, Swedish, Dutchand Danish. She wrote in a lot
(03:39):
of different genres. She wrotenovels and short stories,
sketches, didactic novellas,biography, travel books, and she
wrote for a variety ofaudiences, she wrote for
educated adult audiences,juveniles, kind of an elite
class working class readers, shereally ran the gamut. She
(04:00):
published 20 books and more than150 Short works in her career.
And we always like to bring thisup as a measure of her really
exceptional fame. In 1834, shewas selected for inclusion in
the first volume of The NationalPortrait Gallery of
Distinguished Americans. She wasone of only four writers
(04:20):
included, and the only womanbesides Martha Washington.
Kathryn Gehred (04:23):
Wow. As a former editor of the Martha Washington
papers, were in an exclusiveclub.
Why do you think after this sortof exceptional level of fame,
she's translated and all theselanguages? I've never heard of
her. I imagine that a lot of ourlisteners will not have heard of
her. Why do you think that is?
Unknown (04:41):
Well, I think in spite of her fame among her
contemporaries, Sedgwick'sreputation and her work were
really this is like so many,like most women writers actually
either demeaned or ignored. Bythe late 19th and early 20th
Century Literary historians andand theologist there's a
(05:02):
demonstrable, masculines bias inthe development of the American
literary canon. And it takes alot of effort over time to
change the perception ofliterary history. Especially
after it's been there for like100 years. So we're working on
it. We're trying to change that.But, you know, it takes time.
(05:24):
But we think that this ischanging. Her work has been a
successful part of the womenwriters recovery movement that
was undertaken by literaryscholars from about 1980 on and
there's growing evidence thatshe's being reintegrated into
the canon and into literaryhistory. The Catharine Maria
Sedgwick Society that wasfounded by Cindy has been going
(05:46):
strong for more than 25 years.It encourages scholarship and
connects Sedgwick to otherwriters of her era, both men and
women. All six of her majornovels are now available in
print and scholarly editions anda couple in more popular
editions. And her short fictionis now in college level
(06:07):
anthologies. These are all bigimportant steps towards making
someone canonical. And in fact,one study found her to be among
the top 12 authors now taughtand 19th century American
literature survey courses. Sothat's great. It's working.
Kathryn Gehred (06:26):
That's fabulous. I've been saying Maria as a
Catharine Maria Sedgwick,
Patricia Kalayjian (06:30):
We don't really know. I say Mariah. You
say Maria doesn't matter.
Kathryn Gehred (06:35):
What does the Catherine Mariah centric
society? Do? Is it like a fanclub?
Patricia Kalayjian (06:39):
No. Well, yes. And no, it is a fan club.
But it says scholarly fan club.Cindy, you should talk about
this.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (06:47):
Well, our goal was to find each other
first in 1997, after our mazingconference on women writers at
Trinity College, you know, itwas important to meet people who
were already familiar withSedgwick. And now, Susan K.
Harris, complimented us at oneof conference when she was the
keynote speaker and said, youknow, now we can say there's
(07:09):
such a field as Sedgwickstudies. It's pretty, pretty
awesome. And we've mentoredyoung scholars now. And they're
now not so young and taking leadroles. After 20 years, I finally
stepped down. But it's goingstrong. I think I'm really
proud.
Kathryn Gehred (07:24):
That's fantastic. You mentioned that
your background is in sort ofEnglish and literary studies.
From that perspective. How wouldyou describe her letters? What
do you think is important aboutmaking her letters available?
And when you first sort ofdiscovered and started working
with her letters, what did ittell you about Katherine?
Patricia Kalayjian (07:45):
We think that her letters are fascinating
on a whole variety of levels. Westarted with the idea that it
would give insight into herwork, the situations she found
herself in and then weretransported into her fiction.
But you know, she's just anengaging writer. In her letters.
(08:05):
She's smart, and she's witty.She's snarky, at times, very
snarky. We, in fact, we jokearound that we need to have a
tag for her snark. She's reallyI mean, amazingly open about her
feelings, which I think issomething that maybe is a lost
art to write publicly, if youwill, I mean, at least to a
(08:27):
reader about how you're feeling.She doesn't seem to have a huge
ego. So there's none of thatsort of posing, or posturing
that you might find in others.In that context of the 19th
century or early 19th century.She's a single woman by choice
in a world that valued marriage.But she didn't live as a single
(08:50):
woman alone. She lived in thefamily homes of her brothers and
sisters. And she seems to havegotten along with just about
everybody in her family. She hadsix siblings, they all married,
and I think she had 37 niecesand nephews.
Kathryn Gehred (09:07):
wow
Patricia Kalayjian (09:08):
And she communicated with a lot of them
and helped raise a lot of them.On top of that, so she had this
intimate knowledge of theprivate world of women. But then
she also had this public side toher where she was extremely well
known. She traveled widely. Shewas a successful author, and
(09:28):
really could have livedindependently. She made plenty
of money to do that. She justseemed comfortable in that
family setting.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (09:38):
I think the one that we picked for today is
one of the best to use becauseit touches on her religion as a
Unitarian on her socialnetworks, people beyond her
immediate family, as well as herintimate relationships with the
people she's talking about inthe letter. And it talks about
what she's reading and whatshe's translating, which is
(09:59):
another whole I'd have her andwhat she's recently submitted
that I was trying to find thismorning, an unsigned piece. And
it's funny. I mean, we alsowish, not just a snarky label,
but just one for funny, youknow, making jokes. The Cedric
family was a fun family, peoplereally liked them. They had
great conversations, and theyplayed family games, and were
(10:20):
well loved in their towns. Andin New York City where she
lived. Two of her brothers werelawyers in New York City. So she
also talks about village lifeand urban life, which is pretty
extraordinary, as well as lifeabroad.
Kathryn Gehred (10:33):
It's interesting to me that she was so successful
and financially stable, and thenshe sort of chose to live that
lifestyle of staying with familymembers, which and a lot of the
other women's letters. So Icover sometimes it seems that
women are sort of forced to dothat, if their husband dies it
or something like that, they endup in debt, they sort of are
dependent on family, I imagined,it's just one of the few options
(10:54):
that women had at the timeperiod. But that she has such a
well connected, interestingfamily, it's less of something
that she's trapped in and mightbe something that she really
enjoyed.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (11:05):
I would say absolutely, that she was living
in a family totally by choice.She really wanted to have a
child this way she got children,for her to be useful was really
important and to be contributingmember and helping people. And
that was just a core of heridentity. So she wasn't sitting
around being a guest in hersiblings houses, she was a
(11:28):
crucial piece.
Kathryn Gehred (11:30):
Interesting. Do you feel like knowing more about
her life and interacting withyour letters and editing your
letters? Has that changed theway that you interact with her
fiction?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (11:39):
Definitely. Through her letters, you get to
see insights into scenes and hernovels and short stories. And
also her writing anxiety. Shewrites a fair number of
sketches, and they're closelybased on events in her own life.
So the conversations and thesettings and the current events.
(12:00):
It's been really fascinating tome,
Kathryn Gehred (12:02):
That's so fascinating. So what goals do
you have for the central papersonline project?
Patricia Kalayjian (12:08):
Our original goal was to publish the full
content of all her outgoingletters on expurgated, we don't
make any editorial choices otherthan Is this a dash or a comma?
We really try to stick to thecontent.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (12:23):
I'm quoting Pat, our biggest goal is to
rewrite American literaryhistory. She's clearly a crucial
piece. And the other goal is whowill use them, you know,
everyone besides Sedgwickscholars, or even scholars of
19th century women's literature,I think historians, I really
hope secondary school teachers,one of the things that
(12:44):
encouraged us was there was oneaddition of her letters
published in 1871. As a tributeto her she had died in 1867. I
did a search how many people hadsearched for Dewey's life and
letters of Catharine Sedgwick,and I found people from all
walks of life, you know, besidesdoctors and historians, you
(13:05):
know, and Women's Studiespeople, but there were people
interested in cooking andtravels.
Patricia Kalayjian (13:11):
Another goal that we kind of developed as we
were doing the digital editionand working with the metadata
and tagging and so on is thatwe've really committed ourselves
to identifying women that arementioned in this sometimes we
can only find them and somethinglike Find A Grave, you know,
it's not the world's mostreliable thing. But women don't
(13:32):
appear that much. And, forexample, the Library of Congress
names authority file, or snackor you know, any of the more
formal databases. So we'retrying to get as much
information as we can about thewomen, even women that are just
mentioned, aren't friends, oryou know, they're just mentioned
in a letter, we still try toidentify them.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (13:52):
Not yet Follen. She's gonna get married
Kathryn Gehred (13:52):
That's so important. I came across the
after this letter. Okay. In thesame year, they met in the 1820s
same thing working with lettersof Martha Washington and how
many people you'll have to findyou could find who their husband
is, and it's like, this is justsome guy who owned a house. Why
does he get it? She doesn't. Sothe letter we're going to reach
Day is a letter from CatharineMaria Sedgwick to Eliza Cabot
(14:13):
Follen, who was Follen. And whatwas the relationship like Eliza Cabot?
through Elisa's cousin, SusanHiggins and Channing, who was a
good friend of Sedgwick. SoSusan Channing is a little bit
(14:34):
older. And Eliza fallin is ayear and a half older than
Katherine. And at this point,Cedric is 38 Eliza is 39 and a
half and about to get married,which is pretty impressive. And
it was Catherine Cedric, whoactually set her up with her
future husband, Charles fallen,who was a German immigrant who
(14:57):
said he learned English readingCatharine Sedgwick's. Now we'll
read with her second publicationand was a Unitarian himself. So
they have been correspondingsince early 18, twice about six
or seven years into therelationship, and she was a
family favorite. Eliza was veryhigh spirited and fun loving and
good friend of Sedgwick'sbrother, Robert, and she's an
(15:21):
abolitionist. She's a writerherself. She's writing poetry
and Sedgwick quotes one of herpoems at the beginning of her
third novel published in 1827.Hope Leslie, and they, as you'll
hear in the letter, they talkabout their publication. They
really are very, very close. AndI think that there might have
been romantic feelings. However,we all know from Carol Smith
(15:43):
Rosenberg, that that was common.But boy does she gushed in some
of her letters about you knowhow much she misses this other
piece of her. She's definitely avery, very close friend.
I'm glad to hear you say that because I was
picking up on a little bit ofthat as well. So what's going on
in Sedgwick's life at the timethat she wrote this letter.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (16:02):
We can try piecing that together, maybe
together. She's writing from NewYork, where she is living either
with her brother Robert, who isa lawyer, and in partnership
with her brother Henry, a littlebit older than Robert Robert was
the closest to her in age aboveher, and then she has her
younger brother, Charles, you'llhear that she's a little
depressed at the beginning ofthe letter, and I'm guessing
(16:23):
it's she's in New York, andshe's finished one book, and
it's out. What am I gonna donext? I'm just guessing
Patricia Kalayjian (16:30):
Her oldest sister had died the previous
year, I kind of think she hadseasonal affective disorder.
Kathryn Gehred (16:37):
I was gonna say it's February.
Patricia Kalayjian (16:38):
Exactly. Exactly. And you know, her moods
change seasonally, as do mostpeople's.
Kathryn Gehred (16:46):
Are there any people mentioned in the letter
that you want to introduce thatit'll help people understand as
we're reading it.
Patricia Kalayjian (16:51):
I'll leave some of them out because there
are a lot of people mentioned inthis letter. And I think that
that's indicative of how manyintersections lives that Eliza
and Catherine had. So eventhough Katherine lived mainly in
Western Massachusetts, andStockbridge in Lenox, that's
where she was raised. And thenalso in New York, she had a
(17:13):
large number of friends in theBoston area, which is where
Eliza Cabot lived. And shementioned several of them. So
the first one she mentioned isSusan Channing, who, as Cindy
said, was the license cousin andSedgwick's friend. Then there's
another Susan, and a Mary. Andthose are Eliza, sisters. And
(17:34):
Harry, he was pretty much herliterary agent. And then Harry's
wife, Jane, is originally fromBoston, and a part of the circle
of friends. That includesanother person that's named
early on. And that's CarolineDanforth. And then the second
set of people that are mentionedtend to be writers and editors.
(17:54):
So Eliza was a writer, and atranslator, and she's about to
launch a serial publication forjuvenile readers called the
WellSpan hour. So there's sometalk back and forth about
contributions to them. And thenthe third intersection is the
Unitarian Church, and bothSedgwick and fallin were early
and important members of whatwas then still a relatively new
(18:18):
denomination. For example,towards the end of the letter,
she talks about what a mess thenew congregation is, the New
York is in.
Kathryn Gehred (18:28):
I appreciate that you put the effort into
trying to identify all thesepeople. And I think that does
help sort of to understandwhat's going on. And now let's
dig into the letter.
Catharine Maria Sedgwick toEliza Cabot Follen, February 18,
1828
My Dear Eliza, It is a greatwhile since I have written to
(18:49):
you but I have felt assured thatyou were happy within, & without
- ‘in the house, & by the way’ -I have been & am in a torpid
condition. Feeling no power torouse myself, and having nothing
to impart, I hope I shall notsink into absolute nonentity.
But my tendencies are all thatway… I intended to have
answered a very kind andgratuitous letter from Susan
(19:12):
Channing before I wrote to you,but when I write to her, as it
is a rare occasion, I must callforth my energies, if any poking
& raking can enliven them. Toyou I have the privilege of
being as slip-shod & as stupidas I feel & of knowing dear
Eliza that you will bear withme. I received Mary’s very
kind letter & was truly rejoicedto know that she was safe in the
(19:34):
narrow house & ‘screaming amongher fellows.’ I should, you know
dear Eliza, rejoice to pillow myhead once more on your pillow, &
I think I could resign myself toa week of your vigils. But this
is not the time for me to go toBoston, for many reasons, &
therefore being very reasonableI shall not go. 3d March I
(19:56):
can hardly believe that so muchtime has passed away since I
have written to you. & but forthe fixture of the date on my
first page I would not believeit. Since then how many sweet
letters have I received fromyou! Not so very many either.
But two, worth a gross of mine.I begin to fear dearest E. that,
for the punishment of my sins, Iam denied ever finishing another
(20:18):
letter to you. I was called awayyesterday & before I could
return again I sprained my thumb- & now I write with very
uncomfortable sensations, but Ithink the pain is easier to bear
than to repress the desire towrite. You have been very sick
but even that, as Jane writesme, has not checked the ever
living fountain of your sweetspirit. You have found out &
(20:41):
most beautifully expressed inyour last letter the secret of
happiness. I have no doubt ofit, and I believe that a great
proportion of the suffering inthis world results from a
constant opposition to the willof God. Not always know[n] to be
such, often, very blind &ignorant, but sometimes alas
perverse, wilful. I think if itwere only required of us to be
(21:02):
passive, to sit still & be actedupon we might always attain
acquiescence - but when it comesto resisting our strongest
inclinations, to going exactlycounter to a course in which we
are impelled by a force strongerthan wind & tide, then what can
get us on but “being fellowworkers with God”?
there's a little bit of letterdamage.
(21:23):
I am glad you have undertaken awork, for which no one is so
well qualified & which may be soimportant. It is not affectation
in me when I say that I do notconsider myself capable of
aiding you, or at least ascapable as those whose
contributions are at yourcommand. If I were in Boston
where I could be stimulated anddirected I might do something. I
(21:44):
do not exactly understand yourplan. After I have seen your
first Number I shall know betterwhat you want. I have, simply
because you requested it,written a little piece which I
shall send to you by the firstopportunity. And if it does not
suit your purpose dear Eliza…throw it under the table. My
author pride is not at stake, &I would not have your partiality
(22:04):
for me obscure your editorial[gusto?] though, Heaven knows,
there is little of the elder[Brutus?] in your composition.
Do you know anything of poorMrs. Hale’s fate? She wrote me a
piteous letter, asking aid forher magazine. To have refused
her would have been sending awaya ‘starving beggar’ so I have
translated an article for herfrom the French “Revue Cy-” &
(22:26):
partly promised to continuecontributions. But Harry tells
me the work is a hopeless affair& that to contribute to it is
only to protract losses. Hergreat patron seems to be a Mr.
Blake, Rector of some church inBoston, who, judging from a
letter he wrote me, has all thecomplacency of the hierarchy
concentrated in himself. Ihave just finished a little
(22:47):
story for Roy’s ‘Legendary.’ Iwas provoked with myself after I
promised, & being far enoughfrom the working mood it proved
a poor affair. If you can getat the ‘Revue’ do get the Number
for September 1827, & read thememoir of Mad Guizot. It is
excessively interesting, andwill be particularly so to you.
(23:08):
I have just finished CyrilThornton. There is a good dea of
talent & an air of truth andreality about it that makes it
deeply interesting. And then thehero tells his own story without
one particle of egotism. Doyou Bostonians know any thing
about the dismal state of thenew church here? Have you not
one young man of talent & pietyamong you? Alas that church
(23:30):
tells a far worse tale of usthan Lewis Tappan. My Marianne’s
criticism was quite piquant onMr. Tappan. “Why?” she said,
“Did he not find out sooner howbad he was?” What will dear
Jeanie do without you &Caroline? I hope you will
persuade her to remain tillApril I have had a letter from
poor Mrs. Howe. She seems calmin sorrow. So deep. So
(23:54):
overwhelming. My best love toMary & Susan. What is poor Mary
to do if both you & Susan arequill-bound. She had better call
in my aid for I am quiteinclined to return to the
distaff. The natural duty ofwomen. I have received the
most exquisite Valentine youever saw purporting to be from
Sir Walter Scott. That it is notfrom him is too true, & that its
(24:17):
graceful couplets are indited bya false Valentine, a woman is
true also. But it is exquisite.
And then normally, there's asignature at the end of these,
but there's no signature forthis one, it's unsaved. I think
it's fantastic. I think you geta lot of her personality.
Towards the end when she's justadding these little notes. If
(24:38):
you can see the actual paperthat the letter is written on,
she's just throwing in littlesentences and ideas and writing
all around the edges of themanuscripts and even on the page
where she has the address. She'sjust getting as much as she
possibly can into this letter.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (24:53):
I had a miserable experience. I was
studying her correspondence withAnna Jamison which is 16 years
which is really good Exciting.And we have to always use the
microfilm first the scan of themicrofilm. So it's like third
generation to begin with. And itwas cross written the entire
letter, meaning that she writeshorizontally across the page
then turns the page 90 degreesand writes slightly larger. Han
(25:18):
fills the entire page a secondtime. My eyes were going crazy.
And I went to the masshistorical and I said, Can I
please see the original, and itcame out, and it's always
Christmas when you go there. Butwhen the letter came out with
brown ink, covered by red ink, Iscreeched with happiness. I
squealed just like the girls inthis letter, like, oh, yeah,
Kathryn Gehred (25:40):
That was thoughtful of her. Yeah.
Patricia Kalayjian (25:43):
The other thing was that paper was
expensive, and not easilyavailable. Postage could be
pricey. And you know, she usedletter sheets that folded into
four pages. And she really triedto fill it as much as she can,
you can see from actualphotograph of it on the third
page, she indents. And that'sfor the sealing wax on the other
(26:04):
side, so it doesn't bleedthrough and ruin the letter. But
she's really trying to say asmuch as she possibly can and
make the letter worthwhilebecause sometimes the letters if
they weren't by mail would bepaid for by the recipient. So
you want to make it worthwhileto your recipient. Somebody
jokes at some point, I thinkit's her youngest brother
Charles, who gives her a hardtime sometimes about all the
(26:26):
marginal writing all overeverything and filling every
inch of the paper.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (26:31):
Well that said, her brother's at least
Robert would say that he hasreread her letter, and that her
letters are like bomb to him. Soshe really had high standards
for what a good letter was andand sometimes that's a subject
of self derision. She'll say,oh, my gosh, I have said nothing
worthwhile in this letter.
Kathryn Gehred (26:49):
I like those letters. That's great. I haven't
really thought about that aspectof it of if your page receive a
letter, you hope there'ssomething good in it. This is
the last episode that we'rerecording of the season and
having it open with a line abouthow torpid sinking into absolute
non entity I fully understandthat feeling.
(27:12):
I thought that was funny. Yeah.So we talked a little bit how
she sort of starts out perhapsit is feels like sort of a
seasonal depression just doesn'tfeel like writing and that comes
up again later where she saysshe wasn't in the mood to write
a story. So it turned out to benot a great piece. Do you know
anything about that one?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (27:31):
Well, that was the rabbit hole I fell into
this morning. So the irony hereis that Mrs. Hales adventure of
editing the Ladies Magazine,which was in Boston at that time
before it was turned intoGoodey's Lady Book and
Philadelphia, that onesucceeded. And Nathaniel
Willis's she calls it Roy'slegendary Well, it was edited by
(27:52):
Nathaniel Willis and Roy was thepublisher. And his folded after
just two volumes. So it took mesome time to find the one had
just come out was published inDecember of 1827. So it's just
hit the stands. It's a gift bookannual. So she can't have been
writing the one story that we doknow, she submitted to him,
which was a very long story. 43pages. But this morning I was
(28:16):
going through after I found thesecond and last volume, there's
a story in there called thestepmother and a scholar in 1959
had attributed it to Sedgwick,but I had no idea of the basis
of that. But I can see she'susing events and names that
she's used before. It's it isn'ta very great story, at least on
the first read. Now that one's80 pages long. So I think this
(28:40):
is another unwritten joke. I'vewritten a small affair, and it's
not very good. Well, it's notvery good, in part because it
goes on and on and on.
Kathryn Gehred (28:49):
That completely changes the meaning of that
sentence to me now that youfound the story and it's 80
pages, that's hysterical. Okay,that's great. For these papers,
publishing projects, people arelike, Why does it take so long
when you're just transcribing aletter? Why can't you just
transcribe it and put it online?Well, she's mentioning casually,
a magazine that only releasedtwo issues. It takes such
(29:10):
digging to find these things andidentify them. So if you want it
to be a usable project, and youwant to have any type of useful
annotation at all, it can takesome time, and then you find
these really cool littlediscoveries. I like when she
talks about her friendship withEliza and she says, You know,
when she's writing to hercousin, she feels like she has
(29:32):
to be putting on a show. Butwhen she's writing to her, she
can be as slipshod and as stupidas I feel. That's a timeless
feeling. When you are readingthis letter, what's something
that sort of struck you as sortof snarky and funny?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (29:44):
When she gets a letter from the rector,
who is the patron for SusanHale? Judging from a letter he
wrote me has all the complacencyof the hierarchy concentrated in
himself. It's like, quite to putdown
Kathryn Gehred (29:58):
So good. The project that she's working on
with Mrs. Hale, which magazinewas that?
Patricia Kalayjian (30:04):
So this is Sarah Josepha Hale. She was an
author herself. She wrote atleast one novel called
Northwood. And she's most famousactually for editing First
Lady's magazine, which was theone that Reverend John Blake
founded and then sought her outto edit. And she did that for
about eight years. And then theladies magazine and goatees were
(30:28):
merged and hailed became theeditor of that as well. She was
an editor for almost 50 years ofthe most important, I think it
was the highest selling magazinein the United States. It had a
huge impact. And Sedgwick was acontributor to it over time, but
there were a lot of womenwriters that contributed to
(30:50):
goatees the founder was acongregationalist minister and
this Calvinist I can imagine alittle pomposity there. I mean,
it also points out that Harrywasn't infallible her brother,
in His judgment, thinking thathers is bound to fail. And, and
then it turns out that the onethat Nathaniel Parker Willis,
(31:11):
edited was, you know, kind of abig name back then, again, not
so well known today. That didn'tmake it.
Kathryn Gehred (31:17):
Yeah thats another thing. So with each of
these letters, you're gettingone person's perspective at a
certain moment. And sometimesthat perspective, aligns with
reality, and sometimes not,sometimes not so much. When she
says, I begin to fear my dear E,that for the punishment of my
sins, I'm denied ever finishinganother letter to that made me
laugh, I imagine she's trying towrite this letter. It's been
(31:38):
almost a month, and then shehurts her thumb. So she's
powering through it, she's gonnawrite this letter,
Patricia Kalayjian (31:44):
and then some other intrusion comes along
to to interrupt. She complainsabout that a little bit. And her
letters, especially when she'sin New York, that it's difficult
for her to sit down and workwhether it's writing a story or
writing a letter to many socialrequirements, you know, for a
(32:04):
famous woman, and all thosenieces and nephew.
Kathryn Gehred (32:09):
When she talks about, I received Mary's very
kind glitter was rejoice to knowthat she was safe in the narrow
house and screaming among herfellows. Do you know what's
going on there?
Patricia Kalayjian (32:20):
You know she was happy to be back among
friends and so on. The narrowhouse is the name that they gave
to the house that Eliza and hersisters Mary and Susan lived in
together as single women. SoMary was just coming home, and
screaming among her fellows, hersisters, happy to be back home.
Kathryn Gehred (32:39):
Narrow house with all of the women that are
all screaming among theirfellows. That's a great little
image.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (32:45):
That would just add that it really was a
narrow house, I believe, in partbecause they had narrowed
circumstances, the both parentshad died. And that's why they're
all living together. So ofcourse, there aren't any extra
guest rooms, so and it wascommon for people to share a bed
and share a pillow.
Kathryn Gehred (33:05):
week of your vigils. And like all they're
She has the next section talking about resigning
very close,
Patricia Kalayjian (33:08):
they are very close.
yourself to God's will andthings like that. And so we've
talked several times about heras a Unitarian and Unitarian
faith, does that come up a lotin her correspondence?
It does with Eliza, especially about this
(33:30):
time period, because they aretrying to get a minister into
this new church that has startedin New York. And Cedric feels
like the Boston people had kindof cornered the market on the
the great ministers, you know,and needed to be a little bit
more generous in sharing thewealth, the real crowd gathering
(33:53):
kinds of ministers,
Kathryn Gehred (33:54):
Have you not one young man of talent and piety
Patricia Kalayjian (33:57):
Yeah, she's actually I mean, she even gets
among you?
to the point where she's hopingthat after Eliza marries Charles
Follen, that who was ordained ofUnitarian minister as well, that
they would move to New York, andkind of share the pulpit. Why
she adores Eliza so much I thinkis she must have had kind of
(34:19):
very strong, I hate to use theword spiritual because it has
such a vague, foggy meaning tous now. But I think she really
thought that Eliza just kind ofhad the corner on the market of
really understanding her placein the universe. And probably
she would have said in anotherlife, if she'd known that what
was possible today, she wouldhave encouraged Eliza to be
(34:42):
minister.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (34:43):
I just wanted to add to the passage
where she says, I believe that agreat proportion of the
suffering in this world resultsfrom a constant opposition to
the will of God, not always toknow to be such, I think if it
are only required of us to bepassive to sit still and be
acted upon We might alwaysattain acquiescence. And I think
(35:03):
this ties to her fiction becauseshe is always saying it is not a
woman's role to be passive. Weare not required to be passive
we are required to be useful andactive and transact and but if
we have to wait some times it'smore of a wait and work rather
than being passive. You're stilldoing something to move forward.
(35:25):
And that's where the beingfellows workers with God comes
in. Cedric is raising money tostart a school for poor
children, a Sunday school, not achurch school as much as it is
held on Sunday to teach poorkids how to read and write Eliza
two is very active benevolentworker
Kathryn Gehred (35:42):
Was Catherine an abolitionist, or Eliza and
abolitionist?
Patricia Kalayjian (35:45):
Eliza was an abolitionist, Charles Follen was
an abolitionist, he got kickedout of the faculty of Harvard
for being too ardent, anabolitionist, and a lot of
Citrix friends wereabolitionists, she was anti
Lucinda Damon-Bach (35:58):
She has a lot of company, I mean, Emerson
slavery.
and Hawthorne and other peoplelike that, because there are
other people, especially womenat the time, who are really
active abolitionists, we thinkthat everybody should have been
actually it's interesting. Thestory that I think she may have
written around this time wasabout a mixed race romance. It
turns out to be Sedgwick, Ishouldn't even talk about it
(36:19):
till I know for sure, but thatwas definitely on her mind. She
has an interracial relationshipin her most recent novel in
1827.
Patricia Kalayjian (36:27):
I don't know whether it has come up yet or
not. Because I'm reading furtherahead than where this letter is
so hard for me to remember wherethings land, but Eliza Cabot's
brother was in a relationshipwith a Creole woman in the
Caribbean. And in fact, the wifeand the stepdaughter came to New
York, I think, or Boston, and itwas quite a scandal that this
(36:51):
member of a very, veryinfluential family, the Cabot's
have an interracial marriage.That's so interesting. And
Cedric was very sympathetic,didn't seem at all judgy in the
letters that pertain to that,but that's another story.
Another letter.
Kathryn Gehred (37:06):
Wow. And that's why you should go online.
Catharine Maria Sedgwickletters.
Patricia Kalayjian (37:11):
All right, let me see. I know, I know. You
wanted to ask about MadamGuizot.
Kathryn Gehred (37:18):
Yes, yes.
Patricia Kalayjian (37:19):
Pauline Guizot, was French writer and
journalist. And this isspeculation, but then that's
what we do. But I think Sedwickmight have thought that Eliza
would enjoy this memoir, PaulineGuizot had recently passed away.
And so this was a someonewriting a memoir that included
her because Pauline married aman who was 14 years younger
(37:41):
than she was. And Eliza wasabout to marry someone who is
nine years her junior. So just aguess, but you know, but maybe.
Kathryn Gehred (37:51):
That makes sense. Okay. I did want to
mention she has the line whereshe says, returning to the
distaff, the natural duty of awoman. What's she saying?
Patricia Kalayjian (38:01):
I think it's a joke. Cindy doesn't
necessarily I don't think.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (38:04):
I'm convinced! She did do a lot of
sewing. But I don't know thatshe ever did any weaving. She
did cooking for the family. Andshe writes about that. But I
think this is definitely a joke.Pat convinced me.
Patricia Kalayjian (38:15):
It's a reference to the distaff side,
the female side of things. Ithink you wondered if it was a
kind of feminist joke. And I'dlove to say, I think everybody
who studies Sedgwick would loveto say that she was an early
feminist. And I think in manyways, she is kind of maybe a
proto feminist, I think, to callher a feminist is is a bit of a
(38:36):
stretch. I mean, she chose to besingle. But she also in all of
her novels, the women start out,the protagonist start out
believing that they are going tobe single, and figure out a way
to make a meaningful lifewithout marriage, and then they
ended up being married at theend. But she did like Cindy said
(38:59):
she did do a lot of domesticchores. She sewed, cooked and
she nursed the sick. She weanedtheir babies, for her sisters in
law. I think she had more of achoice. It wasn't a necessity,
right? She could say, I'll dothis for you. I'll help this
way, whatever. And a runningjoke between Katherine and Eliza
(39:20):
is that Eliza and her one sisterSusan, were artists and writers
and doing more traditionallymasculine kinds of tasks to earn
money because they needed itwhile Mary was left to do the
domestic work. And then it'salso that Mary really likes
doing the domestic work.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (39:41):
And I do think once this short sketches
and stories are stirred into themix, so that it's not heavily
the research and familiarity isnot heavily based in novels, but
it includes the rest of the bodyof her work. You're gonna see
that she celebrates in hernonfiction sketches you can
figure out who It's who she iscelebrating single women who did
(40:03):
humble things, who helped theircommunity. And she's also
featuring feminist men. ButSedgwick really loved being a
mother and an aunt. And that wasnot something she wanted to give
up. And one of her brothers didsay her eldest brother actually,
Theodore said, if you getmarried, you're not going to
(40:23):
have time to write. And so therewas some support from her own
brothers about choosing her ownpath. And, and she didn't like
being alone all the time. Thefrustration of being single and
number two in people's lives,comes up all the time in her
letters.
Kathryn Gehred (40:39):
Clearly, it would be inaccurate, to describe
her as what we would think of asa feminist. But I think just
looking at the way she livedyour life and all of that, but
she definitely seems like aprogressive minded person. And
you could look at things shedoes and make an argument about
the place of woman at her time,for sure. The very last thing
(41:02):
she writes, that we have isabout the Valentine, Valentine,
that is not from Sir WalterScott, do we know anything about
what's going on there?
Patricia Kalayjian (41:10):
No.
Kathryn Gehred (41:13):
That's fair.
Patricia Kalayjian (41:14):
I can guess. I know that Susan was something
of an artist, Eliza sister. Andmaybe that's who she's referring
to, because she does tell thisstory, right. And Sedwick was a
big fan of Scott and quoted fromhim a lot. And probably based
(41:35):
maybe some of her characters atleast were inspired by
characters and Scott,
Lucinda Damon-Bach (41:40):
Somebody in that three girl household, you
know, because she knows it's awoman and she knows whose house
it came from. Yeah. Somebodywrote her Valentine.
Patricia Kalayjian (41:48):
Someone who would know her well enough to
know that she adored Scott,right?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (41:53):
Yes. And we'd love the joke. Yeah.
Kathryn Gehred (41:58):
But I love the idea that these things are
something that was treasured bythe family that they would keep
reading and rereading. And it'slike having the person with you.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (42:06):
Yeah and thanks to all her friends and
family, every time someone died,they shipped the letters back to
the Sedgwick. So we have thesecorrespondences. Yeah, just
Patricia Kalayjian (42:16):
Yeah it's quite a trove of letters. She
amazing.
came from a well known family.But you know, she's really a
standalone person. She's notknown because she's married to
somebody famous. She is knownfor her work, really.
Kathryn Gehred (42:29):
If somebody was interested in reading her
fiction, or any of her work, Isthere someplace you would
recommend for people to start?
Lucinda Damon-Bach (42:39):
Well, the one I use frequently in my
literature survey classes,ironically, it's not hopelessly
which is quite long, but peoplelove that that's our best known
novel. Hopelessly, hopelessly.It's sort of third book 1827 set
in the Puritan times 25 yearsbefore Hawthorne wrote his
scarlet letter. But New Englandtale is 16 chapters, and
(42:59):
somewhat autobiographical, seemsto be set in her own childhood
home. It gives you a sense ofhow she both is writing. Well,
it's a very first attempt. Soshe's writing to see if she can
write more than a short story.But she's also going out of
bounds. And I won't spoil it anymore than to say, it's not what
you think.
Kathryn Gehred (43:19):
Intriguing. Yeah. I was thinking, I think
one of the ways to popularizeris if we could get the
miniseries made out of one ofher novels,
Patricia Kalayjian (43:28):
Absolutely.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (43:29):
Oh, yeah.
Patricia Kalayjian (43:30):
And I think hopeless, they would be a great
miniseries.
Lucinda Damon-Bach (43:34):
But I would also make sure we give a plug to
the Sedgwick stories onlinearchive, that I'm co editor of
Deborah Gussman started it andthen I have been assigning my
students to transcribe and makenotes. And there are almost 100
stories up maybe 70 stories upthere now. So it's
Sedgwickstories.org. So theycould find a title and read a
(43:57):
sketch or a short story.
Kathryn Gehred (43:59):
That's great. Yeah. We'll link to that in the
show notes so people can checkthat out, they'll check your
project out. I think this is afantastic way to end our season
on wit. It's a great woodyletter. And I hope everybody
goes and reads all of theCatharine Maria Sedgwick stories
that they can.
Patricia Kalayjian (44:13):
Katy, it's really been a pleasure to talk
Lucinda Damon-Bach (44:15):
Thank you so much for this opportunity,
to you.
really.
Kathryn Gehred (44:18):
Well thank you so much for coming on Pat and
Cindy. It's been just a delight.Thank you so much for listening.
To my listeners. I am as ever,your most obedient and humble
servant. Thank you very much.Your Most Obedient and Humble
Servant is a production of R2Studios part of the Roy
(44:38):
Rosenzweig Center for Historyand New Media at George Mason
University. I'm Kathryn Gehred,the creator and host of this
podcast. Jeanette Patrick andJim Ambuske are the executive
producers. If you enjoyed thisepisode, be sure to listen to
past episodes and check out moregreat podcasts from R2 Studios.
We tell unexpected story He'sbased on the latest research to
(45:01):
connect listeners with the past.So head to R2 studios.org to
start listening
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.