394

BLESSED OR NOT? THE NEW SPINSTER

IN ENGLAND AND THE UNITED STATES
IN THE LATE NINETEENTH AND EARLY TWENTIETH
CENTURIES

Ruth Freeman and Patricia Klaus*

Abstract: After 1870, single women in England and America began to speak
favorably about spinsterhood. With new acceptable means to earn money and
with a growing openness about the fragility of happiness in marriage, employed
or financially independent middle-class women no longer regarded marriage as

necessary for financial support or self-respect. In magazine articles, single women

compared their lives to those of their married friends and told readers that
spinsterhood, with its financial and intellectual independence, could be a rational
choice. Though social commentators worried and warned of loneliness, these
bachelor women enjoyed the amenities and companionship afforded by an urban
setting. Novelists distrusted the spinsters’ advocacy of single-blessedness as
stories ended with the new female protagonists marrying. A minority that some-
times wavered, the new spinsters, by demonstrating a respectable option, helped
to reverse traditional scorn for old maids and to pave the way for those who
would later demand, like men, to combine work and marriage.

Concern about the large number of
spinsters, especially from the middle
classes, grew in England and the United
States after 1850.’ Some people estimated
that as many as one in four women in
*Ruth Freeman is the Assistant Provost for
Academic Concerns at the University of Rochester
(Rochester, NY 14627). She is interested in the
history of American women in the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. Patricia Klaus has taught British
history at Yale University and, as Visiting Assistant
Professor, at the University of Virginia and Stan-
ford University. She resides at present in Belvedere,
California.
’
Report of the Census of Great Britain,
The
1851 pointed to the imbalance, unfavorable to
women, in the number of men and women in Eng-
land. During the next 70 years, articles on "surplus"
women frequently appeared in popular periodicals.
England never married, and they regarded
the &dquo;great army of these unmarried
women&dquo; as a modern development. At
first, anxieties about the increasing
number of spinsters centered on the
redundant woman: how could a lady sup-
port herself? Emigrate to the colonies?
Move west to California? Educate herself
so that she could find suitable remunera-
tive employment? Much of the movement
to improve women’s education and em-
ployment in both countries developed in
response to the plight of the impoverished
gentlewoman (Banks and Banks, 1964;
Hammerton, 1979; Kanner, 1972 :183-
185). Most commentators expressed little
2
concern over working-class spinsters.

Among the most important early articles are Greg The Englishwoman’s Review was an exception
2
(1869); Cobbe (1862); Boucherett (1869); and Green- and took as one of its particular interests the plight
wall (1862). of pauper girls.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016


These women had always worked and
could, mostbelieved, readily find employ-
ment in factories or domestic service (even
if such work was poorly paid). Women,
married and unmarried, from the middle
classes and above depended upon the
large reservoir of unmarried working-
class women. Lacking husbands and
needing an income, these working-class
women cleaned, cooked, served, and
made the Victorian and Edwardian
middle-class life possible.
As the century drew to a close, social
commentators connected the problem of
the unmarried gentlewoman to larger
social issues. Influenced by Darwinian
ideas of the survival of the fittest, many
English and Americans felt unprepared
for the challenges they anticipated the
new century would bring. Americans,
worried about &dquo;race suicide,&dquo; feared
being swamped by fecund immigrants; the
English, concerned about physical de-
terioration in the slums and among mili-
tary recruits, expressed apprehension toward equality, and
about their ability to protect their empire
in the twentieth century. Observers in
both countries singled out the declining
marriage and birth rates among the edu-
cated middle classes.’ Some went so far as
to connect the decline in middle-class
marriage with the emergence of the &dquo;new
woman&dquo; who rebelled against traditional
restraints, explored new opportunities,
and expressed new aspirations and
energy. This new spinster, rejecting mar-
riage and motherhood as it existed in late
Victorian society, was perceived as a
threat to men and the family. Observers
For the United States,
3 see "Statistics of Mar-
riage" (1885); Harris (1904); By an Unwilling
Celibate (1909); "Married and Single" (1919);
Marnott-Watson (1901); and Willcox (1896). For
England, see Eugenius (1891); McFadyen (1907); By
a Novelist (1911). See also Gilbert (1965); Banks
(1954); Hynes (1968); and Semmel (1968).
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
395
rightly connected spinsterhood to the dis-
favor into which the institution of mar-
riage seemed to have fallen in the latter
part of the century (Tompkins, 1907 :468-
471).
Spinsterhood, as women increasingly
pointed out in the late nineteenth century,
was not necessarily a negative state, the
result of the failure to marry. It could also
be a positive response to the dilemmas
women faced during the long process of
seeking equality with men. Women’s posi-
tion in nineteenth-century England and
America improved as legislatures enacted
reforms in property and divorce laws,
education, and local suffrage. But as long
as women were economically dependent
upon men, they could never be equal
within the family. As long as women’s
sphere continued to be defined as the
home and family, women could never be
equal in the world. Spinsterhood, for an
important few, was a form of revolt, a
conscious choice to remain single, to work
to reject the
demands, restrictions, and inequalities of
middle-class marriage.44 In addition to
those who never married because of par-
ticular circumstances, some women,
pioneers in their own fashion, rejected
marriage as it existed at the turn of the
century. Freer than their predecessors to
pursue something other than marriage
and a family, and troubled by the frank
discussion of marriage’s problems, these
women could-and did-choose not to
marry.
Sara Delamont (1978:178) quotes John S.
4
Haller, Jr. and Robin Haller, The Physician and
Sexuality in Victorian America on celibacy as a pro-
test against marriage and argues herself that "celi-
bacy was a common form of revolt against the tradi-
tional female sphere." The author of "The Problem
of the Unmarried Woman" (By a Novelist, 1911:
609) referred to the new spinster as "Rebel we call
her and speak of her revolt." See also the sections on
the suffragettes in George Dangerfield (1980), and
William Chafe (1972).
396
Between approximately 1870 and 1920,
a change in attitudes toward spinsterhood
can be discerned, both on the part of
society toward spinsters and in the spin-
ster’s attitudes toward themselves. People
contrasted the unmarried women of
earlier times with this &dquo;new spinster.&dquo; No
longer reclusive, useless, and embittered,
the new spinster led an outgoing, produc-
tive life. She traveled with friends and en-
joyed herself. As a result of this change-
an increase in self-confidence and an
awareness of the advantages of spinster-
hood and the disadvantages of married
life-marriage came to be regarded as an
option rather than as an absolute neces-
sity for women. Important social changes
-improvements in education, growing
availability of employment suitable for
middle-class women, participation in the
suffrage movement, and a more amenable
urban environment--underlay the in-
creased respect afforded spinsters and
their new self-confidence. Alice Rossi
(1972:125-127) has argued that the pres-
sure to marry is so strong that even
women who do not marry claim they
never met the right man or had a lost love
rather than reject marriage itself. Spin-
sters in this period, however, did con-
sciously choose not to marry, saying, as
did one who wrote to Scribner’s Magazine
in 1917, &dquo;I’ve chosen my life as deliber-
ately as my sisters and brothers have
chosen theirs.... I want to be a spinster
and I want to be a good one&dquo; (&dquo;The
Plaint of the Spinster,&dquo; 1917:511-512).
The new opportunities and new self-confi-
dence coincided with growing criticism of
married life. Perhaps, able to find respon-
sible jobs and feeling more confident,
women could afford to criticize openly
the sacred institution. This paper will ex-
amine the revolt of the spinsters, focusing
on some of the changes in attitudes
among the middle classes toward spinster-
hood between 1870 and 1920, especially
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
the effects of the growing frankness of the
talk about marriage and the single
woman’s assessment of the institution in
light of the troubles revealed. We include
statements from English and American
spinsters because the &dquo;revolt&dquo; in both
countries was similar: it was primarily the
response of educated urban women,
though there were women in the smaller,
rural towns who also chafed at the restric-
tions of the conventional world of the
married woman and wished to do some-
thing more with their lives. Although both
English and American girls enjoyed more
freedoms and opportunities by the turn of
the century, observers in both countries
commented on the differences between
them. The common belief was that the un-
married American girl possessed more
freedom than her English counterpart
but, once married, the English woman en-
joyed greater independence. According to
the image conveyed in the popular press,
the American girl, self-reliant, frank, and
enterprising, was more likely to live in a
flat in the city and to be innovative in
seeking outlets for her energy. Dignity
and self-restraint, rather than an &dquo;easy
cordiality,&dquo; characterized the English
girl. Concerned about propriety, she met
people less easily than her American
counterpart (Humphreys, 1896:609-611;
Stewart, 1889:100-103; Billington, 1890:
84-86; Haweis, 1894:153-154). The Eng-
lish, though often more tolerant of eccen-
tricity than the newer, more insecure
society of the United States, could be very
critical of serious, ambitious young
women. Vera Brittain remembered how
her mother would be &dquo;tackled&dquo; at
Mothers’ Union meetings and teas by
matrons who were appalled at the idea
that Vera wished to go to Oxford: &dquo;How
can you send your daughter to college,
Mrs. Brittain! Don’t you ever want
...
her to get married?&dquo; (Brittain, 1978:73).

II
M. Carey Thomas (aged 21) and five of
her friends, gathered together on a Friday
night in 1878 to write two chapters of a
novel, and concluded that &dquo;there is some-
thing wrong about the present relations of
marriage&dquo; (Dobkin, 1979:131). Filled
with youthful idealism and questions, the
young women (four of whom never mar-
ried) lived in a time when marriage was
under increasing scrutiny. In 1888, an
American commentator said, &dquo;The words
’old maid’ have recently been shorn of
their terrifying power; they have been
revered in contrast with the words ‘un-
happy wives&dquo;’ (Browne, 1888:441-442).
Mrs. Esler, in &dquo;Answers to Correspon-
dents&dquo; in the English magazine The
Young Woman, cautioned her readers,
&dquo;Marriage is very often an unhappy con-
dition, but rebellion against its responsi-
bilities, resentment with its disappoint-
ments will neither better the world nor the
individual&dquo; (Esler, 1893:106). Noting
how discussion of marriage touched
young women specifically, a 1909 edi-
torial in The Independent observed, &dquo;To
be frank about it, the intelligent American
girl is afraid to get married. She has
reason to be. The veil has been taken
away from her eyes, or at least lifted a
little, and she is appalled by what she
sees&dquo; (&dquo;Strike of a Sex,&dquo; 1909 :1323-
1324).
The authors had good reason to be wor-
ried. Marriage as an institution met with a
great deal of scrutiny in the second half of
the nineteenth century in both England
and America. Women not dependent
upon marriage for their livelihood began
to question the common assumption that
it was their route to happiness and
married women dared to speak of
riage’s imperfections. Typical of the
attitude was Arabella Keneally’s
ment in the 1891 Westminster Review
(Keneally: 466) that &dquo;no misery can be so
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
397
greatas that of a lifelong union with an
uncongenial companion.&dquo; She went on to
say, &dquo;It is an unfortunate fact that but
few married women who confess the truth
are any way satisfied with their lot, and
would not, after a few years, willingly ex-
change it for [the] state of single blessed-
ness.&dquo;55
This open criticism of marriage was the
result, in part, of a new independence and
forthrightness among women and also of
a shift in values. By the turn of the cen-
tury, men and women began consciously
looking for happiness in marriage-and
talking about it as well. People had long
realized that many marriages were un-
happy, but the word overwhelmingly
associated with marriage during most of
the nineteenth century had been &dquo;duty,&dquo;
and one could do one’s duty in an un-
happy as well as a happy marriage. With
the decline of the Victorian ethos, how-
ever, a concern with personal happiness as
a goal, perhaps even the primary goal, in
marriage became evident. Marriage was
to be associated with romance and plea-
sure, and if it did not bring happiness to
both husband and wife, something crucial
was missing.
Women did not ignore the publicity
about the fragility of marital happiness.
Both English and American spinsters
began to say they were better off or at
least no worse off than their married
sisters. Always observant of their friends’
and relatives’ marriages, spinsters were
encouraged by the controversies about
marriage in the periodical press and their
Arabella Keneally, a spinster, blamed many
5
unhappy marriages on women marrying in haste out
of fear that they would never marry at all.
even
mar- Many prominent late nineteenth-/early twen-
6
new tieth-century periodicals, such as Atlantic Monthly,
North American Review, Harper’s Bazaar,
state-
Scribner’s Magazine, Fraser’s Magazine, Westmin-
ster Review, published articles on marriage. See also
Willcox (1897), an analysis of a Bureau of Labor
398
new self-confidence to comment publicly
as well as privately on marriage. In the
latter part of the nineteenth and the be-
ginning of the twentieth century, women
contributed an increasing number of arti-
cles on marriage and spinsterhood to
periodicals and women’s magazines
(White, 1970:92-103; Palmegiana, 1976).
The tone of some of the authors, especial-
ly in the American magazines, was almost
confessional as they revealed why they
had not married. The English authors,
perhaps reflecting editorial preference
more than their readers’ interest, re-
mained more reticent in their criticism of
marriage and discussions of spinsterhood.
Significantly, in observing and com-
menting on marital life, these middle-class
women seemingly spoke neither enviously
nor apologetically. They did not try to ex-
cuse either themselves or the unhappy
wives they wrote about as ill-suited to
domestic life. Instead, the tone of their
articles indicates that they considered it
rational to judge housework unsatisfying
and to be critical of what marriage did to
all women. The instances they observed,
then, were not exceptional in their minds,
and neither was their attitude. As one
young woman at a dinner party suggested
in a conversation about why women were
not anxious to marry, &dquo;The truth is, we
are all scared away from any desire to
marry by seeing how wretched those who
do marry are&dquo; (&dquo;Why They Do Not
Marry,&dquo; 1885:4). It was not merely the
lack of opportunities to marry that led
women to remain single; instead, they
weighed the life offered by marriage and
the prospects of life alone, and they opted
for spinsterhood, preferring it to &dquo;an un-
congenial union&dquo; just to escape the
humiliation of being old maids. Eliza
report on marriage and divorce; Quilter (1888), a
collection of responses to Mona Caird’s essay sub-
mitted by readers of The Daily Telegraph; and Caird
(1897).
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
Chester (1892:2-4) noted that &dquo;there are
probably very few women who begin life
with a clear decision never to be
married,&dquo; but that ideal marriages were
not very common and &dquo;every sensible
woman would rather lead a single life
than to bind herself to any man whom she
does not love and respect.&dquo; Even
mothers, according to the conservative
Kate Gannet Wells (1891:175-181), let
their daughters know that marriage was
not always wonderful. And another
woman who had passed up several
chances to marry remarked that two or
three of her friends &dquo;seem to be what I
call really happily married,&dquo; and the &dquo;rest
are just average.&dquo; She took special notice
of the fact that one was divorced, one
separated, and one a widow and &dquo;much
happier in that state&dquo; (An Old Maid,
1919:27).
Married women confided in their single
friends about their domestic troubles.
One American spinster, described by the
magazine’s editor as &dquo;an attractive and
able young professor in one of our univer-
sities,&dquo; recounted the after-dinner conver-
sation of a group of married women. To
her surprise, the matrons did not try to
persuade her that she &dquo;ought&dquo; to marry.
Indeed, so severe were they in their criti-
cisms that they unanimously concluded
that &dquo;the only way to be a truly happy
married woman was to be a fool.&dquo;
Though the spinster herself could not
imagine the pleasures of marriage, she
had supposed that there were joys discern-
ible &dquo;by those on the inside, since they are
so rarely obvious to the uninitiated spec-
tator.&dquo; Instead, the married women were
saying that ordinary intelligence and a
happy marriage were mutually exclusive.
Without speculating on whether the
speakers assessed themselves as fools or
unhappy wives, the guest reasoned that
they regarded her spinsterhood as an &dquo;in-
direct tribute to her intelligence,&dquo; and she

left the party fortified by their testimony
(Bachelor Maid, 1904:1482-1486).
Another American author created a
dramatic domestic scene in which a spin-
ster who is visiting a married friend learns
about the wife’s daily, vexing routine.
Weeping, the wife relates her morning
grind: &dquo;Was the coffee weak and were the
waffles cold, and did Monsieur express
his opinion of such a breakfast in lan-
guage more concise than elegant?&dquo; But
even such confidence was delayed while
the wife straightened the room &dquo;strewn
with masculine belongings.&dquo; And while
waiting, the spinster silently compared
&dquo;her own dainty and orderly room&dquo; with
her friend’s messy home and she noted the
premature &dquo;crow’s feet&dquo; around her
friend’s eyes, recording it all in her
&dquo;mental notebook, upon the page headed
’Against’&dquo; (Reed, 1909:206-207).
Esler (1893b:140) counseled the unmar-
ried as follows: &dquo;Occasionally the
thought that all her old friends are settled
in life, and that she will in time be spoken
of as an old maid, gives her a slight shock,
but when experienced and harassed
mothers of large families say to her, ’Keep
as you are, my dear-keep as you
she laughingly remembers that celibacy
has its consolations.&dquo;
The experiences of friends did not en-
courage single women to make a change
in their lives. Nor, often, did the men they
met. To temper their harsh judgments of
most women’s choice and the nation’s
core institution, some American spinsters
censured only the men they had encoun-
tered and implied that under the right cir-
cumstances they too would marry. Even
Anna Howard Shaw, often savage in her
anti-male outbursts, acknowledged the
goodness of an ideal marriage: &dquo;But
[from] any other kind, Heaven deliver
us!&dquo; Writing to a friend, she said:
Just think of the men along your street,
beginning with old Dr. Whitney, Mr. Craw-
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
399
ford, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Green, Mr. Robinson
and others. If a human being or a god could
conceive of a worse hell than being the wife
of any one of them I would like to know what
it could be. In my long life of opportunities
for observing, I have seen only six married .
people whose life would not have been perdi-
tion to me (Filene, 1974:49-50).
Women who had had chances to marry
but turned them down were more explicit
and often cited as unacceptable the men’s
attitudes toward marriage. One spinster
ended an engagement when her fianc6,
who had led her to believe that their com-
panionship was and would continue to be
based upon equality, betrayed his views
when he insisted that his will would pre-
vail should there be differences. Equally
unacceptable for his utilitarian view of
her was the man who courted her because
&dquo;certain of [her] accomplishments would
Mrs. be a great assistance to a man in his pro-
fession.&dquo; Completely out of the running
was the man who would never have ex-
cused her from &dquo;the domestic and mater-
nal duties that you were made for.&dquo; Her
ideal husband would &dquo;give me encourage-
ment and inspiration to develop in my
chosen field of work as I, in turn, would
are,’ offer appreciative sympathy to him in
his&dquo; (A Bachelor Maid, 1904:1482-1486).
Her demands, made in the beginning of
the century, have a very modern ring to
them. According to spinsters writing in
this period, men too often seemed to re-
gard marriage as a practical arrangement
that they sought methodically for their
own convenience. The well-born Beatrice
Potter had also refused a suitor who
would not recognize her individuality.
Active in the East End of London and
developing her own ideas about poverty
and its alleviation, she feared marriage to
a man who assumed she would yield her
ambitions and judgments to him. Though
deeply in love with Joseph Chamberlain,
an attractive widower and member of
Gladstone’s Cabinet, she believed that if
400
they married, she would &dquo;be absorbed
into the life of a man whose aims are not
my aims; who will refuse me all freedom
of thought in my intercourse with him; to
whose career I shall have to subordinate
all my life, mental and physical&dquo;
(MacKenzie, 1979:1, 27, 86, and passim).
She ended their relationship and con-
tinued studying London’s social and eco-
nomic conditions. Although when she was
30, she had written to her sister, &dquo;So all in
all I am to be the old maid of the family,&dquo;
four years later she married Sidney Webb,
a man who sought her ideas and criti-
cisms.
Some spinsters never married because
they objected to the injustices and in-
equalities of conventional marriage and to
its severe restrictions on what a woman
could hope to accomplish in this world,
especially before the advent of reliable
and acceptable birth control. Vera Brit-
tain recalled that though she felt trapped
in the provincial English town of Buxton
before the First World War, &dquo;It never
occurred to me to count on marriage as a
possible road to freedom. From what I
already knew of men, it seemed only too
probable that a husband would yet fur-
ther limit my opportunities&dquo; (Brittain,
1933:53). M. Carey Thomas, although
surrounded by seemingly successful mar-
riages, questioned the institution from
girlhood. Resolved from the age of fifteen
to prove that women were men’s intellec-
tual equals, she decided early that it
would be impossible to marry and devote
herself to improving women’s oppor-
tunities. She argued that she had nothing
against &dquo;a girl with freedom of choice
considering marriage with a man whom
she loves,&dquo; but that &dquo;public and family
opinion is such as to force them into mar-
riage as a profession.&dquo; &dquo;It is,&dquo; she went
further, &dquo;no woman’s duty to marry.&dquo; A
woman might hope for marriage as a
completion of her life but there was no
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
guarantee that it would be so, and certain-
ly not if she married without love or wed a
man who hindered her aspirations. &dquo;In a
transition state I think it would be quite
often a duty and a pleasure not to marry&dquo;
(Dobkin, 1979: passim).
Spinsters’ awareness of their indepen-
dence underlay their specific reservations
about marriage. As a young woman,
M. Carey Thomas wrote, &dquo;If I have to
give up my freedom in the slightest
degree, I’ll never marry-and I don’t ex-
pect to anyhow, for if Heavenly Father
spares my senses I’ll never be dependent
on any one man or woman&dquo; (Dobkin,
1979:71). Lady Jeune described a similar
desire among young women in England.
&dquo;Every year the increased independence
which girls enjoy and the feeling of the
time in which they live, make them less
anxious to marry or to marry so early.&dquo;
She commented further, &dquo;Their position
with regard to men and the feeling of
camaraderie which exists between the
young of both sexes does not tend to in-
crease a girl’s desire to take a husband&dquo;
(Jeune, 1897:644).
By the 1890s, these spinsters were
among the &dquo;new women&dquo; over whom
commentators fussed. Daughters of
middle-class families and often better
educated than their mothers, they looked
for new ways to give meaning to their
lives. Without the church to structure and
limit their nondomestic activities, and
with job opportunities opening up for
them, single women could reject the gen-
tility of their mothers and try moving in
unfamiliar directions. Those new paths to
satisfaction encouraged women to test
themselves and their new lifestyles against
the model of the traditional wife and
home. By living alone or cooperatively
with other women, by socializing on the
job with men and women, by earning and
spending more money without inter-
ference (although this is not to say that

these spinsters were without financial
obligations to their families), and by find-
ing interesting work and contributing to
society’s needs, these women tasted alter-
natives and learned to be skeptical about
received wisdom.’ The real problem, per-
haps, was not dull men or male adherence
to the image of an old-fashioned mar-
riage, for some spinsters admitted the
attractions of a home and family. But free
not to marry, and possessed of a new self-
confidence, women had begun to see what
women had always given up for the finan-
cial support of marriage. As one author
noted, &dquo;The chains of love may be sweet
bondage, but freedom is hardly less dear&dquo;
(Reed: 1909:206-207).
Before she married (and afterwards to
the marriage’s detriment), Charlotte
Perkins Gilman experienced promptings
of independence that she feared she would
be unable to repress easily. Two days after
Walter Stetson proposed, Gilman
methodically listed her arguments in favor
of spinsterhood, creating a document she
told herself she was &dquo;to hold to if the ...
force of passion should at any time cloud
my reason.&dquo; She was &dquo;fonder of freedom
than anything else,&dquo; and she loved being
with friends &dquo;but only when I want
them.&dquo; In personal matters such as
&dquo;dress, habits, diet, hours, behavior,
speech and thought,&dquo; she liked &dquo;to have
my own unaided will,&dquo; and she enjoyed
the freedom &dquo;to select for myself, to buy
for myself, to provide for myself in every
way.&dquo; A husband and family would con-
strain not only her independence but also
her ability to become involved in the
serious work of the world. &dquo;If I were
bound to a few I should grow so fond of
For discussion of the "New Woman," see
7 "The City in Transition" and "Employment"; and
"Character Note: The New Woman" (1894);
Deland (1910); E. B. Harrison (1894); Wilcox
(1901); "What is the Role of the ’New Woman’?"
(1898); Filene (1974:1-127, passim); Lasch
(1967:3-68).
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
401
them, and so busied with them that I
should have no room for the thousand
and one helpful works which the world
needs&dquo; (Hill, 1980:93-94).
Few spinsters catalogued so carefully
the advantages of freedom, but occa-
sional comments indicate that, like Gil-
man, they enjoyed more or less coming
and going as they pleased, spending
money as they wished, and working out-
side the home. The &dquo;latch-key girl&dquo; in
both England and the United States
became a synonym for one type of new
woman-the responsible and independent
woman who had her own flat or rooms in
the city, left early in the morning for work
and returned, often late (so the story
writers described and parents feared),
after an evening at the theater or her club.
Able to live alone or with a friend respect-
ably, and employed at a job that provided
income sufficient for rent, food, clothing,
and possibly gifts and travel, she had a
freedom of action scarcely dreamed about
by women in the earlier part of the cen-
tury.8I
Urban improvements and reforms
facilitated this new freedom of action.
Women gained mobility by traveling on
improved public transportation in the
cities and on bicycles in the countryside
(Rubenstein, 1977:47-72; &dquo;Cycling for
Ladies,&dquo; 1896-1897:310-319). The late
nineteenth century also saw the develop-
ment of the women’s club movement.
Playing an important part in the social life
Important studies of the American middle-
8
class working woman include Rodgers (1978), espe-
cially the chapter on "Idle Womanhood: Feminist
Versions of the Work Ethic," 182-210; Aron (1981);
Gibbons-Wilson (1979), especially the chapters on
Walsh (1977). The principal recent studies for Eng-
lish middle-class women are Holcombe (1973); Mar-
tindale (1938); and Kelsall (1955). Published much
earlier, but still important, are Bodichon (1857) and
Collet (1902).
402
of the bachelor woman, these clubs pro-
vided members with overnight accommo-
dations, a place to meet and entertain
friends, and a place to read and relax
(Levy, 1888:364-367; Anstruther, 1899:
598-611; Filene, 1974:14-15).
As Eliza Chester described these
women in America, &dquo;The single women I
know between thirty and thirty-five are a
delightful set-fresh, happy, active, in-
telligent and usually well-dressed.&dquo; Much
of this position came from her employ-
ment. &dquo;The power of earning our living
by doing something for which we are
fitted by nature is the first step toward the
freedom which is working such wonders
for us. It is seldom now that we hear the
mournful cry of one of George Eliot’s
heroines, ’God did a cruel thing when he
made a woman&dquo;’ (Chester, 1892:71). The
new spinster in England was similar,
&dquo;The gentlewomen of today are the
daughters of an alert and self-reliant age,
in which marriage is no longer the simple
solution of every girl’s life&dquo; (Wimble,
1896:104). Lady Jeune described her
further, saying that it was no longer possi-
ble &dquo;for women to remain the colourless,
dependent creatures of the past ... as
they have become emancipated, they have
more or less chosen their own careers, and
thousands of women are now living
proofs of the advantages of a change that
has given an aim in life which they can
pursue successfully&dquo; (Jeune, 1897:643).
In an article critical of men, an English
writer described &dquo;the girl of yesterday
who will grow up a vastly different
woman. She is being braced by mental
and physical exercise; her eyes are opened
to everything in the universe; she will have
little or no use for man&dquo; (By a Spinster,
1905:192). In one of the articles in the
&dquo;Our Sisters Across the Sea&dquo; series in The
Young Woman (1894:288), an English
author described the formation of an
American Bachelor Girls’ Club, quoting
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
the club’s constitution: &dquo; ‘Old Maids no
longer exist! Unmarried women, until
they reach the age of thirty, shall be
known as bachelor ’girls,’ and after that
age they shall be known as ’bachelor
women.&dquo;’ She goes on to say that such a
club &dquo;promises to bring about a revolu-
tion in society-and forever explode the
idea that women remain single from ne-
cessity-never from choice.&dquo;
The suffrage movement also con-
tributed to the new self-confidence of
spinsters in both countries. Unmarried
women, with more time and freedom to
pursue their personal interests, formed a
majority of the active members in the
English and American suffrage organiza-
tions (see Claus, 1975; Hume, 1982;
Rosen, 1974 and 1979). Emmeline Peth-
ick-Lawrence (1935:215) described the
suffrage campaign as &dquo;our Eton and Ox-
ford, our regiment, our ship, our cricket
match.&dquo; Participation in suffrage
societies brought women, as did charity
work and pressure-group involvement,
out of the home. Joined together in the
public sphere, they began to demand
equality. Although both the American
and English governments’ delaying tactics
often frustrated them, they gained a new
sense of self-respect and the realization
that women had to rely on themselves.
The militant campaign especially encour-
aged a sense of comradeship and self-
worth. Lady Constance Lytton, who had
led the restricted life of a semi-invalid,
joined the Women’s Social and Political
Union where she found &dquo;the delights of
that full, unfettered companionship.&dquo; &dquo;It
was,&dquo; she said, &dquo;the first time in my life
that there has ever seemed to be any use
for me and the sensation was wondrously
invigorating&dquo; (Lytton, 1929).
The spinsters described by Eliza
Chester and Lady Jeune numbered among
the fortunate few who enjoyed a good in-
come and interesting employment. But

even if few in numbers, they helped set the
tone for the &dquo;new spinster&dquo; and provided
a model for other single women. When
the English periodical The Lady, directed
as were many others toward upper-
middle-class women (and those who
aspired to be), began a monthly column
titled &dquo;New Openings for Women,&dquo; it
assumed the importance of what we now
refer to as role models. &dquo;It is always a
subject of interest to women to hear of
fresh paths in which some of their
numbers are finding success. The story of
another’s undertaking will often suggest
to a girl some direction in which she may
profitably and pleasantly employ her
capabilities&dquo; (&dquo;New Openings,&dquo; 1901:
619). New employment opportunities for
middle-class women-poorly paid as they
may have been-radically altered the lives
of late nineteenth-century spinsters. No
longer restricted to needlework or
governessing, they could now work and
retain their respectability.
By the 1880s, somewhat as a result of
the efforts of groups such as the Society
for Promoting the Employment of
Women (founded in London in 1859) and
the Working Ladies’ Guild (established in
the United States in 1876), but principally
because of the rapid expansion of the
white-collar and professional work force,
many new occupations opened up that
were acceptable to middle-class women.
An optimistic contemporary observed,
&dquo;Fortunately, the range of choice in voca-
tions widens every year, and it seems to be
generally accepted that a woman may do
whatever she will&dquo; (Rose, 1895:6; see also
references given in footnote 8). The spin-
ster employed as a teacher, lawyer, doc-
tor, civil servant, executive secretary, or
store manager provided a serious model
for other women. Anna Garlin Spencer
{1972:103) described her as follows:
She is opening, in this her day, new avenues
of work for woman.... She is thronging the
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
403
courts of higher learning and ... winning dis-
tinction in all the higher professions. She is
becoming at ease in commercial spheres in the
business offices of the world.... She is
proving, over and over again ... that
women’s bodies, brains, powers of constant
and effective activity and moral characters
can withstand the strain of manual, clerical,
professional and artistic service on a high
level of competition with men.
Other models were more self-centered
and frivolous, though possibly just as
pleasing to young women. One American
narrator in an autobiographical sketch de-
scribed her visit to her married sister’s
home. On her way home from a concert,
wearing a new hat, she told her sister that
she was going to join friends for dinner.
With both time and money to spend as she
liked, she also claimed a sophisticated
view of the world that came from having
many male acquaintances while her sister
suffered &dquo;the narrowing results of
specialization&dquo; (O’Hagan, 1907 :107-
112). The picture of a married woman
featured in an 1878 edition of Punch illus-
trated the constraints under which the
married woman lived. Unable to join her
spinster friend at her club because she
must care for &dquo;Poor Bolly&dquo; (her hus-
band), she sighs with &dquo;regret for the free-
dom of spinsterhood and the charms of
club life&dquo; (Levy: 1888:364). Others speci-
fied the importance of controlling their
own expenses. In noting the &dquo;solaces&dquo; of
her life, one American spinster remarked,
&dquo;When I overhear the wife ... asking
humbly for the money for new clothes,
explaining what she did with the money
given to her last week, meekly accepting
rebukes over her poor little expenditures,
then I take out my bank book and ...
gloat over my financial independence&dquo;
(&dquo;Autobiography of an Old Maid,&dquo; 1905:
839-844). Another wrote that she de-
lighted in being able to come and go with-
out explanation or opposition and then
added that the idea of being compelled to
404
ask for money, and perhaps meeting with
refusal ... [was] &dquo;a deterrent upon in-
cipient love&dquo; (Reed, 1909:211). These
spinsters assumed that if married they
would be confined to the home, unable to
earn an independent income or enjoy
some of the freedoms of the unmarried
woman. They also feared the deteriora-
tion of their standard of living. In answer
to a query about the relative standards of
living of married and single women, one
spinster replied, &dquo;There isn’t a married
friend of mine who has anything like the
money for dressing that I do.&dquo; Another,
responding to the same question, added
that &dquo;business girls live better and have a
great deal nicer time&dquo; (&dquo;Fianc6es-Why
Not?,&dquo; 1910:588-594).
Since studies have shown that working
women’s salaries were meager, it was
probably their sense of autonomy, and
not their lavish lifestyle, that they were in
fact relishing. An American survey of
single women and the reasons for their
spinsterhood did not specify a preference
for independence, financial or otherwise;
yet the reporter, perhaps editorializing,
cast into verse a summary of her findings
which conveyed the importance of free-
dom :
I have a good job;
I earn a good living;
I am contented and happy;
Why be encumbered? (Davis, 1928:167)
III
Critics cautioned single women that the
pleasure of self-indulgence was likely to
be temporary, something to be enj oyed in
their twenties. In time these joys would
pale as women realized that &dquo;living alone
for oneself is in the long run scarcely
worth the trouble&dquo; (Tompkins, 1907 :468-
471). Arguing that women needed to
&dquo;have some living thing to care for, if it
be only a cat,&dquo; some commentators
warned women of impending loneliness
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
and lack of purpose. One day they would
wake up alone: worried, they would
marry hastily, if they could, and probably
badly (Shipman, 1909:338-346). But
spinsters, with work to fill their days and
provide a sense of security, remained un-
convinced that they needed to marry to
assuage future loneliness. They pointed
out that marriage did not guarantee com-
panionship to the grave. Some period of
loneliness was in store for most people.9
Spinsters were aware of the problems
they faced as they aged. For older single
women, perhaps even more than for
younger, an income made the essential
difference. There was still truth in Jane
Austen’s comment in Emma (1957:65)
that &dquo;it is poverty only which makes celi-
bacy contemptible to a generous public! A
single woman, with a very narrow in-
come, must be a ridiculous, disagreeable,
old maid! ...but a single woman, of
good fortune, is always respectable.&dquo; To
this one could now add &dquo;a single woman
of good employment.&dquo; If provided for, or
able to provide for themselves, spinsters
could lead contented, pleasant, and useful
lives, as did Emily Hobhouse, a rector’s
daughter involved in political activism
and good works, and Mary Hallwood,
another rector’s daughter who became a
caseworker in the East End of London.
Many spinsters, throughout this period,
were active in the efforts to improve
women’s secondary and college education
-the names of A. Jemima Clough, Doro-
thea Beale, and Emily Davies come to
mind in England as do Mary Lyons and
M. Carey Thomas in America. Other
spinsters, such as Fanny Monkhouse, an
Some of this insecurity was alleviated in Eng-
9
land after the passage of the 1908 old-age pension
act. See also Michael Anderson’s comments in "The
Social Position of Spinsters in Mid-Victorian Bri-
tain" in this issue of the Journal of Family History.

Englishwoman who lived outside Lincoln,
spent their days in traditional upper-
middle-class pursuits-gardening, visit-
ing, and, in the twentieth century,
bicycling, and playing tennis and golf.
Both English and American spinsters
derived emotional fulfillment from rela-
tives and close friendships. Vida Scudder,
looking back on her life, admitted that
until she was 30, she had &dquo;wanted terribly
to fall in love.&dquo; Aware that as a spinster
she might have missed &dquo;something
perhaps, humanly speaking, supremely
precious,&dquo; she also realized that had she
married &dquo;how much it would have ex-
cluded!&dquo; Speaking of intimacy, she
added, &dquo;I want to register my conviction
... that a woman’s life which sex in-
terests have never visited is a life neither
dull or empty or devoid of romance&dquo;
(Scudder, 1937:212). Winifred Holtby, a
spinster and a novelist, defended unmar-
ried women from the charge of being frus-
trated. Writing in the 1930s but comment-
ing on spinsters in the earlier twentieth
century as well, she noted that although
spinsters might have been referred to as
superfluous &dquo;in actual fact many circum-
stances may prevent this singleness from
being at all unenviable. The spinster may
have work which delights her, personal in-
timacies which comfort her, power which
satisfies her&dquo; (Holtby, 1978:131).
Children could also provide an emo-
tional outlet. One contributor to The
,/OM~M~ who never mar-
Home Journal,
Z~~y’ TYcw~
Ladies’
ried because she did not find a man who
would make her happy, adopted a little
boy and girl (By an Old Maid, 1890:4).
Another spinster, writing in The Indepen-
dent, had fallen in love with a man who
did not reciprocate her feelings. She
wanted children and moved into the city
and lived in her own apartment with a
young girl (&dquo;Why I am an Old Maid,&dquo;
1915:399). For the women who adopted
children, family life provided pleasures
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
405
and contentment. Other spinsters specifi-
cally enjoyed not having the full responsi-
bility for children. One wrote that she
liked playing with her friend’s six children
for as long as it suited her and then re-
turning them. For all their sweetness,
&dquo;They are heavy to carry sometimes and
they make enormous confusion in the
darning bag.&dquo; She preferred to borrow
children for short periods and she dis-
covered that she had &dquo;yet to see the
mother that is not glad to lend me one or
two.&dquo; In fact, she read a &dquo;kind of leaping
envy at my freedom&dquo; in the mother’s eyes
(&dquo;From an Old Maid,&dquo; 1915:121).
Another single woman went even further,
claiming that &dquo;an amazingly large num-
ber of supposedly happy wives and
mothers would have been only too glad if
the privilege of motherhood had not come
to them&dquo; (By One of the Sisterhood,
1922:81).
Although loneliness was a great worry
for spinsters, often they did not live
alone. Some shared lodgings, as did Har-
riet St. Leger and Dorothy Wilson,
friends of Frances Power Cobbe’s. Others
lived, as did Mary Hallwood, with an un-
married sister. Many, such as M. Carey
Thomas, Octavia Hill, and others, had
close friends with whom they lived and
traveled. In the nineteenth and early twen-
tieth century, women living together, even
for a lifetime; did not occasion scandal.
Nonetheless, where to live posed a crucial
question for these women, young and old.
A look at some of the Enumerator’s
Schedules for the 1871 Census of England
and Wales reveals that while young, an
unmarried woman usually lived with her
parents. In the parish of Holy Trinity,
Brompton, in Kensington, most unmar-
ried women under 25 lived with their fam-
ilies. But, as Frances Power Cobbe and
Frances Marion Eddy discovered, there
would come the sad day when a parent
died and a middle-aged spinster had to
406
find her own way for the first time. Cobbe
likened this to the shock and sorrow of
widowhood. The most fortunate could
find a place of their own or share a house
or flat with a friend or congenial com-
panion. After her father died, Cobbe
traveled in the east, then, at age 36, joined
Mary Carpenter in her work with her Re-
formatory and Ragged Schools in Bristol.
At first she lived, with other ladies who
were volunteering their time, in Car-
penter’s house adjoining the Ragged
School for which she paid 30s a week for
room and board. Her health suffering
under this regime, she moved to lodgings
on her own, her description of which is
worth quoting at length because of the
picture it gives of spinster life:
My new life on Durham Down, though
solitary, was a very happy one. I had two nice
rooms in Belgrave House.... My little bed-
room opened by a French window on a bal-
cony leading to a garden.... My sitting-
room had a front and a corner view of Bristol
and the surrounding country.... I walked
every week-day into Bristol (of course, I
needed more than ever to economize ...) and
went about my various avocations in the
schools and workhouse till I could do no
more, when I made my way home as cheaply
as I could contrive, to dinner. I had my dear
dog, Hajjin, a lovely mouse-colored Pome-
ranian, for companion at all times (Cobbe,
1904:252).
In 1871 in the Holy Trinity Parish,
Brompton, spinster ladies increasingly
resided in their brother’s or sister’s house-
holds as they aged. Isabella and Louisa
Smith, 23 and 30 respectively, lived with
their father at 40 Onslow Square, all three
of them living on dividend income. At 11I
Pelham Place, Anna Beeton, 61, shared
lodgings with her brother James,
solicitor. On the same street, John H.
provided lodgings for three unmarried
women: a 17-year-old niece and a 48-year-
old lodger, both from Liverpool, and a
16-year-old lodger from Stackpool. Mari-
anne Morgan, 41, lived with her widowed
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
sister at 19 Pelham Crescent. Down the
road resided a bachelor silk merchant,
George B., and his 64-year-old spinster
sister, Mathilda, who owned the house.
Also at the same address (possibly as a
lodger of some sort) lived a &dquo;retired land-
owner&dquo; and his 52-year-old sister. At 54
Fulham Road, Martha Potter, 44, lived
with her brother Frank, a draper, as did
Eliza Newman, 36, with her brother John,
a dyer, at 64 Fulham Road. Often unmar-
ried siblings shared a household together,
as did the Potters, the Newmans, and on a
higher social scale, the Dalrymples. The
household of Charles Dalrymple, Mem-
ber of Parliament and landed proprietor,
included Charles and his three unmarried
sisters, Elizabeth, 40, Henrietta, 32, and’
Sharon, 22, and various servants.
Four spinsters in the parish maintained
their own houses. The enumerator de-
scribed the 48-year-old Eliza Thomas as
&dquo;Independent.&dquo; A 57-year-old spinster at
24 Onslow Square had a larger household
than Eliza Thomas, including a lady’s
maid, a housemaid, and a cook-all un-
married, of course. Mary Campbell, aged
66, evidently possessed substantial divi-
dend income as her household contained
her 64-year-old spinster sister, a house-
maid, a cook, two ladies’ maids, and two
general servants. Nearby in the wealthier
parish of St. Mary Abbott, Kensington,
most unmarried women under 30 lived
with their parents. Then, as in other
parishes, once over 30, they tended more
often to live with their brothers or sisters
or brothers- and sisters-in-law. In this
upper-middle-class / upper-class neighbor-
hood, spinsters almost always lived with
a family members and not as lodgers. What
is notable in these parishes is the relatively
few spinsters who had to live in lodgings.
Family ties for the middle-class and
upper-middle-class spinster remained
strong in 1871.
Although census material for a direct

comparison is unavailable, it appears that
Cobbe’s experience became more com-
mon by the turn of the century. More
middle-class educated young women were
living with each other, not with their
parents. Many of them lived not only in
shared households like the friends of
Cobbe’s, but in settlement houses and all-
female institutions such as schools, ladies’
apartment buildings, and nursing homes
(Vicinus, 1982:603-628).
By the end of the century, English and
American periodicals frequently pub-
lished articles on housing for single
women.’° These articles often disagreed
on the availability and suitability of
ladies’ lodgings and apartments. Some
writers, such as Mary Gay Humphreys
(1896:600-606), expressed optimism:
more apartments were being built and
more women’s clubs formed. Others
voiced doubts and pointed out that many
more apartments were needed, as evi-
denced by the fact that the Margaret
Louisa Home of New York turned away
two out of every three applicants because
of lack of space (Stein, 1898:397-417).
Other articles discussed the difficulties
women experienced locating &dquo;suitable
accommodations&dquo; (Low, 1897:405-417;
Orme, 1897:613-619; Shaw, 1897:
620-627). The garret in which Virginia
10 distinguished between accommoda-
Writers
tions available for middle-class spinsters and
working-class women. Commentators almost uni-
formly described lodgings for working-class women
living alone as substandard and depressing, if not
conducive to actual immorality. See Tentler (1979:
115-233); Richardson (1972); Ashmore (1893);
Goldin (1980). For conditions in England, refer to
Higgs (1910) and Marlborough (1911). Associations
to promote the building of housing for single work-
ing women were formed in England, such as the Na-
tional Association of Women’s Lodging homes,
and, in the United States, the Working Women’s
Society and the Women’s Apartment House Associ-
ation.
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
407
and Alice Madden, two aging spinster
sisters in George Gissing’s The Odd
Women (1893), lived approximated reali-
ty for too many spinster women. After
reviewing case histories of older spinsters,
Frances H. Low decided that &dquo;the dread
of illness and the fear of being without a
roof over their heads ... are what consti-
tute the grimness, the horror of the strug-
gle for existence to so many women&dquo;
(Low, 1897:415). Perhaps the crucial
word here is &dquo;older.&dquo; Until a general
system of old age pensions and health care
would be instituted, old age was a pre-
carious time for most people. In Victorian
and Edwardian England, a self-support-
ing spinster might have been able to main-
tain herself respectably while she could
work, but once old, her situation could
easily become desperate.
The dismal picture of aging spinsters in
The Odd Women reminds us that,
although life for many unmarried women
became more productive and enjoyable,
for most women marriage remained the
ideal. Life without a man and a family
could be difficult. Ina Coolbrith (1921), a
poetess in California who had married
briefly then divorced, lamented the state
of the single woman. Writing on Christ-
mas Eve, in poor health and clearly pity-
ing herself, she told a friend that she had
been &dquo;worried and troubled in all ways.&dquo;
She went on to say:
I have made up my mind that a woman in this
world without a man has no right to be in it,
for she is without comfort and protection.
But when one does not find a man she could
marry or cannot marry because of the great
responsibilities thrust upon her during her
marrying years, why, what is she to do. Just
be the victim that she is and find herself in
age alone, unprotected and uncared for.
Selah! and blast it!!t
Novelists and story writers also re-
vealed women’s ambivalence toward spin-
sterhood. Unlike the bachelor women
who wrote with the intent of explaining or
408
justifying their singleness, novelists could
deal with women’s ambivalence about
their choices. Aware of the appeal that the
&dquo;new woman&dquo; with her independence
and more varied experience had for their
readers, writers frequently used the &dquo;new
spinster&dquo; for their heroine. But the ma-
jority of their stories conclude by re-
affirming marriage as the profession of
most women. Often not attempting to
reconcile their spirited heroine with the
woman who, in the end, meekly decides to
marry, novelists presented two different
faces of women of the times. They recog-
nized the spirit of revolt, but shied away
from its consequences. A short story in
the English periodical The Lady’s Realm
epitomizes this approach. Helen Quin, a
&dquo;new spinster&dquo; on holiday, meets a
gentleman who, upon seeing her, mur-
murs, &dquo;’Devilish independent! Oh, ...
woman, lovely woman! How femi-
...
nine !’ ...He did not know Miss Quin
was a New Woman.&dquo; She defends the
single woman’s life in the city: &dquo;’It’s my
life, anything else is stagnation.... I have
my work there ... my flat and ...’
’Latch-Key,’ he inquires shyly. ’My
friends, clubs, the theatres, gaieties, all
the things you do not understand.&dquo;’ A
successful journalist, she could spend as
much as she liked on clothes and travel,
&dquo;‘Oh, it is a lovely free life.&dquo;’ When the
subject of husbands arises, she retorts,
&dquo;’Don’t talk nonsense.... Nothing of
the sort! Men! Husband! Bah! Give up
my liberty, my work, plenty of money to
do with as I please.&dquo;’ In the end, having
discovered that he was a landowner and
very attractive, she agrees to marry him,
&dquo;with a great light in her eyes, quite for-
getting she was a New Woman&dquo; (Boggs,
1905:553-558).
Marion Irving, the heroine of the
American novel A Bachelor Maid, begins
to question marriage. She observes what
she judges to be the unsuccessful union of
one of her friends, Mrs. Romaine, who
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
tells Marion that she knows her husband
is home only because she sees the news-
paper behind which he is hiding. Marion’s
former college teacher underlines the dif-
ficulties by referring to her own unhappy
marriage as &dquo;luckily brief.&dquo; Two happy
spinsters appear briefly to complement
the portraits of unhappy wives. The
women are delighted that Marion’s
mother had the foresight to leave her an
independent income, seeing it as a key to a
comfortable spinsterhood or a safety
valve in a bad marriage. &dquo;Unmarried girls
have literally every kind of fantastic
notion before they meet the touchstone of
the financial question with a husband face
to face.&dquo; But at the story’s end, Marion is
about to marry, as is a more radical
friend, and Mrs. Romaine reaffirms her
love for her husband. As a justification of
their reversals, the heroine states that
women cannot solve their problems by
themselves, but must first convert men
into helpful allies, a task best pursued in
marriage (C. C. Harrison, 1899:33, 143).
Many spinsters, if not truly sorry about
their state, at least continued to dream of
marriage. An American who would &dquo;not
hang [her] head&dquo; admitted she wanted to
marry but had not met any eligible men.
Teaching in a boarding school in the
winter and serving as a counselor at a
girls’ camp in the summer, she never saw
a man &dquo;from one month’s end to
another&dquo; (By an Unwilling Celibate,
1909:966-969). An English spinster, be-
tween 28 and 30, complained about the
lonely life teachers led. &dquo;I don’t know a
man up here, and I long-it is most un-
enlightened and retrograde, isn’t it?-for
the society of a sensible man&dquo; (Low,
1897:416). Such spinsters worried that,
with age, they would be left with the &dquo;sen-
sations of one who has planned to take a
nine o’clock train and found that it went
at eight-thirty&dquo; (By a Daughter of New
England, 1911:434).
Faced with growing old alone, spinsters

worried and dreamed. Although they re-
garded themselves as &dquo;rebels to a great
command,&dquo; they suspected something im-
portant was missing in their lives. Unable
to describe accurately the loss, some em-
bellished it. As one spinster admitted in a
revealing statement about the lives and
conversations of spinsters, &dquo;This great
realm of human experience from which
we are shut out occupies our minds almost
morbidly.&dquo; Calling spinsters &dquo;sickeningly
sentimental,&dquo; she speculated that &dquo;most
of the erotic novels and the purplest of the
passionate poetry .. , are written by spin-
sters&dquo; (&dquo;Autobiography of an Old
Maid,&dquo; 1905:843-844). Not knowing
marriage, they talked about it, wondered
what they were missing, and went on
dreaming that they might yet discover it.
One of the spinster’s consolations, stated
so conventionally by one of the sister-
hood, was the faith that &dquo;the Prince may
yet come&dquo; (Reed, 1909:217).
even with the satisfactions
In old age,
of asuccessful career, spinsters could
regret not marrying and counsel women
to make other choices. In her autobiogra-
phy, written at age 82, Ida Tarbell said
she resolved on spinsterhood very early:
&dquo;One thing by choice left out of the plan I
carried from high school was marriage. I
would never marry.&dquo; Yet she believed in
marriage’s naturalness and work’s crip-
pling effects on woman’s nature. Young
people, she hoped, would be made to
realize the essential barrenness of the
career woman’s triumph (Tarbell, 1939:
36; 1912: passim). Immersed as she was in
society’s problems, especially conscious
of the poverty, corruption, and exploita-
tion of the Progressive era in America,
Tarbell may have worried that challenges
to the family would only add to the prob-
lems. More likely, however, was Tarbell’s
recognition of changing times. The 1890s
were a boom time for being single. The
first generation of bachelor women had
Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016
409
the distinction of being rebels, and there
was glamour in their lives, represented in
material goods and independence. Well
dressed, in good health, and with richer
worldly experience than women of earlier
generations, spinsters could compare
themselves proudly to the old maids they
had known or had heard people talk
about as children. They were not meek,
dried-up, or sour, and they were not a
burden to some male relative. But neither
were their lives complete. For if they
looked to their lives and those of former
old maids or to wives and were pleased by
the comparisons, they were less satisfied
by what they saw when they compared
their lives to those of male colleagues.
Men, after all, did not have to give up
marriage when they pursued a career.
Spinsterhood had the patina of a feminist
critique of marriage, but it was those who
expressed misgivings about what they
missed by not marrying who would set the
feminist agenda of the future in both
countries by insisting that individuals and
institutions adapt to allow women, like
men, to have it all. Women’s wavering be-
tween single blessedness and marriage,
recognizing the flaws of each, might be a
transitional stage. For, in spite of the
ambivalence some spinsters expressed and
the fear of a lonely old age, the bachelor
woman who chose not to marry-or at
least to postpone marriage-made an im-
portant contribution to the history of
women. Although statistics reveal that
more women began to marry as the twen-
tieth century progressed, the revolt of the
spinster was not without lasting effect.
The lament of Lady Louisa Stuart in
1822, &dquo;The truth is, woman has a natural
dependence on man which, do what she
will, she can never quite shake off. I do
believe (in earnest believe) it part of the
curse originally laid on Eve&dquo; has been re-
placed by the attitude articulated 100
years later, &dquo;An intelligent woman
410

demands a husband who will be a con- Barnes, Earl

1915 "The Celibate Women of To-Day." Popu-
genial companion, or she will have none lar Science Monthly 86:550-556.
at all; for it is no longer necessary to have
Bell, E. Moberly
someone to take care of her&dquo; (Stuart, 1953 Storming the Citadel. The Rise of the
1901-1903:269; &dquo;By One of the Sister- Woman Doctor. London: Constable.
hood,&dquo; 1922:83). The figure of the spin- Bell, Lillian
1903 "Talks to Spinsters: Making the Best of
ster changes irrevocably, removing from
It." Harper’s Bazaar 37:211-216.
the unmarried woman the stereotype of
Billington, Mary Frances
the unattractive, pathetic old maid. In 1890 "The Woman of America." Woman’s
both England and the United States, her World 3:84-86.
example, together with the warnings Bodichon, Barbara
about the problems of married life, made 1859 Women and Work. New York: C. M.
Francis.
it easier for a young woman to contem-
Boggs, Winifred
plate the future as a single woman, a per- 1905 "The Metamorphosis of Helen." The
son with opportunities and self-respect. Lady’s Realm: 553-558.
Boucherett, Jessie
1869 "How to Provide for Superfluous
Women?" In Josephine Butler, ed.,
Woman’s Work and Woman’s Culture,
27-48. London: Macmillan.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Brittain, Vera
1978 Testament of Youth. 1933. Reprint. Lon-
Abbot, Frances don : Virago.
1904 "Three Decades of College Women." Browne, Junius Henry
Popular Science Monthly 65:350-359. 1888 "To Marry or Not to Marry." Forum 6:
Anstruther, Eve 432-442.
1899 "Ladies’ Clubs." Nineteenth Century 45: Butler, Josephine, ed.
598-611. 1869 Woman’s Work and Woman’s Culture.
Aron, Cindy S. London: MacMillan.
1981 ’’’To Barter Their Souls for Gold’: Female By a Daughter of New England
Clerks in Federal Government Offices, 1911 "Why I am an Old Maid." Good House-
1862-1890." Journal of American History keeping 52:434-437.
67:835-853. By Herself
Ashmore, Ruth 1907 "Some Reflections of an Unmarried
1893 "Girl Life in New York City." Ladies’ Daughter." Harper’s Bazaar 41:11-16.
Home Journal 10:14. By a Novelist

Austen, Jane 1911 "The Problem of the Unmarried

1957 Emma. 1816. Reprint. Boston: Riverside Woman." Lady’s Realm 29:608-614.
Press. By an Old Maid
"Autobiography of an Old Maid" 1890 "Why I Never Married." Ladies’ Home
1905 Everybody’s 13:839-844. Journal 7:4.
"Autobiography of a Single Woman" By One of the Sisterhood
1857 Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 14:363- 1922 "The Abandoned Spinster." Atlantic
369. Monthly 129:80-84.
A Bachelor Maid By a Spinster
1904 "Why I Do Not Marry." Independent 56: 1905 "The Truth About Men." Lady’s Realm:
1482-1486. 191-195.
Banks, J. A. By an Unwilling Celibate
1954 Prosperity and Parenthood. London: 1909 "Why Do Not Educated Women Marry?"
Routledge and Kegan Paul. Independent 67:966.
Banks, J. A. and Olive Banks Caird, Mona
1964 Feminism and Family Planning. New 1897 The Morality of Marriage and Other
York: Schocken Books. Essays. London: G. Redway.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016

 411

Census of Great Britain and New York: Croom Helm/Barnes and

1851 Results and Observations. Parliamentary Noble.
Papers 1852-1853. (1631) lxxxv (London, Deland, Margaret
1852) xvii. 1910 "The Change in the Feminine Ideal." At-
1871 Enumerator’s Schedules. Holy Trinity lantic Monthly 105:290-303.
Parish, Brompton, Kensington; St. Mary Dix, Dorothy
Abbott Parish, Kensington. Reels 824572 1913 "Should Women Propose?" Good House-
and 824572.Oakland Genealogical keeping 57:487-490.
Library. Oakland, California. Dobkin, Marjorie H., ed.
Chafe, William 1979 The Making of a Feminist. Early Journals
1972 The American Woman. Her Changing and Letters of M. Carey Thomas. Kent,
Social, Economic and Political Role 1920- Ohio: Kent University Press.
1970. London and New York: Oxford Uni- Eddy, Frances Marion
versity Press. Unpublished reminiscences. Courtesy of
Chambers-Schiller, Lee Leslie Parker Hume.
1978 "The Single Woman Reformer: Conflicts [Ester, Mrs.]
between Family and Vocation, 1830- 1893a "Answers to Correspondents." Young
1860." Frontiers 3:41-48. Woman 2:106.
Chester, Eliza [Harriet Eliza Paine] 1893b "Between Ourselves. A Friendly Chat with
1892 The Unmarried Woman. New York: the Girls." Young Woman 3:140.
Dodd, Mead and Co. Eugenius
Claus, Ruth Freeman 1891 "The Decline of Marriage." Westminster
1975 "Militancy in the Suffrage Movement. A Review 135:11-27.
Comparison of the English and American "Fiancées—Why Not?"
Experience." Ph.D. dissertation, Yale Uni- 1910 Good Housekeeping 50:588-594.
versity. Filene, Peter
Cobbe, F. P. 1974 Him/Her/Self. New York: Harcourt Brace
1862 "What Shall We Do With Our Old Jovanovich.
Maids?" Fraser’s Magazine 66:564-610. Fisher, John
1869 "Celibacy v. Marriage." Reprinted in 1971 That Miss Hobhouse. London: Secker and
Josephine Butler, ed., Women’s Work and Warburg.
Women’s Culture, 38-57. London: Mac- Forbes, Lady Helen
millan. 1905 "The American Girl." Lady’s Realm: 33.
1904 The Life of Frances Power Cobbe by "From Old Maid that Needs No Apology"
an
Herself. 1894. Reprint. Vol. 1. London: 1915 Point of View. Scribner’s Magazine
S. Sonnenschein. 58:124.
Collet, Clara "The Future of Single Women"
1902 Educated Working Women. London: P. S. 1884 Westminster Review 121:151-162.
King. Gibbons-Wilson, Margaret
Coolbrith, Ina 1979 The American Woman in Transition.
1921 Ina Coolbrith to Mrs. S., December 24, Westport, Ct.: Greenwood Press.
1921. Coolbrith Ms. 446. California His- Gilbert, Bentley
torical Society. San Francisco. 1965 "Health and Politics: The British Physical
"Cycling for Ladies" Deterioration Report of 1904." Bulletin of
. 1896- Lady’s Realm: 310-319. the History of Medicine 39:143-153.
1897 Gilman, Charlotte Perkins
Dangerfield, George 1906 "The Passing of Matrimony." Harper’s
1980 The Strange Death of Liberal England. Bazaar 40:495-498.
1935. Reprint. New York: G. P. Putnam. Gissing, George
Davis, Katherine Bennet 1893 The Odd Women.
1928 "Why They Failed to Marry." Harper’s Goldin, Claudia
Magazine 156:460-469. 1980 "The Work and Wages of Single Women,
Delamont, Sara 1870 to 1920." Journal of Economic His-
1978 "The Domestic Ideology and Women’s tory 40:81-83.
Education." In Sara Delamont and Lorna Greenwall, Dora
Duffin, eds., Nineteenth Century Woman: 1862 "Our Single Women." North British Re-
Her Cultural and Physical World. London view 36:162-187.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016

412

Greg, W. R. Humphreys, Mary Gay

1869 Why Are Women Redundant? London: N. 1896 "Women Bachelors in London."
Trubner. Scribner’s Magazine 19:600-611.
Gwynn, Stephen Hynes, Samuel
1898 "Bachelor Women." Contemporary Re- 1968 Edwardian Turn of Mind. Princeton:
view : 866-875. Princeton University Press.
Hallwood, Mary "In Defense of Spinsters"
1886- Hallwood MSS. U1271 F1/1-22. Kent 1922 Scribner’s Magazine 71:760-761.
1899 County Records Office, Maidstone, Kent. Jeune, Lady
Hammerton, A. James 1897 "A Reply to Marie Corelli." Lady’s Realm
1979 Emigrant Gentlewomen: Genteel Poverty 1:641-645.
and Female Emigration, 1830-1914. Lon- Kanner, S. Barbara
don and Totowa, N.J.: Croom Helm/ 1972 "The Women in England in a Century of
Rowman and Littlefield. Social Change, 1815-1914." In Martha
Harris, Mrs. L. H. Vicinus, ed., Suffer and Be Still, 173-206.
1904 "Reflections upon Old Bachelors in New Bloomington and London: Indiana Uni-
England." Independent 57:1492-1494. versity Press.
Harrison, Constance Carey [Mrs. Burton Harrison] Kelsall, R. K.
1899 A Bachelor Maid. New York: Century 1955 Higher Civil Servants. London: Routledge
Company. and Paul.
Harrison, E. B. Keneally, Arabella
1894 "Mothers and Daughters." Nineteenth 1891"A New View of the Surplus of Women."
Century35 (February): 313-322. Westminster Review 136:465-475.
Harvey, George Lasch, Christopher
1907 "Concerning Old Maids" and "On Taxing 1967 The New Radicalism in America, 1889-
Spinsters" in "Reflections Concerning 1963. New York: Vintage.
Women." Harper’s Bazaar 41:519-520. Levy, Amy
Haweis, M. E. [Mrs. H. R.] 1888 "Women and Club Life." Woman’s
1894a "The American Girl." Young Woman World 1:364-367.
2:153-154. Low, Frances
1894b "The Revolt of the Daughters." Nine- 1897 "How Poor Ladies Live." Nineteenth
teenth Century 35:430-436. Century 41:405-417.
Higgs, Mary Lytton, Lady Constance
1910 Where Shall She Live? London: P. S. King 1929 Lady Constance Lytton to Edward Car-
and Sons. penter, June 26, 1929. Carpenter MSSI
Hill, Mary A. 386/168. Sheffield Public Library.
1980 Charlotte Perkins Gilman: The Making of MacKenzie, Jeanne
a Radical Feminist. Philadelphia: Temple 1979 A Victorian Courtship. The Story of
University Press. Beatrice Potter and Sidney Webb. New
Holcombe, Lee York: Oxford University Press.
1973 Victorian Ladies at Work. Hamden, Ct.: Marlborough, Constance
Archon Books. 1911 "Hostels for Women." Nineteenth Cen-
Holtby, Winifred tury 69:858-866.
1978 Women and a Changing Civilization. Marnott-Watson, H. B.
Reprint. Chicago: Academy Press. 1901 "The American Woman. An Analysis."
Holtzman, Ellen Nineteenth Century 56:433-442.
1982 "The Pursuit of Married Love: Women’s "Married and Single"
Attitudes toward Sexuality and Marriage in 1919 Living Age 288: 564-566.
Great Britain, 1918-1939." Journal of Martindale, Hilda
Social History 16:39-52. 1938 Women Servants of the State, 1870-1938.
"How Can an Unasked Girl Marry?" London: G. Allen and Unwin.
1913 Good Housekeeping 57:353. May, Elaine Tyler
Hume, Leslie P. 1980 Great Expectations: Marriage and Divorce
1982 The National Union of Women’s Suffrage in Post-Victorian America. Chicago: Uni-
Societies, 1897-1914. New York: Garland versity of Chicago Press.
Press.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016

 413

McFadyen, Irene M. Ashby Repplier, Agnes

1907 "The Birth-Rate and the Mother." Nine- 1913 "The American Spinster." Century Maga-
teenth Century 61:430-431. zine 86:363-367.
McGovern, James R. Richardson, Dorothy
1969 "Anna Howard Shaw: New Approaches to 1972 The Long Day. 1905. Reprinted in William
Feminism." Journal of Social History 2: O’Neill, ed., Women at Work, 1-303. Chi-
135-153. cago : Quadrangle.
Mitchell, B. R. and Phyllis Deane Rickert, Edith [By One Who Did]
1962 Abstract of British Historical Statistics. 1909 "Why Educated Women Do Not Marry."
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Independent 67:1193-1194.
Monkhouse, Fanny Rodgers, Daniel T.
1886- Monkhouse Diaries. Binnall 311. Lincoln- 1978 The Work Ethic in Industrial America,
1906 shire Archives Office. The Castle, Lincoln, 1880-1920. Chicago: University of Chi-
England. cago Press.
"New Openings for Women" Rose, O. M. E.
1901 Lady: 619. 1890 "Experiments in Wage-Earning." Ladies’
O’Hagan, Ann Home Journal 7:6.
1907a "Some Compensations of Spinsterhood." Rosen, Andrew
Harper’s Bazaar 41:107-112. 1974 Rise Up, Women! The Militant Campaign
1907b "The Married Woman and the Spinster." of the Women’s Social and Political
Harper’s Bazaar 41:630-635. Union, 1903-1914. London and Boston:
An Old Maid Routledge and Kegan Paul.
1919 Why I am Glad—and Why Sorry—I Never 1979 "Emily Davies and the Women’s Suffrage
Married." American Magazine 88:27. Movement, 1862-1867." Journal of British
Orme, Eliza Studies 19:101-121.
1897 "How Poor Ladies Live: A Reply." Nine- Rossi, Alice
teenth Century 41:613-619. 1972 "The Roots of Ambivalence in American
Orr, A. [Mrs. A. Sutherland] Women." In Judith Bardwick, ed., Read-
1878 "The Future of English Women." Nine- ings on the Psychology of Women.
teenth Century 3:1010-1031. 125-127. New York: Harper and Row.
"Our Daughters" Rubenstein, David
1857 Harper’s New Monthly Magazine 16: 1977 "Cycling in the 1890’s." Victorian Studies
72-77. 21:47-72.
"Our Sisters Across the Sea" Scudder, Vida
1894 Young Woman 2:288. 1937 On Journey. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Palmegiana, E. M. Semmel, Bernard
1976 Women and British Periodicals 1832-1867. 1968 Imperialism and Social Reform. English
A Bibliography. New York and London: Social-Imperial Thought 1895-1914.
Garland Press. Garden City, New York: Anchor.
Pethick-Lawrence, Emmeline Shaw, Edith M.
1935 My Part in a Changing World. London: 1897 "How Poor Ladies Might Live." Nine-
Victor Gollanz. teenth Century 41:620-627.
"The Plaint of the Spinster" Sherwood, Mrs. John
1917 Point of View. Scribner’s Magazine 62: 1890 "American Girls in Europe." North
511-512. American Review 150:681-691.
"The Plaint of the Unmarried" Shipman, Carolyn
1890 Spectator 65:373. 1909 "The Anomalous Position of the Unmar-
Quaesita, Amanda Saepe ried Woman." North American Review
1909 "The Unattractiveness of American Men." 190:338-346.
Independent 67:1065-1069. "The Single Woman’s Problem"
Quilter, Harry 1906 American Magazine 62:281-285.
1888 Is Marriage a Failure? London: Swan Son- Spencer, Anna Garlin
nenschein. 1972 Woman’s Share in Social Culture. 1913.
Reed, Myrtle Reprint. New York: Arno Press.
1909 The Spinster Book. New York: G. P. Put- "Statistics of Marriage"
nam and Sons. 1885 Nation 41:107-108.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016

414

Stein, Robert Walsh, Mary Roth

1898 "Girls’ Cooperative Boarding Homes." 1977 "Doctors Wanted: No Women Need Ap-
Arena 19:397-417. ply." Sexual Barriers in the Medical Pro-
Stewart, Charlotte fession, 1835-1975. New Haven: Yale
1889 "The American Girl in Fiction." Woman’s University Press.
World 2:100-103. Wells, Mrs. Kate Gannett
"The Strike of a Sex" 1891 "Why More Girls Do Not Marry." North
1909 Independent 67:1323-1324. American Review 152:175-181.
Stuart, Lady Louisa "What is the Role of the ’New Woman’?"
1901- Lady Louisa Stuart to Miss Louisa Clin- 1898 Westminster Review 150:576.
1903 ton, September 9, 1822. In Hon James A. "Where Are the Young Men?"
Home, ed., Letters of Lady Louisa Stuart 1871 Scribner’s Monthly 1:453-454.
to Miss Louisa Clinton. Edinburgh: D. White, Cynthia
Douglas. 1970 Women’s Magazines, 1693-1968. London:
"The Surplus of Women" Joseph.
1891 Public Opinion 12:201. "Why Do Not the Women Marry?"
Tarbell, Ida 1890 Public Opinion 10:11.
1912 The Business of Being a Woman. New "Why I am an Old Maid"
York: Macmillan. 1915 Independent 82:399.
1939 All in the Day’s Work. New York: Mac- "Why They Do Not Marry"
millan. 1885 Ladies’ Home Journal 2:4.
Tentler, Leslie Woodcock Wilcox, Ella Wheeler
1979 Wage-Earning Women. Industrial Work 1901 "The Restlessness of Modern Women."
and Family Life in the United States, Cosmopolitan 31:314-317.
1900-1930. New York: Oxford. Willcox, Walter
Tompkins, Juliet Wilbor 1896 "The Distribution of the Sexes in the
1907 "Why Women Don’t Marry." Cosmopoli- United States in 1890." American Journal
tan 42:468-471. of Sociology 1:729-735.
Vicinus, Martha 1897 The Divorce Problem: A Study in Statis-
1982 ’’’One Life to Stand Beside Me’: Emotion- tics. In Studies in History, Economics and
al Conflicts in First-Generation College Public Law, vol. 1. New York: Columbia
Women in England." Feminist Studies University Press.
8:603-628. Wimble, Wilhelmina
1896 "Incomes for Ladies." Lady’s Realm: 104.

Downloaded from jfh.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 12, 2016