![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emma_in_dreamHarriet Beecher Stowe was one of the pre-eminent nineteenth-century novelists, with her *Uncle Tom’s Cabin* being a best seller comparable with *Harry Potter, complete with associated marketing.
Publishing this anti-slavery novel had, of course, exposed her to much public criticism that it was unladylike to acknowledge the wickedness of slavery. In 1859 she wrote an article for *The Atlantic* which, once again, embroiled her in controversy.
Beecher Stowe wrote ‘Lady Byron Vindicated’ to protest the view that Lady Byron was a chilly prude who had driven her husband away (as articulated in a contemporary biography by his final lover). Lady Byron was a personal friend, and she wrote a defence of her character, which argued that she was a noble woman who had been forced to leave her husband as he was so immoral as to be insane. She specifically named his incestuous adultery with his sister.
Knowledge of this alliance had circulated fairly freely in some circles and was acknowledged frankly in his letters naming his niece as his child. However, it was one thing for people to gossip about and another for Beecher Stowe to present the facts to a broad audience in a mass market magazine.
She was immediately criticised for having dared to name this problem. This had been Lady Byron’s problem all along – if she said nothing, she was inexplicably ill willed; if she spoke, she admitted to knowledge which any real lady could not have.
Beecher Stowe framed herself as a moral crusader, rescuing Lady Byron’s reputation since Lady Byron could not speak, but there was considerable backlash. Beecher Stowe attempted to deal with it in the same way she had dealt with criticisms of *Uncle Tom’s Cabin*. Amidst the storm of controversy the novel provoked, she wrote a massive compendium, full of evidence that she had not exaggerated the horrors of slavery. She attempted the same trick this time, but found the audience less receptive to reading about the wrongs of one woman in a detailed appendix.
I think focussing on Lady Byron was a misreading of the public mood. Some of Beecher Stowe’s relations were involved in the suffragette movement, and an article about a broader problem facing women might well have struck a chord with the wider public. Writing about the wrongs done to one (incredibly privileged) woman just didn’t attract popular sympathy in the same way. Even a call to allow divorce more readily in cases of incest would have had a broader appeal, would have allowed a cross over into the women’s magazines, but Beecher Stowe remained antipathetic to suffragettes. Indeed, she associated them with the harm done to her brother Henry’s reputation when he was revealed as a serial adulterer.
Publishing this anti-slavery novel had, of course, exposed her to much public criticism that it was unladylike to acknowledge the wickedness of slavery. In 1859 she wrote an article for *The Atlantic* which, once again, embroiled her in controversy.
Beecher Stowe wrote ‘Lady Byron Vindicated’ to protest the view that Lady Byron was a chilly prude who had driven her husband away (as articulated in a contemporary biography by his final lover). Lady Byron was a personal friend, and she wrote a defence of her character, which argued that she was a noble woman who had been forced to leave her husband as he was so immoral as to be insane. She specifically named his incestuous adultery with his sister.
Knowledge of this alliance had circulated fairly freely in some circles and was acknowledged frankly in his letters naming his niece as his child. However, it was one thing for people to gossip about and another for Beecher Stowe to present the facts to a broad audience in a mass market magazine.
She was immediately criticised for having dared to name this problem. This had been Lady Byron’s problem all along – if she said nothing, she was inexplicably ill willed; if she spoke, she admitted to knowledge which any real lady could not have.
Beecher Stowe framed herself as a moral crusader, rescuing Lady Byron’s reputation since Lady Byron could not speak, but there was considerable backlash. Beecher Stowe attempted to deal with it in the same way she had dealt with criticisms of *Uncle Tom’s Cabin*. Amidst the storm of controversy the novel provoked, she wrote a massive compendium, full of evidence that she had not exaggerated the horrors of slavery. She attempted the same trick this time, but found the audience less receptive to reading about the wrongs of one woman in a detailed appendix.
I think focussing on Lady Byron was a misreading of the public mood. Some of Beecher Stowe’s relations were involved in the suffragette movement, and an article about a broader problem facing women might well have struck a chord with the wider public. Writing about the wrongs done to one (incredibly privileged) woman just didn’t attract popular sympathy in the same way. Even a call to allow divorce more readily in cases of incest would have had a broader appeal, would have allowed a cross over into the women’s magazines, but Beecher Stowe remained antipathetic to suffragettes. Indeed, she associated them with the harm done to her brother Henry’s reputation when he was revealed as a serial adulterer.
