Scandal at
Bizarre is quite the intriguing read.
It is as much of a microhistory as it is a gender history and history of the
social climate of post-revolutionary America. I used this work as one of my
main sources last semester for my historiography on gender history. Last
semester when we approached this work, I wondered how much it truly was a
microhistory. Sure it deals with a singular event; however its focus becomes extraordinarily
broadened to follow the lives of Richard, Nancy, Judith, etc. Even though it
follows the lives of these people spanning several decades, this time
approaching the work I do find it to be a true microhistory. As was mentioned
last class, a good tool for examining what a microhistory is by comparing it to
a more standard historical investigation. In this fashion, I find Kierners work
to be similar to that of Thornton’s and Sparks. They have a central focus,
whether it be an event or series of events, then utilize that to branch
outwards to talk about larger subjects. They take the utilization of our ‘lens
theory’ to heart.
Scandal at Bizarre tells the story of a single event, a single night, and the people of such an event. Then Kierner goes into detail about the importance of what such an event, the actions and repercussions of its subjects, and the ramifications in their entirety. When attempting to summarize the exact form and function of this book, I think some of Kierner’s closing words leave us with the best summation of how she views her own work.
Scandal at Bizarre tells the story of a single event, a single night, and the people of such an event. Then Kierner goes into detail about the importance of what such an event, the actions and repercussions of its subjects, and the ramifications in their entirety. When attempting to summarize the exact form and function of this book, I think some of Kierner’s closing words leave us with the best summation of how she views her own work.
“Some historians have viewed the scandal primarily through the lens of gender, interpreting Nancy’s tribulations in Virginia as evidence of the oppression and suppression of white women in the Old South. Others, focusing on the offensive against Richard and the eventual disintegration of his family, have seen the scandal as emblematic of the plight of decayed gentry in the post-revolutionary Virginia. One recent account, by contrast, emphasizes the adroit efforts of Richard’s defenders to use the newspaper and the courts to influence ‘an ever-widening “public”…to manipulate the public understanding of their behavior and their character.’” (171)
Kierner concludes, in her view of her own work, that:
“My account of the Bizarre scandal highlights all of these themes while using the Randolphs’ story to gain insight into complexity and contradictions of American society and culture in a crucial transitional era.” (172)
Kierner, highlights a
compendium of historical themes that would take another compendium in-order to
fully answer. Ranging from relationships of 18th/19th
century Virginian gender roles, rising democracy/egalitarianism, financial
death of the dried up landed gentry of the old world, relationship between Master/Slave
and the power of gossip, honor, dejure representation of the law/courts
juxtaposed with the defacto power of societal perceptions. I personally
find gender and gossip/honor to be two of the most central themes in this
highly turbulent era full of great events and great changes.
Perhaps the “great
historical question” she is attempting to answer here is simply the effects of
the micro on the macro. One night at Glentivar dictated an entire generation of
Randolphs and illuminated the social standards and norms of the late 18th
century. Nancy, Judith, Richard, and other’s lives were completely ruined by a
small “mistake” in their youth. The books concern is not what happened,
but more so what it meant. It detailed ruin that transcended the lifelong
pursuits of Nancy, Judith, St. George Tucker, the courts, peoples of all walks
of life, etc. Perhaps such a microhistory attempts to find the ramifications
and implications in the small. Kierner ends her work with a picture of the
plaque erected at the site of Bizarre and another in the South Bronx. Both are
very topical and lacking any sort of depth except a summation of the largest of
all events. No mention of the scandal or the lives affected therein. Perhaps
microhistory, in this sense, is a tool to combat the necessary reductionism
present in larger histories. Nonetheless, her work accomplishes a very similar
goal to that of larger histories.
To touch on the subject of gender history, I would
also like to post an excerpt from my paper last semester:
In focusing heavily on the domestic sphere and the personal lives of women, Kierner utilizes the advances in gender history to further her arguments. Scandal at Bizarre is, not in the strict second wave feminist definition of a ‘gender history’, yet Kierner, like the historical discipline, by the early 21st century incorporated gender analysis as a legitimate and valued lens of historical analysis. One can imagine the satisfaction Scott derived from such advances since her 1986 article.
Kierner attempts to illustrate the effects of masculine paternalism on master/slave relationships at this period of time. The master would typically adopt the role of the benevolent paternal figure of their slaves as a means to legitimize their dominance and slavery, itself, as an institution. Kierner demonstrates how slaves would utilize rumors, a “weapon of the weak”[i], that would spread beyond the confines of a single household and into the society. In doing so slaves had some collective power in pushing their masters back into the role of a benevolent paternal figure.[ii] Rumors, as Richard and the rest of the Randolph family discovered, could be catastrophic to ones social status and well being. The slaves could impact the gendered system of slavery, via rumors, in order to reaffirm masculine (master) and feminine (slave) gender roles to their own end.
When the scandal, perpetuated by rumors, of infanticide and adultery became insurmountable for Richard Randolph, he turned to the court system for assistance. Such an act, in late 18th century court proceedings, was highly gendered. In cases of rumor and accusations of immorality, dependent on notions of masculine virtue, the target of such rumor was expected to challenge the accusations. Men were expected to directly challenge those spewing such accusations, but Richard Randolph was denied such a masculine right. William Randolph initiated and propelled the rumors against Richard, yet would not acknowledge Richard’s attempts to rebuke. Such a relational power maneuver feminized Richard’s character and subverted his masculine rights. Turning to the courts as a battleground was, typically, in the 18th century a women’s path since they were unable to directly challenge rumors against their feminine virtue.[iii]
Court cases involving slander typically involved a female defendant, with a male relative testifying in her defense. In the case of the Randolph family, Richard assumed the role of the defendant with Judith, to some extent, testifying in a stoic and masculine manner on behalf of his fidelity.[iv] This inversion of gender roles would plague Richard Randolph and, even though he won the court case, contribute to the spiraling degradation of his social perception. This masculinization on the part of Judith would not end with the hammering of the gavel. She too, with the physical decline of Richard, had to take on the paternal role in the household to care for Nancy and the estate. Her masculine role would last up until Richard’s brother, Jack, took upon the paternal responsibilities at bizarre.[v]
The most damaging targets of rumor were a man’s masculine honor and a woman’s feminine virtue. These themes run the length of Scandal at Bizarre and are evident throughout. Nancy, upon leaving Virginia, found salvation from public scorn in assuming the role of the caring mother whereas before she could not.[vi] Virginia Randolph, in response to the rumors and accusations of the family, published a collection of letters titled Letters on Female Character as an instruction guide for proper masculine and feminine, husband and wife, gender roles.[vii] In the end as hostilities between Jack, who blamed Nancy for his brothers death and social decline, and Nancy spiraled out of control, each one attacked the others gendered characters. Nancy publically cited affronts to Jacks masculine honor as Jack attempted to destroy Nancy’s feminine purity and virtue.[viii]
Cynthia Kierner would not have been able to make such claims and prove, to the extent she did, the ramifications of scandalous rumors without first exploring their gendered functions. In making such an analysis, Scandal at Bizarre proves to be a perfect example of utilizing gender in the greater historical analysis. By the early 21st century, gender became a legitimate tool for the historian to better understand the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment