Harmon 1

Maddy Harmon
Mrs. Galvin
English 11 Honors
14 December 2012
Fighting Coquetry:
Controlling Women of the 18th Century Through Regulation of Social Interaction
Virginia Woolf once said Women have served all these centuries as looking glasses
possessing the magic and delicious power of reflecting the figure of man at twice its natural size
(Virginia 4). Virginia is saying that though women have long been believed to be worth less than
men, the injustices they have been made to endure have served as means of reflecting the corrupt
ideas of those trying to suppress them. In The Coquette by Hannah Webster Foster, female
characters reflect not only depravity in the male figures in their lives, but also the corruption of
their society as a whole. Set in 18th century Connecticut, the time and place in which it was also
written, The Coquette depicts the constraints and limitations of society on women in a variety of
ways. Eliza Wharton, the main character of Fosters 1797 epistolary novel, is based on the real
life Elizabeth Whitman. During the 18th century, in post-revolutionary America, women were
expected to conform to social norms in order to secure an acceptable place in society. In order to
achieve this, women transitioned from childhood to adulthood through a series of regulated
steps. Each stage of development had a unique set of conventions, but all shared a common
underlying goal; the subdual and control of female freedom. Both Eliza and Elizabeth resisted
these protocols, and as result were ostracized by their communities and eventually met their
demise. Elizabeths death made her an example to her society of the consequences of embracing
free thought and sexuality as a woman. The novel The Coquette, with its embellished
interpretation of Whitmans story, was written as a cautionary tale. Despite its goal of persuading
young women to take a path polar to that of Elizabeth Whitman, The Coquette still serves to
bring to light several injustices that women faced during the time of its publish. Character
interactions in The Coquette reflect the expectations, restraints, and injustices imposed on young
women through Fosters depiction of standard 18th century friendship, courtship, and marriage
procedure.

Harmon 2

Eliza was a part of a close network of friends who had her best interests at heart, despite
the fact that their advice was often a damper to her revolutionary spirit. Her closest friend was a
young woman of almost the same age named Lucy Freeman. Lucy and Eliza communicated
through the exchange of letters, which allowed for the frequent exchange of personal opinions,
desires, and advice. Eliza first raised concern in Lucy when she confides the pleasure she feels
from being free from her now late fiance, Mr. Haley, who she was forcibly engaged to by her
parents. This confession is offensive to Lucy because she expected Eliza to grieve more for the
loss of Mr. Haley (Foster 1). Lucys reaction does not benefit Eliza in any way; it only serves to
shame her for delighting in long awaited independence. Elation in romantic independence is not
the only kind of freedom Elizas friends object to. At a dinner party with her peers, Eliza tries to
engage in a conversation with the men of her party regarding politics. Mrs. Lawrence, the host
did not approve, because she did not consider politics to be the business of ladies (Foster 20).
Mrs. Lawrence discouraging Eliza from speaking her mind shows how female freedom in many
forms was considered a fault in femininity. The advice she received had a profound effect on her
mentally, and also influenced how she acted. Though this was the intended outcome of such
advice, it at times may have had unplanned consequences.
The onslaught of sometimes contradictory advice Eliza received from her peers may have
contributed to her stray from socially acceptable behavior. Major Sanford was one of Elizas
most persistent suitors, who became interested in Eliza shortly after a more respectable man
named Reverend Boyer gave her attention. Sanford was considered a philanderer because of his
various relationships with women (Foster 27). His lifestyle made him an unacceptable choice for
relation in the eyes of Elizas friends. Despite their disapproval of him as a suitor, they still
recognized him as an esteemed member of the community because of his wealth and class.
Upon Elizas introduction to Sanford, her friend Mrs. Richman states: The rank and fortune of
Major Sanfordprocure him respect (Foster 7). This coaching is taken by Eliza as
encouragement toward accepting Sanfords pursuit. However later, after Eliza has interacted
socially with Sanford for some time, her friend Lucy insists: Places and honors have been
bought for gold / Esteem and love were never to be sold (Foster 29). This incongruous clash of
advice not only caused Eliza to feel inferior for failing to act in an acceptable fashion, but also
misled her into associating with Sanford. The level of absorption into this system of friendship
was in many ways detrimental to Elizas personal growth. Despite the possible disadvantages,

Harmon 3

close association with a rigid system of companions was common among young people of the
18th century.
Young men and women in post-revolutionary America formed networks of equals in
order to access the companionship, advice, and opinions of their peers. These groups were
known as coteries, and were comprised of young people of a common class rank who were
transitioning from life with their parents to independence (Waterman 3). Eliza was especially
subject to the opinions of her peers because she held a slightly lower rank than they did (Baker
2). As the daughter of a country minister, Eliza was a social disadvantage to the heiresses and
merchants daughters of her coterie. One of the main goals of Elizas coterie, and many coteries
of her time, was dispensing pressure to settle down. The reason for this was the 18th century
belief that female value depended first on virtue and chastity (Weyler 1). Elizas desire for
romantic and social independence was contrary to this belief, and instilled a fear of unchaste
behavior in her friends. The severity of this pressure to settle down may have been result of a
rise in out-of-wedlock pregnancies in the post-revolutionary era (8). Though coteries were an
overbearing and highly supervisory structure in society, the relationships within them were often
at least partly based on affection.
Members of coteries took it upon themselves to protect each other from the temptations
they might encounter in their lives. The pressure to settle down may have sprung from a desire
to protect each other from the consequences of fornication and bastardy, which were both illegal
practices in 18th century Connecticut (Joslin 1). The advice of coteries may seem harsh and
unwarranted through a modern lens, but during the 18th century it was both accepted and
expected. Advice was governed by a concept known as candor, which freed the advisor from a
need to mediate their delivery of guidance so long as they maintained benevolence and integrity
in their relationships (Baker 5). It is on this premise that Lucy, Mrs. Lawrence, and Elizas other
friends are able to constantly interject their opinions about Elizas behavior. Inclusion into these
circles had parameters, and failure to adhere to them would result in exclusion. Elizas real-life
counterpart met this fate upon her death, as there is no record of her being mentioned after the
scandalous events surrounding her passing (Waterman 3). Even before her final misstep, Elizas
inclusion in her coterie was in question, as she chose to associate with members outside her
circle, of the opposite sex.

Harmon 4

When faced with the choice between engagement to Reverend Boyer or Major Sanford,
Eliza maintains her ambiguity by instead insisting on the friendship of both, which allows her to
retain her freedom without having to deny either man. Despite the apparent logic of this
compromise, Elizas friends were unhappy. When Eliza reveals her choice to befriend Boyer
rather than immediately enter into an engagement with him, Lucy Freeman insists that in
delaying his advances, Eliza is holding onto coquettish ways (Foster 12). Her friendship to
Boyer is not as offensive to society as her friendship to Major Sanford. Sanford is regarded as a
danger to women because of his deceitful ways, yet Eliza is charmed by his demeanor (Foster 9).
By engaging in a friendship with him, she is delaying the distance from him that her community
expects her to insist upon. This choice underscores an area in which society is trying to restrict
her freedom. Her decision is therefore rebellious, and when discovered by her coterie, she is
urged repeatedly to break all relations with Major Sanford (Foster 13). Sanford uses this
friendship as a way to form a closer relationship with Eliza, which is precisely what her friends
wanted her to avoid (Foster 10). Elizas increasing companionship with both men, without the
promise of marriage, is what makes the interaction most displeasing. Upon advocating for the
reform of Sanford, stating how unfamiliar she feels with Boyer, and disclosing her reluctance to
decide between the two, Eliza inspires her friend Mrs. Richman to reveal an impassioned
warning. She cautions: Beware the delusions of fancy! Reason must be our guide, if we would
expect durable happiness (Foster 24). This advice shows how the uncertain plan behind simply
following desires is regarded as foolish. Rather than supporting or even allowing Eliza to act in
accordance to her desires, she is strongly encouraged by her peers to simply fall into line. The
concern her friends had over Elizas inter-sex friendship was common to society at this time.
Close non-marital relationships between young men and women during the 18th century
were discouraged and regarded as scandalous. Coteries were made up of young people of a
common gender, and therefore extra-coterie relationships were closely monitored by the
community (Waterman 5). The way most people maintained friendships was through letter
writing, which allowed them to convey feeling and opinions without reserve, like Eliza and
Lucys frequent correspondence (6). Between men and women however, this liberty was not
afforded. Letters between men and women were considered the property of their respective
coterie (6). Because of this censorship, the real life Elizabeth Whitman often mentioned the
carriers of her letters as a hint that what she had written was not the full extent of her thoughts

Harmon 5

(7). This restriction limited the formation of friendships between men and women, and thus
restricted a woman ability to expand her life. This restriction on expansion is felt by Eliza when
she is discouraged from befriending Boyer and Sanford. The only socially accepted outlet for
relation between the sexes during the 18th century was commencement of the regulated process
of courtship.
Eliza does not follow the standard protocol in regards to courtship because she is more
interested in following her own desires for freedom and pleasure than in conforming to what her
friends and family have deemed suitable behavior. Eliza states to Boyer:
I recoil at the thought of immediately forming a connection, which must confine
me to the duties of domestic life, and make me dependent for happiness, perhaps
too, for subsistence, upon a class of people, who will claim the right of
scrutinising every part of my conduct; and by censuring those foibles, which I am
conscious of not having prudence to avoid, may render me completely miserable.
(Foster 14)
This statement defines exactly Elizas feelings of restraint in her society. Her soul craves
more freedom than is afforded to her, and the notion of being required to relinquish any
freedom she does possess feels innately wrong to her. This position displeases her
companions, who believe that an engagement to Boyer will ultimately bring her respect
and happiness (Foster 12). By not conforming to their expectations, Eliza is resisting the
constraints of her society as a whole, and out casting herself from that circle. The
constraints she encounters are due more to her sex than any other factor.
Pursuing personal freedom and pleasure, rather than strictly adhering to societal
norms, was considered radical and unladylike behavior in the 18th century. During this
time, women were expected to serve their families and friends. Honor was expected to
be derived from the proper execution of their duty, and true happiness was expected to be
the result of pleasing those around them (Baker 1). Eliza feels this pressure when her
companions insist upon her committing to a suitor, preferably Boyer. These restraints
limited the fullness of a womans life. Elizas life is restricted by her friends persistent
pressure, and if she were to comply completely, her life would be reduced exclusively to
the search for a good marriage. This search was the only socially accepted option

Harmon 6

afforded to her. However, if she did choose to start a relationship, it was expected that
her choice of partner elevate her class.
Elizas relationships were especially scrutinized by her peers to ensure she made
decisions that benefit her socially. If Eliza were to choose to become romantically
involved with Reverend Boyer, her class rank would be elevated. This is brought to
Elizas attention when she first is introduced to Boyer. The host of a dinner party
explains to her that he is from a good family, was successful in school, and now was a
respected member of society because of his position in the clergy (Foster 3). From here
on, Eliza is unable to escape the constant suggestion from her friends that she accept
Boyers proposal for a relationship. This bombardment of opinion overwhelms Eliza,
who wishes only to socialize and enjoy her newly gained freedom (Foster 2). Lucy
stresses that this behavior is purposeless, but insists that a marriage to Boyer would
provide her with the necessary support she would need to maintain this lifestyle (Foster
14). By allowing only limited suitable choices for her relationships and activities, Elizas
companions and her entire society are limiting her potential. Eliza was not alone in this
limitation; classism was a common denominator among all young relationships during
her time.
During the 18th century, class rank and the ability for self-sustenance had major
influence on whether or not a romantic relationship was acceptable. Because
communities were small, courtship was a public event, and therefore up for public
inspection (Weyler 10). If women belonged to a higher class, there was an even greater
pressure to find a husband who could not only support her, but raise the status of her
family (Courtship 1). In order to emphasize the importance of Eliza finding a proper
husband, Foster modified certain aspects of the real life Elizabeth Whitman in order to
create Eliza Whartons character. Whitman was a woman could have supported herself
had her desire to do so been allowed. She was a published and respected poet in her time,
and was well read and educated (Waterman 4). By making Eliza seem more dependent
than Elizabeth Whitman actually was, Foster was highlighting what she saw as the
dangerous consequences of female independence. Fosters characterization of Eliza as
helpless made her companions insistence on a good marriage seem commendable. With
this, Foster was able to then craft a story that instilled a fear of nonconformity in her

Harmon 7

readers. Ironically, Foster, a woman of the 18th century, was not even considered capable
of condemning nonconformity, as she received no credit as author of The Coquette until
1866 (Foster 1). This novel now brings to light the severity of female oppression, even
from other women, during that time. However, despite Elizas vulnerability, her character
still refuses to abide by the expectations of her society without question.
To the disdain of her peers, Elizas revolutionary spirit and unorthodox desires
bend the standards of courtship etiquette. When her reintroduction into the social world
after the death of her fiance first took place, Eliza was instantly tries to establish a buffer
of free will. She implores: Let me have opportunity, unbiased by opinion, to gratify my
natural disposition in a participation of those pleasures which youth and innocence
afford (Foster 5). With this Eliza is asking to be left to her own desires, and to not be
forced into a relationship she is unwilling to commit to. This request is denied to her by
her peers, which causes Eliza to begin a quiet rebellion. In order to get around the
constraints of her group, Eliza insists on friendships with both Boyer and Sanford (Foster
16). Eliza had different motives for forming each friendship; Boyers to resist having to
commit fully to his request for a romantic relationship, and Sanfords to delay having to
completely break off contact with him. These acts of rebellion are expanded on with
covert flirtation. In Elizas letters to Boyer, she often apologizes for writing in such a
giddy fashion, and mentions subjects such as inter-sex friendships, the highspiritedness of women, and blushing at Boyers compliments (Foster 22). These notes all
lend themselves to flirtation though they are not independently inappropriate. Through
this interjection of intimacy, Eliza in many ways mocks the censorship her letters are
subject to. Another way in which she resists societys control is through repeated
happenstance encounters with Major Sanford. She is virtually barred from seeing him,
yet she often sets up meetings through hanging-back while riding with her companions,
delaying transitions between rooms at parties, and making appearances at gathering she
knows he will be present at (Foster 21). Her efforts to escape absolute regulation yield
only small successes, but they further underscore the severity of jurisdiction she was
under. The only way to truly escape the criticism and control of her coterie was to
instead surrender herself to an even greater power; marriage.

Harmon 8

Elizas wish to retain her independence is considered by her peers to be the first
step toward promiscuity. The term coquette is used repeatedly as a description of
Elizas flirtatious and uncommitted behavior (Foster 12). Though this is seen a negative
characteristic by her peers, Eliza defends it as acceptable because of her innocent heart
(Foster 2). Eliza much prefers the freedom of being a single woman to the constraints of
what she imagines a marriage to be. Her hesitance is connected to the unhappiness she
felt while engaged to Mr. Haley (Foster 1). Because she was at that time forced into a
relationship she did not feel comfortable in, an established stigma against the practice of
engagement and marriage altogether has been formed. When Mrs. Richman conveys her
hope that Eliza will unite with Mr. Boyer, Eliza replies fervently: Marriage is the tomb
of friendship! (Foster 11). This reaction shows how opposed Eliza is to marriage, to the
extent that she believes friendship, happiness, and marriage cannot coexist. Her
hesitance to settle down resulting from this belief not only worries her friends, who
believe that marriage is the path to refined happiness, but also ostracizes Eliza from a
world where singularity is inexcusable.
Being a single woman during the 18th century was considered a failure rather than
a choice. Women were expected to adhere to the bounds of prudence. In accordance
with these terms, they were expected to be content in conforming to social norms
(Waterman 6). Eliza showed her discontent to conform by remaining single despite her
friends pleas. Being single was not accepted as a viable option for women. Fiction
writing during the 18th century exaggerated the allegory of a single woman by portraying
her as foolish, unlucky, and embarrassing to herself, her family, and her community
(Weyler 5). Fear of this embarrassment would have been a motivating factor for Elizas
peers to insist on her commitment to a marriage. Foster helped to cultivate the notion
that being a single woman made you a danger and burden to society. By embellishing the
story of Elizabeth Whitmans tragic death, she was making clear her belief that women
should not remain single. In the account of Elizabeth Whitmans life, no conning suitor
was ever divulged (Weyler 10). The addition of Sanfords character as Elizas seducer
made Eliza seem an even greater fool than she may have actually been. Eliza eventually
becomes pregnant by Sanford from her own coquettish ways (Foster 74). The
possibility of her pregnancy being the result a loving but non-marital relationship, or even

Harmon 9

of rape, are not entertained in Fosters novel because being single, let alone single and
pregnant, were inexcusable under any circumstance. This intolerance restricted a
womans ability to choose the path of her life, an obstacle that much less often affected
men.
In The Coquette, Major Sanford was recognized for his selfish, womanizing ways,
but the criticism he faced was lessened because of his sex. Lucy Freeman is especially
adverse to Elizas relationship with Sanford, but also summarizes the double standard of
the time when she states: . . . the wretch, who breaks the peace of families, who robs
virgin innocence of its charms, who triumphs over the ill placed confidence of the
inexperienced. . . is received, and caressed, not only by his own sex, to which he is a
reproach, but even by ours . . . (Foster 29). With this statement she is explaining the
latitude men are afforded in their affairs because of their sex. This fact is realized by
Lucy and agreed with by Eliza and others, but none make an attempt to challenge it (30).
This hesitance is the result of having their ideas suppressed by society. Sanford abuses
his ability to be promiscuous without committing to a relationship, but eventually settles
down with Nancy Lawrence (58). With the same selfishness, Sanford also abuses his
legal rights as a husband. His motivation for marrying Nancy was her fortune as an
heiress (58). Upon marrying her, he was granted full access to her wealth, which he
eventually wasted away (81). This seeming injustice was fully legal and afforded society
another way in which to control women.
In Connecticut, until the 1840s, marriage denied women almost all legal rights.
The set of laws aimed at restricting a married womans legal rights were known as
coverture laws, which merged a husband and wifes legal identities (Weyler 2). This
merge meant that women could not own or manage their property or fortunes (3). This
set of laws was meant to protect women, who were seen as incapable of sustenance, but
in reality it allowed for another way in which society could take power from women.
When Sanford marries Nancy Lawrence and spends away her money, he is exercising his
legal right to coverture. With this, Foster is attempting to interject her own opinions on
the injustice of coverture laws, as coverture plays no role in the actual story of Elizabeth
Whitman (10). Marriage was supported by most women in society because they accepted
the social role of subservient. This adherence to social codes served to ease women into

Harmon 10

their legal obligation to serve their new husbands and families (Joslin 1). Elizas differing
opinions about marriage and equality were ahead of their time. The first action for
marriage settlement, an agreement made before marriage that allowed women to retain
some control of their property, was in Mississippi in 1839, fifty one years after the date of
her characters death (Weyler 3). The setting of Eliza and Elizabeth Whitmans conflicts
made them especially subject to the harshness of coverture. Connecticut was among the
last to change their laws, on a county-by-county basis beginning in the late 1840s (3).
Religion, culture, and long held delusions of female worth all played a role in the delay of
equal marriage rights. As society pushed young women through a rigorous set of
freedom-suppressing courses, all with the ultimate goal of a suitable marriage, it was
guiding them further and further away from independence and self-worth.
By portraying the standard practices of friendship, courtship, and marriage during
the 18th century, Hannah Webster Foster uses The Coquette to depict the ways in which
society endeavored to suppress the female spirit. The constant stream of advice Eliza
receives from her peers highlights the influence coteries had over their members. Her
peers aversion to inter-sex friendships with Boyer and Sanford show how society tried to
hold women back by barring them from expanding their network of relation. The only
acceptable interaction with members of the opposite sex was courtship and its strict code
of conduct. By bending the rules of this practice, Elizas character shows the existent
desires of the female spirit when oppressed. Elizas aversion to marriage is met by the
disapproval of her friends and family, which underscores the inexcusability of remaining
a single woman during the 18th century. This restriction was rooted in a belief that
women were incapable of survival on their own, which limited a womens ability to
explore her full potential. If a woman surrendered to marriage, she was stripped of her
legal identity, and was expected to serve her husband and family in exchange for
protection she was often times wrongly assumed to indisputably need. By portraying
Eliza as vapid and flirtatious, and then having those characteristics be the cause of her
eventual demise, Foster was perpetuating the stigma against sovereign women during the
18th century. Writing and other media have profound effect on the attitudes of the masses,
and as artists continue to depict female characters as reliant on their male counterparts,
the restriction of female capacity may be permitted to endure.