18th Century Queer Culture

This information is given as an overview and is not a definitive guide to all of queer history in the 18th century, especially as much of it is specific to England. However, as British subjects, many people in colonial America were still connected to the ideas here. This page is designed to grow and evolve as I learn more myself. There are much more topics within the vastness of 18th century queer culture that I have not even begun to dive into yet, for example, a closer look at gender identity beyond the example of Deborah Sampson below.

The "That's Just How People Were Back Then" Myth

A common misconception that seems to prevail among popular knowledge today is that queer identity is a fairly new concept. Historians and others discussing and presenting historical topics often add a caveat of "that's how people were back then" whenever sharing personal communications between people of presumably the same gender that declare love or affection, suggesting to their audience that, at some period in the past, humans stopped being so affectionate to their friends. Many point out that we can't pinpoint a long-dead person's gender or sexuality using modern terminology. In a sense, this is correct. That is why it's important to understand historical queer concepts. These are concepts that cannot be exactly translated into modern ideas, but that are similar enough that we can pretty solidly label these concepts as queer. For the time period, they were, indeed, notable as being different, often sinful or "unspeakable." There is more than enough evidence of historical queerness to change how we as a society view historical queerness.

It's unclear when the mantra "that's just how people were back then" became a common way to dismiss the affectionate writings or actions of historical people. In some ways, this idea is very true. There is plenty of evidence that people tended to be more affectionate in their writings and interactions with close friends than might seem appropriate today - something that quite probably changed due to homophobia. There was, of course, a line that could not be crossed, and that line was sexual. There were also certain societal norms that, when deviated from, would suggest to others that someone was perhaps a little too intimate with an intimate friend. Though it's difficult to look back as a 21st century person and understand the nuances of historical periods, to understand where the line was ourselves, because to us all affection between two apparently same-gendered people might appear to counter heteronormative behavior, people living in the past knew what crossed the line and what did not.

Examples in 18th Century Literature: The Adventures of Roderick Random (1748) by Tobias Smollett

A perfect example is in the 1748 satirical novel, The Adventures of Roderick Random by Tobias Smollett. The premise of the novel is of a Scottish man, Roderick Random, who ends up traveling about Europe as his circumstances change, often in ways that would have been amusing or relatable to the 18th century reader. At one point in his adventures, Random is pressed into serving the British navy, and notes a new captain who takes command of the vessel he is serving on. This captain, Captain Whiffle, is described as

"...overshadowed with a vast umbrella... being a tall, thin young man, dressed in this manner: a white hat, garnished with a red feather, adorned his head, from whence his hair flowed upon his shoulders, in ringlets tied behind with a ribbon. His coat, consisting of pink-coloured silk, lined with white, by the elegance of the cut retired backward, as it were, to discover a white satin waistcoat embroidered with gold, unbuttoned at the upper part to display a brooch set with garnets, that glittered in the breast of his shirt, which was of the finest cambric, edged with right Mechlin: the knees of his crimson velvet breeches scarce descended so low as to meet his silk stockings, which rose without spot or wrinkle on his meagre legs, from shoes of blue Meroquin, studded with diamond buckles that flamed forth rivals to the sun! A steel-hilted sword, inlaid with gold, and decked with a knot of ribbon which fell down in a rich tassel, equipped his side; and an amber-headed cane hung dangling from his wrist. But the most remarkable parts of his furniture were, a mask on his face, and white gloves on his hands, which did not seem to be put on with anintention to be pulled off occasionally, but were fixed with a curious ring on the little finger of each hand. In this garb, Captain Whiffle, for that was his name, took possession of the ship, surrounded with a crowd of attendants, all of whom, in their different degrees, seemed to be of their patron’s disposition; and the air was so impregnated with perfumes, that one may venture to affirm the climate of Arabia Felix was not half so sweet-scented." -Chapter XXXIV

When the surgeon's mate went to introduce himself to the new captain, he "found Captain Whiffle reposing upon a couch, with a wrapper of fine chintz about his body, and a muslin cap bordered with lace about his head." When the captain caught scent of the tobacco on the surgeon's mate, he

"cried with great emotion, 'Heaven preserve me! I am suffocated! Fellow, fellow, away with thee! Curse thee, fellow! Get thee gone! I shall be stunk to death!' At the noise of his outcries, his servants ran into his apartment, and he accosted them thus: 'Villains! cut-throats! traitors! I am betrayed! I am sacrificed! Will you not carry that monster away? or must I be stifled with the stench of him? oh, oh!' With these interjections he sank down upon his settee in a fit: his valet-de-chambre plied him with a smelling-bottle, one footman chafed his temples with Hungary water, another sprinkled the floor with spirits of lavender." -Chapter XXXIV

Next, when the character of Random goes to administer to the captain's health due to this reaction, the following takes place:

"...there came into the cabin a young man gaily dressed, of a very delicate complexion with a kind of languid smile on his face: which seemed to have been rendered habitual by a long course of affectation. The captain no sooner perceived him, than, rising hastily, he flew into his arms, crying, 'O, my dear Simper, I am excessively disordered! I have been betrayed, frighted, murdered, by the negligence of my servants, who suffered a beast, a mule, a bear, to surprise me, and stink me into convulsions with the fumes of tobacco.' Simper, who by this time, I found, was obliged to act for the clearness of his complexion, assumed an air of softness and sympathy, and lamented with many tender expressions of sorrow, the sad accident that had thrown him into that condition; then, feeling his patient’s pulse on the outside of his glove, gave it as his opinion, that his disorder was entirely nervous... While the captain enjoyed his repose the doctor watched over him, and indeed became so necessary, that a cabin was made for him contiguous to the state room where Whiffle slept, that he might be at hand in case of accidents in the night. Next day, our commander being happily recovered, gave orders that none of the lieutenants should appear upon deck without a wig, sword, and ruffles; nor any midshipman, or other petty officer, be seen with a check shirt or dirty linen. He also prohibited any person whatever, except Simper and his own servants, from coming into the great cabin without first sending in to obtain leave. These singular regulations did not prepossess the ship’s company in his favour: but, on the contrary, gave scandal an opportunity to be very busy with his character, and accuse him of maintaining a correspondence with his surgeon not fit to be named." - Chapter XXXV (bold added for emphasis)

Sidenote: According to Nathaniel Fanning's memoir, Captain John Paul Jones also required his officers and midshipmen to dress up, but only when they dined with him. He is a figure who is sometimes mentioned as potentially bisexual, and I will eventually do further research on him.

It is clear that Smollett is using a stereotype of the time for the character of Captain Whiffle - as he does with a number of characters throughout the satirical work and is made clear in their names. While it was important during the time period for men of status to dress well, Smollett adds extra detail to Whiffle's behavior that may have been suggestive of the time, especially considering the reference to "a correspondence... not fit to be named" which did often refer to a relationship that crossed that line between appropriate affection and sexual relations. Essentially, Whiffle was the flamboyant gay male stereotype of the 18th century, and readers in that period would have picked up on the subtle details that made that clear even at a time when all gentlemen were expected to care about their appearance and colorful embroidered suits were not uncommon.

The readers of the period would also have understood there to be a difference between the behavior of Whiffle and that of Random and an old friend of his when they cross paths after an extended period. In that event, the novel says, "When he heard me pronounce these words in our own language, he leaped upon me in a transport of joy, hung about my neck, kissed me from ear to ear, and blubbered like a great schoolboy who had been whipped" (Chapter XLIV). For a reader in the 21st century, understanding why this is acceptable but Whiffle keeping his surgeon very close to him is not, is quite difficult. For the 18th century reader, however, there was a distinct difference.

Class and the Royal Navy

The reader would have also understood that Whiffle's money and social influence allowed him to be an officer at a young age. That is something else that would have given the sailors on the ship an unfavorable opinion of him. This was a time period when impressment was common. Impressment was the act of forcefully taking people, usually able-bodied men with some seafaring experience, from a coastal city, town, or another civilian vessel in order to make them serve the navy. To the navy, this also applied to citizens of any of the British colonies, including America at the time of Smollett. In fact, this was a key issue leading up the Revolution, and Americans were often taken onto British ships throughout the war. Impressment was done by groups called press gangs, who used violence or threats of violence to get their target to eventually go with them. This did not fall out of practice until after 1815. This act of impressment also meant that a large portion of those serving on naval vessels were likely working class men without the financial means to avoid serving, or to pay their way onto the path of becoming an officer.

Crime and Punishment

This notable difference in social class within the Royal Navy is important when considering that at the time Smollett was writing, the British navy operated under the 1661 Articles of War that stated,

"If any person or persons in or belonging to the Fleet shall commit the unnaturall and detestable sin of Buggery or Sodomy with Man or Beast he shall be punished with death without mercy."¹

Even when the Articles were updated in 1749, this particular article remained. At the time, sodomy was considered

"a carnal Knowledge of the Body of Man or Beast, against the Order of Nature: It may be committed by Man with Man, (which is the most common Crime) or Man with Woman; or by Man or Woman with a Brute Beast."²

Clearly, sodomy was considered just as horrible at the time as bestiality. Yet, this is not always the case. In most instances there is great similarity between British and colonial American society and laws, yet in 1637 in Plymouth colony, two men, John Alexander and Thomas Roberts, were tried for sodomy and neither was executed. Alexander was "severely whipped, branded with a hot iron on the shoulder, and permanently banished" while Roberts was "severely whipped, banned from owning land, but not banished." Alternatively, in 1642 when Thomas Granger was convicted of bestiality he, and all of the animals involved, were put to death.³ This clearly shows that, while law might consider men having sex with men to be as bad as men having sex with animals, in practicality it wasn't always the case. Even in a colony run by the religious Puritans who had rigid ideas of sin, some level of leniency might be found for men convicted of sodomy as long as they could be kept apart. The willingness to sacrifice the valuable resource of livestock because of the crime of bestiality also shows just how much worse that particular crime was considered. For those Puritans, there was clearly one version of the "unnatural sin" that was much worse.

A look at the online records from the 18th century of the Old Bailey, one of London's largest criminal courts at the time, yields several results for the offense of sodomy. The outcomes of the various trials vary greatly, from verdicts of not guilty, to punishments of death. Some, even those evidently caught in the act, faced jail sentences or transportation instead, despite it being considered a crime punishable by death. Transportation was the act of transporting a convicted criminal to one of Britain's colonies to perform labor, often under questionable conditions. It was a form of slavery, and though the convict typically had some rights being (usually) white and a British citizen, they were still treated as criminals and therefore lesser than those in charge of them. This is especially because judges often used transportation as an alternative to the death penalty. Convicts would spend up to fourteen years working as unpaid labor, then would be freed. Up until the beginning of the American Revolution most transported convicts were sent to the American colonies, and starting in 1787 they were sent to Australia.

There is often the misconception that there was no queer community in the 18th century due to the risk of such serious punishments, but that is far from the case. While it's true that we really only know about those people who got caught or left records that weren't destroyed, it's probably just as likely that as many, if not more, could keep their sexual or intimate lives out of the public eye. Especially if they had the money and power to avoid scandal. It was more often than not the working class people who show up in the Old Bailey records, despite the fact that society then and now always loves a good scandal. Also, while it is often suggested that in the 18th century there was no queer identity and that queerness was considered merely a behavior, newer research points to that also being a misconception. Historian of queer history, Rictor Norton, says,

"there is little in the eighteenth-century sodomitical Proceedings of the Old Bailey that would not be recognised by any British or American gay man who grew up in the 1950s and 1960s, whether it be nelly queens or rough trade, cottaging or blackmail, shame or defiance, men in long-term partnerships, or men who join the club each night and resign from it each morning."⁴

According to Norton, more historians are beginning to recognize that queerness "has been expressed in all societies with a delimited range of patterns and types, and should be understood as a transcultural phenomenon, rather than the creation of a specific historical moment."⁵

Molly Houses and Molly Culture

One major place in which 18th century queer culture can be clearly seen is in the existence of what were known as molly houses, which can be considered the predecessors of gay clubs. The term "molly" is an early example of the reclaiming of a slur in order to use it as an identity. It was often a term used to refer to a female prostitute or other lower class girl, and it was also used to refer to effeminate or "soft" men, stemming from the Latin word mollis, which meant "soft."⁶ Those who embraced this identity often socialized at molly houses, which were diverse in type "ranging from private back rooms in gin shops to three storey public houses run by male couples." Though there is no concrete evidence of any well-known molly houses in colonial America, they were especially popular in London and likely existed elsewhere in the larger realm of Great Britain. The most well-known today of all the 18th century molly houses was one known as Mother Clap's, "a private residence and a coffee house... and although owned by John Clap, it was run by his wife Margaret ‘Mother’ Clap." Mother Clap was known for allowing men to live at her establishment for long periods of time, providing false testimony to get someone acquitted of sodomy at least once, and running her house strictly as a social club and not as a brothel. However, Mother Clap's house did have a room called the "Chapel" or "Marrying Room" where men could go to "be married" and which included a bed, as was common in molly houses. There was also an element of early drag culture in these establishments, which I intend to research further. In 1726 the London police raided Mother Clap's. After the raid, Mother Clap was found guilty of running a brothel, despite that not being the primary function of her house, and "was sentenced to stand in the pillory at West Smithfield, pay a fine, and (be) imprisoned for two years," while three men caught in the raid, Gabriel Lawrence, William Griffin, and Thomas Wright, were hanged for sodomy. The fact that only three men were hanged, despite one officer claiming they "found near Men Fifty there, making Love to one another as they call'd it" suggests that perhaps those three were chosen to be used to make a point to the population at large.⁷

Queer Women

All of the focus on queer men might suggest that queer women either were not known about, did not exist, or were ignored in the period. This is also not true. While we do have limited accounts of or references to queer women in the 18th century, they did exist. It may not have been seen as quite as serious a problem for society because there was assumed to be nothing penetrative about sexual acts between women. However, it was concerning enough for one anonymous pamphleteer to write, in 1749, a pamphlet with the long-winded title of: "Satan's Harvest Home: or the Present State of Whorecraft, Adultery, Fornication, Procuring, Pimping, Sodomy, And the Game of Flatts, (Illustrated by an Authentick and Entertaining Story) And other Satanic Works, daily propagated in this good Protestant Kingdom." The pamphlet contains the 18th century version of a rant about various aspects of society at the time that the writer personally took issue with, mainly related to certain people's sexual activities. At the time, "the game of/at flats" was a reference to sex between women.⁸ How prevalent female-female relationships were in the 18th century is difficult to pinpoint due to the fact that they did not leave the same trail of historical evidence. The lives of women were different from the lives of men, and unless there was a juicy reason to care about it, there were few newspapers writing about everyday women, and they were more likely to be arrested for prostitution in general than for sex with other women, unlike queer men.

"The Female Review:" A Case Study

The issue of relationships between women was also a concern for some people in the newly-formed United States when, in 1797, author Herman Mann wrote the biography of Deborah Sampson, titled, The Female Review: or, Memoirs of an American Young Lady. Deborah Sampson is now commonly remembered as a cisgendered straight woman who dressed as a man to fight in the American Revolution on the American side, taking the name of Robert Shurtleff to do so. However, Mann recounts at least two times when Sampson forms close relationships with women, once when visiting the settlement close to where the army was camped, and a second time in an incredibly racist chapter in which Sampson offers to marry a woman being held captive by Native Americans and who was supposedly going to be put to death by the Native people otherwise (215-228). When attempting to justify why Sampson formed these relationships with women while still maintaining a male identity, at least according to Mann, he says,

"It must be supposed, she acted more from necessity, than a voluntary impulse of passion; and no doubt, succeeded beyond her expectations, or desires. Harmless thing!" (248)

Yet, what many articles and accounts of Sampson scattered across the internet fail to recount in claiming that Sampson was a "woman who disguised herself as a man to serve in Washington's army" is that, according to Mann, Sampson continued to live as a man for a time after being honorably discharged from the army. Mann writes,

"she took a few strides to some sequestered hamlet in Massachusetts; where she found some relations: and, assuming the name of her youngest brother, she passed the winter as a man of the world, and was not awkward in the common business of a farmer." (236)

Even there, Sampson attracted the "girls of [the] villa" who Mann seemed to think were simply foolish for desiring the person they thought was a man, and if only they had known the truth! He writes,

"But her correspondence with her sister sex!—Surely it must have been that of sentiment, taste, purity; as animal love, on her part, was out of the question." (237)

And then, in the spring,

"our Heroine leaped from the masculine, to the feminine sphere. Throwing off her martial attire... recommenced her former occupation; and I know not; that she found difficulty in its performance. Whether this was done voluntarily, or compulsively, is to me an enigma." (239)

However, Sampson would later in life put on the "martial attire" and do demonstrations of her military skill to crowds of people who turned out to see her. In part, this was in an attempt to get a pension that was originally denied her.

Further attempting to paint Sampson in a very specific way, Mann also states that

"It is hear-say, that Mrs. GANNET (Sampson married Benjamin Gannet in 1785) refuses her husband the rites of the marriage bed...she has a child, that has scarcely left its cradle... her nearest neighbors assert, there is a mutual harmony subsisting between her and her companion; which, by the bye, is generally the reverse with those deprived of this hymenial bliss. All who are acquainted with her, must acknowledge her complaisant and humane dispositions. And while she discovers a taste for an elegant stile of living; she exhibits, perhaps, an unusual degree of contentment, with an honest farmer, and three endearing children, confined to a homely cot, and a hard-earned little farm." (257-258)

Why Mann felt the need to continue to press the issue of what we can see today as Sampson's sexuality or gender identity goes to show how someone like Sampson might be considered queer at the time. Mann felt he needed to impress upon all readers that no, she did not continue to behave as a man, nor did she have any issues being married to one. She mustn't be seen as anything but a proper example of womanhood!

Whether Deborah Sampson was bisexual, non-binary, a lesbian, or maybe even transgender is not something we can know. However, there is something inherently queer about Sampson's story, maybe even because of how hard her biographer worked to portray Sampson as a cisgender straight woman who dressed as a man to have an adventure and flirted with other women because she felt a need to do what the other soldiers might be doing in order to not be discovered. And maybe that was what she truly was. The issue with Sampson's story, and that of a huge number of historical people, is that biographers and historians have worked to literally erase history for a very long time. Books have been burned, records destroyed, personal letters heavily censored, and biographies selectively written in order to conceal any number of facts about the past. This is not just about gender, sexuality, and identity, either. Without an ethical mind to preserving the entire truth, so many things can be excluded. Queer history and culture go back much farther than the 20th century or even the 18th century. To remember those people whose identities may have been obscured or erased is a powerful way to connect to a deeper queer history. The queer community has gone through so much since the dawn of time, and it's all inherently connected. Historians and academics across disciplines are learning so much more, but some things erased by homophobia in academics can't be repaired. Maybe one day more people will stop automatically dismissing possible examples of queerness as simply "that's how people were back then" and accept that yes, queer people existed and had an identity back then, too.