<<

. 36
( 47 .)



>>

Wol¬, ˜˜Masculinity in Uncle Tom™s Cabin,™™ American Quarterly, ·, no. 
(December ±µ), for an account of alternative styles of masculinity among
antebellum abolitionists and other social reformers.
± For an overview of the image and ideology of Victorian fatherhood, see
Claudia Nelson, Invisible Men: Fatherhood in Victorian Periodicals, ±µ°“±±°
(Athens: University of Georgia Press, ±µ).
 See Kevin J. Mumford, ˜˜˜Lost Manhood™ Found: Male Sexual Impotence
and Victorian Culture in the United States,™™ Journal of the History of Sexuality
, no. ± (July ±), “µ·, for a summary of the use of the crisis paradigm in
histories of American culture and Anglo-American manhood. Mumford
himself argues that the late nineteenth century was characterized by a
 Notes to pages “
˜˜sexual “ more than a gender “ crisis™™ (p. ).
 Bederman, Manliness and Civilization, pp. ±°“±± and p. ·.
 Frederick W. Shelton, ˜˜On Old Bachelors,™™ Southern Literary Messenger ±,
no.  (April ±µ); Sarah Tooley, ˜˜Famous Bachelors,™™ The Woman at Home 
(February ±); Dorothy Dix, ˜˜Bachelors,™™ Good Housekeeping µ·, no. µ
(November ±±). ˜˜Dorothy Dix™™ was the nom de plume of Elizabeth Gilmer,
a reporter who wrote an advice-for-the-lovelorn column in the New Or-
leans Times-Picayune.
µ ˜˜Marriage Not a-la-Mode,™™ Temple Bar  (November ±), µ°·; ˜˜Alarming
`
Increase of Old Maids and Bachelors in New England,™™ Literary Digest µ,
no.  (April ±°, ±°), .
 The Bachelor Married; or the Biter Bit (Leeds: Webb and Millington, ±°);
˜˜Bachelors “ Why?™™, Good Housekeeping, p. µ.
· Mrs. Ross, The Bachelor and the Married Man; or The Equilibrium and the ˜˜Balance
of Comfort˜ (London: ±±·); The Old Bachelor, After Southey™s ˜˜Cataract of Lodore,™™
Described and Dedicated to Bachelors and Bazaars (Tamworth: J. Thompson,
±); Frank Cha¬ee, Bachelor Buttons (New York: George M. Allen Co.,
±), pp. ±°“±±; Deshler Welch, The Bachelor and the Cha¬ng Dish (New York:
F. Tennyson Neely, ±), p. ±.
 ˜˜Why We Men Do Not Marry, By One of Us,™™ Temple Bar  (October
±), °“±.
 Shelton, ˜˜On Old Bachelors,™™ pp. ·“.
µ° T. S. M., ˜˜Bachelors and Spinsters,™™ Leisure Hour (±·µ), “; The Old
Bachelor, After Southey™s ˜˜Cataract of Lodore˜ (±).
µ± ˜˜The Bachelor: A Modern Idyll,™™ Temple Bar µ (February ±), “.
µ ˜˜Single Life Among Us,™™ p. µ°. Compare the internal contradiction be-
tween idleness and avariciousness perceived in The Bachelor Married; or the
Biter Bit: ˜˜as in the case of most bachelors, there was a kind of inconsistency
in the character of Mr. Rhodes; for notwithstanding his anxious desire of
amassing wealth, he was incumbered by a certain indolence and sluggish-
ness that prevailed over every consideration™™ (p. µ).
µ See Herbert L. Sussman, Victorian Masculinities: Manhood and Masculine Poetics
in Early Victorian Literature and Art (Cambridge University Press, ±µ), pp. ±°“
±±, on the nineteenth-century notion of ˜˜male energy™™ that included but
was not limited to sexual energy. Earlier studies along comparable lines
include Carol Christ, ˜˜Victorian Masculinity and the Angel in the House,™™
A Widening Sphere: Changing Roles of Victorian Women, Martha Vicinus (ed.),
(Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ±··), and G. J. Barker-Ben¬eld,
The Horrors of the Half-Known Life: Male Attitudes Toward Women and Sexuality in
Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Harper and Row, ±·), pp. ·“µ and
pp. ±·“°.
µ Helsinger et al., The Woman Question, p. · and p. °. In ˜˜Forbidden by God,
Despised by Men: Masturbation, Medical Warnings, Moral Panic, and
Manhood in Great Britain, ±µ°“±µ°,™™ Forbidden History: The State, Society,
and the Regulation of Sexuality in Modern Europe, ed. John C. Fout (University of
Notes to pages “ µ
Chicago Press, ±), Lesley A. Hall argues that while ˜˜homosexuality
sometimes might be attributed to a continued habit of masturbation . . . the
prime danger of self-abuse was perceived as the establishment of a habit of
dangerous indulgence in sensual pleasure, eroding self-discipline and lead-
ing to a career of self-grati¬cation likely to involve fornication with harlots,
ending in venereal disease™™ (p. °).
µµ My main source on spermatorrhea is John S. Haller, Jr., and Robin M.
Haller, The Physician and Sexuality in Victorian America (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, ±·), pp. ±°“.
µ Barker-Ben¬eld coins the term ˜˜spermatic economy™™ to describe the closed
energy, or hydraulic, model; see Horrors of the Half-Known Life, p. ±±. See also
David J. Pivar, Purity Crusade: Sexual Morality and Social Control, ±“±°°
(Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, ±·); Haller, Jr., and Haller, The Phys-
ician and Sexuality in Victorian America, pp. ±±“µ; and Charles Rosenberg,
˜˜Sexuality, Class, and Role in Nineteenth-Century America,™™ American
Quarterly, µ, no.  (May ±·).
µ· Christopher Craft, Another Kind of Love: Male Homosexual Desire in English
Discourse, ±µ°“±° (Berkeley: University of California Press, ±), p. µ.
µ Je¬rey Weeks describes the conceptual linkage among prostitution, homo-
sexuality, and deviance via the infamous Labouchere Amendment to the
`
Criminal Law Amendment Act of ±µ, a connection that was further
heightened by late nineteenth-century scandals such as the Cleveland
Street brothel scandal in ±“° and the Oscar Wilde scandal; see Sex,
Politics and Society; the Regulation of Sexuality since ±°° (London: Longman,
±±), pp. “; and Weeks, ˜˜Inverts, Perverts, and Mary-Annes: Male
Prostitution and the Regulation of Homosexuality in England in the Nine-
teenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,™™ Hidden from History: Reclaiming the
Gay and Lesbian Past, Martin Bauml Duberman, Martha Vicinus, and
George Chauncey, Jr. (eds.), (New York: New American Library, ±),
p. °°.
µ Sedgwick, Epistemology, pp.  and .
° Eric Partridge, A Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, ed. Paul Beale
th ed. (New York: Macmillan, ±). Also, ˜˜chambre™™ is the given deriva-
tion for ˜˜chum,™™ suggesting shared residency as a basis for male friendship.
± ˜˜The Bachelor Bedroom,™™ (see chapter ±, n. ±); ˜˜Bachelor™s Hall,™™ Harper™s
New Monthly Magazine ±, no. ± (September ±°); ˜˜Bachelor™s Hall,™™ All
The Year Round ±, no. · (March , ±), no. °° (March , ±);
Clement Bird, ˜˜A Bachelor™s Bedroom,™™ (see chapter ±, n. ·); and ˜˜The
Bachelors™ Wing,™™ Living Age , no.  (April ·, ±°).
 The nineteenth-century rise of consumer culture has been treated exten-
sively; several of the most in¬‚uential studies are Alan Trachtenberg, The
Incorporation of America: Culture and Society in the Gilded Age (New York: Hill and
Wang, ±); Richard Wightman Fox and T. J. Jackson Lears, The Culture of
Consumption: Critical Essays in American History, ±°“±° (New York: Pan-
theon, ±); and Daniel Horowitz, The Morality of Spending: Attitudes Toward
 Notes to pages µ“·
the Consumer Society in America, ±·µ“±° (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity Press, ±µ).
 For her theorization of ˜˜masculine domesticity™™ as practiced by married
men in American suburbs, I am indebted to Margaret Marsh, ˜˜Suburban
Men and Masculine Domesticity, ±·°“±±µ,™™ American Quarterly °, no. 
(June ±); see also Marsh, Suburban Lives (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
University Press, ±°), pp. ·“.
 ˜˜The Bachelor™s Christmas,™™ Blackwood™s Edinburgh Magazine , no. ±
(January ±), µ and ±.
µ Sharon Marcus, Apartment Stories: City and Home in Nineteenth-Century Paris and
London (Berkeley: University of California Press, ±, ch. , n. ±. During
the Renaissance, chambers were granted for life to members of the Inns of
Court, but gradually the modern practice of renting chambers by the year
replaced this earlier system; see W. C. Richardson, A History of the Inns of
Court: With Special Reference to the Period of the Renaissance (Baton Rouge, LA:
Claitor™s Publishing Division, ±·µ), pp. “.
 Charles Dickens, The Old Curiosity Shop (±°“±; London: Penguin, ±µ),
chapter ·, p. ±°±.
· The single gentlemen™s ˜˜cooking apparatus™™ resembles Alexis Soyer™s
˜˜Magic Stove™™ and Thomas Tozer™s ˜˜Bachelor Kettle,™™ devices that began
to be marketed in the ±µ°s; see Sarah Freeman, Muttons and Oysters: the
Victorians and their Food (London: V. Gollancz, ±), pp. ±±“±µ. It is a
forerunner of the turn-of-the-century cha¬ng dish, a household appliance
associated with bachelors, and also of the somewhat earlier ˜˜patent bach-
elor™s kitchen™™ described in the bachelor-narrated sketch, ˜˜The Wife for
Me,™™ Once A Week (May , ±°).
 Herman Melville, ˜˜The Paradise of Bachelors™™ and ˜˜The Tartarus of
Maids™™ (±µµ), The Complete Stories of Herman Melville, ed. Jay Leyda (New
York: Random House, ±), p. °.
 Letter to the editor, The Builder , no. ±·° (Jan. , ±·), p. .
·° Burnett, A Social History of Housing, p. °. Marmion Savage™s The Bachelor of
the Albany (±) uses this classic bachelor residence as its setting. The
Albany is also the in-town address of Jack/Earnest, a bachelor who epitom-
izes the pleasures of a double life, in Oscar Wilde™s The Importance of Being
Earnest (±µ).
·± Dolores Hayden, The Grand Domestic Revolution: A History of Feminist Designs for
American Homes, Neighborhoods, and Cities (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, ±±),
p. ·; Hayden quotes here from Andrew Alpern, Apartments for the A¬„uent: A
Historical Survey of Buildings in New York (New York: McGraw-Hill, ±·µ), p. ±.
· Thompson, The Rise of Respectable Society, p. ±·; see also Marcus, Apartment
Stories, ch. .
· In ˜˜Nobody™s Angels: Domestic Ideology and Middle-Class Women in the
Victorian Novel,™™ PMLA ±°·, no.  (March ±), Elizabeth Langland
discusses ˜˜the increasing demand for the segregation and privacy of sexes
and classes in Victorian houses™™ (pp. “µ). The division of space by sex
Notes to pages ·“ ·
and class is not identical to the understood need of individuals for privacy.
· Elizabeth C. Cromley, Alone Together: A History of New York™s Early Apartments
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, ±°), pp. ±“±µ.
·µ Cromley, Alone Together, pp. “µ.
· See Mark Girouard, The Victorian Country House (New Haven: Yale Univer-
sity Press, ±·), pp. °“±, on the propriety of separating ˜˜bachelors quar-
ters™™ from family spaces.
·· ˜˜A Bachelor™s Christmas,™™ Harper™s New Monthly Magazine , no.  (February
±µ±); page references to be given in the body of the chapter. The bachelor™s
Christmas is one of the most frequent motifs in popular representations of
bachelorhood, re¬‚ected in such titles as William Gilmore Simms™s compell-
ingly named Castle Dismal: Or the Bachelor™s Christmas; a Domestic Legend (New
York: Burgess, Stringer, ±); Robert Grant™s ˜˜The Bachelor™s Christ-
mas,™™ Scribner™s Magazine ±, no.  (December ±); and Tom Masson™s
˜˜The Bachelor™s Christmas Baby,™™ The Ladies™ Home Journal , no. ± (De-
cember ±°).
· I discuss the association of bachelors with cha¬ng-dish cookery and interior
decoration in ˜˜A Paradise of Bachelors: Remodeling Domesticity and
Masculinity in the Turn-of-the-Century New York Bachelor Apartment,™™
Prospects: An Annual Journal of American Cultural Studies  (±).
· ˜˜Scenes in Bachelor Life,™™ Harper™s New Monthly Magazine , no.  (Decem-
ber ±µ), ±.
° Oliver Bell Bunce, Bachelor Blu¬: His Opinions, Sentiments, and Disputations
(New York: Appleton, ±±), p. ±. Further page references given in the
body of the chapter.
± ˜˜Public mothers™™ is Carroll Smith-Rosenberg™s phrase; see Disorderly Con-
duct, p. .
 On the history the ˜˜House Beautiful™™ trope and the rise of interior decora-
tion as a male profession, see Jonathan Freedman, Professions of Taste: Henry
James, British Aestheticism, and Commodity Culture (Stanford University Press,
±°), pp. ±°µ“±°.
 On utopian communities and residential reform, see Hayden, The Grand
Domestic Revolution. For an overview of the settlement house movement in
England and America, see Anthony Sutcli¬e, Towards the Planned City:
Germany, Britain, the United States, and France, ±·°“±± (New York: St.
Martin™s Press, ±±), pp. “±°±; Martha Vicinus, Independent Women: Work
and Community for Single Women, ±µ°“±° (University of Chicago Press,
±µ), pp. ±±“; and Judith Walkowitz, City of Dreadful Delight: Narratives of
Sexual Danger in Late-Victorian London (University of Chicago Press, ±),
pp. µ“±.
 ˜˜Why We Men Do Not Marry, By One of Us,™™ pp. ±“°. This article™s
emphasis on the annoying and even life-threatening provisions of available
housing for middle-class families “ ˜˜the jerry-built house . . . is prone rather
to inspire typhoid than attachment™™ (p. ±) “ echoes the great housing and
environmental debate of the early ±°s which focused on the problems of
 Notes to pages “µ
high rents, overcrowding, and unsanitary housing in the central districts of
large towns, and principally of London. While the objects of greatest
concern in that debate were the poor and working classes, this writer
suggests that the problems extend up the socio-economic scale: ˜˜Will Mr.
Besant take the idea, and do something for the middle classes in their turn?™™
(p. ±).
µ John Seymour Wood, ˜˜The Story of an Old Beau,™™ Scribner™s Magazine ,
no.  (February ±±), ±.
 At least as many new clubs were formed in the ±°s and °s as during the
early ±·°s; see Anthony Lejeune, The Gentlemen™s Clubs of London (London:
Bracken, ±), p. ±µ; and Anne Henry, The Building of a Club: Social Institution
and Architectural Type, ±·°“±°µ (Princeton University Press, ±·), p. .
According to Freeman, Muttons and Oysters, p. ±·, the late nineteenth-
century apogee of the club was predated by a smaller, but nevertheless
signi¬cant, proliferation of clubs in London during the ¬rst half of the
century, when the number of clubs rose from three or four to about
twenty-¬ve, in e¬ect replacing restaurants.
· While there were some actual bachelors™ clubs on both continents, the most
well-known ¬ctional example may have been Israel Zangwill™s The Bachelors™
Club (±±). Brian Harrison, Separate Spheres: The Opposition to Women™s Su¬rage
in Britain (London: Croom Helm, ±·) emphasizes the centrality of same-
sex institutions for middle- and upper-class London men, both married and
single, in the late nineteenth century: ˜˜this was an age of bachelors, or of
married men who spent a large part of their lives as though they were
bachelors: the London clubs “ recruited from a number of ancillary male
institutions in the public schools, Oxford and Cambridge colleges and
professional institutions “ catered amply for their needs™™ (p. ·).
 Junius Henri Browne™s ˜˜Are Women Companionable to Men?™™ The Cosmo-
politan , no.  (February ±), µ“µ, claims that ˜˜[f ]ar more husbands
than bachelors are members of clubs, and those are the regular frequen-
ters™™ (p. µ). Henry™s The Building of a Club substantiates this anecdotal
claim, p. .
 Ralph Nevill, London Clubs, Their History and Treasures (London: Chatto and
Windus, ±±±), pp. ±µ“; Nevill lifts this passage virtually verbatim from an
±·· article, ˜˜Clubs,™™ Temple Bar µ± (October ±··); see ± and ±.
° Henry, The Building of a Club, p. ; see also pp. ±“.
± E. S. Nadal, ˜˜London and American Clubs,™™ Scribner™s Magazine , no. 
(March ±±), °.
 Arthur Conan Doyle, ˜˜The Greek Interpreter™™ (±), The Complete Sherlock
Holmes (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, ±°), p. .
 Flora Tristan, Promenades Dans Londres, Flora Tristan: Utopian Feminist, eds.
Doris and Paul Beik (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, ±), p. ±°.
 ˜˜Bachelors “ Why?™™, Good Housekeeping, p. .
µ John Timbs, Clubs and Club Life in London (±; London: Chatto and
Windus, ±°), p. ±±.
Notes to pages µ“ 
 Henry L. Nelson, ˜˜Some New York Clubs,™™ Harper™s Weekly , no. ±
(March , ±°), ±µ. Henry, The Building of a Club con¬rms that ˜˜[t]he
American city club was designedly social rather than residential. Like a
large home, it did provide those bachelors who could not a¬ord or had no
desire to maintain quarters for themselves with extensive facilities for
entertainment and relaxation, but such men rarely lived in the club™™ (p. ).
However, in ˜˜I Have No Genius for Marriage™™ (chapter , pp. ±“±),
Laipson notes that ˜˜residence at clubs was su¬ciently common that
etiquette books provided for it. A bachelor who belonged to a club might
engrave or write its name on the lower-left hand corner of a visiting card; if
he lived there, on the right hand corner.™™
· Cromley, Alone Together, gives plans and elevations published in contem-
porary architectural journals for massive buildings such as the Ansonia,
which featured both housekeeping and nonhousekeeping apartments, and
also for middle-size and smaller bachelor apartment houses such as the
Carlyle Chambers and the Century; see pp. ±“. See also Elizabeth
Hawes, New York, New York: How the Apartment House Transformed the Life of the
City, (±“±°) (New York: Knopf, ±), p. µ and pp. ±“µ. In the
same period, comparable new housing options became available, though
much less extensively, for New York™s ˜˜bachelor women™™; see Mary Gay
Humphreys, ˜˜Women Bachelors in New York,™™ Scribner™s °, no. µ (No-
vember ±), and Eulalie Andreas, ˜˜Apartments for Bachelor Girls,™™
House Beautiful , no.  (November ±±).
 Edith Wharton, The House of Mirth (New York: Scribner, ±°µ), p. .
 Of course, there is much one might say about houses and housing in The
House of Mirth and in Wharton™s writing more generally. For example, her

<<

. 36
( 47 .)



>>