American Cool. Peter N. Stearns
trial in which a man had killed the lover of his wife or fiancée. The period between 1859 (the Daniel Sickles trial) and about 1900 saw a series of such courtroom dramas, widely publicized and greeted by general popular acclaim, in which well and expensively defended men argued that jealousy had overcome them to the extent that they could no longer control their actions. While the specific defense rested on loss of control and technical insanity, the larger argument suggested that here was another emotion whose power could lead to just and vigorous action. “For jealousy is the rage of a man; therefore he will not spare in the day of vengeance. … Those who dishonor husbands are here warned of their doom. … Jealousy, which defies and bears down all restraint, whether it be what we technically call insanity or not, is akin to it. It enslaves the injured husband, and vents itself in one result, which seems to be inevitable and unavoidable.” So argued the successful attorney for Daniel McFarland, whose acquittal in 1870 won warm approval from hundreds of well-wishers. Daniel Sickles’s lawyer, while duly noting how jealousy took possession of his client like a “consuming fire,” similarly pointed to the justness of jealousy: “He would have been false to the instincts of humanity if that rage of jealousy had not taken possession of him.” Here, too, the jury accepted the plea.38
The mature Victorian emotional style accepted and admired the power of passion, for this emotional arsenal underlay the strong wills and vigorous actions that identified good and successful male character and that yielded positive economic and political results. Untrammeled passion that mastered a person’s reason was not acceptable; in this regard the use of jealousy defenses, rare in any event, was genuinely exceptional—though this exception may be explained by the role of jealousy in protecting home and family. But where emotions brought fire to the person who controlled them, and where they entailed no disruption to a calm and loving family, they were positively courted. Management, not repression, was the key, so that dangerous emotions were kept in their proper place—largely away from the hearth—and used to achieve rationally chosen ends.
Love
Later Victorianism also built growing fervor into the vision of love, particularly romantic love. This was another area in which intensity won active support, here involving women equally with men. The early Victorian definition of romantic passion was not fully revised, as were those of anger and fear. But there was change, as calm sentimentality was supplemented by a transcendent emotional charge.
Continued emphasis on motherlove formed part of the framework for the growing attention to emotional goals between the sexes. Its potent impact on boys as well as girls established a link between motherlove and children’s ability to form deep affective ties. In fulfilling her varied special tasks—“it is the province of the mother, to cultivate the affections”—mother set standards for all her offspring. As Catharine Beecher put it, “the mother holds, as it were, the hearts of her children in her hand.” And while mothers offered a host of qualities, including serenity and morality, the central ingredient was “disinterested love, … ready to sacrifice everything at the altar of affection.” Not only family but also the community and the wider world would be transformed by this deep, redeeming passion. As Mother’s Magazine gushed, “Love—flowing from the hidden spring in a mother’s heart … [flows] deeper and wider as it goes, till neighborhood, friends, and country are refreshed by its living waters.” Instructing by example, the mother “teaches our hearts the first lesson of love … around [her] our affections twine and closely and surely, as the young vine clasps itself about the branch that supports it: our love for [her] becomes so thoroughly a part and portion of ourselves, that it bids defiance to time and decay.” Children of a loving mother would come to “revere her as the earthly type of perfect love … they cannot but desire to conform themselves to such models.”39
Motherlove was intense; it knew no bounds. It was “untiring,” “imperishable,” “unquenchable,” and “irrepressible.” Its very intensity imprinted the mother indelibly on her offspring: “Yes! You will live in your children.” “Working like nature … she … sends forth from [her] heart, in pure and temperate flow, the life-giving current … her warm affections and irrepressible sympathies.” The religiouslike qualities of this love were no accident; they were deliberately signaled by many advice writers, evangelical and secular alike.
As with other intense emotions, motherlove required self-control. While expressions of love itself could be fervent, a more generalized emotionality was not recommended; mothers must be calm, avoid anger, shun displays of fear. Here, too, at least in the domestic realm, motherlove showed its relationship to the broader Victorian emotional style: “We must bring our own feelings and our own actions under a rigid system of discipline, or it will be in vain for us to hope to curb the passions and restrain the conduct of those who are looking to us for instruction and example.” The resulting tension between praise for women’s natural, perfervid emotional endowment and suspicion of women’s potentially excessive emotionality was never fully resolved. Maternal self-control was essential in conveying the good qualities of motherlove to the child without the complications of idiosyncratic emotionality or disconcerting emotional expressions. Intensity should underlie, not dominate. Here, too, the relationship with the general Victorian style was apparent in the recommendation that natural impulse combine with focus and control.40
Along with the growing emphasis on men’s ability to utilize anger and fear, masculine emotion was increasingly connected to motherlove in middle-class popular culture in the later nineteenth century. (Girls required less attention because they presumably shared their mothers’ natural emotional endowment and easily followed the maternal model.) A standard popular story, common in boys’ fiction and adult fiction alike, involved men who strayed from home in youth or young adulthood, sometimes causing their mothers great pain in the process, but who retained the fervent image of motherlove throughout their wanderings, only to find how it sustained them and ultimately brought them to redemption. Love, here, was salvation. Even at his most reprobate, the young man retained his mother’s love as “the only humanized portion of my heart. … I shall never be an infidel while I can remember my mother.” Many men wrote to women’s magazines precisely in this vein, carrying fiction into fact: S., for example, recalled how his mother’s love and prayers brought about his religious conversion, bringing salvation quite literally. In a lower key, the same message was transmitted in boys’ stories that referred to mother and prayer in the same breath, as sustained in the face of fear.41
The sublimity of mother’s love was echoed in the growing literature on love between man and woman. In all the advice literature in the later nineteenth century, motherlove contrasted with, although it did not necessarily preclude, sexual attraction. As Eliza Duffey claimed in The Relation of the Sexes, while granting the importance of sexuality, “Is it not possible that there may be a love strong enough and abiding enough, untinged by [sexual] passion, to hold a husband and wife firm and fast in its bonds, and leave them little to desire? I believe it; I know it.” “I believe in marriage all through—the soul, the mind, the heart, and the body, and I would make the last the weakest and least indispensable tie.” And the popular medical adviser Henry Chavesse added: “But while we thus speak of pure and passionate love, we may refer to the animal passion, which in no way is akin to love.” The phrenologist Orson Fowler tried his hand at the same topic, distinguishing love from mere physical attraction. “True love … appertains mainly to … this cohabitation of soul with a soul. … It is this spiritual affinity of the mental masculine and feminine for each other.”42 Religiouslike intensity was love’s hallmark, though proper incorporation of physical expression was allowable. Popularizers disagreed about how openly to acknowledge sex in the equation, but they united in distinguishing love from sex and in highlighting the soulful fervor of love.
Writers addressing women sometimes presented the goals of love with a special gender twist. Because of their sacrificing, maternal propensities, women could more readily live up to the love ideals than men, whose