- 1 This popular, frequently reprinted text would prove influential for decades to come (Raleigh xx; Br (...)
1The “unsaid” – comprising marked silences in lieu of communication, thematic absences or allusions in discourse – is an important concern in an early example of an English language conduct book specifically aimed at women: The Lady's New-Year's-Gift: Or, Advice to a Daughter, published in 1688. The author, George Savile, first Marquess of Halifax, originally addressed it to his teenaged daughter Elizabeth.1
He advises against making friends indiscriminately, as girlhood friendship might not last, and shared secrets might become generally known, causing ridicule and schadenfreude:
I must in a particular manner recommend to you a strict Care in the Choice of your Friendships. [...] The violent Intimacies, when once broken, of which they scarce ever fail, make such a Noise; the Bag of Secrets untied, they fly about like Birds let loose from a Cage, and become the Entertainment of the Town. (Halifax 33)
2The “unsaid” is a topic in this bit of fatherly advice on several levels: for one thing, he himself keeps silent about what kinds of secrets are likely to be exposed by the breakup of an adolescent girlhood friendship. He sets up a model of leaving things unsaid for his daughter to emulate. He also hints at the contents, the kind of secrets he suspects young women of sharing: judging from the condescending wording “Bag of Secrets”, they would be trivial, yet defamatory and entertaining for malicious gossips. Moreover, he stresses the importance of interlocutors: he advises his daughter to keep her inner circle small and to leave things unsaid outside this trusted group of people. Furthermore, he presupposes the importance of giving no occasion for idle talk to preserve a young noblewoman’s reputation.
3In this article I am going to address Halifax’s conduct book prescriptions concerning the unsaid: what not to communicate, including whom not to tell and how and why to keep something secret. My findings are based on a close reading of his text. I will pay special attention to the hierarchical and aspirational implications of the relevant rules of conduct. I argue that, in the context of exemplary female conduct, leaving certain things unsaid does contribute to the silencing of women, but also serves purposes of self-affirmation and self-protection. It communicates and consolidates women’s place in the social hierarchy.
4I use the term “conduct book”, following Jacques Carré, to refer to a historical genre: a body of texts which, according to Sarah Emily Newton, are designed to give advice on character formation and the conduct of life. Concerning English-speaking women as a specific target group, the genre had its beginnings in the Restoration period, and became increasingly popular during the long eighteenth century (Poovey 15). Female conduct books are typically targeted at young ladies of leisure, recommending a suitable lifestyle and the cultivation of specific virtues and habits, including appropriate communication behaviour.
5Female conduct book prescriptions concerning what to leave unsaid must be interpreted within the broader context of the behavioural ideal of being silent. Seventeenth-century social norms for female communication behaviour favoured taciturnity (Brayman Hackel; Lardy; Luckyj, “A Moving Rhetoricke”). This resulted in some measure of silencing of women’s oral and written communications. For example, Heidi Brayman Hackel has shown how women’s reader responses were likely to leave fewer traces or take non-verbal forms. The ideal of taciturnity was not, however, without its ambiguities; Christina Luckyj (“A Moving Rhetoricke”) has argued that female silence could be read as submissive but also as dangerously subversive.
6Norms concerning women’s speech were laid down in Restoration conduct books, of which some were already specifically targeted at women. To my knowledge, previous research on gender-specific Restoration period conduct books has rarely focused specifically on the unsaid, but mainly on the binary opposition of speech versus silence. Michèle Lardy, for example, has argued that conduct books denounced female loquaciousness because it was considered seductive (119). Conduct books continuously warn women against loquaciousness and recommend modest taciturnity throughout the long eighteenth century, while gradually embracing a more active role for women in mixed conversation (Dahmer, “Still”). The female conduct book is moreover known for advising the cultivation of well-bred opacity rather than forthcoming sincerity. According to Patricia Meyer Spacks, a bland politeness was recommended as a cover for private feelings and thoughts. As Jenny Davidson observes, conduct books’ authors even chose an “attractive alias” (6) such as “tact” to actually recommend hypocrisy. Obviously, authors themselves censored what they told their usually youthful target group. As Mark Philp puts it, “To educate in gentility much must remain unspoken” (63).
- 2 This is in line with the following definition suggested by Coles and Glenn, except that I exclude “ (...)
7I use the term “unsaid” to refer to silence as a (sometimes gendered) thematic absence of speech that involves deliberately not saying something, which in turn may or may not be noticed by the interlocutors.2 Gregory Coles and Cherry Glenn propose to differentiate between three different categories of the unsaid:
(1) the “masculine” unsaid, as it perpetuates existing hierarchies; (2) the subordinate unsaid, born from a place of “feminine” disadvantage; and (3) the resistant unsaid, which emerges from subordination and yet tacitly subverts the status quo. (Coles and Glenn 152)
- 3 For better readability the term “author” will be consistently used, although it would be more preci (...)
8The “subordinate” and the “resistant” unsaid are particularly relevant for the female conduct books’ target group. The “masculine” unsaid is, as will be shown, part of the conduct book author’s rhetorical strategy to establish his authority.3 Rules for the non-disclosure of certain pieces of information, as Alois Hahn points out, may serve complex social functions in group identity formation and self-protection. This may involve not just the absence of speech, but also diversionary speech acts or even lying.
9“The unsaid,” if precisely defined, involves (sometimes noticeable) thematic gaps or absences, in conversation. In the female conduct book the unsaid is discussed not only in terms of conversational behaviour, but also in the wider context of the general understanding that taciturnity, if not complete silence, is desirable in women. Behavioural rules for the unsaid need to be investigated within this context. Therefore, the next section gives a brief overview of Halifax’s attitude towards female speech versus (eloquent) silence and his prescriptions concerning taciturnity.
: speech versus silence
10Reticent taciturnity had been a behavioural ideal of chaste, pious femininity for centuries, going back to the biblical “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak” (King James Bible, Cor. 1.14-34), as well as to (non)gendered monastic traditions.5
Juan Luis Vives, for example, recommends pious taciturnity in his 1524 De institutione feminae Christianae,6 an educational treatise influential across learned Europe (Jacobi 4). Not surprisingly, therefore, Halifax treats it as a truism that loquaciousness is a fault in women. He gives the example of a ridiculous fictional lady whose inability to refrain from continuously chattering keeps her from appropriately supervising her “House, Family, and Children” (20):
[She...] calleth for her Coach, that she may trouble her Acquaintance, who are already cloy’d with her: And having some proper Dialogues ready to display her Foolish Eloquence at the top of the Stairs, she setteth out [...] at her return she repeateth to her faithful waiting-Woman, the Triumphs of that day’s Impertinence [...] (21)
11She is selective of neither her listeners, the subject of her communications or the place or situation in which she speaks: the top of the stairs, reluctant acquaintances, her patient employee, the tedious retelling of the excitements of the day will do. Halifax particularly objects to women who talk not only a lot but noisily and in combination with laughter and general “Good humour” (30). His marked aversion to talkative women might be explained by Lardy’s argument that “loquacity was suspected of being a tell-tale sign of immodesty” (107), that the lack of self-restraint evidenced by the failure to hold one’s tongue was taken to signify general licentiousness.
12The recommended taciturnity, moreover, is part of the “reserved” demeanour generally approved of by conduct book authors. “Reserve”, of course, is a behavioural pattern not easily decoded, as there is no knowing what is behind the taciturn façade. Halifax frankly admits that he approves of reserve regardless of what is behind the ambiguous lack of forthcoming openness. He holds that being reserved “is a Guard to a good Woman, and a Disguise to an ill one. It is of so much use to both, that those ought to use it as an Artifice, who refuse to practise it as a Vertue” (33). In the passage just quoted, what the author himself leaves “unsaid” manifests itself on several levels. Firstly, Halifax is tacitly prepared for the eventuality that his daughter might turn out to be an “ill” woman. Secondly, he assumes that she knows that “ill” women must leave certain things unsaid so as not to face social ostracism. Thirdly, he does not specify what might turn his daughter into an “ill” woman but leaves the twelve-year-old to find out for herself. Furthermore, he does not explain what distinguishes proper reserve from reprehensibly deceitful behaviour.
13His implicit tolerance of diversionary communication behaviour bordering on deceit is in line with the tenor of advice in female conduct books up to the 1800s; they do not approve of young women telling outright verbal lies (Dahmer, Conduct Books 295). However, they do recommend a certain measure of concealment and dissimulation. They insinuate that leaving something improper unsaid will eventually make it disappear or at least serve as a face-saving move. A prime example for this is Halifax’ advice concerning an adulterous husband: “An affected Ignorance, which is seldom a Vertue, is a great one here” (11). He goes on to highlight the advantages of the “affected Ignorance”. Taken at face value, the “Ignorance” obviously emphasizes the wife’s modesty and good opinion of her husband. Halifax, though, rather treats it as an instance of marked thematic absence, or eloquent silence. He predicts that the husband would still get the message and either change his behaviour or at least remorsefully become “more yielding in other things” (11). Thus the “unsaid” would communicate submission (no verbal complaint) and subversion (tacit reprimand) at the same time.
14Thus far, I have focused on the question of speech versus silence. I have argued that silence, reticence and taciturnity, including marked thematic absences, are to Halifax recommendable elements of genteel feminine communication behaviour. They put a woman’s good breeding and virtues on display, while at times also subversively serving purposes of self-protection (e.g. hiding one’s faults) or self-advancement (e.g. being treated better by one’s husband). While this section has demonstrated that Halifax generally takes taciturnity to be an outward sign of virtuous femininity, it has also become apparent that he focuses on particular subjects that are not to be discussed, ranging from the banal to the embarrassing. The following section will discuss what exactly a lady should, according to Halifax, leave unsaid.
what to leave unsaid
- 8 As authors of advice literature tend to borrow ideas from earlier texts (Jones vi), Halifax may hav (...)
15One component of what Halifax deems unspeakable is rooted in the association of silence with wisdom going back to antiquity, based on the conviction that foolish persons had better hold their tongues, and an ideal of “language that would be brief and to the point” (Coussement-Boillot and Sukic 8).8
Halifax disapproves of an excessive amount of what one might categorize as phatic communication, everyday small talk and polite phrases. About a fictional lady who “thinketh it less ill-manners to talk Impertinently, than to be silent in Company” (30) he disdainfully writes: “the Chattering of Monkeys is a better noise than such a Concert of senceless [sic] Merriment” (30). In line with then traditional views on the use of language, he objects to the lack of conciseness and relevance of this kind of communication. Moreover, he suspects it of not being truthful. Of another fictional lady, who loves to hear herself talk, Halifax says: “Her Discourse is a senseless Chime of empty Words, a heap of Compliments so equally applied to differing Persons, that they are neither valu’d nor believ’d” (41). The comparison with the “Chattering of Monkeys” makes it likely, though, that he principally disapproves of eloquent women’s voices taking up so much room. And, obviously, his judgement is biased by his patriarchal attitude, informed by the traditional stereotype of women’s speech as meaningless cacophony (Luckyj, “Silence” 45). While women’s everyday experience and subjective value judgements are to him just “empty Words”, they might well be communications of interest to female peers.
- 9 This would be in line with Norbert Elias (vol. 1, chap. 2), who argues that the “civilizing process (...)
16Besides this almost Gricean insistence on making contributions to a conversation truthful, relevant and concise, Halifax also gives advice on taboo subjects. Concerning the subject of sexuality, he models proper verbal behaviour himself by choosing euphemisms, allusions and omissions. He writes obliquely about “some kind of Frailties” or “[acts] in the utmost degree Criminal in the Woman” (10). Besides his role model function concerning what to leave unsaid and how to go about it linguistically, he also exerts parental control over what his daughter should neither know nor talk about. This is an example of what Coles and Glenn call the “masculine unsaid” (152). The mentor is leaving something purposefully unsaid “as it perpetuates existing hierarchies” (152) between the societal roles of father and daughter, man and woman. The mentee’s dutiful silence expresses her genteel femininity, her “unspeaking body is [...] gendered in relation to societal expectation” (150). There are also potentially relevant subjects he does not even mention allusively – e.g. bodily functions discussed frankly in earlier advice literature.9 If he does not simply consider them as irrelevant, these might be the true taboo subjects, those that are altogether unmentionable.
17Other subjects not to be mentioned include non-sexual feelings a lady should not have or at least hide. For example, Halifax, in line with female conduct book advice for generations to come (Dahmer, “Fifteenth Year”), objects to older women secretly craving age-inappropriate amusements meant for the younger generation. A “Matron” must neither admit this zest for life nor come up with unconvincing excuses:
[...] a Gay Matron [...] pretendeth to be pulled to a Play, and must needs go to Bartholomew Fair, to look after the young Folks, whom she only seemeth to make her care, in reality she taketh them for her excuse. Such an old Butterfly is of all Creatures the most ridiculous, and the soonest found out. (Halifax 33)
18Interestingly, in this case – in contrast to the above-mentioned case of the husband’s adultery effectively denounced by an eloquent silence – the mentor does not welcome the subversive power of thematic absence. The silence of the chaperon concerning her own inclinations non-verbally communicates her eagerness for amusement, despite her diversionary speech act. Halifax makes it clear, however, that he considers her craving objectionable and that its becoming transparent will only expose her to ridicule. The unsaid, in such a case, ought to be kept submissively secret. This includes, Halifax holds, not choosing unconvincing pretexts for fulfilling one’s desires, which leaves one’s real motives technically unsaid, but makes them very easy-to-guess. Similarly, personal characteristics considered vices by contemporaries, such as vanity or wantonness, should not be recognisable from a lady’s discourse either. Therefore, Halifax advises against self-praise and fishing for compliments (38-39) as well as the thinly veiled expression of a relish for indecorous subjects (41).
19However, Halifax’ list of inappropriate topics of conversation also includes virtues, opinions or feelings, which he thinks honourable, reasonable or at least excusable. An instance of an, in his opinion, exemplary trait, which still should not be freely talked about, is the virtue of chastity. About a vociferously chaste fictional lady he writes disapprovingly: “Her bragging of her Vertue, looketh as if it cost her so much pains to get the better of her Self, that the Inferences are very ridiculous” (Halifax 40). Again, the problem, according to Halifax, is not so much the utterance itself. It is the fact that her verbose bragging implicitly betrays the inner struggles of the lady in question and thus draws attention to what she decorously tried to leave unsaid. The proud verbal display of chastity might unintentionally (seem to) disclose the strength of the desires which she had overcome. Interestingly, he focuses not on whether the “Inferences” others draw from the lady’s bragging are correct. He seems to object to her turning the subject of chastity from a non-subject – something to be subordinately left undiscussed – into a subject of bragging and immodest talkativeness. Similarly, Halifax advises his mentee to keep well-founded, but unflattering judgements of other people to herself or share them only very selectively. He wants her to “be quick in seeing Faults, and slow in exposing them” (37). He gives “Impatience for Fools” (36) and an “Aversion to what is Criminal, a Contempt of what is ridiculous” (36) as examples for this type of the better-left-unsaid. Again, the reason for keeping quiet is the anticipated negative reactions of others, in this case the objects of the derogatory judgement: “An unlimited Liberty of this kind is little less than sending a Herald and proclaiming War to the World, which is an angry Beast when so provoked” (36). Halifax worries that his daughter might naively transgress the narrow boundaries of the speakable for a young woman and be aggressively silenced. An example of feelings he thinks perfectly understandable but not to be talked about so as to comply with decorum, is a daughter’s dislike for a suitor agreeable to her parents: “[...] their [young women’s] Modesty often forbiddeth them to refuse when their Parents recommend, though their inward Consent may not entirely go along with it” (8). He advises the young woman to accept the parents’ choice and secretly make an effort to overcome the aversion to the future husband. Considering the conduct book was originally a letter to Halifax’ own daughter, this piece of advice is, of course, a rather obvious instance of patriarchal silencing.
20The conduct book’s conception of what to leave unsaid is thus rooted in an aversion against “empty Words” (Halifax 41), in an ideal of concise, content-focused communication (as opposed to garrulity) going back to antiquity (Coussement-Boillot and Sukic 7). This is crossed with a misogynist view of the allegedly trivial nature of women’s everyday talk and 17th-century notions of modesty. Halifax, it has been shown, models how to speak about taboo subjects allusively and emphasizes his paternal authority by hinting at his superior knowledge of them. Besides, he lists several other subjects not to be talked about, because, in his own words, “the letting them go farther than our own Thoughts, hath so much danger in it, that [...] it is necessary they should be kept under very great Restraints” (36). The “danger” appears to be twofold: on the one hand, Halifax suspects that women might use language subversively to gain attention and agency, even if this means bragging, lying or disparaging others. On the other hand, he worries about what others will make of a young woman’s naïve openness, and what this judgement will mean for her social standing. The following section examines what Halifax recommends should be left unsaid only when facing particular interlocutors.
: interlocutors
- 11 Eighteenth-century female conduct books did reflect on the question of what to leave unsaid when co (...)
21Within the framework of the “masculine”, “submissive” and “subversive” unsaid (Coles and Glenn), the assumed gender of the interlocutors is important, as well as their mutual relationship, in particular the power relations between them. In this respect, it is significant that concerning the question of what to leave unsaid, those in the young woman’s living environment who are below her in the social hierarchy are rarely mentioned. Halifax does discuss the question of how to communicate with future children and servants. His focus, however, is on how to exert authority without undue severity. He advises to “flatter away their ill Humour” (23) when denying children something they want – which implies some kind of unspoken truth hidden behind the flattering words. He also observes that servants should be managed with “Ease and Silence” (24), which, as quoted above, includes not loquaciously telling one’s waiting-woman about the day’s experiences. Apart from that, the employer / mother, as the higher-ranking interlocutor, is apparently free to decide what (not) to say, as long as her communication behaviour blends in with an appearance of quiet, gentle femininity.11 Halifax’s comment on what the parent-child relationship must look like from the daughter’s subordinate perspective supports this explanation. He assumes daughters would feel “[s]ome inward resistance” (2) against parental commands or, as mentioned above, at times an aversion against the parents’ choice of a son-in-law. He presumes (and thus indirectly approves) that well-bred daughters would in this case not speak their mind because of their feminine “Modesty” (8) and “Good Nature” (2).
- 12 As noted by Hotz-Davies (103), Halifax probably drew on his own experience
22The daughter’s future husband, in the Restoration period, would invariably be above her in the social hierarchy. Halifax is very much aware of the need to leave things unsaid in his regard because of the gendered power imbalance, and he gives his daughter tips so as to avoid possible marital unhappiness.12
Halifax categorises deceptive speech acts, such as flattery, as in principle objectionable, yet recommends them as a necessary strategy of self-protection for the weaker partner in marriage. He thus advises against contradicting a choleric husband during an outburst of rage:
You must in this Case take heed of increasing the Storm by an unwary Word [...] yield every thing till he beginneth to cool [...] a shrill pettish Answer would provoke him [...] a little Flattery may be admitted, which by being necessary, will cease to be Criminal. (14)
- 13 Obviously, the particulars of matrimonial law changed over time and differed across the English-spe (...)
23Similarly, he recommends not reproaching a drunken husband to avoid his anger (13), manipulating an excessively stingy husband by keeping one’s opinions to oneself at the right moment (16), and refraining from publicly acknowledging being cleverer than one’s spouse (17). What he leaves unsaid is just how dangerous contradicting or embarrassing the husband might be in a legal situation that gave husbands almost complete control over their wives’ property, accepted a certain degree of domestic violence and only in rare cases allowed divorce.13
Being himself aware of the distressing facts, but keeping them half-hidden from his possibly innocent daughter, he is protecting and patronizing her, making use of his prerogative of the masculine unsaid.24Concerning male interlocutors other than the (future) husband, Halifax believes his daughter in permanent danger of seduction – or harassment. Saying nothing that might be taken as encouragement would protect her, as it signals her aloofness as well as her superior breeding. Seen this way, this strategy is a resistant variety of the unsaid, asserting the right to be treated respectfully, emphasizing her superiority over lower-class women. At the same time, Halifax adheres to an ideal of submissive femininity by reinforcing restrictions on female eloquence and flirtatiousness. Again, he himself leaves much unsaid concerning the subject of sexuality and sexual assaults. Yet he tries to teach his daughter what to leave unsaid so as not to make herself an easy target:
[...] nothing is with more care to be avoided, than such a kind of Civility as may be mistaken for Invitation; [...] for if you do that which either raiseth Hopes or createth Discourse, there is a Spot thrown upon your Good Name. (28)
25Halifax’s young readers may have wondered what exactly “such a kind of Civility” consists of. They will probably have understood the second part of the message, though: the importance of not setting tongues wagging.14
26Halifax stresses the distinction between communication at home and when stepping “out of your House into the World” (27). By “World” he is referring to the social sphere of polite company, of social peers or superiors one would meet when visiting or attending suitable public amusements. He characterizes “the World” as potentially hostile, so that proper ladies ought to leave unsaid what might provoke public ridicule or humiliation. Fear of slander and social exclusion, he insinuates, should silence naïve communicativeness. As already mentioned, Halifax warns against being too candid in girlhood friendships, for what was said in confidence might become embarrassingly public. His advice on communication behaviour in company also strongly discourages vocal solidarity among women. His mentee should hold her tongue if gossips accuse a female friend of having “fall[en] from the State of Innocence”(34), as he puts it. No matter whether the mentee loyally pleads for her friend, or rashly shares the gossip, both speech acts might draw attention to her relationship with the unfortunate friend and turn herself into an easy prey for the scandalmongers. Halifax also warns against other women who might attempt to divert suspicions of sexual transgressions from themselves by denigrating others (29).
27Perhaps inspired by the emerging separation of public and private spheres in late 17th-century England (Heyl 12), Halifax emphasises the divide between the private family circle of relatives and live-in servants and the social peers his daughter would meet with when paying her “Civilities abroad” (45) or at public “Diversions […] well chosen” (44). As I have shown above, he discourages speaking up at home. But he advises even more strongly against wives’ complaining in company about the husband’s infidelity (11) or foolishness (17). Even if things at home are exemplary, he thinks them not necessarily suitable to be discussed in company. Within the aristocratic context of the Marquess of Halifax’s family, this applies even to motherly love: “You may love your Children [...] without letting it break out upon the Company, or exposing your self by turning your Discourse that way [...]” (22). Halifax gives a plain reason for this: it is not considered “good Breeding” (22). By not mentioning the nursery, while being tacitly well informed about it, the leisured lady affirms her class and gender status.
28When discussing the question of what not to say, Halifax thus distinguishes between the different social ranks occupied by his daughter’s interlocutors. He recommends a calm demeanour, which exudes elite feminine good breeding, as a means to command respect with children and servants, but he mainly focuses on what not to say to social peers and superiors. In this context, leaving things unsaid appears an ambiguous communicative act. On the one hand, Halifax attributes some kind of subversive power to the non-mentioning of certain subjects and promises it will protect women from men’s aggressive behaviour and social embarrassment. On the other hand, his tales of irascible husbands, evil seducers, false friends and the malevolent “World” obviously serve to silence his daughter. She is to leave submissively unsaid what might question her place in the social hierarchy, be it answering back to her (superior) husband, trustingly sharing gossip with her (inferior) servant, defending a “fallen” woman friend or choosing conversation topics deemed unsuitable for a lady of her rank.
29In conclusion, I have closely examined Halifax’ female conduct book in an attempt to shed new light on the issue of the explicit written rules for what an upper-class woman from the Restoration period should leave implicit and unsaid.
30Halifax was originally writing to his own teenaged daughter, trying to help her navigate the confusing world of a young Restoration noblewoman, but also preparing her for her place in a patriarchal world. He not only teaches his daughter to aspire to the traditional ideal of feminine taciturnity, but also suggests what should remain a thematic absence in conversation including a list of “forbidden” topics ranging from meaningless chitchat to taboo subjects, which the author only alludes to. He thus makes use, it was argued, of the male prerogative of what Coles and Glenn call the “masculine unsaid”; that is, he leaves unsaid what a female adolescent in his patriarchal world should not know about sexuality and power relations. Halifax teaches his target readership the “submissive unsaid”, how to keep quiet about what might displease peers and superiors. He partly aims at silencing his daughter, when he explains that talking too much or too openly can be construed as ill breeding, can ruin her reputation and encourage sexual harassment or even conjugal violence. He also, however, gives advice on the potentially subversive power of the unsaid. He explains how diversionary speech acts, including the white lie of flattery, or thematic omissions, can be strategically used for self-protection in the challenging social sphere of polite company as well as in friendship or marriage. What stands out in Halifax’s treatment of the unsaid, is how eloquent he expects a proper lady’s taciturnity and thematic omissions to be. Leaving things unsaid will showcase gender and class-specific good breeding, help maintain the façade of the devoted wife and project an advantageous image of genteel and virtuous femininity.