![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly) wrote2026-04-01 02:13 pm
conuly) wrote2026-03-31 12:11 pmcarenejeans) wrote2026-04-02 10:29 ambadly_knitted, brithistorian, carenejeans, china_shop, cornerofmadness, dswdiane, goddess47, the_siobhan, sanguinity, sylvanwitch, trobadora, ysilmechina_shopprofiterole_reads) wrote2026-04-02 07:08 pm![[syndicated profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/feed.png){kind=small}
alpennia_feed) wrote2026-04-02 12:10 amI don't usually post more than one LHMP entry per day, but I wanted to pair this article closely with Fielding's original, so that readers have the "real version" immediately available to compare with Fielding's fiction.
Baker, S. 1959. “Henry Fielding’s The Female Husband: Fact and Fiction” in PMLA, 74 pp.213-24.
Although the date of this article should serve as a warning for homophobic content, it presents an extremely thorough dissection of three topics: the evidence for Henry Fielding as author of The Female Husband, the relationship of The Female Husband to the objective facts of Mary Hamilton’s life and trial (i.e., tenuous), and the most likely sources for Fielding’s fictional additions and substitutions. I’m going to skim over much of the detailed evidence, but will use this opportunity to include the text of the primary sources that Baker quotes.
The solid historical facts about Mary Hamilton {and the broad strokes of their conflict with Fielding’s text, in brackets} are:
Baker’s article begins with a summary of Fielding’s narrative and notes the scanty correspondences with the historic record. Fielding had no personal connection with the case, although a cousin of his was mentioned as having been consulted on the charges. Although Fielding called the case “notorious” implying that the details he related were widely known, in fact there had been only brief mentions of the case in a couple of newspapers. Fielding himself created the notoriety.
Identical notices in the Daily Advertiser (1746/11/07) and St. James’s Evening Post (1746/11/08) repeated an item in the Bath Journal (1746/11/03) mentioning the trial for “a very singular and notorious Offence” and the defendant sentenced as “an uncommon notorious Cheat” but the work “notorious in this context doesn’t mean “widely known” but something more like “notable.” And Fielding clearly didn’t expect his audience to be familiar with Hamilton’s story, given how many liberties he took.
The article continues by citing characters, motifs, and events appearing in Fielding’s works that correspond to some of the invented details in The Female Husband, including some episodes that repeat scenarios appearing in his novels. Even the insertion of the satire on Methodism echoes events in his novel Shamela. (Methodism is nowhere mentioned in the factual record and the description of Hamilton as something of a fop is at odds with Methodist practices.) This catalog of motif sources goes on for quite some time.
Moving on to the trial itself, where records of the Quarter Sessions are available, it’s clear that Fielding did not make reference to the official record for his fiction. In fact, his version barely squares with the more limited information published in newspapers.
The Quarter Session Record
The deposition of Mary Hamilton “daughter of Wm Hamilton & Mary his wife” made on 1746/09/13 is as follows. (The deposition originally was taken down in the first person, presumably as dictated, and later revised to be in the third person. I’m going to stick to the revised version. I have also converted all instances of “ye” to “the.”)
“The Examinant saith that she was Born in the County of Somerset afores[ai]d but doe not know in what parish and went from thence to the Shire of Angus in Scotland and there continued till she was about fourteen years of age, and then put on her Brothers Cloaths and travelled for England, and in Northumberland entered into the service of Doctor Edward Green, a Mountebank and Continued with him between two and three years, & then entered into the service of Doctor Finly Green & Continued with him near a twelve month and then set up for a Quack doctor herselfe, and travelled through several Counties of England, and at length came to the County of Devonshire, and from thence into Somersetshire afores[ai]d in the Month of May Last Past where she have followed the afores[ai]d business of a Quack doctor, Continueing to wear mans apparel ever since she put on her brothers, before she came out of Scotland.
“This Examinant further saith that in the Course of her travels in mans apparel she came to the City of Wells in the County afores[ai]d and went by the Name of Charles Hamilton, and quartered in the house of Mary Creed, where lived her Neice Mary Price, to whome she proposed Marriage and the s[ai]d Mary Price Consented, and then she put in the Banes of Marrige to Mr Kinston Curate of St Cuthberts in the City of Well afores[ai]d and was by the s[ai]d Mr Kingstone Married to the s[ai]d Mary Price, in the parish Church of St Cuthberts afores[ai]d, on the sixteenth day of July last past and have since travel[e]d as a husband with her in several parts of the County to the day of the date above mentioned and further this Examinant saith not.”
Signed with “the mark of Mary Hamilton” with “Mary Hamon” written in a different hand.
The record also includes Mary Price’s statement, from a month later on 1746/10/07, the date of the Quarter Sessions. (That is, Hamilton’s statement was taken at the time of her arrest, but Price’s was taken at the time of the trial.)
“Who on her Oath saith that in the Month of May last past a Person who called himself by the name of Charles Hamilton introduced himself into the Company of the Examinant and made his Addresses to her, and prevailed on this Examinant to be married to him, which she accordingly was on the Sixteenth day of July last by the Rev[eren]d Mr Kingstone Curate of the Parish of St Cuthbert in Wells in the said County—And this Examinant Further saith that after their Marriage they lay together several Nights, and that the said pretended Charles Hamilton who had married her as aforesaid entered her Body several times, which made this Examin[an]t believe, at first, that the said Hamilton was a real Man, but soon had reason to Judge that the said Hamilton was not a Man but a Woman, and which the said Hamilton acknowledged and confessed afterwards (on the Complaint of this Examin[an]t to the Justices) when brought before them that she was such to the Great Prejudice of this Examinant.”
The deposition was signed “The Mark of Mary Price” with a mark indicating her signature.
Baker also provides transcripts of the sentence (“Continued as a vagrant for Six Months to hard Labour, and to be whipped publickly…”) and the reference to the consultation with Fielding’s cousin regarding the appropriate punishment.
With respect to the trial record, Fielding has also spun the tale in a way that more strongly frames Mary Price as a naïve innocent, continuing to protest that she believed her husband to be a man even after the arrest (whereas the factual record indicates that she was the one who brought the complaint). This is further evidence that Fielding did not consult with anyone directly familiar with the case.
The newspaper mentions from the Bath Journal are given as follows.
1746/09/22
“Tuesday last a Woman, dress’d in Man’s Apparel, was committed to Shepton-Mallet Bridewell. She was detected at Glastenbury and has for some Time follow’d the Profession of a Quack Doctor, up and down the Country. There are great Numbers of People flock to see her in Bridewell, to whom she sells a great Deal of her Quackery; and appears very bold and impudent. She seems very gay, with Perriwig, Ruffles, and Breeches; and it is publickly talk’d, that she has deceived several of the Fair Sex, by marrying them. As the Circumstances in general are somewhat remarkable, we shall make a further Enquiry, and give our Readers the Particulars in our next.”
Although several details here contradict Fielding’s narrative, this may be a source for the multiplication of marriages that Fielding attributes to Hamilton.
A second notice in the Bath Journal dated September 29, mentions her alias of Charles Hamilton and adds “…we hear that she was born in Yeovil in Somersetshre.” Fielding does not seem to have used this information, but most likely did have access to the following item appearing in both the Bath Journal on November 3, and the Daily Advertiser:
“We hear from Taunton, that at a General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, for the County of Somerset, held there lately, Mary Hamilton, otherwise George, otherwise Charles Hamilton, was try’d for a very singular and notorious Offence; Mr. Gold, Council for the King, open’d to the Court, That the said Mary, etc. pretending herself a Man, had married fourteen Wives, the last of which Number was one Mary Price, who appeared in Court, and deposed, that she was married to the Prisoner, some little Time since, at the Parish Church of St. Cuthbert’s in Wells, and that they were Bedded as Man and Wife, and lived as such for about a Quarter of a Year, during which Time she, the said Price, though the Prisoner a Man, owing to the Prisoner’s using certain vile and deceitful Practices, not fit to be mentioned.
“There was a great Debate for some Time in Court about the Nature of her Crime, and what to call it, but at last it was agree, that she was an uncommon notorious Cheat, and as such was sentenced to be publickly whipp’d in the four following Towns, Taunton, Glastonbury, Wells, and Shipton-Mallet; to be imprisoned for six Months, and to find Sureties for her good Behaviour, for as long a Time as the Justices at the next Quarter-Sessions shall think fit.”
This newspaper account introduces several details that diverge from the depositions (the length of time married, the multiple marriages, the use of the name George) but that appear in Fielding’s account, making it likely that he had access to this and relied on it.
Baker concludes by speculating on Fielding’s financial motivations for publishing the hasty and sloppy account, concluding that the work was not intended as anything more than a sensational opportunity to monetize the events.
alpennia_feed) wrote2026-04-02 12:02 amThis book functionally invented the term “female husband” for an assigned-female person who marries (formally or otherwise) a woman while presenting as male. It’s possible (though speculative) that the book also encouraged pop culture fascination with the phenomenon, though I suspect that the fascination would have existed even if the label had never been created.
As discussed at length in Baker 1959 (being posted simultaneously), the vast majority of Fielding’s book is total fiction, which makes it an interesting sequel to the series on the General History.
Fielding, Henry. 1746. The Female Husband: or, the Surprising History of Mrs Mary, Alias Mr George Hamilton. Liverpool, M. Cooper.
In 1746, a young woman named Mary Price discovered that her recently-wed husband was assigned female at birth. She considered herself to have been defrauded and brought the matter to the attention of the law. Her husband was tried and found guilty under the vagrancy laws. England had no laws that addressed cross-dressing or gender-crossing specifically, and the legal records indicate that the system did a certain amount of head-scratching to figure out what charges to bring—though they were clear that they planned to find something.
A few months after the conviction, an anonymous pamphlet was published purporting to provide the history of the accused. Analysis has demonstrated that the author was almost certainly novelist Henry Fielding (author of The History of Tom Jones among others). Analysis also demonstrates that the vast majority of the details in The Female Husband are entirely invented (contradicted by the legal record). (Baker 1959 discusses this evidence.)
The question of Hamilton’s gender identity (as understood from a modern perspective) is tricky, especially as we must discount much of what might otherwise appear to be psychological evidence presented by Fielding, as it is entirely of his invention. I will be using female pronouns for Hamilton but refer to her primarily by surname.
Fielding situates Hamilton’s life within a mythic context, providing a quote from Ovid’s Metamorphoses on the title page that refers to a supernatural sex change. The text then opens with a brief meditation on sexual desire and its variants, framing normative desires as being dictated by “virtue and religion” while non-normative desires are the result of “excess and disorder.” The implication is that non-normative sexual desire (of which he notes “all ages and countries have afforded us too many instances”) is a result of excessive desire and a failure to apply cultural restraints to exercising it. This is relevant to constructing a landscape of how English culture understood same-sex (or trans) desires, as it contrasts with theories based on aberrant physiology, or theories positing inherent orientation. (Of course, the presence of this framing doesn’t mean this was a universal or uncontested view of sexual desire in the mid 18th century, only that it was a view expressed in popular literature.)
The biography proper begins with Hamilton’s birth and early family life, which conflicts with the known facts of her life from the trial records. Hamilton is described as having been brought up “in the strictest principles of virtue and religion” with no indication of straying until she was seduced by a neighbor woman, Mrs Johnson, who had “learnt and often practiced” sex between women within a Methodist community. Fielding’s pamphlet includes very clear anti-Methodist sentiments, suggesting that they practiced various types of sexual impropriety.
This part of the history frames Hamilton’s attachment to Johnson as initially non-sexual, but that the strength of her devotion made her susceptible to Johnson’s sexual advances. Their sexual activities are described—using the standard legal phrasing of the day—as “criminal conversation,” despite the fact that sex between women was not criminalized in England. Johnson, however, transferred her affection to a man (another fellow Methodist) and married him, to Hamilton’s great distress. (The pamphlet quotes an entirely invented “Dear John” letter supposedly sent from Johnson to Hamilton, exhorting her to repent and follow her example into marriage.)
Hamilton’s response to this was “to dress herself in mens cloaths, to embarque for Ireland, and commence Methodist teacher.” (Note that in Fielding’s fiction, the decision to live as a man happened after engaging in a sexual relationship with a woman. No direct connection between the two is made at the time, although one can be implied by Hamilton’s later relationships. The implied connection seems to be “a woman will leave a woman for a man, so a stable relationship with a woman can only be had as a man.” However nothing this specific is spelled out.)
Methodism and its discontents continues to be a motif as Hamilton shares a cabin on the ship to Dublin with another (male) Methodist preacher who “in the extasy of his enthusiasm” while praying stuck his hand under Hamilton’s shirt. It isn’t clear from the narrative whether he suspected Hamilton of being a woman, whether this was pure accident, or whether—believing Hamilton to be a man—this was intended as a male-male pass. In any event, after some commotion and further sexual advances (still unclear what sex he believes Hamilton to be), she pops him one in the nose after which he leaves her alone.
On arriving in Dublin, Hamilton has picked up a severe cold and lost her voice, postponing the start of her preaching, but not the start of her courtship of a widow staying in the same lodging house. Being unable to profess her love verbally, Hamilton “was obliged to make use of actions of endearment, such as squeezing, kissing, toying, etc.” followed shortly by a written declaration of love. The widow, alas, though generally desirous of another marriage, rejected Hamilton in rather harsh terms, soon after marrying another.
Disappointed in love(?) and with funds running low, Hamilton turned to pursuing another well-off widow who seemed much more receptive of the attentions of what she believed to be a youth. In this context, the narrator frames Hamilton as having quite mercenary motives, whereas with the previous widow she “had never any other design than of gaining the lady’s affection, and then discovering herself to her, hoping to have had the same success which Mrs Johnson had found with her.” That is, Hamilton had as an end goal a romance in which both partners knew the other to be a woman. (Though it never went far enough to test this.) But with the second widow, Hamilton is depicted as planning to carry the gender disguise through the marriage. “A device entered into her head, as strange and surprising, as it was wicked and vile; and this was actually to marry the old woman, and to deceive her, by means which decency forbids me even to mention.” Though Fielding is being deliberately—indeed, aggressively—coy, the context indicates he’s referring to consummating the marriage with an artificial penis.
The marriage was celebrated and the bride not only declared herself satisfied but boasted to her friends about her husband, despite them commenting on how her husband looked more like a woman than a man. But her curiosity was roused and one night she (we must assume) felt up her husband and discovered the anatomical lack, whereupon she flew into a rage and accused Hamilton of being a cheat and an imposter.
Hamilton, realizing that Dublin had grown too hot to remain, immediately took ship back to England where she began practicing quack medicine. [Note: this isn’t necessarily to say the practice was fraudulent, but only that it wasn’t “textbook” medicine but rather folk practice.] Hamilton soon became enamored of one of her patients who was being treated for “green sickness.” [Note: Although the term “green sickness” is now associated with a type of anemia, historically it was considered to be a disease of virgins that could best be treated by sexual activity.] Hamilton wooed the girl and they married. “The Doctor so well acted his part, that his bride had not the least suspicion of the legality of her marriage, or that she had not got a husband for life.”
Once again the marriage is initially happy until the bride once again discovers her husband’s anatomical lack. Hamilton tries to persuade her “she would have all the pleasures of marriage without the inconveniences” but she isn’t convinced. At this Hamilton makes haste to leave town even as the abandoned wife tells her parents all, who rouse the law against Hamilton.
Setting up in another town, Hamilton once more fell in love, this time with a girl named Mary Price, whom she met at a dance. Two purported love letters exchanged between the two are quoted, the one from Price written in an exaggeratedly illiterate style. They plan a swift marriage, despite interference from a jealous sister and an altercation at another dance in which Hamilton’s breast was briefly exposed during a fight. But married they were and continued happily for months, even as Hamilton’s reputation as a doctor grew. Unfortunately, someone who recognized Hamilton from the time of her previous marriage raised the alarm. Hearing of this, Mary Price’s mother quizzed her about her husband and noted inconsistencies in the story. Confronted by Mary, Hamilton considered admitting to the whole, but by this time Mary’s mother had summoned the law and Hamilton was arrested, with Mary protesting that the accusation was false and malicious.
In court, the true story came out, and a search turned up “something of too vile, wicked and scandalous a nature, which was found in the Doctor’s trunk, having been produced in evidence against her.” (Again, the implication behind Fielding’s coy language is that this is an artificial penis.) Hamilton was prosecuted under the vagrancy act “for having by false and deceitful practices endeavoured to impose on some of his Majesty’s subjects.” During the trial, Mary Price testified that she had no suspicion of her husband’s true sex and that as far as she knew her husband had “behaved to her as a husband ought to his wife.”
Hamilton was convicted and sentenced to four sessions of whipping in different towns as well as imprisonment. But rather than serving as an effective deterrent, Fielding claims that the evening after the first whipping, Hamilton “offered the gaoler money, to procure her a young girl to satisfy her most monstrous and unnatural desires.” But perhaps, he notes, the story will serve to deter others.
Fielding concludes with an assurance that, despite the shocking nature of his subject, he has written it up so carefully that “not a single word occurs through the whole, which might shock the most delicate ear, or give offence to the purest chastity.” This comment speaks to his avoidance of specific descriptions, using circumlocutions, euphemisms, and allusion for all sexual matters.
Before taking any of this narrative seriously, compare it to the verbatim court reports which are quoted in Baker 1959 and provide a much shorter and simpler story.
shati) wrote2026-04-02 12:50 pmosprey_archer's Wednesday Reading Meme posts so I'm stealing the headers, even though it's now Thursday.ranunculus) wrote2026-04-02 08:35 amglitteryv) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
recthething2026-04-02 11:30 amcalimac) wrote2026-04-02 08:28 amsoemand) wrote2026-04-02 12:26 pmlarryhammer) wrote2026-04-02 08:17 amprettygoodword) wrote2026-04-02 08:06 ammoon_custafer) wrote2026-04-02 09:45 amjames_davis_nicoll) wrote2026-04-02 08:57 am
blotthis) wrote2026-04-02 08:06 ampauraque and door. I had vague intentions of writing this up before I listened to the Eight Days episode about it, but time very obviously intervened. So, for a deep dive into the book's Actual Summary, as well as its reflections on sex, the Troubles, and Welsh myth, among other terrific insights, check that out. 
