A LEGAL CONTRACT BETWEEN A COURTESAN and HER PATRON IN THE LATE 1700's

Is 'patron' the right word to use when describing a person who provides financial support to another in a non-marital contract which includes sexuality, romance, even love?  In the art world patron refers to a person, persons, even an organization or group that provides funds so that an artist can create.  Maybe the word was used to mean support of the Courtesan who might have aspirations in theater, music, fine art, fashion or design.

The attraction of the Courtesan drew in many potential suitors who competed for her favors.  These men won not just her company but a prestige among other men.  Most of them were married.  Their marriages were often contractual as well in the more traditional way; families who wanted to keep their money and status by intermarrying among their peers but for whom love or even companionship was not a consideration.  Breeding and keeping the wealth in the family or increasing it was the primary concern.

For a woman who married a peer in an arranged marriage there was usually no way out. Divorce was impossible or exceedingly uncommon and might result in her impoverishment since she could not be married and in control of the money. Whatever inheritance she might have when entering the marriage, in a dowry or other arrangement, went over to her husband.  So much depended on what power she might personally have in her relationships. Especially when a woman was not attracted to her husband or they were not sexually compatible, or when childbirth threatened her existence, she might welcome his having another woman. Some people think that a man having a mistress or a courtesan is actually more civilized than divorce.

Ah well... It was advisable for a woman to have a contract that defined the benefits she could expect from a man even after their relationship cooled, with foresight to her old age.

On pages 51 and 52 of Katie Hickman's book, Courtesans, it's explained that people in the 18th century were very curious about the "settlements" that men made.  And as an example, is given an agreement made by another popular Courtesan, a contemporary of Sophia Baddeley named  Ann (or Nan) Cateley, also an actress and singer of the 1760's.  In this case Nan had made a deal for marriage which fell through, but it's an interesting look at the legal monetary proposal.

Page 52: .... "Nan had made him sign a paper, properly drawn up by an attorney, which set out very precisely the terms and conditions designed to protect her in the (highly unlikely)event of her surviving him:

1) That he should settle 1000 pounds on her, to be paid within one month of his funeral, and 100 pounds during her natural life.

2) That he should settle the like annuity on every one of the children she might have by him, to be paid them also during the term of their natural life.

3) That previous to their marriage, he should invest a sum, or sums, sufficient to produce the aforesaid annuities in any of the public funds, or lend the same on mortgages, or lands, or houses, or on eligible securities, for payment of them.

4) That in the case of failure of any of the said conditions, the marriage shall be null and void, and she be at liberty to marry again.

(Ann was popular in the 1760's - 1770's.

So get your inflation calculators out.  Using the Bank of England and 100 pounds in 1770 we get over $150,000.

Missy

C 2024 Mistress Manifesto BlogSpot  All Rights Reserved including Internet and International Rights.