The Charlotte Perkins Gilman Newsletter The Gilman Society was founded by Shelley Fisher Fishkin and Elaine Hedges in 1990. Spring 2006

Vol. XVI No. 1

Officers President Cynthia J. Davis University of South Carolina-Columbia Executive Director Jennifer S. Tuttle University of New England Newsletter Editor Charlotte J. Rich Eastern Kentucky University Webweaver Jean Lee Cole Loyola College in Maryland

From the President Greetings to all! We hope we will be seeing many of you at some point in the next two months, either at our session at May's American Literature Association in San Francisco or at the Fourth International Charlotte Perkins Gilman Conference in Maine in June. Our outgoing Executive Director has done a splendid job helping to organize the latter. Please remember to vote for the new Executive Director via the enclosed ballot. For those of you who prefer to do your traveling by Internet, stop by and visit the Society's website at http://www.cortland.edu/gilman. You'll find lots of information there, as well as links to the Gilman Listserv. Wishing you that rare combination, a summer that is both relaxing and productive,

From the Executive Director As my term as Executive Director of the Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society comes to an end, I would like to thank all of you with whom I have worked over the years for your support and enthusiasm. It has been so gratifying to see the Society grow; we have not only increased our membership, but also enriched our community by appealing to those inside and outside of academe and by welcoming more and more international members. We are currently in the process of electing a new Executive Director, and I trust that the Society will continue to thrive under this new leadership. I am looking forward to continuing my association with the Society as an active member in the future, and I hope to see all of you at the Fourth International Gilman Conference this June! Sincerely, Jennifer S. Tuttle, Executive Director [email protected] _______________________________________

CONFERENCE NEWS Don’t miss the Gilman Society panel at this year’s American Literature Association Conference: May 25-28, 2006, San Francisco “Historicizing and Contextualizing Charlotte Perkins Gilman” Friday, May 26, 8:00 a.m. Chair: Charlotte Rich, Eastern Kentucky University 1.

Cynthia J. Davis, President [email protected]

"The Yellow Newspaper: Gilman’s ‘The Yellow Wall-paper’ and Sensational Journalism,” Sari Edelstein, Brandeis University

Sat., 6/17 (events held at University of New England) -Continental breakfast -Concurrent Session IV: Panels on Gilman’s Utopias and Gender, Style, Performance, & Power --Break— -Concurrent Session V: Panel on Biographical Approaches and screening of “the Yellow WallPaper” (Dir. John Clive) --Lunch— -Concurrent Session VI: Gilman’s Relevance Today and Aesthetics and Material Culture -Local Tour: “Glimpses of Portland’s Women: A Walking Tour” -PLAY: “The Yellow Wall-Paper,” featuring Michele LaRue; Q&A and dessert reception to follow

ALA Panel Information, cont’d: 2. "Under a Plantain Leaf: Empirical Signs in the Design of ‘The Yellow Wall-paper,’” Malina Mamigonian, Independent Scholar 3.“’The Women Woke Up’: The Political Rhetoric of the Women’s Club Movement in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s What Diantha Did,” Amy Hobbs, The University of Delaware

Please Join us for the

Fourth International Conference on Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Sun., 6/18 (events held at Holiday Inn By the Bay) -Coffee -Gilman Society Business Meeting -PLENARY SESSION and Closing Brunch -Student Paper Award -Plenary Session: “Gilman Studies Today” Presenters: Catherine J. Golden and Denise D. Knight, with Cynthia J. Davis as respondent

Hosted by the Maine Women Writers Collection, University of New England

Charlotte Perkins Gilman: Then and Now University of New England Westbrook College Campus June 15-18, 2006 Portland, Maine

Conference website: www.une.edu/mwwc Questions? Contact Jennifer Tuttle, [email protected]

Program Outline Th., 6/15 (events held at Holiday Inn By the Bay) -Registration and Opening Reception

Two Spirited Defenses of Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Fri., 6/16 (events held at University of New England) -Registration and continental breakfast -Concurrent Session I: panels on Journalism, Print Culture, & Popular Fiction and Sex & Gender in Gilman’s Life and Work --Break— -Concurrent Session II: Panels on Motherhood and Re-Inscribing “The Yellow Wall-Paper” --Lunch— -Concurrent Session III: Panels on New Approaches to Gilman’s Short Fiction and Race & Imperialism --Break— -KEYNOTE ADDRESS by Shelley Fisher Fishkin -Book Signing and Reception

Charles Johanningsmeier Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s friendship with the adventurer, author, and editor Charles F. Lummis is no secret to scholars. A small number have noted that their relationship began shortly after Gilman (then Stetson) moved to California in 1888, and that by 1891 she trusted Lummis enough to ask his advice about divorce procedures in California and for the names of good divorce lawyers (Knight, Diaries of Charlotte Perkins Gilman 460). This friendship became even closer in the decade to follow, as shown by the way in which Gilman went from referring to him as “Dr. Lummis” in her diary to simply calling him “Chas. Lummis” (Knight, Diaries 664). Others have recorded, too, that as 2

the editor of the Los Angeles-based Land of Sunshine (later titled Out West) magazine, Lummis wrote and published a number of positive reviews of Gilman’s books. Nonetheless, Lummis has never been deemed a very significant figure in Gilman’s life; most recently, for instance, he garnered only a very brief mention in the essay collection entitled Charlotte Perkins Gilman and Her Contemporaries (2004). Yet Gilman’s friendship with Lummis and her connection to Land of Sunshine magazine, I believe, deserve closer attention. This magazine, whose first issue appeared in May 1894, was from the beginning a blatantly promotional magazine for Southern California. Initially funded by representatives of the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, Land of Sunshine contained many articles pointing out the health advantages of living in this region and urged Easterners to emigrate there. After Charles F. Lummis took over as editor beginning with the January 1895 issue, the magazine began promoting Southern California not only for its glorious climate and clean air but also for its rich culture. During his tenure as editor, Lummis constantly highlighted for the magazine’s local and Eastern readers (numbering approximately 10,000) not only the cultures of the early Spanish settlers and the area’s Native Americans but also the many California writers who were currently producing extremely high-quality work and thus deserved wider recognition. In his regular column entitled “In Western Letters,” Lummis praised such beginning writers as Jack London, Frank Norris, Sui Sin Far, and Mary Austin; he also founded “The New League for Literature and the West” in 1898. Coincidentally, Lummis also wrote more than one panegyric to the “other” Mrs. Stetson living in Southern California at the time: Grace Ellery Channing-Stetson. One of the writers whom Lummis supported most strongly was Charlotte Perkins Stetson (Gilman). As Gary Scharnhorst has documented in Charlotte Perkins Gilman: A Bibliography (1985), Gilman published five poems and two essays in Land of Sunshine between August 1895 and March 1897. Scharnhorst has also noted in his biography of Gilman (1985) that Lummis wrote very positive reviews of the second and third editions of In This Our World, as well as of Women and Economics, The Home: Its Work and Influence, and Human Work (the latter two after the magazine had changed its name to Out West). This endorsement of Gilman’s work by an influential and wellrespected editor was, one can safely assume, quite

valuable for Gilman’s career. What has received only brief mention, though, are two pieces from 1900 in which Lummis more broadly defended Stetson’s ideological positions to his readers. These articles have never, to my knowledge, been reprinted and made easily accessible to Gilman scholars. They deserve to be better-known, however, not only because they show that Stetson was not at all universally reviled by male Californians of the time, but also because they give us a colorful and complex reaction to Gilman by a contemporary writer and thinker who knew her personally. Furthermore, these editorial notes provide further evidence that Stetson was, early on, closely associating with people who held what we today would regard as racist views. Lummis ostensibly supported and defended the area’s Chinese, Californio, and Native American inhabitants by printing articles critical of Native American boarding schools, by pointing out how offensive the term “greaser” was, and by including numerous pictures showing the aesthetic beauty of various artifacts produced by these cultures. He also openly criticized the widespread bigotry in California, opining in the July 1896 issue that “A pretty good sort of American is one who is willing to let his fellowcitizens live, even if they do not live on his street. Incidentally, also, it does no harm to an American who knows how to read if he will now and then exercise his gift by perusing the Constitution of the United States” (“In the Lion’s Den” 72). Nonetheless, Lummis’s own attitudes towards non-whites and their cultures were in fact quite ambivalent. For instance, he tended to value such cultures chiefly for the artifacts (buildings, pottery, blankets, and so forth) that they produced. In many other places, too, Lummis was extremely condescending towards non-whites; just one example is his comment in the March 1896 issue: “We all know that Indians are superstitious. That is their place. Humanity would be perfect if there were no foreigners; and God has wisely created the Indian to be superstitious, just as he invented the Englishman to be the only man on earth who would take anything if he had a chance, and the Frenchman to be an immoral frog-eater, and the Spaniard to be a cruel exterminator, and the German to be a beerbibber” (“In the Lion’s Den” 185). Lummis also viewed Southern California as a grand experiment of the Anglo-Saxon race, almost its last hope. On one occasion, in January 1895, he editorialized that “New England itself . . . has suffered an invasion [of immigrants] which has seriously 3

lowered the mean of culture” (34), then added that in contrast, “Southern California is not only the new Eden of the Saxon home-seeker, but part, and type, of Spanish-America; the scene where American energy has wrought miracles strange to the place where American energy was born, but under the skies of New Spain” (34). One should always be careful about judging someone by his or her friends, but Gilman’s association with Lummis and his magazine, and especially Lummis’s defenses of Gilman, appear to be possible further indicators of what scholars such as Susan Lanser, Denise Knight, and Gary Scharnhorst have identified as Gilman’s racist leanings. Because Lummis’s essays appeared in such a relatively obscure periodical, one whose issues from the 1890s can be found today almost exclusively in California research libraries and are generally unavailable through interlibrary loan, I believe it is worthwhile to print them here in their entirety, so that scholars can use them as they wish.

comfortable to me at a stretch [end of p. 348].But one can be magnanimous enough to forgive someone else for being brighter. A brain of her sort merits some patience – and is sure to have it from those who have any of their own. Its vagaries are less structural than environmental – physical disinheritance, years of ill-health, certain inexperiences, certain hyperesthesias. But its temper is intrinsic, and Damascene. Any Yankee would give to boot for such a blade a whole community arsenal of breadknives – and get the Yankee end of the bargain. It is an edge almost unearthly sharp. Mrs. Stetson does not by any means see everything; but what she sees is by a lightning flash. I do not know anyone else whatever who can put so much into so few, so simple, words. The last two lines of her poem in a recent Cosmopolitan are a fair example. Her faults are generally those of youth. She was born in 1860, but she is – and is like to remain – eminently young. And the best test of her outcome is the evident process of adjustment. She is growing in balance without loss of fire. When any who are seriously disturbed by her [end of p. 349] manage to write any book so grave, so high-thinking, and so far-thinking that any serious tribunal will compare it inclusively with John Stuart Mill, they will have a better title to their disturbance. Since people who offend are criticised always in terms the offended can understand, it seems to me fit to remark that Mrs. Stetson is a good woman in spite of her intellect. This is germane, because some suspect that because her head is different from theirs so must her moral standards be. She is not even an Unnatural Mother, as I have heard her called by many good ladies whose children are hired out to be instructed by strangers five days a week. I cannot even find her dangerously subversive. What is unsound in her work will fall of its own weight. What is mere theory must stand the test of proof. The vital thing about her is that she has the wherewithal to think, and uses it; and makes other people go through more or less of the motions, according to their equipment. Mrs. Stetson is of the family of Lyman Beecher, Henry Ward Beecher, Harriet Beecher Stowe – all of them rather disquietous to napping intelligences. She has already proved title to her inheritance; and so long as she is showing visible signs of gain in pose, perhaps it will be just as well for us to pardon the lady for having brains; and to wait with some hope to see what she will do with them.

*************************************** C[harles] F. L[ummis]. “In Western Letters.” Land of Sunshine 12 (May 1900): 348-350. It has a good deal interested me to observe the effect of Charlotte Perkins Stetson on the average intelligence. Symptomatically the rabies resembles hydrophobia – reading “brains” for “water.” It is marked by slaver, gnashing of teeth, bristling of hair and a blind desire to bite. I have observed excellent people – who make good bread, keep their feet off the table, and cure insomnia at the sewing circle with papers written down from the encyclopedia – go rabid at the bare sight or sound of her name. And it is always amusing since I know her and know them. This does not refer at all to those who are entitled to sit on the jury. It does not indicate that a scientist may not sometimes shrug at Mrs. Stetson’s science. As to her equivalent balance I have myself had at times considerable concern – as one might have for a good many other people, if their minds were of a sort to make it matter in the least whether they balance or not. With her theory of certain literary workmanship – whitehot metal in a sand mold, and no filing – I have no sympathy whatever. It has several times occurred to me that if we were both chained pretty short to the same tree I should be likely to break the tree; since so long as the stump held, I should have, for very shame’s sake, to be continually smarter than is either normal or 4

***************************************

receiving the first one “asking her to be more explicit and received in reply” the second even blunter instrument. Transcripts of transcripts of the letters (the originals were withdrawn at the consent of the judge) appear below. (It remains unclear whether missing punctuation and strikeouts in these letters were found in the original or occurred solely in the notary’s transcript). After filing his suit, Walter spent anxious months fretting over its outcome. Acting on legal advice and with Charlotte’s consent, Walter planned to testify “to the effect that Charlotte is a literary woman, and that her contributions are printed in a long list of magazines & papers, which I name, and that serious critics such as Howells have testified to their unusual merit. Also that she is devoted to various radical reforms, and has espoused the Nationalist doctrine,–and various other true things clearly calculated to prejudice the judge who is a good deal of a fogy.” His aim was “simply to show that she is a woman of unusual mind & character and that when she says she won’t she won’t, especially when she says she won’t be my wife. I can’t see how it could be better.”3 Yet all along he feared the worst. Turning his testimony over and over again in his mind, he confided to Grace Channing, whom he planned to marry once the divorce was final, My Dearest:...the case looms up as a gigantic lie, and I find myself eaten out within by the feeling that while I have told the truth as to particulars so far as the law allows and my knowledge permitted, it is in substance false as regards the last three years. . . . I go over my testimony in my mind a dozen times a day to see if I have really lied in particulars. I cannot see that I have but there stands the lie as a whole.....I see now, as I could not have done if I had not tried it, that Charlotte could not possibly have got a divorce from me; for she would have been incapable of answering questions which say one thing and mean another.4 Walter had to lie and say he wanted the divorce because Charlotte couldn’t lie and say he had deserted her. As it turned out, Walter had cause to worry about lies, but different ones than he anticipated. After the case was tried Walter wrote Mrs. Channing, Grace’s mother, to explain ensuing events: “The papers were reserved by the court, and the consequence of that was that a reporter for the Boston Globe was so fired that he

C[harles] F. L[ummis]. “In Western Letters.” Land of Sunshine 13 (July 1900): 88-89. Charlotte Perkins Stetson was married at Detroit, June 11, to Geo. Houghton Gilman, her cousin, a lawyer and another Beecher – which is almost a religion by itself. Si non é vero é ben trovato that his own brother, once “filling the pulpit” for “the great Congregational preacher,” prefaced the services with the remark: “Those who have come to worship Henry Ward Beecher may now retire. We will proceed to the worship of God.” The marriage of two Beechers should satisfy all the demands of piety and love. That Mrs. Stetson is a philosopher has come to be admitted by the most unwilling minds. That she is human, no doubt need now persist. At any rate, the loose-reading and unraveled who have held her a Foe to Home because she is hostile only to inversions of home, should now be estopped. That Mrs. Gilman will not be a Submerged Half, goes safely unsaid; that she may find in love and comradeship a surer foothold and inspiration for her broad work, here’s hoping. In any event, she has promptly and satisfactorily answered one query as to “what she would do with her brains.” _______________________________________

Stetson vs. Stetson: Newly-discovered Evidence in the Stetson Divorce Case Cynthia J. Davis In late fall of 1892, Walter Stetson sued Charlotte Stetson for divorce on the grounds of desertion.1 Two letters Charlotte purportedly sent Walter over the summer of 1891 were submitted as exhibits supporting Walter’s suit and were published subsequently in a San Francisco paper around the time the scandal over the divorce broke. Charlotte may have consciously written these letters to be used as evidence; they were, as one paper reported, “of a vigorous business turn and refrained from any endearing terms.”2 Both missives are filled with details and names only Charlotte or someone very close to her would know, and the tone, diction, themes and phrases, (e.g., “that pain that means growth”) bear her unmistakable stamp. There are not one but two letters because, as Walter testified in his deposition, he wrote Charlotte again after 5

faked the most devilish testimony in his power–and insult alike to Charlotte, my attorney, and me. That has travelled all over the country, a monumental lie.” Berating the reporter, Walter described the “sensation” this distorted newspaper coverage caused, despaired of ever winning the case in light of the coverage (and indeed, his petition was eventually denied, although the press’s role in this outcome is dubious), and concluded that he felt “sick,” especially as “little could be done.” 5 Charlotte, too, rued the press attention, which caused her name to become “a football for all the papers on the coast. The worst of it was some singularly discerning friend sent clippings to [her dying] mother, so that her last days were further saddened by anxiety about my future....”6 Walter did his best to put out the fire, telling one reporter that “I am pained that the press seems so eager to speak ill of a woman of so much genius and sincerity of purpose.”7 But his kind words went unheeded when there were more injurious ones to report. The press portrayed the Stetson divorce as an object lesson in how a woman’s literary pursuits–not to mention her involvement in such reform movements as woman’s rights and Nationalism–negatively affected the health of her marriage. Charlotte’s nemesis, The Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner, immediately seized on the story, reporting that Walter accused his wife of not wearing corsets or even waistbelts, of going about without heels on her shoes, of devoting her time to the doctrines of Bellamy, and of running after fads and fancies in social and dress reform–all to the exclusion of sewing buttons on his shirts and making wifely remarks about his respiration upon his return from “the lodge.” He said she followed gymnastics until she became very muscular. G. [sic] Walt is not a muscular man, and somewhat undersized, so his complaint seemed to hint that his wife was rather head of the household before she picked up her dress reform duds, her Bellamy writings and her muscular development and put off for California....the divorce has caused no end of talk and the peculiar allegations have set the tea tables a titter. The scandalmongering prompted Charlotte to offer her “plaintive denial” to the Examiner’s reporter, out of the naive assumption that she could set the record straight:

When two grown persons conclude that they cannot live together and want to separate that is sufficient, is it not? They can separate if they desire to do so. Further than that it is a private matter and no one’s business....There is not the slightest ill-feeling between Mr. Stetson and myself and there has been none. We correspond constantly and have all along since I have been here. We are the best of friends and will remain so. To the reporter’s question, “Did following your profession interfere with your wifely duties?” Charlotte responded, I have been sick most of the time during my married life and I preferred to abandon it.... I read the papers this morning with fear and trembling, but when I had finished I laughed....[Walter] never based it upon the ground that I eschewed boot heels or favored dress reforms.... All there is to it is I wanted to devote myself to my profession and earn my own bread and butter and I could not do it in double harness. ...It would be better if there were more difficulty in people getting married and not so much fuss made about it when they wanted to get out of the married state.8 If Charlotte thought her response would quell the fuss, she had another think coming. The next day she and Walter were back in the papers, under headlines that blared “His Wife’s Plans for Bettering the Universe Annoy Him.” The Examiner now ran a (somewhat dubious) interview with Walter, quoting him as saying She thought it her duty to sacrifice the domestic and conjugal relations for what she felt she was called to do in the cause of women’s rights, dress reform and nationalism. In order to sustain marriage relations she frequently declared that she would have to stay home more than she wanted to....She often declared that domestic duties took too much strength which should be given to something more important, as she expressed it, her whole soul being wrapped up in her literary labors....She often expressed a desire to discontinue our relations, and would have done so long ago could she have reconciled what she for several years regarded as her duty to me with her

6

duty to the work she wished to do. ...the whole trouble was that she wanted to be a woman’s leader...”9 Though its reliability is moot, this interview does contain phrasing and themes that sound like both Stetsons. Walter and Charlotte both may have felt that talking to the press would clarify their respective positions and substitute fact for innuendo, but in the end all they accomplished was to stir up debate and sell papers. The hullabaloo over what one paper called “The matrimonial misadventure of Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson and her worthy, or unworthy spouse” proved something of a nine days wonder.10 With no new developments in the case and all angles exhausted, The Examiner wound down its coverage on Christmas day, referring sympathetically to Walter as “an ordinary man of common sense” who wisely “bow[ed] himself out of her sphere” when his wife decided “to give herself to the welfare of the whole world” rather than devote herself to his welfare. The article concluded, There are not many women, fortunately for humanity, who agree with Mrs. Stetson that any “work,” literary, philanthropic, or political, is higher than that of being a good wife and mother. And as Mrs. Stetson is really a woman of ability it must be assumed that on determining upon such a choice either all her reasons have not been made public (which is probable), or she is wanting in those powerful instincts which render the love of husband and children necessary to woman’s happiness.11 Ironically, while Charlotte had devoted her career to proving that this “work” was as important and fulfilling and necessary as marriage and motherhood, her own divorce was being used to teach the opposite lesson. While Charlotte was preaching that marriage and career could be combined, the papers were citing her as an example of the disastrous results of that combination. Once again, Charlotte’s private life was interfering with her public agenda, making all the more understandable her distrust of the private realm as the locus of fulfillment.

Exhibit 1 C.F.P. N.P. [C. Frank Pankhurst, Notary Public] June 16th, 1891 Pasadena Cal. Dear Walter, It seems to me possible that from my continued friendliness and perhaps tenderness in some past letters, you may have misunderstood my position–have had some hope that I would some day by yours again. Do not deceive yourself dear. My life is too precious to me to waste any more of it like those seven years we spent together. Not wasted in some ways I grant full of deep experience and that pain that means growth. But you will know how it unfitted me for any work and how since you left I have done good work and lots of it–have made a reputation in one year. The difference is too great. Work I must, and when I am with you I can’t. Therefore I shall never live with you again as a wife. I know it is hard for you but I can’t help it–you must take the hard [thce scribbled over] truth and make the best of it. Kate is well and happy and very glad to be at home after our trip. I’ll write more soon, but this was on my mind to-day. Sincerely, Charlotte Perkins Stetson Exhibit 2 C.F.P. N.P [initials of C. Frank Pankhurst, Notary Public] Near 4 P.M., 4thof July 1891, Pasadena Dear Walter I am delighted to hear of your excellent health. I too am feeling well and improving steadily, and Kate is superb. I have been working hard this week cleaning house for Miss Knapp’s coming and have thriven upon the exercise. I am sorry you did not find my last letter plain enough–it is hard for us both. But since you ask so specifically, I will answer specifically. I have told you these things for years past you know–you would never believe me–now you must. No. I will not live with you again–not even

Transcripts of transcripts of letters submitted as “Exhibit 1" and “Exhibit 2" in Divorce No. 9078 Charles Walter Stetson vs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson 7

in the same house. I know too well what that would amount to. Not as your wife in any case. How can you ask me again when you know! Nor will I come to Providence on any terms. You have to live there? Well, I don’t. And I will not go abroad with you. As you know I have been planning and hoping these years past to have you go–alone. I will not accompany you, on any terms. And for my work–that is my wif [crossed out] life and I shall pursue it as long as I live, whether you consent or not–approve or not. I had my work to do before ever I knew you, you know. I am sorry very sorry to have to put these things so plainly, but you would have it. I hope you will not ever have [crossed out] need to ask again. We two must part and there is an end to it. Kate is having a delightful 4th at the Master’s place, and I am enjoying myself in peace and quietness as I best like. All goes well here and you need be under no concern about my health, it is fast becoming established. Regretfully but sincerely Charlotte12

10. “A Sociological Study.” Los Angeles Times (22 Dec. 1892). Folder 282. SL. 11. “Women of Brains as Wives.” San Francisco Examiner (25 Dec. 1892): 2-3. 12. Papers for Divorce No. 9078. Charles Walter Stetson vs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson. Rhode Island Supreme Court. November, 1892. Including Exhibits and Depositions “of Charles Walter Stetson and such other witnesses as he may summon in his behalf.” Transcripts sent upon request of the author. _______________________________________

Recent and Forthcoming Publications on Gilman Avril, Chloé. “Sexuality and Power in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland.” Moderna Spr_k 98.2 (2004): 148-51. Golden, Catherine. “’The Yellow Wall-Paper’ and Joseph Henry Hatfield’s Original Magazine Illustrations.” ANQ: A Quarterly Journal of Short Articles, Notes, and Reviews 18.2 (2005): 53-63.

Notes 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

9.

State of Rhode Island and Providence, Petition for Divorce to the Supreme Court. Folder 1. Schlesinger Library (hereafter “SL”). “No Corsets on Her.” Minneapolis Journal (21 Dec. 1892). Folder 282. SL. CWS to MTC. 20 Dec. 1892. 83 m201. Folder 147. SL. CWS to GEC. 23 Dec 1892. 83 m201. Folder 148. SL. CWS to MTC. 22 Dec. 1892. 83 m201. Folder 147. SL. Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. The Living of Charlotte Perkins Gilman. New York: Appleton, 143. Clipping. Folder 247. SL. “The Wife and the Writer: Should Literary Women Be Addicted to the Marriage Habit?” San Francisco Examiner Morning Edition. (19 Dec. 1892): 18. Folder 247. SL. “Stetson Objects to Reform.” San Francisco Examiner Morning Edition. (20 Dec. 1892): 3-4.

Hochman, Barbara. “Stowe’s House and Home Papers: A Neglected Source for Gilman’s ‘The Yellow Wall-Paper.’” American Literary Realism 37.1 (Fall 2004): 83-6. Hudson, Jennifer A. “The ‘Bi-Sexual Race’: Mediating Masculine and Feminine Discourses in Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s Herland, With Her in Ourland, and Beyond.” Journal of Bisexuality 5.4 (2005): 5-17. Klotz, Michael. “Two Dickens Rooms in ‘The Yellow Wall-Paper.’” Notes and Queries 52.4 (2005): 490-91. Knight, Denise D. “’I could paint still life as well as anyone on earth’: Charlotte Perkins Gilman and the World of Art.” Forthcoming in Women’s Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal 35.5 (2006).

The Charlotte Perkins Gilman Newsletter is published yearly by the Gilman Society and distributed to all dues-paying members. We welcome short articles, book reviews, reports on teaching Gilman, descriptions of archival items, calls for papers, and publication announcements; for more information, contact the Editor, Charlotte Rich, at [email protected].

8

Membership in the Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society The aim of the Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society is to encourage interest in Gilman and the issues that she explored. Membership includes an annual issue of the Newsletter, notices of Gilman-sponsored sessions at conferences, and an invitation to participate in the annual business meeting. Dues are $5.00/year or $75.00 for lifetime membership. Overseas members should contact Jennifer Tuttle regarding membership fees and payment. To join, please fill out this form and send it with a check (in U.S. dollars) made out to the Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society to this address: Jennifer Tuttle, Department of English, University of New England, 11 Hills Beach Road, Biddeford, ME 04005. Name _________________________________________________________________________________ Academic Affiliation (if any) ______________________________________________________________ Address _______________________________________________________________________________ Current members: is this a new address? _______ Phone __________________________________ Email _________________________________________ I enclose

____ $5.00 for one year of membership ____ $75.00 for a lifetime membership

plus an additional contribution of $ ______________________. Total amount enclosed: $ _________________________. Check one: ___ new member ___ renewal

Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society Executive Director Election Ballot Election is for a two-year term; results will be announced at the Business Meeting at the Society conference. The nominees: 1. Dr. Robin Cadwallader is the managing editor of Legacy: A Journal of American Women Writers, a position she has held for eight years, and an assistant professor of English at Saint Francis University in Loretto, Pennsylvania. Her research interests include nineteenth-century historical and cultural studies and women writers of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, particularly Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Rebecca Harding Davis, and Anzia Yezierska. She is currently working on the establishment of a Rebecca Harding Davis Society and the republication of an autobiography by a nineteenth-century Appalachian woman writer from central Pennsylvania. 2. Sari Edelstein is running for the position of Executive Director of the Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society because she is excited by recent developments in Gilman scholarship and wants to gain experience with the workings of professional organizations. She is a doctoral student at Brandeis University, where she studies nineteenth-century American literature with a focus on gender and the literary marketplace. She has an article on “The Yellow WallPaper” under review, and she is presenting papers at the Gilman Society panel at the American Literature Association Conference and at the International Charlotte Perkins Gilman Conference. Check a box to indicate vote: _ Robin Cadwallader _ Sari Edelstein

Please mail this form by 5/20 to: Cynthia Davis Department of English University of South Carolina Columbia, SC 29208

9

In This Issue: “Stetson vs. Stetson: Newly-Discovered Evidence in the Stetson Divorce Case” Cynthia J. Davis “Two Spirited Defenses of Charlotte Perkins Stetson” Charles Johanningsmeier News on the International Charlotte Perkins Gilman Conference Publication News Executive Director Ballot

The Charlotte Perkins Gilman Society Charlotte J. Rich, Newsletter Editor Department of English and Theatre 467 Case Annex Eastern Kentucky University Richmond, KY 40475

10