A Modern Lens on a 1780s Mystery: Revisiting Fanny Apthorp
Frances “Fanny” Theodora Apthorp (1766–1788) is a largely forgotten Revolutionary-era girl, except when told in the context of her sister’s story: that of Sarah Wentworth Apthorp Morton (1759–1837), a celebrated poet of the 1790s who received contemporary praise and was known as the “American Sappho.”
(Mrs. Perez Morton) by Gilbert Stuart, 1802–20. Sarah was Fanny’s sister.
The sisters were born to James Apthorp (1731–99) and Sarah Wentworth (1735–1820) of Boston and, later, Braintree, Massachusetts. They were Episcopal and suspected Loyalists during the American Revolution, with a proud lineage as granddaughters of Boston merchant Samuel Wentworth (1708–66) and New Hampshire Lieutenant-Governor John Wentworth (1671–1730).
Fanny comes into view seven years after her sister’s marriage to Massachusetts attorney and Patriot leader Perez Morton. In 1786, Fanny came to live with Sarah and Perez at their brick home in Boston, where they were members of prominent social circles. However, the Morton’s social life was publicly criticized as “repugnant to virtue” and often called pompous or snobbish. Very shortly after Fanny’s arrival, Perez began an affair with Fanny — though whether it was consensual is debated based on what happened next. According to the few scholars who have put together as complete a picture as has been possible to obtain so far, “Fanny Apthorp readily yielded to her brother-in-law’s advances” (Pendleton and Milton). Note that such a statement does reflect the inherent misogyny of the historical field — assuming that Fanny would “readily yield” implies that Fanny actively chose to pursue the affair, rather than was forced into the affair given she was living in Perez’s household and may have had no other choice in the matter.
One year after her arrival, in 1787, Fanny gave birth to a daughter. The daughter was soon after taken to Weston, fifteen miles away from Boston, to be brought up in secrecy. In 1788, Boston newspapers caught wind of the affair and publicized it, scandalizing the family. In the eighteenth century, Fanny faced a future like those of contemporary novels: prostitution, destitution, and solitude. Making matters worse, Fanny refused to name the man who had seduced and impregnated her. In retaliation, Fanny’s parents possibly vowed to cast her aside — cutting off all financial support and leaving Fanny dependent on Perez (her seducer and possible abuser) and Sarah (whom she could not confide in).
Fanny was distraught. Evidence in Boston newspapers suggests that Sarah attempted to come to Fanny’s aid — but in a roundabout way. Sarah published “The Goddess of Revenge” in the Massachusetts Centinel as a criticism of their parents’ abandonment, which read in part:
Where is the father fled, with raptur’d breast!
Where the fond mother, in her offspring blest! Ah wretched child! No friends thy grief control!
No melting parents sooths thy anguish’d soul.
A week later, an anonymous reply in the Centinel claimed that the parents had not abandoned their child but, rather, had been forbidden to see said child. The published episode suggests the emotional and fraught experiences between the family, but it also suggests something else: Perez may have been controlling the situation.
Using a modern lens on this eighteenth century situation — and a lens in which this author is intimately familiar — we can shed some light on the situation that the historical record does not contain. Often, an abuser will try to control the situation — by distancing his victims from those who would seek to offer aid and support. Was Perez inciting Fanny (and even Sarah) to openly reject offers of aid? Were tactics that we now recognize as manipulative and abusive being utilized by Perez in this situation? It is only speculation — as accounts of what was happening in the Morton household are sparse — but it could explain the isolation that Fanny felt and the mysterious published exchange in the Centinel.
Shamed by her community and made out by the newspapers to seem complicit in the affair, Fanny wrote instructions in her diary on August 20, 1788, to Perez, stating,
“…Morton is the first and last man I ever knew…” and “In the name of heaven let not my sweet Infant suffer, take care of it unhappy Morton if ever you lovd its Mother…” (McDowell).
Fanny refused to publicly confront Perez or publicly tell her side of the story, though the reasons remain unknown. Instead, she left a suicide note begging forgiveness from her sister and family, stating,
“I knew I doing Injury to one whom I supposed was all kindness to me. I pray her to forgive me, as I forgive them, who have done me nothing but Injuries. I request her not to place this Crime to that of Black Ingratitude for I am sensible of the Obligations I was under to her.”
Fanny committed suicide by poison on the morning of August 28, 1788. She was twenty-two years old.
Her death was noted in in the Massachusetts Gazette only as, “On Thursday the 28th ult. Miss Frances Theodore Apthorp.” Full details were later released in the Massachusetts Centinel, which also published portions of Fanny’s diary/suicide letter. Such publication was common by the end of the eighteenth century. As Amy Shoultz explains, “The avid coverage of domestic scandal by the press served as communal cautionary tales, propping up pre-existing social hierarchies and reminding American readers of the natural order.”
A court case on Fanny’s suicide was held in September and October, which implicated Perez in Fanny’s suicide. Such inquests were required by law in the case of sudden death. Despite being a suicide, Fanny’s writings implicated Perez — suggesting that his seduction and moral corruption of her would have prompted her suicide. Fanny’s father was horrified at these findings and used his influenced to have it reviewed privately. On October 8, 1788, the implication of Perez was revoked, and Fanny’s suicide was attributed to insanity. In essence, this restored the family’s honor — and condemned Fanny’s story to darkness. The ruling stripped away Fanny’s free will in choosing death and the religious/social implications of her death, asserting that Fanny had never had a choice at all.
Fanny’s case continued to influence the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In 1789, it inspired portions of The Power of Sympathy Or, the Triumph of Nature by William Hill Brown. Although set in Rhode Island, contemporaries clearly saw the parallels to Fanny’s case in one of the subplots that focused on an incestuous seduction story. It also followed Sarah wherever she went and has been found in literary analysis of Sarah’s works — though Sarah herself never openly spoke on Fanny’s death. Over time, Fanny became more a part of others’ stories rather than remain her own tale, fading from view as the years passed.
What happened to her daughter remains a mystery.
Bibliography
McDowell, Tremaine. “Last Words of a Sentimental Heroine,” American Literature 4(2), May 1932: 174–177.
Shoultz, Amy Elizabeth. “A Revolutionary Idea: Gilbert Stuart Paints Sarah Morton as the First Woman of Ideas in American Art.” PhD Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, May 2008.
Whitehill, Walter Muir. “Perez Morton’s Daughter Revisits Boston in 1825.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, vol. 82, 1970, pp. 21–47. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25080689. Accessed 12 Nov. 2022.
