The Eight Husbands of Sophronia Barber

      For over 50 years Sophronia Barber seemed to live the normal, expected life of an Indiana farmer’s daughter and farmer’s wife in the second half of the nineteenth-century. After many years of marriage to John C. Reed, something seemed to go awry. Sophronia became the most talked-about woman in town. Eventually, people were talking about her in California and Pennsylvania, Florida and Mississippi, Missouri and Oklahoma, and many points in between as her story ran over the newspaper wire service.

     Sophronia Amanda was the daughter of Milo Roswell Barber and his wife Miranda Orilla Butler. She was the third of ten children - she and her sister Abilena, known as Abi, and eight brothers. She was born in Greene County, New York in 1835, but at age three her parents moved to Kosciusko County, Indiana. They traveled by way of the Erie Canal then from Fort Wayne by an ox-drawn wagon. Her early days were spent in log cabins as her father labored to clear the land and create a farm. There were short sessions in the country school for a few years, and a great deal of time helping her mother and learning how to run a household. 

     Sophronia was 20 when Abi married and moved to Iowa. Now the only daughter at home, Sophronia was probably a second mother to her littlest brothers. By the time she was 25, she was heading into “old maid” territory. But she married James C. Reed, a widower who was 11 years older. She had her own home at last, on his farm in Marshall County, outside of the town of Plymouth.

     They had five children and were married 25 years before his death. He was laid to rest at the Oak Hill Cemetery in Plymouth, Indiana with three daughters Elizabeth, Orilla and Nancy, all of whom died before their third birthdays. Her daughter Euretta, known as Retta, married a few months after her father's death. Sophronia still had two sons at home; James, Jr., who was 15, and William, who was only 10. 

     Four years later, after an unremarkable life of apparent propriety, something seemed to happen to Sophronia. She made herself a spectacle, something in the “True Womanhood” ideals of the day, she should never do. 

The Beginning

     Who could blame a widow for remarrying? No one did, especially when a decent interval of time passed. Four years since James was laid to rest was a decent interval. It did not raise any eyebrows when Sophronia married John Jacob Ross in February 1889. Divorce was another thing; it always raised eyebrows - especially when the marriage was of short duration. Sophronia divorced John just three months later. A small item in the Argos, Indiana newspaper said, “Her second matrimonial venture was far from successful, it seems.”

     That could be written off as an embarrassing debacle. But in November she was married again. Marriage Number Two in February – Divorce in June – Marriage Number Three in November. Even today, that would make for juicy gossip. Jesse Burkett was described in the newspaper as a “wealthy farmer who resided near Tippecanoe.” They were also divorced within a few months. 

Divorce

     Today when people file for divorce, they simply assume it will be granted. This was not true in Sophronia’s day, and judges did not always grant the request. The Victorians widely believed that society rested on the permanence of marriage, and that divorce destroyed a divinely ordained order to the way things were supposed to be. Therefore, divorce was immoral and a sign of selfish individualism. The needs of the group - American society - were greater than that of an unhappy individual. 

     In spite of this, divorce rates continued to rise after the Civil War. In 1880, there was one divorce for every 21 marriages.  In 1900 this rose to one in 12; by 1909, the figure was one in 10. Victorians perceived this as a crisis even in the 1880s. One congressman proposed a constitutional amendment to secure uniform divorce legislation. This would solve the “problem” of some states having more lax divorce laws than others. Indiana was known as a “divorce mill” up until reforms of the 1870s as it did not have a residency requirement and left the cause of the divorce essentially up to the judge. Kansas became the next “divorce mill” with its liberal laws which granted ten reasons to end a marriage. In contrast, at the same time, New York only had one reason, adultery.

     For women, the risks of divorce were great, often economically, but also in possible social ostracism, especially in polite society. Sophronia had her home and farm of about 150 acres, inherited from James. She may have been in stable economic circumstances. Her divorces did not involve splitting a family with young children. But one divorce could make a woman an object of disapproval and derision. What Sophronia did was so outside the realm of “normal” that it had to raise questions of her sanity. Yet Sophronia was never turned down for a divorce. The evidence - and plaintiffs did have to present evidence - must have been compelling.

     Her third marriage ended in 1890. In December of 1892, she married John Wickizer of Rutland, Indiana, which is also in Marshall County. Again, the marriage lasted only a few months before she petitioned to end it. 

     It’s unclear when she married John Bollinger, described in the newspaper as a well-to-do farmer, but their marriage followed her union with John Wickizer. This time, she moved to his home a few miles outside of Warsaw, back in her home county, Kosciusko.  

    In 1894 she had the heartbreak of losing her son James to malaria. He was 26 with a baby girl, and was described in the newspaper as one of the most popular young farmers in the county, “a man whom to know, was to admire.” When his widow settled his estate in 1896, Sophronia claimed $853 was due to her. The name she was listed by in court papers was Sophronia Bollinger. According to the newspaper, John was the one who initiated a divorce this time, and it was granted. 

Matrimonial Advertising

     Her next husband raised even more eyebrows because it was rumored that she found him through the services of a matrimonial agency. Now this was truly scandalous. 

     From the 1880s on, matrimonial publications ran ad after ad from men and women seeking - or purporting to seek - a partner. These lonely hearts ads have never stopped, though today we have a different version with all sorts of online matchmaking opportunities. Here are some samples from 1902 in the Philadelphia Enquirer:

     

Businessman, middle-aged, worth $90,000, wants sincere, home-loving wife.

Lady. cultured, independent means, desires reliable, worthy husband.

Retired businessman, independently wealthy, never married, wants poor but honest wife. 

     

   Then there were ads like this one in the Boston Globe in 1899: “Wedding Bells paper, introduces people socially or matrimonially inclined; send 10c to box 2529 Boston." Or another in the Wichita Eagle in 1896: “Wanted – Correspondence with five respectable ladies, object marriage, by gentlemen of respectability and worth; everything confidential. Enclose stamp and ask for particulars. Kenworthy’s Employment and Matrimonial Agency.”

      Of course there have always been “sharks” - con artists preying upon the vulnerable and the gullible. The Detroit Free Press was one of hundreds of newspapers denouncing these publications. The editor reviewed a matchmaking paper that claimed to be “devoted to seekers of domestic happiness, ”and wrote a May 1888 opinion piece. “What it is really devoted to is making money out of the silly, the foolish and the cranks who believe in matrimonial advertising, and the wicked who find…[in such a publication] an opportunity to ensnare the silly and the foolish,” he wrote. He went on to say that all intelligent, right-minded people already knew that, “this whole notion of advertising for a husband or wife is degrading and demoralizing.” Finally, he concluded, “No woman of real refinement, with right views of the married state, its meaning and its responsibilities, would content herself with a man  who would answer an advertisement…No such woman indeed would advertise for a husband.” This was the prevailing view. 

     Sophronia’s Husband Number Six was Pierce Juvenal, a Canadian, the local newspaper said. He may have represented himself as such, or maybe he was living in Canada when he and Sophronia made contact with each other. He was actually Pennsylvania-born Clarence Percy Juvenal, with American-born parents. Two years before their marriage, he was enumerated on the Kansas state census.

     “Pierce” was also 21 years younger than Sophronia. She was 62 when they married in May 1897; he was still only 40. They married in neighboring Fulton County. It’s unclear exactly when they divorced, but on the 1900 census he was boarding with a couple in a home in Plymouth, working as a farm laborer, and identified himself as married, with a duration of three years. He remarried in 1902 and moved to Michigan.

Two More

     June 1903. Sophronia had found another husband. He was Alexander M. Griffin, and he was living in Arthur, Illinois at the time of their marriage. This gives credence to Sophronia using “matrimonial advertising.” The newspaper in Arthur said it was his fifth marriage, which implies a problem, but perhaps he was just unlucky in love. He was widowed the year before when his wife died of typhoid. The wife before her tragically drowned with her daughter while crossing the Okaw River.

      Alex was 16 years younger than Sophronia. She evened the age difference out by claiming to be 50 on the marriage license, but she was 68. The Arthur newspaper said that he was moving to Indiana to be with his new wife.

     June 1905. Sophronia’s petition for divorce from Alex was postponed until the next term of court. 

     November 1905. In her divorce petition, Sophronia said they had not lived together for more than six months. In the letter her attorney sent to court, she said Alex “wholly failed to make any reasonable provision for her support and the support of his family for more than two years…” He had three minor children back in Illinois, the youngest only two when he married Sophronia. This was a serious charge in a Victorian court, given the rigid gender expectations of men and women. The divorce was granted.

     Yet, Sophronia didn’t stop. She must have ignored or fought back from gossip, disapproval, ridicule and pity. One wonders what her son and siblings said to her. In July 1907 she married her eighth husband, James Henry Gleasson. Maybe she thought the eighth time would be the charm. He was 20 years younger and told her he had a farm and property near Mishawaka. She married him in St. Joseph County. 

     One would think that after going down this path so many times before, Sophronia would have done some basic checking; would have required proof. But apparently she didn’t as she told the judge in the divorce suit she brought against James that she discovered after marriage that he was penniless. 

     

National Attention

     She petitioned for divorce in February 1908, seven months after the marriage. Someone, finally was keeping track and this time her divorce history was covered in an article with a large headline in the Plymouth newspaper: 

     “Seeks Divorce From Eighth Husband - Mrs. Sophronia Reed-Ross-Burkett-Wickizer-Juvanal-Bollinger-Griffin-Gleason.” It was an irresistible human interest story; when sent out on the wire service it ran in newspapers in dozens of states. The Indianapolis Star sent their reporter to Plymouth. He reported that she was widowed once, had one husband file for divorce against her, divorced five husbands and had one die in an insane asylum. I could not find evidence for the latter. He also said another man had skipped out on marrying her. “The day was set, the hour arrived, the baked meats that were to furnish the wedding feast were smoking on the table, but the expected bridegroom came not.” A messenger was sent on a fast horse to Argos (another town in Marshall County) where the supposed fiance lived. The man was in bed and would not open the door but said Sophronia would get a letter of explanation the next morning.

     There was one detail reported in a separate story that news editors had a field day over. While Sophronia was on the stand, her attorney asked her to name her husbands in order of marriage. She could only think of five, and scolded him for embarrassing her.    

     There was yet one more tidbit, widely published and often with a quip from the editor. Supposedly, Sophronia said she would continue to marry “until she finds her affinity.” There were jokes about men stampeding towards her and jokes about men leaving the country. There was also a sly joke comparing her to the famed singer Lillian Russell, who was once (innocently) in a bigamous marriage, and married four times. 

     There was no sympathy displayed whatsoever, no wondering what had gone so obviously wrong in this woman’s life. She was simply a punch line; a laughingstock. 

After Marriage

     Regardless of what she may have said, Sophronia did not marry again. Seven husbands after her marriage to her first, James C. Reed, had not brought her companionship, happiness or an improved economic situation. She reverted to being Mrs. Sophronia Reed and identified herself as a widow on the census for the rest of her life. When even one divorce carried such stigma, this was a common face-saving practice. 

     She did have another court involvement in January 1909 when she sued her only surviving child, her son William and her daughter-in-law, Viola. In the suit she said she had sold the couple property valued at $3,500, amount due on conveyance, but that they had paid her nothing. This is roughly equivalent to $120,000, certainly not an inconsiderable amount. The suit was dropped in March. Presumably her son worked something out to begin making payments. That sum of money was too much for an elderly, unmarried woman to ignore in an era of no Social Security, pension or other retirement programs. 

     It would be interesting to know what her relationship with her son was like. Sophronia had four grandchildren, three of whom survived childhood. On the 1910 and 1920 census, she lived alone in Plymouth. Maybe the property she sold William was the farm. 

     In 1930, she was enumerated at the Haven Hubbard Memorial Old People’s Home outside of New Carlisle in St. Joseph County. This was a historic home and farm deeded to a church, which turned it into a charitable old folk’s home in 1922. Like other institutions of the time, residents were called inmates and were expected to help with chores and farm work as they were able. In 1930, 60 inmates lived at the home with six servants and the superintendent. She was one of only two woman in their 90s. 

     Sophronia’s long life came to a close in 1931 when she was 96 years old. She was buried at the Oak Hill Cemetery. 

Note: Here’s the connection in my tree: Sophronia Amanda Barber (1835-1931) was my third great-grandfather’s niece, and my great-great-grandfather's first cousin. (My great-great-great-grandfather was Myron Fitch Barbour. My great-great grandfather was Myron Cassius Barbour.) You can read about Sophronia's eight brothers in my blog post, "The Eight Sons of Milo Roswell Barber."

Sources:

     Griswold, Robert L. “Law, Sex, Cruelty and Divorce in Victorian America, 1840-1900,” American Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 5 (Winter 1986), pp. 721-745.

     O’Neill, William L. “Divorce In the Progressive Era,” American Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 2, Part 1 (Summer 1965), pp. 203-217.

     Phegley, Jennifer. “Victorian Girls Gone Wild: Matrimonial Advertising and the Transformation of Courtship in the Popular Press,” Victorian Review, Vol. 39 No. 2 (Fall 2013), pp. 129-146.

Newspapers:

     “Pernicious Reading - Danger Lurking in Papers Devoted to Matrimonial Advertising,” Conway Springs Star (Conway Springs, Kansas), 4 May 1888, p. 3. 

     Divorce from Ross: The Argos Reflector (Argos, Indiana), 20 June 1889, p. 4.

     “Personal,” Wichita Eagle, 6 Sept 1896, p. 7. 

     “Matrimonial,” The Boston Globe, 21 Nov 1899, p. 12. 

     Matrimonial Ads: Philadelphia Enquirer, 18 May 1902, p. 

     Divorce court postponed (Griffin): The Weekly Republican (Plymouth, Indiana), 22 June 1905, p. 5.

     “Woman Seeks Divorce From Eighth Husband - Gleason Loved For Money,” Indianapolis Star, 21 Feb 1908, p. 5. 

     “Seeks Divorce From Eighth Husband - Mrs. Sophronia Reed-Ross-Burkett-Wickizer-Juvanal-Bollinger-Griffin-Gleason,” The Weekly Republican (Plymouth, Indiana), 20 Feb 1908, p. 5. 

     Affinity: The Miami News (Miami, Florida), 5 March 1908, p. 4. 

     “Gets Divorce From Number Eight - Sophronia Gleason Is Successful For Seventh Time,” The Weekly Republican (Plymouth, Indiana),19 March 1908, p. 5.

     Embarrassed By Attorney: Harrisonville Review and Cass County Leader (Harrisonville, Missouri), 7 May 1908, p. 8. 

     Suit against son: “Suits Filed in Circuit Court,”  The Weekly Republican (Plymouth, Indiana), 21 Jan 1909, p. 1. 

     “In Marshall County,” The Argos Reflector (Argos, Indiana), 4 March 1909, p. 4.

Copyright Andrea Auclair © 2023