About This Project
By Nicole C. Livengood, March 2026
By Nicole C. Livengood, March 2026
In 2014, I encountered Zulma Marache through the “Memoir of Zulma Marache,” published in the New York Herald on March 27, 1844. The “Memoir” told the story of a French immigrant woman’s seduction by her fiancé; abuse; abortion; and, finally, her fiancé’s refusal to marry her. The publication of the “Memoir” followed the Herald’s coverage of the abortion trial Marache had testified in the previous week when her fiancé and two others, including New York City abortionist Madame Costello, had been tried for the misdemeanor of procuring an abortion. The Herald’s readers were familiar with Marache’s story, but this version was different because, it claimed, Marache had written the “Memoir” “by herself in the City Prison, New York.”
When I first read the “Memoir,” I was relatively new to studying abortion’s literary and journalistic representations of the United States before the Civil War. I knew, for example, that abortion and contraception had been available to women in the 1800s (and long before), and that their commercialization by Madame Costello and other “female physicians” brought women’s reproductive and sexual autonomy into sharp, startling focus for those who’d been previously unaware. I had learned that the popularity of female physicians’ services threatened the financial stability and professional identities of trained male physicians, who were among the most vocal to oppose female physicians, contraception, and abortion. Throughout the 1840s, the clamor against female physicians and women’s reproductive autonomy increased as various stakeholders demanded that the justice system enforce New York’s neglected abortion laws and called for stricter laws altogether. Those who opposed female physicians and their services argued that they endangered women’s health, American morals, and the nation’s future.1
Recent abortion-related scholarship highlights the multifaceted nature of the antebellum turn against abortion and the vilification of female physicians. See, for example, A. Cherree Carlson, The Crimes of Womanhood, pp. 111-135; Margaret Jay Jessee, Female Physicians in American Literature; Dana Medoro, Certain Concealments; Nicholas L. Syrett, The Trials of Madame Restell; Karen Weingarten, Abortion in the American Imagination, pp. 107-113, and my own “‘Thus Did Restell Seal this Unfortunate Lady's Lips with a Lie.’”
I’d developed my background on abortion by wading through an archive of materials including city-mystery novels, newspaper editorials, trial reports, poems, medical articles, and illustrations. These often drew on the stories of women who had terminated their pregnancies and later shared their experiences in various legal contexts. The texts I was familiar with often filtered and shaped women’s stories to their own ends. They used facts as anchors for ad hominem attacks against female physicians and as slippery slope arguments against abortion, contraception, and women’s abilities to make informed decisions about their sexual and reproductive health. Female physicians, one writer warned, told women how to “deceive” the men in their lives (“Keep”). Another wrote that the business of Madame Restell, a well-known female physician of the era, “[struck] at the root of all social order” and prophesied that abortion would “demoralize the whole mass of society and make the institution of marriage a mere farce” (qtd. in Browder 17-18). The texts in the antebellum abortion archive were frequently over the top, generally entertaining, and often—dare I say it?—hysterical.
Is it any wonder that the first lines of the “Memoir”—“It was in the beginning of July, 1842, that I first became acquainted with Napoleon Lareaux”—made my heart quicken, or that I began to hold my breath as Marache’s story unfolded?2 I was immersed in scholarly traditions that valued unmediated texts over the mediated, the written over the oral, and writers over the written about. The “Memoir” struck me as unique, a rarity, possibly the only text of its kind. I was thrilled!
It embarrasses me now to say that I only thought to trace the life of Zulma Marache beyond the events of the “Memoir” because she had a form of autobiography to her name: a claim to subjectivity, authorship, and therefore, the means to posterity. Even as I recognized Marache as the author of the “Memoir,” I did not think about her as a human being. Then, the more I learned through my research into abortion and into autobiography, the more I began to question the “Memoir” itself. Most of the abortion cases I studied in newspapers like the Herald involved women who were poor or working class, and were vulnerable to “legal inequities, sexual double standards, and socioeconomic threats” (Livengood, “Serial,” 49). Many had few resources and little power. For a time, I cast Marache as a victim, believing that legal authorities and the Herald had appropriated her story. Perhaps, I thought, the Herald had published the “Memoir” without her permission. I assumed that she and others with similar stories were without agency, that their social positions prevented them from being subjects in their own rights, with rights, writing themselves into being even as others attempted to seize authority over the meaning of their stories.3 For instance, on the last day of the People v. Catharine Costello, alias Maxwell, et al., the abortion trial Marache testified in, the District Attorney responded to defense attorneys’ portrayal of Marache as an immoral “fallen woman” by casting Marache as the victim of a predator who had preyed upon her sexual innocence and fear (“General,” 24 March). Other opponents of female physicians and abortion drew on seduction novels’ archetypal pregnant, unwed, and dying heroines as cautionary tales for women who dared defy cultural ideals of womanhood.4 My own failure to envision Marache past the “Memoir” into the future consigned her to a different kind of death.
It seems obvious, now, that there would be so much more to Zulma Marache’s life than the events the “Memoir” recounts. I blush to say, however, that I was shocked when Sue Miller at the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society found the record of Marache’s 1846 marriage. Marache...married?!?! Two years after she appeared in the Herald?! It was then that my mindset shifted and what once might have once been titled Seduction and Abortion: The “Memoir of Zulma Marache” became Beyond Seduction and Abortion: the Life and “Memoir” of Zulma Marache.
Marache’s fiancé was Napoleon Loreaux. The Herald occasionally spelled his name as it appears in this quotation, but more often as “L-a-r-e-u-x.”
See my “‘Her Voice was Heard’” for a more sustained consideration of the ideas in this paragraph.
See my “‘Thus Did Restell’” and Brooke Lansing Mai’s “‘The Helpless French Girl,’” for discussions of abortion and the rhetoric of seduction.
Beyond Seduction and Abortion: the Life and “Memoir” of Zulma Marache is, first and foremost, a project of historical literary recovery. In literary studies, “recovery” means that scholars bring attention to authors and cultural productions that have been unseen, unknown, or neglected. Some of these have once been popular or highly acclaimed but fallen out of critical favor. Often, however, the unfamiliar or neglected subjects of recovery involve those whom history, institutions, and systems of power have marginalized and silenced: women, immigrants, nonwhites, homosexuals, the non-binary, the enslaved, the imprisoned, the poor, the working class, and the disabled, for example. Further, objects of recovery often include cultural productions that scholarly paradigms have dismissed or failed to recognize as worthy of attention, including quilts; baskets; oral stories; diaries; letters; periodical literature; and, yes, the “Memoir,” printed in a newspaper and attributed to an unmarried French immigrant woman who spent time in jail and who had little standing in her own time and none in our own.
Scholars at the forefront of historical literary recovery testify that the work is exciting and invigorating. It is also complicated and difficult. The project of bringing unexplored texts and unknown authors to attention and sustaining that attention, is riddled with obstacles. Some of the barriers are internal. Many are external. They include financial and time constraints, limited access to physical and digital archives, and a lack of support from colleagues, institutions, and publishing companies.5 One of the first obstacles often comes as one simple question: “So what?”
Many scholars have commented on these challenges. See, for example, Michelle Burnham, “Literary Recovery in the Age of Austerity”; Judith Fetterly, “Nineteenth-Century Women Writers and the Politics of Recovery”: and Brigitte Fielder, “Recovery.”
Zulma Marache was an embodied, three-dimensional subject and so were (for example) 17-year-old Catharine Costello and Eliza Munson, two among the more than dozen women whose own abortion stories bookend Marache’s in the 1840s.6 Such stories are everywhere in New York City newspapers and popular literature, yet recent scholarship on abortion gives them little credence. A recent spate of antebellum abortion-related works geared toward general and popular audiences similarly neglects female physicians’ clients. Like scholars, they focus on the flashier, more scandalous female physicians, with a clear preference for Madame Restell.7
The 17-year-old Costello, who is no relation to the Catharine Costello associated with Marache’s abortion, testified against her employer and seducer in a February 1844 abortion trial (“General,” February 23). Eliza Munson died of abortion-related complications at female physician Mrs. Bird’s but identified Restell as her abortionist. An inquest was held in April 1844 (“City,” April 16; “City,” April 17).
I can think of only three examples of scholarship that more holistically consider the lives of women like Marache, or consider female physicians other than Madame Restell: Syrett’s Trials, Mai’s “‘The Helpless French Girl,’” and Jeanette Schollaert’s “Grow Abortion Power.” Recent examples of popular texts or productions geared toward more general audiences include Kate Manning’s historical fiction, My Notorious Life: A Novel; Jennifer Wright’s biography, Madame Restell: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Old New York’s Most Fabulous, Fearless, and Infamous Abortionist; Nandini Subramaniam’s science history article, “How Notorious Abortionist Madame Restell Built a Drug Empire”; and the Bowery Boys podcast, “The Notorious Madame Restell.”
Zulma Marache matters on her own and because her story of abortion “gesture[s] toward other stories that haven’t been told” and to “hidden histories” that are hidden only because our focus has been elsewhere (Ronda, et al). It is not surprising that her story—and those of Catharine Costello, Eliza Munson, and several other women—have been hidden, and I do not make these observations with a spirit of condemnation. (How could I, considering what I’ve said above?) They are less colorful, and had less staying power, than the female physicians who garnered so much attention in the 1840s and who continue to fascinate twenty-first century readers. Moreover, if the women represented in the antebellum abortion archive produced anything scholars or readers generally consider “literary,” it is likely that their productions have gone unpreserved in the same way that most documentation of their lives have. Census records and other means of accessing the past can be unkind to subjects and to those who seek to restore them to memory.
Beyond Seduction and Abortion is as much a project that exemplifies what it means to be “in recovery” as it is one of literary recovery itself. The phrase “in recovery,” in this context, comes from Brigitte Fielder. She notes that the subjects that are referred to as “recovered” have not been hidden, buried, sick, or in need of a miracle cure (20). They have always existed. She advocates for reframing the concept of “recovery” to one that applies to those who do the work of recovery rather than the materials or people they seek to recover. Those involved in recovery work are active and have agency, she notes. The papers, photos, and ephemera scholars of literature and history work with are not. To be “in recovery” means that scholars and those who work with historic materials need to question their assumptions, undo ways of knowing and doing, and adapt new and more useful habits of mind (20).
The self-reflection Fielder encourages applies as well to how we respond to the reality that some available materials are clearly biased and derogatory. It also applies to the reality that sometimes that what scholars seek has been lost, decayed, or discarded. Sometimes what we seek has never existed at all. As Barbara McCaskill observes, those are situations in which the question should not be “what can’t we know” but, instead, “what can we do with what we already have?” (McCaskill 14).
What can we do with what already have? A lot, as a range of innovative recovery projects demonstrate. Digital Humanities projects particularly shine in this regard. These include The Winnifred Eaton Archive, directed by Mary Chapman and Jean Lee Cole; The Colored Conventions Project, co-directed by P. Gabrielle Foreman and Jim Casey; This Beautiful Sisterhood of Books,co-directed by Kate Adams and Jacquelyne Thoni Howard; Just Teach One, co-directed by Duncan Faherty and Ed White; and Early African American Print: Just Teach One, convened by Denise G. Burgher, Tara Bynum, Jean Lutes, Britt Rusert, Brigitte Fielder, Cassander Smith, Derrick Spires, and many others. They have inspired and provided crucial methodology for Beyond Seduction and Abortion, as have the methods and arguments of Saidiya Hartman’s Wayward Lives, Beautiful Experiments and Gregg Hecimovich’s The Life and Times of Hannah Crafts.
What we already have, when it comes to Marache and several others, are smatterings scattered in scraps, archival boxes, bound books, and elsewhere: addresses, trial testimonies, news stories, census records, vital records, legal records, receipts, advertisements, and even a chess manual. All of these items have contributed to Beyond Seduction and Abortion, allowing me not only to follow Marache but to consider the texture of her life. Each of these has, as well, contributed to my own evolving paradigms and exemplify the idea of recovery as a process. No text, author, or scholar is “recovered," full stop. All are instead “in recovery," with ellipses…