Abstract
Nineteenth-century women’s verse has long been assigned as poetry of the separate spheres. From its time of writing to its going out of print almost immediately upon the death of its authors, and through its gradual recovery by literary history, it has been largely seen as private and domestic, albeit with varying judgments. In the nineteenth century, regarding the poems as domestic and private made them acceptable, popular, diminutive, and safe. As with many other women’s activities, women’s writing could be consigned to the comforting and appropriate domain of the woman’s sphere.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Linda Kerber, Women of the Republic (New York: Norton, 1986) on Republican Motherhood.
Anne Douglas Wood, “Fanny Fern: Why Women Wrote,” American Quarterly 23 (1971), 3–24.
Margaret Ezell, Women Writing Literary History (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993).
Mary Kelley, Private Woman, Public Stage (New York: Oxford University Press 1984), p. ix.
J. Tompkins, Sensational Designs (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985).
Ann Douglas, The Feminization of American Culture (New York: Anchor, 1977), p. 254.
Nina Baym, Women’s Fiction (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978).
Philip Fisher, Hard Facts (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Amy Kaplan, The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U.S. Culture (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 2002), 23–50.
Ann Romines, The Home Plot (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992).
Nancy Armstrong, Desire and Domestic Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
Caren Kaplan, Questions of Travel: Postmodern Discourses of Displacement (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998).
Lora Romero, Home Fronts: Domesticity and Its Critics in the Antebellum United States (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1998).
Mary Ryan suggests complicity between women’s literature as “gilded literary package[s] of domestic piety and pathos,” and restrictive domesticity, Womanhood in America (New York: New Viewpoints, 1975), p. 76. Cf. Mary Ryan, Empire of the Mother (New York: Howarth, 1982).
Paula Benett, Poets in the Public Sphere (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2003) offers a range of verse types, but most remains within the rubric of genteel and sentimental in various ways. Her interests are “complaint” literature that focuses on domesticity as constraining, through an equality-feminist political orientation.
Nina Baym underscores this historical dimension in women’s writing in Feminism and American Literary History (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1992), p. 109. Cf. her American Women Writers and the Work of History 1790–1860 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1995. Emily Stipes Watts, The Poetry of American Women 1632–1945 (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1977) describes some social involvements, but sees women to lack a “male” involvement with “broad philosophical and social concerns,” p. 67.
See especially Jean Bethke Elshtain, Public Man, Private Woman (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981).
Joanne Dobson’s “Reclaiming Sentimental Literature,” American Literature 69:2 (1997), 263–288.
Elizabeth Patrino, “Nineteenth-Century American Women’s Poetry,” in Cambridge Companion to Nineteenth-Century American Women’s Writing, eds. Dale M. Buer and Philim Gould (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 122–144.
Keith Thomas, “The Double Standard,” Journal of the History of Ideas 20:2 (April 1959), 195–216.
Carroll Smith-Rosenberg, Religion and the Rise of the American City (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1971).
Lori Ginzberg, Women and the Work of Benevolence (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990).
Barbara Meil Hobson, Uneasy Virtue (New York: Basic, 1987).
David T. Pivar, Purity Crusade (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1973).
Joan Sherman, Invisible Poets (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974), pp. 62–72.
Elizabeth Animons, “Profile of Frances Harper,” Legacy 2:2 (1985), 61–66.
Hallie Brown, Homespun Heroines and Other Women of Distinction (1971).
Bruce Dickson, Jr. Black American Writing from the Nadir (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989), p. 19.
Mary Dearborn, Pocahontas’s Daughters (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).
Susan K. Harris, “But Is It Any Good,” in The (Other) American Traditions, ed. Joyce Warren (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1993), pp. 263–275.
Charlotte Perkins Gilman, Women and Economics (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), pp. 63, 171.
Mary Wollstoncraft, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, in Works, London; William Pickering, 1989, pp. 191–193.
J.G.A. Pocock’s The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).
Donald Pease, Visionary Compacts (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1987).
Copyright information
© 2010 Shira Wolosky
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Wolosky, S. (2010). Public and Private: Double Standards. In: Poetry and Public Discourse in Nineteenth-Century America. Nineteenth-Century Major Lives and Letters. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113008_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230113008_3
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-28880-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-11300-8
eBook Packages: Palgrave Literature CollectionLiterature, Cultural and Media Studies (R0)