Aristocratic Feminism, the Learned Governess, and the Republic of Letters

  • Clarissa Campbell Orr

Abstract

This essay will explore some of the prescriptive advice given to women from the aristocratic elites. These were the eighteenth century women Mary Wollstonecraft was to dismiss in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) as beyond reform, addressing herself to the middling sort instead.1 She had given up on aristocratic women because she was disenchanted by her experience of working for the Kingsborough family, and had come to agree with a more thoroughgoing social and political critique of England’s ancien régime, based on a discourse of natural rights.2 But I think it behoves us as historians to avoid doing the same, and thereby read the century backwards from a critique that begins to prefigure the modern world of equal rights feminism. There was a tradition of the literary, if not the learned, governess in the 18th century, who operated within aristocratic and royal circles, and which lay behind Wollstonecraft’s appeal as a published authoress to Lady Kingsborough, and this is what I want to sketch in broad outline.

Keywords

Europe Expense Nism Crest Kelly 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 14.
    Vivien Jones, ‘The Seductions of Conduct: Pleasure and Conduct Literature’ in Roy Porter and Marie Mulvey Roberts, eds, Pleasure in the Eighteenth Century, Basingstoke, Macmillan 1996.Google Scholar
  2. 15.
    Bridget Hill, The Republican Virago: the life and times of Catherine Macaulay, Historian, Oxford, The Clarendon Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  3. 33.
    Ruth Perry, The Celebrated Mary Astell, An Early English Feminist, Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press, 1986; Hilda Smith, Reason’s Disciples: Seventeenth Century English Feminists, University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Ill, 1982; B. W. Hill, ed., The First English Feminist: ‘Reflections on Marriage’ and other writings by Mary Astell; Joan Kinnaird, ‘Mary Astell and the Conservative Contribution to English Feminism’, in Journal for British Studies, 19 (1979), pp. ([0-9]+)–([0-9]+); Regina Janes, ‘“Mary, Mary, quite contrary” or Mary Astell and Mary Wollstonecraft Compared’ in Studies in Eighteenth Century Culture, 5, 1976, pp. ([0-9]+)–([0-9]+). For a subtle exploration of Cartesianism in the French context, see Erica Harth, Cartesian Women: Versions and Subversions of Rational Discourse in the Old Regime, Ithaca and London, Cornell University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  4. 36.
    Ruth Perry, ‘Mary Astell’s Feminism: The Veil of Chastity’, in Studies of Eighteenth-Century Culture, 9, (1979), pp. 25–43.Google Scholar
  5. 40.
    Olwen Hufton, ‘Reflections on Women in the Early Modern Court’, The Court Historian, vol. 5:1, May 2000, pp. 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 43.
    From Jean Robain, Mme LePrince de Beaumont Intime, Paris, La Page et Le Plume, 1999.Google Scholar
  7. 51.
    John Bullion, ‘George, be a King!’ in Stephen Taylor et al., Hanoverian Britain and Empire; Essays in Memory of Philip Lawson, Woodbridge, Boydell Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  8. 53.
    Marilyn Morris, The British Monarchy and the French Revolution, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1998Google Scholar
  9. Linda Colley, ‘The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation ([0-9]+)–([0-9]+)’, Past and Present, 102 (1984), pp. 94–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 58.
    G. Barker-Benfield, The Culture of Sensibility, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 68.
    W. R. Ward, Christianity under the Ancien Régime ([0-9]+)–([0-9]+), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
  12. 69.
    Sara Maza, Private Lives and Public Affairs: the Causes Célèbres of Pre-Revolutionary France, Berkeley, University of California Press, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Clarissa Campbell Orr 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Clarissa Campbell Orr

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations