Contents:
However, despite these many counterpoints to the central narrative of Pamphilia and Amphilanthus, constant woman and inconstant man, it remains central, and the narrator seems to have a particular sympathy with her heroine. For instance, at one point we see Pamphilia, characteristically, sitting alone in a thick wood reading a romance: the subject was Love, and the story she then was reading, the affection of a Lady to a brave Gentleman, who equally loved, but being a man, it was necessary for him to exceede a woman in all things, so much as inconstancie was found fit for him to excell her in, hee left her for a new.
Intensifying the effect of Chinese boxes, her heroine does the same. Both she and her female characters attempt to use fiction as an outlet for personal grievances and a means of achieving desired ends, without risking the breach of social codes of courtesy and femininity. Unfortunately, for Wroth, fiction was not so efficacious. But Perissus remembred one of the Ciphers, yet because it was Pamphilias hee would not knowe it. He does not mention it to his companions; and this was exactly the type of discreet deciphering, of courteous though knowing collusion in her act of veiling, which Wroth required of her readers.
The fact that they did not oblige seems to have been partly because her allusions to factual events were too obvious, partly because some of the events which she chose to depict were too sensitive, and partly because she was deemed to have acted in a manner improper for a woman. The veil of fiction behind which she presumed to hide was deemed too thin for decency. In a precarious and not-quite-definable position socially, financially, literarily because of both her gender and her family, the author was caught between past and present, action and inaction, meaning and non-meaning, and her romance is the reflection both of the power and the paralysis this predicament brought her as a writer.
Sometimes she merely reproduces masculine conventions, even when they are oppressive to women. Sometimes she overturns them only to reinstate them at later stages of the narrative, enacting a form of contained transgression. But she performed an act of outright radicalism in her very authorship of a romance; and in her bold and repeated assertion throughout her book that literary activity, whether the writing of poetry or the reading of romances, is appropriate, indeed, invaluable for women.
In debate with Urania, Pamphilia declares, yet I must say some thing in loves defence…that I have read in all stories, and at all times, that the wisest, bravest, and most excellent men have been lovers, and are subject to this passion. Just as the reciprocal gaze between women can be a source of support and self-affirmation, so fiction is also a kind of mirror in which the female reader can see her experiences duplicated and thereby, paradoxically, made more real. In this Pamphilia resembles the modern women readers of romantic fiction studied by Janice Radway, and some of the questions raised by Radway become relevant.
Could Renaissance romance subvert the patriarchal order in its demarcation of private, autonomous, imaginative, female space? Lennard J. On the class and gender of the readership of Renaissance romances, see Wright, pp. Thomas M. Cranfill, Austin, University of Texas Press, , pp. Croll and H. Clemons, London, Routledge, , pp.
Lyly, p. Grosart ed. Huth Library, —6, vol. V, pp.
See All Customer Reviews. Just as the ambivalence of pseudonyms troubles our notion of authorship in the case of the pamphlets signed by women, so the genre of misogynistic invective refuses our desire to locate its texts in an originating author. She reiterates this comment in quoting her defence at the trial. These passages are important because together they reveal that Cavendish did fantasize her plays as being performed, outside the theatre of her mind. Lisa Jardine. This practical, comprehensive, and engaging introduction to the American judicial system is designed primarily for
Lucas, pp. Wright, p. Janice A. Thomas Powell, Tom of All Trades. Roger Ascham, The Schoolmaster, , ed. Lawrence V. Sidney, p. Subsequent quotations from Tyler are taken from her epistle to the reader. Josephine A. All further references to this work will be referred to by page number in the text. Roberts is preparing a new edition of the Urania which she hopes to complete in Dale Spender thinks that Wroth wrote the Urania in order to rescue herself from debt, and may therefore have been the first woman to write for money Dale Spender, Mothers of the Novel: Good Women Writers before Jane Austen, London, Pandora, , pp.
Roberts for this information. Case MS f.
Other analogies are discussed on pp. Gary Waller and Naomi Miller. I am grateful to Professor Hannay for allowing me to read this piece prior to publication. I am very grateful to the author for permission to quote from this thesis.
Beilin, p. See Wroth, Poems, p. Hamilton, London, Longman, , II. Alan Sheridan, London, Tavistock, , pp. Zurcher also suggests that Urania is identified with the plurality and prose of romance narrative, while Pamphilia is identified with the emotional directness of lyric poetry. What we recognize in these texts may be the processing of woman as a theatrical role or masquerade which can never be equated with an essential woman or audible authorial voice but which, rather, troubles the very existence of such a self-identical figure.
These are texts which cannot be put easily into categories of metaphor alone or categories of authentic voicing; instead, they are texts where the metaphors used to naturalize the gender systems of early modern England are both assaulted and upheld. I shall explore these speculations, and the anxieties that attend them, through a reading of the late Elizabethan and Jacobean texts signed by women. Because they purport to be by women, they seem to offer a visible female self-consciousness about gender, a site upon which female agency is fully and openly displayed in a manner recognizable or nameable as feminism.
In other words, they excite the desire to recognize the present in the past, to name what we can term our own history.
But because what is at stake in these texts seems at first glance so familiar and understandable, it is possible that their estranging or culturally autonomous aspects may not be fully noticed; moreover, because they can so readily be situated in the context of gender politics, they are never fully situated in the political and discursive specificities of the early modern period. These texts have been read by feminists through a reductive and often unconsidered attribution to a single or unified female author. The kinds of investments made in the location of a protofeminist agency in these texts and, by extension, in early modern women synecdochally represented in them, can be glimpsed in the choice of epithets used to describe the pieces by feminist critics.
These epithets all read the speaking voice of the pamphlets as a representation of a female figure whose tangibility can be established by recourse to the texts.
Early feminism becomes an enabling pretext for the production of feminism now. Such reading strategies necessarily lead to an assumption that texts signed by women are indeed the work of women; the language of criticism reveals a desire for material girls, women as real as ourselves. A logocentric cycle is set up whereby a female signature prompts a reading strategy designed to uncover female consciousness in texts, and this consciousness in turn is held to manifest the presence of a female author.
But because four of the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century texts I am discussing here are pseudonymous, the gendering of their authors remains open to question. A reading strategy that would overlook these problems is problematic not only because it is troublingly logocentric, eliding the literary and textual aspects of the pamphlets in the interests of reconstructing a female speaking voice, but also because it is politically dangerous.
It is not my aim in this chapter to try to establish the gender of the authors of these pamphlets: rather it is my purpose to try to disestablish what has been too easily assumed. I shall be arguing for a reading strategy which takes account of the function of the pseudonymous signatures as they can be read within the texts themselves, rather than as pointers to an originary author figure who stands outside the text.
But not only has the liberating effect of puritanism come into serious question in recent years, the notion of an established patriarchy has itself been subjected to critical scrutiny. Attempts to ask or answer this question are complicated by the very feature of misogynistic discourses which led to the construction of this ahistorical story in the first place.
This feature is their frequent deployment of a rhetoric of citation. In this sense, misogyny is less a single unified voice than a collocation of stories and speeches that can be voiced at any time, and thus it is that some of the tropes of woman-hatred do appear to transcend cultural specificity.
The place of citation in misogyny seems to go beyond what can be explained by a simple liking for the predictable, or at any rate critics have so far failed to ask why the predictable should be so desirable in this particular context.
Citation seems at once to act as an authenticating discourse which validates the misogynistic enterprise by aligning it with what is always already apparent, and a displacing move which is supposed to make it impossible to read an individual male writer as the author of misogyny. Just as the ambivalence of pseudonyms troubles our notion of authorship in the case of the pamphlets signed by women, so the genre of misogynistic invective refuses our desire to locate its texts in an originating author.
In this way, the problematization of authorship is intrinsic to the woman-debate genre in both attack and defence. In producing a reading of it, I will inevitably be eliding some of its twists and turns myself. It is important to distinguish his misogyny from the more general conception of patriarchy or a patriarchal social order because in The Arraignment misogyny is frequently opposed to the powerful and institutionalized discourses of patriarchy, particularly those emerging discourses of conduct and providence which sought to coerce both men and women into exceptionally well-marked social roles.
For example, the Biblical notion that woman is a helpmeet to man was a staple text of these moral discourses, characteristically used to place the woman in an economically subordinate position; her husband was to obtain money or goods, and she was to care for them. And so they are indeed, for she helpeth to spend and consume that which man painfully getteth.
But the joke on which the pleasure of the passage depends is not only on women, but on the morally earnest discourse which glosses helpmeet more diversely. To put this in more literary terms, it is a carnivalesque moment, in which the low inserts itself subversively into the high.