Atlantic Enlightenment: Catharine Macaulay and Mercy Otis Warren
In the late 18th century, Catharine Macaulay was an important female figure in England. Macaulay was famous not only because she supported oppositional arguments in the British political circles, but also because she criticized David Hume and Edmund Burke’s conservative historical writings, then wrote her own historical masterpiece —The History of England from the Accession of James I to that of the Brunswick Line (8 volumes, 1763-1783) in response, which won her good fame in Britain and North America.[1] In order to pick up where James Otis, Jr., Mercy Otis Warren’s brother who maintained an Atlantic friendship with Macaulay and lost his capability to write in the late 1760s, left off, Warren began to write letters to Macaulay and set up their friendship until her death in 1791.
Emulated Macaulay, Warren, as one of Macaulay’s good friends, recorded the Massachusetts politics and American revolutionary affairs and became an excellent female historian in Massachusetts. Warren not only wrote political satires to irony the Massachusetts governor Thomas Hutchinson and the despotism of the Mother Country, but also published her own historical work — History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (3 Volumes, 1805) to praise the American Revolution.[2] Witnessing the decline of the public virtue of the new republic, Warren wrote a pamphlet named “Observations on the New Constitution and on the Federal and State Conventions” (1788) with a pseudonym name “A Columbian Patriot,” in which she opposed to the ratification of the Federal Constitution and advocated Americans to cultivate public virtues and be cautious of the corruption of the new republic.
In Warren’s deep mind, she admired Macaulay very much. Since the first time she set up her friendship with Macaulay through letter in 1773, they continued their revolutionary friendship for almost 20 years. Even when Macaulay died, Warren helped her to publish the Oberservations on the Reflections of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke on the Revolution in France in a Letter to the Right Honourable Earl of Stanhope (1791) in Boston, and her “republic voice” was still appreciated in the North America: “Macaulay’s republican voice continued to be heard across the Atlantic through Warren’s republication of her response to Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France: a pamphlets which, as Warren wrote in her introduction to the Boston edition, ‘will doubtless gratify every American who has not lost sight of those principles that actuated, and the perseverance that effected, the independence of America.’”[3]
When historians assess the significance of Mercy Warren’s History, they argue that Warren had learned a lot from Macaulay’s History of the England. It is not a surprise that Lester Cohen presumes “Warren had the most systematic understanding of ideology and ethics [of the Revolutionary historians], the best-developed interpretation of how corruption operated in history, and the clearest insight into the historian’s role as a social and political critic.”[4] Moreover, when Warren was dying, she left her will to her granddaughter, Marcia Warren, and left her own presentation copy of Macaulay’s Letters of Education, “hoping its message of female equality and independence would be an inspiration.”[5] As we can see, as one of Macaulay’s friends, Warren cherished their friendship very much.
Macaulay played so important a role in Warren’s life that she took her as a good example and became an excellent female figure in colonial and revolutionary America. How much was she influenced by Macaulay? It is not easy to answer, but it is an undeniable fact that Macaulay enlightened her. Ignoring the correspondence letters between Warren and Macaulay, historians always do their research on them separately rather than combine them together. Till now, rarely have historians explore Warren’s enlightenment from an Atlantic perspective and discuss their Atlantic friendship. While in fact, it is very necessary for us to examine their friendship and discuss how Macaulay helped Warren to shape her character and political thinking. In order to understand Warren’s enlightenment in the 18th century Atlantic world, in this essay, rather than write a paper on the enlightenment of Macaulay and Warren, I am going to examine the state of knowledge on this topic and explore how Macaulay enlightened Warren in the late 18th century.
I
In Warren’s early life, she wrote several political satires, dramas and poems, which played very important roles for shaping the historical tradition of the American drama. In 1773, “The Adulateur” appeared anonymously in the Massachusetts Spy, a Boston newspaper. It was written to be read, not performed, since plays were banned in Massachusetts. The play portrayed royal governor Thomas Hutchinson, as the character Rapatio, bent on destroying liberty in a fictional country of "free-born sons." Meanwhile, “The Defeat” was published in the same year, which irony the Rapatio again. Later, featuring the colony's evil Tories and praising the Patriots, “The Group” was published in 1775, “The Blockheads” was published in 1776 and “The Motley Assembly” was published in 1779.[6] Moreover, dedicated to the President of the United States of America, Warren published her Poems, Dramatic and Miscellaneous in 1790, in which her dramas “The Sack of Rome” and “The Ladies of Castile” were included. In these dramas, she intended to tell her countrymen the precariousness of freedom and hoped “‘to throw a mite into the scale of virtue’ in order to help insure that ‘enlightened’ civilizations protect their institutions against ‘an impenetrable cloud’ of corruption.”[7] These dramas and political satires were created by Warren in her early life, which were very important for us to know how Warren was influenced by the Massachusetts politics and how she responded to the local politics there. Through reading her political satires and dramas, we could find how Warren formed her own political views on the Massachusetts politics and the mother country at that time.
Warren was also a dramatist in revolutionary Massachusetts, which caused literary scholars to discuss her contribution in the history of American drama. In 1980, Benjamin Franklin V reproduced “The Adulateur,” “The Defeat,” “The Group,” “The Blockheads,” “The Motley Assembly” and the Poems, Dramatic and Miscellaneous according to their facsimiles. Benjamin Franklin V wrote a long introduction and highly evaluated the contribution Warren made to the American drama: “Warren is most often viewed as one of the preeminent American women of her time; as the sister of a Patriot and wife to another; as the author, in her old age, of an ambitious, biased history of the War for Independence; and as the creator of several anonymous, imperfect plays about the Revolution. Her place in the history of American literature is secure not because she was a writer of merit but rather because she contributed to the beginning of America’s dramatic tradition.”[8] Following Benjamin Franklin V, literary and drama scholars explore how Warren created national dramas and through which we can find the national character of the Americans.
As a representative of the anti-Federalist, Warren’s pamphlet on the state and Federal constitution was also paid attention by scholars. In 1788, dissatisfied with the Federal Party, Warren published her pamphlet — “Observations on the New Constitution, and On the Federal and State Conventions” with a pseudonym “A Columbian Patriot” in Boston and asserted her standpoint of opposing to the adoption of the new Federal Constitution. In order to understand the history of the ratification of the Federal Constitution in 1787, constitutional historians rediscovered Warren’s pamphlet on the state and the Federal Constitution. In 1888, putting Mercy Otis Warren, Richard Henry Lee, John Jay, James Wilson, John Dickinson, Edmund Randolph and other revolutionary political thinkers who wrote their pamphlets and asserted their political views on the ratifications of the Federal Constitution, Paul Leicester Ford included Warren’s pamphlet.[9] This was the first time constitutional historians started to recognize the significance of Warren’s contribution to the anti-Federalism in revolutionary America. Later, E. H. Scott edited the papers on the Constitution of the United States and also included this pamphlet.[10] In writing her pamphlet, Warren used her pseudonym — “A Columbian Patriot,” rather than signed up her own name, which confused constitutional historians to recognize who was the author of the pamphlet. In fact, both Leicester Ford and E. H. Scott assumed Elbridge Gerry was “a Columbia Patriot” rather than Warren herself.
When the bicentennial of the Revolution was approaching, C. Harvey Gardiner assumed that it would be a proper time to embrace “more of the secondary figures and the dissenting ideas” and explore the dissent politicians, especially the anti-Federalists. For Gardiner, Elbridge Gerry and James Warren were his heroes in the book, that’s because the Warren-Gerry dissenters were against the Britain in the 1770s. Moreover, in the 1780s, as anti-Federalists, they were against Federalists and opposed to the ratification of the Federal Constitution and centralized government. Based on their correspondence, he collected ninety-two letters between the Warrens (sixty by James, eight by Mercy Otis) and Elbridge Gerry (twenty-four) and published them in a book.[11] Putting Warren in the circles of the anti-Federalism circle, it is very helpful for historians to explore how Warren influenced by her husband and the Massachusetts Governor Gerry and became an anti-federalist.
Recognizing the importance of Warren’s historical works on the history of the American Revolution in shaping the historical tradition of the American Revolution, American historians examined her historical works and discussed her historical reviews and the historical nationalism in them. The three volumes of the History of the Rise, Progress, and the Termination of the American Revolution were firstly published in 1805, with the help of the Liberty Fund, Lester H. Cohen edited a new version and republished it in 1994.[12] In the new version, Cohen wrote a long “Forward” and argues that “Warren viewed history in terms of three fundamental conflicts: a political conflict between liberty and arbitrary power; an ethical conflict between virtue and avarice; and a philosophical conflict between reason and passion,” which tells us that Warren’s historical views were totally different from her contemporary American historian David Ramsay, as well as later professional historians, like the father of American history George Bancroft and the “imperial school” historians Charles Andrews and Herbert Osgood.[13] Lawrence J. Friedman and Arthur H. Shaffer think that Warren’s work represented American nationalism and approach it from the perspective of American nationalism and the politics of historical nationalism.[14]
Attracted by Warren, women historians wrote several biographies for her. In 1896, Alice Brown wrote the first biography for Warren and explained the experiences of Warren in colonial and Revolutionary periods.[15] This was the first biography on Warren, in which Brown generally talked about the Otis family in Barnstable, Warren’s marriage, historical work, the anti-Federalism of the Warren family in the 1780s and the revolutionary affairs until her death in 18114. Brown’s book gave us a comprehensive understanding of the Warren’s history, for beginners, it is readable.
Among all the biographies on Warren, one of the most important one, I think, is Rosemarie Zagarri’s A Woman's Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution.[16] Rather than assume Warren was a feminist in the period of the American Revolution, Zagarri explores the political inability of conceiving of directly political participation and “why feminism did not and, given the historical circumstances, could not emerge in the wake of the American Revolution.”[17] Zagarri argues Warren was not a feminist like Macaulay, because she was subjected to men. She pointed out, “though confident of her literary and intellectual abilities, she depended on men, especially John Adams, to give her a special dispensation to write about ‘male’ political matters. Though certain of the intellectual equality of the sexes, she believed in the ‘appointed subordination (perhaps for the sake of order in families)’ of women to men. Though a productive author, she insisted that women must put their domestic, wifely, and motherly duties ahead of intellectual endeavors. With proper household management, she insisted, writing could be squeezed into the interstices of the busy day’s regularly occupied time.[18] This was the most important biography to explore the dilemma of a Massachusetts woman and firstly compared the difference between Macaulay and Warren from the perspective of feminism.
In the 1960s and the early 1970s, Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, John Pocock and other historians constructed a “Republican Synthesis” in interpreting Atlantic history and American history, which greatly influenced American historians.[19] Although republicanism was a useful category for American historians to do their research, women historians noticed that the republican revisionists paid less attention to the republican mothers in revolutionary period. Then they started to work on this topic and Warren offered them a good case study to examine what was the republican mother mean to them in revolutionary America.[20]
Noticing the “inadequacies of inherited political theory,” Linda K. Kerber believed “the concept of Republican Motherhood began to fill the gap left by the political theorists of the Enlightenment.”[21] In interpreting the role republican mother played in the age of the American Revolution, Kerber pointed out, “believing as they did that republics rested on the virtue of their citizens, Revolutionary leaders had to believe not only that Americans of their own generation displayed that virtue, but that Americans of subsequent generations would continue to display the moral character that a republic required. The role of guarantor of civic virtue, however, could not be assigned to a formal branch of government. Instead it was hoped that other agencies—churches, schools, families—would fulfill that function. And within families, the crucial role was thought to be the mother’s: the mother who trained her children, taught them their early lessons, shaped their moral choices.”[22] Then she examined how “the republican ideology that Americans developed included —hesitantly — a political role for women,” how “the tangled and complex role of the Republican Mother offered one among many structures and contexts in which women might define the civic culture and their responsibilities to the state,” and how the republican mother were enlightened in revolutionary America.[23] In Kerber’s opinion, the responsibilities of the republican mother was to have good moral ad civic virtue, nurture their children who had good manners, cultivate good citizens. By taking their responsibilities, the republican mothers devoted themselves to the creation of a new republic in North America and greatly supported the American Revolution.
Responding to Linda K. Kerber, women historians began to interpret Warren as a republican mother and discussed its significance in the American history. In examining the contribution of Warren in the revolutionary period, Theresa Freda Nicolay argues that “Mercy Warren developed her own version of the ‘Republican mother,’ a term defined at length by Linda Kerber,” and the concept of the Republican mother “allowed “Mercy Warren to finally merge her public and private roles as writer and mother while still maintaining the putative modesty of her gender.[24] Discussing the politics of language in Warren’s works, Lester H. Cohen discusses “the beautiful ‘fabric’ of republicanism” and how it worked in her History.[25] Taking Mercy Warren and Catharine Macaulay as female historians, Marianne B. Geiger examines how Warren and Macaulay contributed themselves to the “transatlantic republican tradition.”[26] Although republicanism was very important for republican revisionists to reconstruct the revolutionary world, it overemphasized the significance of republicanism, especially the classical republican discourses, and underestimated the role liberalism played in age of the American Revolution. Later, in 1997, Kerber published her book ─ Toward an Intellectual History of Women and advocated women historians to work on the intellectual history of women rather than limit it in the framework of republicanism.
Dissatisfied with the interpretation of republicanism on Warren, Kate Davies advocates historians to understand the revolutionary world of Warren and Macaulay from the perspective of gendered politics and the Atlantic public sphere. Although she does not deny the role “republicanism certainly enabled Warren and Macaulay’s feminism” to emerge, she just argues Warren and Macaulay were not always the representatives of the classical republican.[27] She points out, “Warren and Macaulay really did not see anything weird about writing as republicans while writing as women, but might use a varied range of gendered characteristics to explain or legitimate that bit more publicly persuasive and rhetorically powerful. Equally, the republicanism of a Massachusetts’ Anti-Federalist or a London ‘disaffected patriot’ was not at all times self-identical, invariable, or consistent, and it was not always emphatically classical either.”[28]
Moreover, she believes “the gendered associations of eighteenth-century discourses and their attendant distinctions between ideas of publicity and privacy were perhaps more diverse and flexible than Pocock in his account of Macaulay and Warren’s political identifications might allow.”[29] In helping us to understand roles Warren and Macaulay played in the late 18th century and early 19th century, Davies thinks gender and public sphere are good lenses for scholars to do their research, and argues both Warren and Macaulay transmitted the “republic voice” in the Atlantic world and constructed the Atlantic public sphere.
Comparing Warren and Macaulay from the perspective of feminism and Atlantic public sphere, Davies helps us to know their Atlantic friendship and contributions to the Atlantic world at the time. However, her approaches to them are still dubious. Zagarri assumed Warren was a traditional woman rather than a feminist, although she was an excellent female symbol in colonial Massachusetts. Disagreeing with Zagarri’s view on Warren as a typical woman, Davies recognizes “republicanism certainly enabled Warren and Macaulay’s feminism in so far as their perceptions of the failure of the former in the project of the revolutionary Atlantic allowed the latter to emerge,” however, her explanation on the femininity and gender politics on Warren is unconvincing.[30] Unlike Macaulay who became a political radical, Warren cherished the traditional virtues and manners of women in colonial and revolutionary periods and always served and was subservient to her husband rather than went out of her family and took part in public politics. Warren began to write her history of the American Revolution from the 1770s, however, when she encountered family accidents, she put her writing on the other side and dealt with her family affairs firstly. Even when Warren finished her political pamphlet on the state and Federal constitution, she published it with a pseudonym name “A Columbian Patriot” rather than with her own name. Unlike Macaulay who took part in political activities publicly and debated with her dissenters without hesitation, Warren did not like to express her political opinions publically in a male-dominated world. Unnoticing the big differences between Warren and Macaulay, Davies fails to convince us her interpretation of the femininity on Warren and Macaulay.
Historians who worked on Warren always interpreted Warren’s political and historical views through reading Warren’s papers, correspondence and political satires and poems. However, they paid little attention to the issue of how Warren received radical views and formed her points of view from books. In the field of American history, in order to discuss how the Republican Mothers contributed themselves to the new republic and helped their husbands to deal with the public affairs, Kerber firstly touches the history of the reading of the Republican Mother in early republic and examines how they accepted political thought from the books. By taking Elizabeth Drinker, Mercy Otis Warren and other women as good examples, Kerber influenced later historians to work on the history of the reading.[31]
Since the new “cultural turn” in the field of history, more and more historians worked on the New Cultural History. Accompanying with this historical tide, Robert Darnton, Natalie Zemon Davis, Roger Chartier and other New Cultural historians applied the Geertzian anthropological methods to historical studies.[32] They advocated historians should work on how people read and understood the reading texts through their readings. Taking New England women Mercy Warren, Abigail Adams and Judith Sargent Murray as three case studies, William R. Cibbarelli explores their reading histories and examines how their reading became an essential component of their arguments about the issues confronting America in the late-eighteenth century. Cibbarelli made the “Mercy Otis Warren Reading Dossier,” in which he listed all the books Warren referenced and had read, which was very helpful for us to know how Warren understood them and was illuminated through reading them.[33]
In American scholarship, over the issue of Warren’s enlightenment, scholars approached to it from various perspectives, which endowed her various faces. Benjamin Franklin V and other literary scholars think she was a great dramatist and examine her contribution to the American drama; Linda K. Kerber, Mary Beth Norton, Rosemary Zagarri and other women historians assume Warren was a typical republican mother and discuss how her republican motherhood greatly contributed to the American Revolution; opposing to the ratification of the state and Federal constitution in 1787, Warren’s anti-Federalism was noticed by constitutional historians, like Paul Leicester Ford, E. H. Scott and other constitutional historians; through participating political activities, writing political pamphlets and creating political works, Warren and Macaulay asserted their public opinions toward the British politics and the colonial Massachusetts politics, then Kate Davis presumes they constructed the “Atlantic public sphere” in the 18th century Atlantic world; Arthur Shaffer, Lawrence Friedman and other historians believe Warren was a great historian in revolutionary era and trace her historical thinking and the historical nationalism represented by her works; following Linda K. Kerber and the new cultural historians, William R. Cibbarelli explores Warren as a women reader in revolutionary America and discusses her reading histories. To some degree, these scholars touch Warren’s enlightenment and the Atlantic friendship between Warren and Macaulay, which could help us to understand Warren’s inner mind in the revolutionary era, as well as the friendship between them. However, they didn’t directly discuss Warren’s enlightenment from an Atlantic perspective, which could not help us to know to what extend Warren was enlightened by Macaulay.
II
In the age of the American Revolution, Macaulay was at the center of a well-developed network of Atlantic correspondence. Among her many friends in North America, “she counted Benjamin Franklin, John and Abigail Adams, James Otis and Mercy Otis Warren, Samuel Adams, John Dickinson, Ezra Stiles, the Lee Brothers, William Livingston, James Bowdoin, and, later, George Washington ─ not an insignificant list. Her friendships were extended through transatlantic introductions, such as those with Benjamin Rush, Josiah Quincy, Henry Marchant, and Stephen Sayre, which themselves enabled new correspondences and connections.”[34] As a good friend of Warren, Macaulay set up a model for Warren to emulate her and became a famous symbol in colonial Massachusetts. But how did Macaulay enlighten Warren? It is still a question.
Enlightenment is a good topic for historians who are interested in the European and American enlightenment to explore the inner minds of the 17th and 18th Europeans and Americans. However, the enlightenment of women is still paid little attention by historians. In the 1980s and 1990s, Kerber was one of the most important one who explored the intellectual history and the enlightenment of the American women. However, she explained them from the perspective of the “republican synthesis,” which limited her interpretation on the enlightenment of American women. Working on “philosophical” historians like Voltaire, David Hume, William Robertson, Edward Gibbon and David Ramsay, Karen O’Brien attempts to understand their cosmopolitanism and how they were enlightened in the 18th Atlantic world and approaches to them from a cosmopolitan way.[35] But just as Kerber has warned to enlightenment historians, all of them were men and women’s enlightenment was still in need of further exploration.
Witnessing the rise of feminist historians in contemporary scholarship, Barbara Taylor argues historians should explore feminism and their enlightenment together. She points out, “the history of feminism, meanwhile, is an expanding field which over the last quarter-century has moved away from the partisan political disputes of the 1970s towards a critical investigation of its own development. Nonetheless, the history of feminism remains patchy, lacking in comparative perspectives, and occasionally prone to substitution of interpretive orthodoxies for detailed historical investigation.”[36] Then in 2005, Barbara Taylor worked with Sarah Knott and co-edited Women, Gender and Enlightenment, and advocated historians to explore the enlightenment of women from the perspective of femininity, gender and race.[37] Meanwhile, in 2009, Karen O’Brien publishes her own monograph on the enlightenment of women in the 18th century Britain.[38] Although she furthers her own research on the enlightenment from the “philosophical” historians to the women in the 18th century Britain, she does not mention Macaulay in her book. These historians have contributed a lot to the works on the enlightenment of women in the 18th century Atlantic world, but rarely have them explore the enlightenment of Mercy Warren from an Atlantic perspective and examine how Macaulay influenced Warren personally and politically. Therefore, the enlightenment of Warren in the 18th century Atlantic world is still in need of further consideration.
[1] Joseph Hamburger argues that Macaulay was not the conventional Whig historian, “Macaulay went beyond the conventions of Whig history, and in doing so he gave his History its distinctive character,” see Joseph Hamburger, Macaulay and the Whig Tradition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976), 77.
[2] Mercy Otis Warren, History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (Boston. 1805), also see Lester H. Cohen ed., History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1994).
[3] Mercy Otis Warren, ‘Introduction,’ to Catharine Macaulay, Oberservations on the Reflections of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke on the Revolution in France in a Letter to the Right Honourable Earl of Stanhope, 2nd ed. (Boston: I. Thomas and E. T. Andrews, 1791), 1. Cited from Kate Davies, Catharine Macaulay and Mercy Otis Warren: The Revolutionary Atlantic and the Politics of Gender (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2005), 304.
[4] Lester Cohen, “Explaining the Revolution: Ideology and Ethics in Mercy Otis Warren’s Historical Theory,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd Ser., 37, 2 (April 1980), 203.
[5] Marianne B. Geiger, Mercy Otis Warren and Catharine Macaulay: Historians in the Transatlantic Republican Tradition (Ph. D Diss., New York University: 1986), 4.
[6] See Mercy Otis Warren, The Plays and Poems of Mercy Otis Warren (Delmar, NY: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1980 [1790]).
[7] Benjamin Franklin V, “Introduction,” in The Plays and Poems of Mercy Otis Warren, ibid, xxiv.
[8] Benjamin Franklin V, “Introduction,” in Benjamin Franklin V ed., The Plays and Poems of Mercy Otis Warren, ibid, XXVIII.
[9] Paul Leicester Ford ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, published during its Discussion by the People, 1787-1788 (Brooklyn, N.Y., 1888), 9-22.
[10] E. H. Scott ed., Hamilton, Jay and Madison: The Federalist and Other Contemporary Papers on the Constitution of the United States (Albert: Scott and Company, 1894), 714-732.
[11] C. Harvey Gardiner, ed., A Study in Dissent: The Warren-Gerry Correspondence, 1776–1792 (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1968)
[12] Mercy Otis Warren, Lester H. Cohen ed., History of the Rise, Progress, and Termination of the American Revolution: Interspersed with Biographical, Political and Moral Observations (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund 1994).
[13] Mercy Otis Warren, Lester H. Cohen ed., ibid, 7; David Ramsay, The History of American Revolution (Trenton: NJ, 1811), 2 Vols; Charles McLean Andrews, The Colonial Background of the American Revolution (New Heaven: Yale University Press, 1962[1924]).
[14] Lawrence J. Friedman and Arthur H. Shaffer, “Mercy Otis Warren and the Politics of Historical Nationalism,” The New England Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1975), 194-215
[15] Alice Brown, Mercy Warren: with Portrait (1896), In 2010, it is republished by Nabu Press in 2010, see Alice Brown, Mercy Warren: with Portrait (Nabu Press, 2010)
[16] There are still some other biographies on Warren, see Milton T. Kleintop, Mercy Otis Warren (1929); Katherine Anthony, First Lady of the Revolution: The Life of Mercy Otis Warren (New York: Twayne, 1995); Jennifer Blizin Gillis, Mercy Otis Warren: Author and Historian (Minneapolis: Compass Point Books, 2005); Kathryn Jane Stalker, Mercy Otis Warren: the "Guardian of Virtue" in the New Republic (Mount Holyoke College: 1991); Jeffrey H. Richards, Mercy Otis Warren (New York: Twayne Publishers: 1995) and Nancy Rubin Stuart, The Muse of the Revolution: The Secret Pen of Mercy Otis Warren and the Founding of a Nation (Beacon Press, 2008)
[17] Rosemarie Zagarri, A Woman's Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution (Wheeling.: Harlan-Davidson, Inc., 1995), 165.
[18] Zagarri, ibid, xvi.
[19] Robert H. Shalhope, “Toward a Republican Synthesis: The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Jan., 1972), 49-80 and “Republicanism and Early American Historiography,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 39, No. 2 (Apr., 1982), 334-356; Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992[1967]); Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787 (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998[1969]); John G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975).
[20] Mary Beth Norton, Liberty's Daughters: the Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980, republished in 1996); Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press 1997[1980]) and Toward an Intellectual History of Women (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1997); Jan Lewis, “The Republican Wife: Virtue and Seduction in the Early Republic,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 44 (1987), 689-721; Rosemarie Zagarri, “Morals, manners, and the Republican mother,” American Quarterly,44 (1992), 192-215.
[21] Linda K. Kerber, “The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment-An American Perspective,” American Quarterly Vol. 28, No. 2, (Summer, 1976), 205.
[22] Linda K. Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press 1997); Mary Beth Norton, Liberty's Daughters: the Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1996[1980]), 199-200.
[23] Linda K. Kerber, “The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment-An American Perspective,” ibid, 188.
[24] Theresa Freda Nicolay, Gender Roles, Literary Authority, and Three American Women Writers: Anne Dudley Bradstreet, Mercy Otis Warren, Margaret Fuller Ossoli (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 1995), 34, 63.
[25] Lester H. Cohen, “Mercy Otis Warren: The Politics of Language and the Aesthetics of Self,” American Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 5 (Winter, 1983), 481.
[26] Marianne B. Geiger, ibid.
[27] Kate Davis, Catharine Macaulay and Mercy Otis Warren: the Revolutionary Atlantic and the Politics of Gender (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 33.
[28] Davis, ibid, 22.
[29] Davis, ibid, 22.
[30] Davies, ibid, 33.
[31] Kerber, Women of the Republic: Intellect and Ideology in Revolutionary America, ibid, 233-264.
[32] Natalie Zemon Davis, The Return of Martin Guerre (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1983); Carlo Ginzburg, John and Anne Tedeschi trans., The Cheese and the Worms: the Cosmos of a Sixteenth-Century Miller (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1992[1982]); Robert Darnton, The Great Cat Massacre: And Other Episodes in French Cultural History (New York: Basic Books, 1984), 216-7; Roger Chartier, Forms and meanings: Texts, Performances, and Audiences from Codex to Computer (Philadelphia: University of. Pennsylvania Press, 1995) and The Order of Books: Readers, Authors, and Libraries in Europe between the 14th and 18th Centuries (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1994[1992]). Most of these new cultural historians are influenced a lot by American anthropologist Clifford Geertz, see his The Interpretation of Cultures (New York: Basic Books, 2000[1973]), 3-32. Lynn Hunt and Aletta Biersack also point out how Clifford Geertz’s “thick description” influenced them, see Aletta Biersack, Lynn Avery Hunt ed., The New Cultural History (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1989), 12-15, 52, 65, 72-96.
[33] William R. Cibbarelli, "Libraries of the Mind: A Study of the Reading. Histories of Mercy Warren, Abigail Adams and Judith Sargent Murray, 1728-1820 (Stony Brook: Ph. D Diss. 2000), 1-2, 66-85.
[34] Kate Davies, Catharine Macaulay and Mercy Otis Warren: The Revolutionary Atlantic and the Politics of Gender (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 126.
[35] Karen O’Brien, Narratives of Enlightenment: Cosmopolitan History from Voltaire to Gibbon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997)
[36] Barbara Taylor, “Feminism and the Enlightenment 1650-1850,” History Workshop Journal
No. 47 (Spring, 1999), 261-272
No. 47 (Spring, 1999), 261-272
[37] Barbara Taylor, Sarah Knott ed., Women, Gender and Enlightenment (Palgrave Macmillan, 2007)
[38] Karen O'Brien, Women and Enlightenment in Eighteenth-Century Britain (Oxford: Cambridge University Press, 2009)
No comments:
Post a Comment