Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-rkxrd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T04:38:16.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Case of Lady Anne Clifford; or, Did Women Have a Mixed Monarchy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Julie Crawford
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

I became a feminist critic of the renaissance in 1989, when a professor, in answer to my question about why there were no women on the syllabus, replied that there were no women writers in the seventeenth century. This comment took me to the library, where I discovered what he should have known but did not have to: not only were there women writers in the period, but feminist literary critics were retrieving them from the archives and rewriting literary history in the light of their contributions. One of these women writers was Lady Anne Clifford (1590–1676), the author of a singularly massive amount of genealogical, historical, and personal writings and a subject of interest, long before the 1980s, for Vita Sackville-West and Virginia Woolf. In 1985, the Marxist feminist critic Katharine Hodgkin wrote an essay about Clifford's conflicted status as a woman (victim of patriarchy) and as a landlord (oppressor). Clifford has received different treatment in recent years, considered primarily as a diarist (with the attendant and often ahistorical assumptions the genre solicits [see Kunin]) and as a heroic resister of patriarchal forces. My goal here is to use Clifford as a case study for the role of feminist criticism today, not only because she has raised such complex issues for feminist critics of the Renaissance and early modern period but also because the issues her life and work raise about kinship and the household, property and political agency, and the intersectionality of determining forces of identity and power are of continuing relevance to feminist methodologies and politics. I am particularly concerned with feminist claims that have become axiomatic—for the early modern period as well as others—both at the level of historical progression (the march toward modernity) and in more synchronic analyses of social and cultural practices and relationships (including our assumptions that we know what patriarchy, kinship, and household mean). By unsettling these axioms and reconsidering the stories Clifford tells, I hope to illustrate the truth that feminist criticism is by its nature a reconsideration, a form of doing rather than being.

Type
Theories and Methodologies
Information
PMLA , Volume 121 , Issue 5 , October 2006 , pp. 1682 - 1689
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Acheson, Katherine O. Introduction. Clifford 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkowitz, David S. Rev. of The Family: Sex and Marriage in England, 1500–1800, by Lawrence Stone. Renaissance Quarterly 32 (1979): 396–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judith, Butler. Antigone's Claim: Kinship between Life and Death. New York: Columbia UP, 2000.Google Scholar
Judith, Butler. “Is Kinship Always Already Heterosexual?” Differences 13.1 (2002): 14–44.Google Scholar
Chan, Mary, and Nancy, E. Wright. “Marriage, Identity, and the Pursuit of Property in Seventeenth-Century England: The Cases of Anne Clifford and Elizabeth Wiseman.” Women, Property, and the Letters of the Law in Early Modern England. Ed. Wright, Margaret W. Ferguson, and Buck, A. R. Toronto: U of Toronto P, 2004. 162–82.Google Scholar
Anne, Clifford. The Diary of Anne Clifford 1616–1619. A Critical Edition. Ed. Acheson, Katherine O. New York: Garland, 1995.Google Scholar
Julie, Crawford. “‘Pleaders, Atturneys, Petitioners and the Like’: Margaret Cavendish and the Dramatic Petition.” Women Players in England, 1500–1660: Beyond the All-Male Stage. Ed. Brown, Pamela and Parolin, Peter. Burlington: Ashgate, 2005. 241–60.Google Scholar
Ferguson, Margaret W. “Moderation and Its Discontents: Recent Work on Renaissance Women.” Feminist Studies 20 (1994): 349–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Catherine, Gallagher. “Embracing the Absolute: The Politics of the Female Subject in Seventeenth-Century England.” Genders 1 (1988): 24–39.Google Scholar
Jonathan, Goldberg. Desiring Women Writing: English Renaissance Examples. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1997.Google Scholar
Olivia, Harris. “Households and Their Boundaries.” History Workshop Journal 13 (1982): 143–52.Google Scholar
Margaret, Hoby. Diary of Lady Margaret Hoby, 1599–1605. Ed. Meads, Dorothy M. Boston: Houghton, 1930.Google Scholar
Katharine, Hodgkin. “The Diary of Lady Anne Clifford: A Study of Class and Gender in the Seventeenth-Century.” History Workshop Journal 19 (1985): 148–61.Google Scholar
Joan, Kelly. “Did Women Have a Renaissance?” Women, History, and Theory: The Essays of Joan Kelly. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984. 19–50.Google Scholar
Aaron, Kunin. “From the Desk of Anne Clifford.” English Literary History 71 (2004): 587–608.Google Scholar
Lamb, Mary Ellen. “The Agency of the Split Subject: Lady Anne Clifford and the Uses of Reading.” English Literary Renaissance 22 (1992): 347–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbara, Lewalski. Writing Women in Jacobean England. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1993.Google Scholar
Roger, Lockyer. Buckingham, the Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham, 1592–1628. London: Longman, 1981.Google Scholar
Michael, Lucey. The Misfit of the Family: Balzac and the Social Forms of Sexuality. Durham: Duke UP, 2003.Google Scholar
Markku, Peltonen. The Duel in Early Modern England: Civility, Politeness and Honour. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2003.Google Scholar
Maureen, Quilligan. Incest and Agency in Elizabeth's England. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 2005.Google Scholar
Maureen, Quilligan. “Reperiodizing the Renaissance.” Renaissance Soc. of Amer. Conference. Renaissance Parc 55 Hotel, San Francisco. 24 Mar. 2006.Google Scholar
Sackville-West, Vita. Introduction. The Diary of Lady Anne Clifford. Ed. Sackville-West, . London: Heinemann, 1923. i–lxvi.Google Scholar
Spence, Richard T. “Clifford, Anne, Countess of Pembroke, Dorset, and Montgomery (1590–1676).” Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. 2004. Oxford UP. 30 Aug. 2006 <http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/5641>..>Google Scholar
Spence, Richard T. Lady Anne Clifford, Countess of Pembroke, Dorset and Montgomery, 1590–1676. Stroud: Sutton, 1997.Google Scholar
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty. “Three Women's Texts and a Critique of Imperialism.” Critical Inquiry 12 (1985): 243–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, Stone. The Family, Sex and Marriage in England, 1500–1800. Abr. ed. New York: Harper, 1979.Google Scholar
Valerie, Traub. The Renaissance of Lesbianism in Early Modern England. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2002.Google Scholar
Helen, Wilcox. “Private Writing and Public Function: Autobiographical Texts by Renaissance Englishwomen.” Gloriana's Face: Women, Public and Private, in the English Renaissance. Ed. Cerasano, S. P. and Wynne-Davies, Marion. Detroit: Wayne State UP, 1992. 47–62.Google Scholar
Williamson, George C. Lady Anne Clifford, Countess of Dorset, Pembroke and Montgomery, 1590–1676: Her Life, Letters, and Work. Kendal: Wilson, 1923.Google Scholar
Susan, Wiseman. “Knowing Her Place: Anne Clifford and the Politics of Retreat.” Textures of Renaissance Knowledge. Ed. Berry, Philippa and Tudeau-Clayton, Margaret. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2003. 199–221.Google Scholar