Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768dbb666b-bxbhv Total loading time: 0.4 Render date: 2023-02-02T13:04:57.479Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

“REVIEWING THE RITES PROPER TO CANONISATION”: NEW WOMAN NOVELS AND NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF CANONICITY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2010

Galia Ofek*
Affiliation:
Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Extract

This essay examines the ways in which New Woman novelists and their critics negotiated and revised Victorian literary canons in the 1880s and 1890s in light of the controversial publications of the Higher and feminist critics of the Bible. It explores the relationship between nineteenth-century literary and religious canons and the ways in which New Woman writers both drew on and intensified contemporary debates on canonicity. While literary canons are often perceived as allowing the possibility of adding new or re-evaluated works whereas biblical canonization seems final and definitive, nineteenth- century discoveries of early, non-canonical Christian writings and fragmentary gospels such as Pistis Sophia and the Gospel of Mary profoundly problematized late-Victorian understandings of the process of canonicity. The growing recognition of the historical significance of such fragments, as well as fierce theological debates in the leading magazines of the day, highlighted canonization as a political procedure which enforced internal coherence and unity at the expense of cultural diversity. Many writers suggested that canonization involved a repression of ideological controversies and a marginalization of competing narratives, a process which was both dramatized and redressed in New Woman fiction. The scholarship that turned to the era before the biblical canon had been sealed explored the conditions which made it final and unassailable, enabling feminist novelists to examine canonicity imaginatively and critically. By drawing attention to the essentially historical and political forces that governed processes of canon formation, New Woman writers sought to expose the narrowness and the limitations of the literary canon within and against which they worked.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Allen, Grant. The Woman Who Did. BiblioBazaar, LLC. Web. 10 Jan. 2007.Google Scholar
Alter, Robert, and Kermode, Frank. The Literary Guide to the Bible. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1987.Google Scholar
Ardis, Ann. New Women, New Novels: Feminism and Early Modernism. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1990.Google Scholar
Ardis, Ann. “Organizing Women: New Woman Writers, New Woman Readers, and Suffrage Feminism.” Victorian Woman Writers and the Woman Question. Ed. Thompson, Nicola Diane. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1999. 189203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. “A Bible Reading for Schools” (1872). Rpt. God and the Bible: The Complete Prose Works of Matthew Arnold. Ed. Super, R. H.. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1983. 7: 499505.Google Scholar
Arnold, Matthew. “Heinrich Heine,” Essays in Criticism. Rpt. The Complete Prose Works. 3: 107–32.Google Scholar
Barry, William. “The Strike of a Sex.” Quarterly Review 179 (1894): 295305. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. London: Routledge, 2000. 1: 443–53.Google Scholar
Barton, John. “Historical-critical Approaches.” The Cambridge Companion to Biblical Interpretation. Ed. Barton, John. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1998. 920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barton, John. Reading the Old Testament. London: Longman, 1984.Google Scholar
Bennett, Arnold. “The Author of Babs the Impossible.” Academy 60 (20 April 1901): 347–48. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 509–14.Google Scholar
Bible, King James Version.Google Scholar
“Books and Authors,” New York Times (September 8 1900) BR 12.Google Scholar
Butler, Josephine. “Prophets and Prophetesses: Thoughts for the Present Times.” London, 1898.Google Scholar
Chadwick, Owen. The Victorian Church. 2 vols. London: SCM Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Cholmondeley, Mary. Red Pottage. London, 1900.Google Scholar
Cixous, Hélène. Stigmata: Escaping Texts. London: Routledge, 1998.Google Scholar
Clayton, Cherry. Olive Schreiner. New York: Twayne, 1997.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. “Shibboleth.” Midrash and Literature. Ed. Hartman, Geoffrey H. and Budick, Sanford. New Haven: Yale UP, 1986. 307–47.Google Scholar
Dixon, Ella Hepworth. Story of a Modern Woman. Peterborough: Broadview 2004.Google Scholar
Dixon, Macneile. “Finality in Literary Judgement.” Westminster Review 143.4 (1895): 401–11.Google Scholar
Fehlbaum, Valerie. Ella Hepworth Dixon: the Story of a Modern Woman. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.Google Scholar
Gorak, Jan. The Making of the Modern Canon: Genesis and Crisis of a Literary Idea. London: Athlone, 1991.Google Scholar
Gosse, Edmund. “The Decay of Literary Tastes.” North American Review 161 (1895): 109–18.Google Scholar
Grand, Sarah. The Beth Book. Bristol: Thoemmes, 1994.Google Scholar
Grand, Sarah. Ideala. Chicago, 1888.Google Scholar
Grand, Sarah. The Heavenly Twins. Ann Arbor: U of Michigan P, 1992.Google Scholar
Grand, Sarah. “Marriage Questions in Fiction: the Standpoint of a Typical Modern Woman.” Fortnightly Review (March 1898): 378–79. Rpt. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 77–91.Google Scholar
Grand, Sarah. “Morals of Manners and Appearance.” Humanitarian 1893.3. Rpt. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 21–28.Google Scholar
Hartman, Geoffrey, and Budick, Sanford, eds. Midrash and Literature. New Haven: Yale UP, 1986.Google Scholar
Heilmann, Ann. New Woman Strategies: Sarah Grant, Olive Schreiner, Mona Caird. Manchester: Manchester UP, 2004.Google Scholar
Heilmann, Ann, and Forward, Stephanie, eds. Sex, Social Purity and Sarah Grand: Journalistic Writings and Contemporary Reception. 4 vols. London: Routledge, 2000.Google Scholar
Helmer, Christine. “Introduction.” One Scripture or Many? Canon from Biblical, Theological and Philosophical Perspectives. Ed. Helmer, Christine and Lendmesser, Christoff. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004.Google Scholar
Kermode, Frank. “The Canon.” Ed. Alter and Kermode. Cambridge: Harvard UP, 1987. 600–10.Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. “Women's Time.” Feminisms: An Anthology of Literary Theory and Criticism. Ed. Warhol, Robyn, Herndl, Diane Price. New Brunswick: Rutgers UP, 1991. 443–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kugel, James L. How To Read the Bible: A Guide to Scripture, Then and Now. New York: Free, 2007.Google Scholar
Kugel, James L.. “Two Introductions to Midrash.” Ed. Hartman and Budick. 77–104.Google Scholar
Linton, Eliza Lynn. “The Partisans of the Wild Women.” Nineteenth Century (31 March 1892): 455–64. Print.Google Scholar
Mead, G. R. S. Pistis Sophia. San Diego: The Book Tree, 2003.Google Scholar
“Mere Man.” Saturday Review (8 June 1901): 733–34. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 180–83.Google Scholar
Murphy, Patricia. Time is of the Essence: Temporality, Gender, and the New Woman. Albany: SUNY P, 2001.Google Scholar
“New Novels: The Beth Book.” Athenæum no. 3657 (27 Nov. 1897): 743–44. Rpt. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 474–75.Google Scholar
“New Novels: The Heavenly Twins by Sarah Grand,” Athenæum no. 3412 (18 March 1893): 342. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 420–22.Google Scholar
Norton, David. A History of the English Bible as Literature. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagels, Elaine. The Gnostic Gospels. New York: Vintage Books, 1979.Google Scholar
[Payne, W. M.] “Review of The Beth Book.” Dial 24 (1 Feb. 1898): 78. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 490–91.Google Scholar
Pinnock, H. An Analysis of Scripture History. Cambridge, 1848.Google Scholar
“Recent Novels.” Spectator 70 (23 March, 1893): 395–96. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 423–24.Google Scholar
“Review of George Egerton's [Mary Chevalita Bright's] Discords.” Athenaeum (23 March 1895): 375.Google Scholar
“Review of The Heavenly Twins.” Nation 57 (16 Nov. 1893): 374–75. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 438–40.Google Scholar
“Review of The Heavenly Twins.” Shafts (25 Feb. 1893): 268. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 411–13.Google Scholar
“Review of The Story of an African Farm.” Shafts 2.3 (May 1893): 55.Google Scholar
Richard, Rive, ed. Olive Schreiner Letters 1. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1988.Google Scholar
Richter, David H. “Genre, Repetition, Temporal Order: Some Aspects of Biblical Narratology.” A Companion to Narrative Theory. Ed. Phelan, James and Rabinowitz, Peter J.. Oxford: Blackwell, 2005. 285–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robertson, Fiona. Women's Writings 1778–1838: an Anthology. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002.Google Scholar
Saunders, T. Bailey. “Sarah Grand's Ethics.” The Open Court: A Weekly Journal Devoted to the Religion of Science 9 (4 April 1895): 4447.Google Scholar
Scarry, Elaine. The Body in Pain: The Making and Unmaking of the World. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1985.Google Scholar
Schreiner, Olive. The Story of an African Farm. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1992.Google Scholar
Showalter, Elaine A Literature of their Own: from Charlotte Bronte to Doris Lessing. London: Virago, 1999.Google Scholar
Smith, Barbara Herrnstein. “Contingencies of Value.” Canons. Ed. Von Hallberg, Robert. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1984. 539.Google Scholar
Stanton, Elizabeth Cady. The Woman's Bible. Salem: Ayercourt, 1988.Google Scholar
Stead, W. T.The Book of the Month: The Novel of the Modern Woman,” Review of Reviews 10 (1894): 6474.Google Scholar
Stopes, Charlotte C.‘Woman’ in the Vision of Creation.” Shafts 1.4 (26 Nov. 1892): 54.Google Scholar
Sykes, A. G. P.The Evolution of the Sex.” Westminster Review 143.4 (1895): 395400.Google Scholar
Wace, Henry. “Christianity and Agnosticism.” Nineteenth Century (May 1889): 700–719.Google Scholar
Waller, Philip. Writers, Readers, and Reputations: Literary Life in Britain 1870–1918. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006.Google Scholar
“Womanhood and Religious Mis-Education Part I.” Shafts 1.1 (3 Nov. 1892): 7.Google Scholar
“Womanhood and Religious Mis-Education II.” Shafts 1.2 (12 Nov. 1892): 20.Google Scholar
Yarbo, Adela Collins. Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Chico: Scholars, 1985.Google Scholar
Zangwill, Israel. “The Month in England,” Cosmopolitan 24 (1898), 24. Rpt. Ed. Heilmann and Forward. 1: 492–93.Google Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

“REVIEWING THE RITES PROPER TO CANONISATION”: NEW WOMAN NOVELS AND NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF CANONICITY
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

“REVIEWING THE RITES PROPER TO CANONISATION”: NEW WOMAN NOVELS AND NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF CANONICITY
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

“REVIEWING THE RITES PROPER TO CANONISATION”: NEW WOMAN NOVELS AND NEW CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF CANONICITY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *