Paper Proposal

The assignment from Dr. Logan:


Call for Papers!  LIT 6216:  Unruly Women in Early American Literature.

The organizers of the LIT 6216 Scholars Group announce a call for papers to be presented at its final graduate student conference on Tuesday, December 7, 2010 from 7-9:50 p.m.  The conference will explore representations of women as transgressive or unruly; “unruly” is understood in a broad sense in the context of early American gender norms.  Topics might include women whose experiences were out of the ordinary (captivity, travel, etc.), women who broke laws or defied dominant cultural mores and/or values, cross-dressing women, etc.  Exploration of different textual forms  is welcome, including sentimental or historical novels, speeches, conversion narratives, crime and execution narratives,  short fiction, autobiography (including diaries memoirs, journals), biography, letters, poetry, etc.  Papers should engage with the scholarly conversation in early American literary studies, including a knowledge of the historical and cultural context in which the text was produced.   Please send questions and/or submit your abstract to Dr. Lisa M. Logan by 10/22/10.

Conference format:  Papers for this conference will be circulated beforehand and discussed (rather than read) at the conference meeting. 

See Research Project Components for more details.

[Submitted 24 October 2010]

Jay Jay Stroup
Graduate Student, UCF
jayjaystroup@knights.ucf.edu

Bonds of Intimacy: 
Locating the Female Homosocial & Lesbian Continuum in Milcah Martha Moore’s Book

The modern critical edition of Milcah Martha Moore’s Book, published in 1997, exposes previously ignored women’s writing in early American literature.  Moore’s commonplace book, an unpublished, non-traditional format, is now accessible to all scholars.  While Catherine Blecki and Karin Wulf provide invaluable scholarship regarding the culture of the Philadelphia, as well as manuscript and print culture during the Revolutionary era, there is no mention of Queer or Feminist theory.  The possibility of locating the female homosocial and lesbian continuum in MMMB is hinted at through Blecki’s and Wulf’s multiple references to female friendship, but not made explicit.  It is my intent to strengthen these references through the use of Queer and Feminist theories, and explore the physical object of Moore’s commonplace book as a site of the female homosocial and lesbian continuum in early American literature.     

Moore’s commonplace book simultaneously preserves the work of Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson and establishes a female homosocial presence through the dominance of female authorship within the text.  Out of the one hundred and twenty six entries, sixty three of them are authored by Griffitts (exactly fifty percent of the entries), twenty five are authored by Wright, and three by Graeme Fergusson.  Though other themes are represented, the text opens with “An Essay on Friendship” by Griffitts, thereby signaling the tone and theme of the work as a whole.  Through the use of Susan Stabile’s scholarship on the relationship between memory and the archive, and commonplacing as a distinctly feminized art I argue that not only does the text operate on the lesbian continuum, it also transgresses normative female behavior for colonial America in terms of reading and authorship.  I am relying on the scholarship of Kevin J. Hayes (A Colonial Woman’s Bookshelf) to provide evidence of normative and transgressive reading experiences of women during colonial America.   

Adrienne Rich’s "Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence" highlights the way in which behavior not ascribing to strict hetero-normative standards is punished, the concept of which is transferable to MMMB: Griffitts and Wright refuse to marry, Moore is thrown out of the Society of Friends for marriage to a cousin, and Graeme Fergusson’s secret marriage to a Tory ruins her economically, socially, and politically.  While Carroll Smith-Rosenberg’s "The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations between Women in Nineteenth-Century America" deals with literature and behavior of the 1800s, there are markers of the female homosocial and lesbian continuum that are also applicable to MMMB, specifically in the entries dealing with female friendship.  

By focusing the lens of Queer theory on a commonplace book from early American literature, strategies of defiance and non-compliance by women in regards to their sexuality, readership and authorship are brought to light.  It is the strategies of defiance contained within that classify MMMB as an unruly text, authored and edited by unruly women.  Re-identifying the commonplace book as a site of the female homosocial expands, rather than contracts, the possibilities for future scholarship.  This identification invites and encourages the co-mingling of other schools of theory – feminist, racial, cultural, historical, economical and more.  

Key Issues & Keywords

The assignment from Dr. Logan:

Using your reading so far, course notes, and other materials as appropriate, list key issues raised by your selected text that are relevant to the study of representations of unruly women in early American literature. These issues could include genre, sub-genre (i.e. novel, short story, memoir; gothic, seduction tale, biography, etc.), subject matter (character, education, religion, crime, history, curiosity, etc.), and apparent readership.

Make a list of “keywords” for MLA and other database searches.  Make your list as specific as possible, noting page numbers and specific language, metaphors, patterns, etc. (It might be helpful to consult the National Union Catalog Subject Heading list at the UCF Library reference desk.)

[Submitted 19 September 2010] 

This is the list of issues, in alphabetical order, that I came up with prior to searching through the Library of Congress Subject Headings book (the red books behind the reference desk at the UCF Library).

1. Commonplace book studies
2. Delaware Valley, PA (during American Revolutionary War)
3. Female homosocial
4. Female literacy pre-Revolution through post-Revolution
5. Feminist theory
6. Friendship
7. Lesbian continuum
8. Manuscript studies
9. Quaker definitions of partner, soul, bosom friend
10. Quakers
11. Queer theory
12. Reading habits of the eighteenth–century American woman
13. Trans-Atlantic communication, pre-Revolution, Revolution, post-Revolution
14. Use of poetry by Quakers, especially women

While this list isn’t too shabby, it could be better.  I decided to search through the Library of Congress Subject Headings, because after all, these are the headings used by all the database search engines.  You can search through the subject headings online here, but I prefer to look through the book in person, especially since experience has taught me I’ll find so much more than expected if I do so.

These are what the "red books" look like, by the way:

 

Surprises in the mail

Sometime last week, I decided to reward myself by purchasing two items off my Amazon Wish List.  But, I argued with myself, the two items had to be academically related.  We had mentioned Rita Felski’s Literature after Feminism in class discussion either that week (or the week before) and so I wouldn’t forget about it, I placed it on my wish list right after class.  I figured, this must be a sign that I need to buy this text, especially since I’ll be using a mixture of Queer and Feminist theory for my research project.  I also decided to finally buy a copy of Eats, Shoots & Leaves by Lynne Truss, which has been on my wish list for almost two years now.  I placed my order and then promptly forgot about it, caught up in working on my class presentation, handout, and paper for the 14th of September (today).

Well, sometime this afternoon, while I was at the library from 11:30 am until 5:15 pm, my books arrived from Amazon!  Such a happy, sweet surprise, even if it did come from myself.  Check ‘em out below (and ignore the slight blurriness of the picture).  I’m going to browse through Eats, Shoots & Leaves, eat some leftover candy, and then crash.

Quickie

This post will be a quickie, just two more definitions that are meant to help me better understand the Queer theory I’ll be using for my project.

Definition of lesbian continuum from The Columbia Dictionary of Modern Literary and Cultural Criticism:

A term introduced by Adrienne Rich in her essay on COMPULSORY HETEROSEXUALITY, lesbian continuum refers to the broad spectrum of intimate relations between women, from those involving the experience of or desire for genital sexuality, to mother-daughter relationships and female friendships, to ties of political solidarity – all of them “forms of primary intensity between and among women.”  Rich associates such bonds, within each woman’s life and throughout the course of history, with resistance to heterosexuality and male domination.  The concept is similar to what Carroll Smith-Rosenberg and Eve Sedgwick describe as “female homosocial” ties, including but not limited to explicitly lesbian ones.  It has been part of the feminist critical project to call attention to such ties as a theme in literary texts and as a pattern of influence among women writers.  See also HOMOSOCIAL, LESBIAN CRITICISM.

Rich, Adrienne.  “Compulsory Heterosexuality and Lesbian Existence.”  In Blood, Bread, and Poetry: Selected Prose 1979-1985.  New York: Norton, 1986.

Sedgwick, Eve.  Between Men: English Literature and Male Homosocial Desire.  New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
 
Smith-Rosenberg, Caroll.  “The Female World of Love and Ritual: Relations Between Women in Nineteenth-Century America.”  In Disorderly Conduct: Visions of Gender in Victorian America.  New York: Knopf, 1985.

This definition is fascinating, and the use of the term broad spectrum reminds me of the Kinsey scale, a sliding scale of sexuality.  Specifically, it reminds me of the idea that the boundaries between heterosexuality and homosexuality are not necessarily solid and/or impenetrable. 

A point that I’m not sure I agree with is the idea that these feminine bonds are formed within the framework of “resistance” to heterosexuality and male domination.  Why does the lesbian continuum have to be pressed against a framework of resistance, instead of working independent of male domination?  Is this resistance to heterosexuality the only way to reveal these bonds between women?  If so, why? 

After reading this definition, I realize that I really, really, really need to read Rich’s article.  It is also pretty clear to me that Rich’s stance is rather radical.  The benefits of a radical stance is, in my opinion, that it breaks open the issue, tearing it open to a broad spectrum of responses.  I will also try to track down the reviews of Rich’s article, which should help gauge the reaction of her peers at the time of publication -which, incidentally, was in 1980, a year before I was born.         

Artifact Inventory

The assignment from Dr. Logan:
 
As early American scholars seeking to analyze the literary representations of unruly women, we must first understand the text as a material artifact, an object that circulated in and had meaning for specific readers who lived in a particular socio-cultural moment.  By considering the text as an artifact, we draw closer to understanding how the text functioned in its original context.  While we may be unable to travel to archives in Boston, New York, or Philadelphia, we can look at digitized or microfilm images of the original objects and learn about how particular texts looked, felt, and circulated.  To that end, our initial research activities will introduce us to our chosen texts as material objects.

[Submitted: 3 September 2010]


Question 1:  When, where, and by whom was your text first printed?

Answer:  When: Because the common place book was unpublished, there is no publication date.  According to the scholars Blecki and Wulf, authors of the modern edition, the entries were compiled during the middle years of the American Revolution, between 1760 and 1770. 

That is not to say that the contents were necessarily written between this time frame.  Blecki notes the earliest poem is from 1704 and the latest, 1788.  Wulf notes that “[s]ignificant clusters of material are dated between 1764 and 1769 and from 1773 through 1776” (38). 

Where: Milcah Martha Moore resided in the Delaware Valley area in Pennsylvania, amongst Quakers (aka the Society of Friends).

By whom: Moore was the only known transcriber, but none of the entries were written by her.  The three main contributors were Susanna Wright, Hannah Griffitts, and Elizabeth Graeme Fergusson. 

There are 13 unidentified authors that are possibly men; the rest of the entries are by women.  There are at least 16 distinct authors. 

Not all of the content of the commonplace book is original prose and/or poetry.  Reprints of original content by “noted intellectuals and prominent colonials, Quaker and non-Quaker, and people from many sides of the debate over the American Revolution” (xiii) are scattered throughout.

Speculation:  The creation of a commonplace book speaks to me of commitment, passion for literary expression, creativity, generosity, and a keen mind. 

Moore’s commonplace book was a creation meant for sharing and delighting in the works of her friends and family, to showcase their talents and to preserve their work.  It’s a physical representation of her love for them (and their love for her).  It’s obvious this book was a long-term commitment, requiring careful thought in terms of editorship. 

Plus, the act of carefully handwriting 132 pages of prose and poetry, making sure it was legible for her intended audience, must have been exhausting.  I know my handwriting is terrible and it would have taken a great deal of concentration for me to accomplish her feat. 

I find it fascinating that the book was complied during the middle years of the American Revolution, perhaps when it felt to Moore and her friends and family that no end to the war or a happy solution was in sight.  I am eager to begin reading through the entries to see the war through the lens of Moore, a Quaker and Loyalist.

My previous experience has always been through men’s writing – Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, etc.  And most of those writings were strictly political.


Question 2: How often was your text reprinted?  List all of the reprints.  Do not confuse dates of publisher’s/printer’s birth and death with reprint dates.

Answer:  A modern edition was edited by scholars Catherine La Courreye Blecki and Karin A. Wulf and published in 1997.

Blecki, Catherine L., and Karin A. Wulf, eds. Milcah Martha Moore's Book: a Commonplace Book from Revolutionary America. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State UP, 1997. Print.

The original commonplace book is located in the Edward Wanton Smith Collection, in the Quaker Collection Library at Haverford College, Pennsylvania.  Its current status is “in house only” and there are no digitized copies of the original manuscript.

Moore, Milcah Martha. MS 955. Edward Wanton Smith Collection, Haverford College.

Speculation:  What is most frustrating is the lack of a digitized copy of the actual manuscript.  I haven’t contacted the Edward Wanton Smith Collections yet, but I do want to find out if the text is even available for scanning, photocopying and/or photography.  Though Blecki and Wulf state that the text is in excellent condition, that doesn’t mean it will withstand the scanning or photocopying process.

The modern edition does contain a picture of the title page as well as a picture of two pages containing two poems, but it’s not the same as having an actual copy.

I should state though, that I am satisfied that Blecki and Wulf made an accurate and complete transcription based on the “Notes on the Text” section.  This section describes their textual methodology, which “maintains the eighteenth-century character of the text as Moore transcribed it with as few modifications as possible, while offering a readable text for twentieth-century students and scholars” (xxiii).