Sensibility and feminism in Wollstonecraft's Vindication and Barbauld's poem

Sensibility and Feminism in Mary Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Men and Anne Letitia Barbauld’s “The Rights Of Woman”

Mary Wollstonecraft, a British liberal feminist in the 18th century, authored A Vindication of the Rights of Men. She wrote the letter to the Right Honorable Edmund Burke, in response to his Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). The letter was published just a few weeks post Burke’s Reflections. The writings attack advocates of republicanism and aristocracy. She wrote the letter as the pamphlet war (Revolution Controversy from 1789 – 1795) first response to the publication. It was a defense of aristocracy, constitutional monarchy and the Church of England. Wollstonecraft attacked Burke’s hereditary privilege, and the rhetoric he used as defense. Unlike Burke’s detractors, she deplored Burke’s gendered language in a unique way, using the terms ‘beautiful’ and ‘sublime’ from his publication ‘A Philosophical Enquiry into the Origin of Our Ideas of the Sublime and Beautiful (1756).’ For instance, her first feminist critique indicts Burke’s equal societal justification as based on women passivity whereas Claudia Johnson, Wollstonecraft scholar, describes it as unmatched in its argumentative force. Anna Barbauld, on the other hand, published her poetic book in 1773.[footnoteRef:1] She wrote ‘The Rights of Women’ as a response to A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), a popular publication of Mary Wollstonecraft. However, her poem is not straightforward because it seems to simultaneously question and celebrate the views of Wollstonecraft on the essence of liberating women from societal restrictions and injustices. Barbauld is regarded as an early Romantic and important poet of her time. Wollstonecraft’s work is feminist while Barbauld’s is not, but she does incorporate some feministic characteristics in her poem ‘The Rights of Woman’. The aim of this academic essay is to compare and contrast the views of sensibility expressed in Mary Wollstonecraft’s ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Men’ and Anne Letitia Barbauld’s ‘The Rights of Woman’. [1: Craciun, Adriana. Mary Wollstonecraft's a Vindication of the Rights of Woman: A Sourcebook. Routledge, 2013.]

SENSIBILITY AND FEMINISM IN MARY WOLLSTONECRAFT’S VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OF MEN AND ANNE LETITIA BARBAULD’S “THE RIGHTS OF WOMAN”.
Mary Wollstonecraft makes a central argument in ‘The Rights of Men’ that rights should be conferred because they are just and reasonable, but not due to traditions. Wollstonecraft endorses a social contract founded on fellow-feeling and sympathy as well as republicanism. According to her, an ideal society comprise of individuals with the support of united families, and connected to others through sensible sympathy. She asserts that people should practice universal benevolence to be like God. Wollstonecraft contradicts her civil society theory with that of Burke, describing it as riddle with prejudice and full of circumstance and pomp, and thus embracing reasonable sensibility. She attacks Burke’s false feeling, countering it with her personal, authentic emotions. In her argument, it is humane to sympathize with the French Revolutions (the people), but inhumane to do so with the French clergy as Burke does. She accuses Burke of manipulation and insincerity, referring to his publication Reflections as propaganda. Wollstonecraft dramatically claims in the ‘Rights of Men’ that her emotions towards Marie Antoinette and the French monarchy is beyond Burke’s tears, and to silence, for the kind of injustice that the slaves were subjected to. She represents the silence with dashes as a way of expressing her more genuine feelings than Burke’s:
Man preys on man; and you mourn for the idle tapestry that decorated a gothic pile, and the dronish bell that summoned the fat priest to prayer. You mourn for the empty pageant of a name, when slavery flaps her wing, and the sick heart retires to die in lonely wilds, far from the abodes of men....Why is our fancy to be appalled by terrific perspectives of a hell beyond the grave?—Hell stalks abroad;—the lash resounds on the slave's naked sides; and the sick wretch, who can no longer earn the sour bread of unremitting labour, steals to a ditch to bid the world a long good night—or, neglected in some ostentatious hospital, breathes his last amidst the laugh of mercenary attendants.
Such misery demands more than tears—I pause to recollect myself; and smother the contempt I feel rising for your rhetorical flourishes and infantine sensibility.[footnoteRef:2] [2: Berges, Sandrine. The Routledge guidebook to Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Routledge, 2013.]

Wollstonecraft challenges Burke’s rhetoric just as, or more, than his political theory in the ‘Rights of Men’. She redefines the terms ‘beautiful’ and ‘sublime’ in his publication Enquiry into the Sublime and Beautiful. He relates sublime with masculinity and strength, and beautiful with femininity and weakness. Wollstonecraft questions Burke’s gendered definitions and argues later, in the Rights of Men, that they are harmful, stating, “for truth, in morals, has ever appeared to me the essence of the sublime; and, in taste, simplicity the only criterion of the beautiful.”
You may have convinced [women] that littleness and weakness are the very essence of beauty; and that the Supreme Being, in giving women beauty in the most supereminent [sic] degree, seemed to command them, by the powerful voice of Nature, not to cultivate the moral virtues that might chance to excite respect, and interfere with the pleasing sensations they were created to inspire. Thus confining truth, fortitude, and humanity, within the rigid pale of manly morals, they might justly argue, that to be loved, woman's high end and great distinction! they should 'learn to lisp, to totter in their walk, and nick-name God's creatures.' Never, they might repeat after you, was any man, much less a woman, rendered amiable by the force of those exalted qualities, fortitude, justice, wisdom, and truth; and thus forewarned of the sacrifice they must make to those austere, unnatural virtues, they would be authorised to turn all their attention to their persons, systematically neglecting morals to secure beauty.[67]
According to Claudia Johnson, a Wollstonecraft scholar, the passages are unsurpassed even as feminists critique. But, Wollstonecraft insists that Burke associates weakness with womanly virtue, meaning women lack important roles in the society and public domains, and thus are useless.[footnoteRef:3] She adopts a feministic critique to the language Burke uses throughout his Reflections publication. Johnson states, “her pamphlet as a whole refutes the Burkean axiom ‘to make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.” Wollstonecraft succeeds in using sensible rhetoric to challenge Burke’s beautiful rhetoric. She also explains how Burke embodies his worst ideas. He becomes the illogical, hysterical and feminine writer while Wollstonecraft becomes the sensible, masculine writer. Wollstonecraft sometimes becomes passionate in her writings, for instance, when she talks of slavery (as in a quote above), ironically effecting this transposition. [3: Sapiro, Virginia. A vindication of political virtue: The political theory of Mary Wollstonecraft. University of Chicago Press, 1992.]

Anne Letitia Barbauld was the mid of the ideological debate when individual rights were being fought for in the Revolution age. She was more radical and sensible than initially thought. Motivated by her unrelenting faith, her poetic works associated humanitarian issues with wider power abuses. Barbauld argued that intellectuals should offer women with information, but not tell them or teach them how to think and reason. Her use of sensibility and enthusiasm appeal to the emotions of her audiences. Barbauld adopted political pamphlets’ traditionally male genre, making her work a component of progressive female political thought tradition that dates back to the 17th century. She contributed to liberalism development through her innovative civil liberties defense. As a leading female radical, Barbauld is perceived as an anti-feminist due to her antagonism to feminism.[footnoteRef:4] She was accused of rejecting all initiatives based on gender, arguing that women had nothing to complain about, and thus no common cause to bring them together. Just like Wollstonecraft, Barbauld believed women faced unfair treatment. However, her techniques of presenting and dealing with the problem were different from Wollstonecraft’s. She promoted female solidarity in her own form through literary kinship and female friendship networks. Based in historical female political traditions in the early century, Barbauld’s views confirm that she is a leading, female progressive thinker. Her writings were influenced by 17th and early 18th century non-conformist traditions. She interpreted feminism in relation to sensibility and moral worth, but not labor equality. This is unlike modern feminism that involves women coming together with a common goal to promote women’s right to autonomy and self-determination. [4: Turner, Cheryl. Living by the pen: women writers in the eighteenth century. Routledge, 2002.]

Barbauld’s The Rights of Woman, was written in response to Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Wollstonecraft, in her publication, advocated for ‘modern feminism’. She argued that public power and personal or private relationships were interdependent. And, traditionally, they saw men have power over women not just in the family, but also nation. She opposed gender roles that ensue from social constructions, claiming that popular female sexuality founded on cultural notions and ‘sensibility’ corrupted men and women. She advocated for women’s political and civil rights and a reform of manners in both men and women, arguing that all humans share reason. She taught boys and girls together, and opening jobs for women so that they could earn a living and be independent. However, she accepted labor division based on gender, explaining that caring for children is an important role of women. Barbauld’s feminism technique is set in the historical political context. It has been defined, until recently, in contrast to Mary Wollstonecraft’s. She is said to compare women to sweet, delicate flowers only purposed to please because she used men’s language, and thus developing a ‘false female manners system” and robs them of their dignity. Wollstonecraft attacked her poem in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman, stating, “To a Lady, with some painted Flowers.” Barbauld then wrote “The Rights of Woman’ poem in response.[footnoteRef:5] In the poem, she satirizes the feminist perceptions of Wollstonecraft. [5: Barbauld, Mrs. The Poems of Anna Letitia Barbauld. University of Georgia Press, Athens, 1994.]

Wollstonecraft wrote: “On this sensual error (...) has the false system of female manners been
reared, which robs the whole sex of its dignity, and classes the brown and fair with the smiling flowers that only adorn the land. This has ever been the language of men, and the fear of departing from a supposed sexual character, has made even women of superior [sic] sense adopt the same sentiments.” Wollstonecraft then cites Barbauld in her footnotes: “‘Pleasure’s the portion of th’inferior kind;/But glory, virtue, Heaven for mandesign’d.’ [footnoteRef:6] [6: Mellor, Anne K. "The Female Poet and the Poetess: Two Traditions of British Women’s Poetry. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1999.]


Barbauld’s poem is also seen as against the rights of women. It tells women to “rise, assert thy right” and at the same time assumes their rule to be only over “the empire of beauty”. She uses military tropes “to reinforce the moral domain of the feminine idea,” emphasizing on female moral superiority. Her attitude is also ambivalence, Harriet Guest describing it as “a troubling text” because it uses contradicting language; her discussions on women’s rights contradicts the poem’s conclusion as she praises mutual love. Barbauld’s position on sensibility and feminism is also ambiguous, making the poem disconcerting. Discussing rights disorients her readers, leaving them wonder if there is irony in her writings. The poem does not provide readers with definitive answers, but encourages them to question her thoughts and ideas. The ambivalence brought out in her writing also showcases how she struggled with feminist and rational ideas. She works out her position within Wollstonecraft’s new agenda.[footnoteRef:7] [7: Linkin, Harriet Kramer, and Stephen C. Behrendt. Romanticism and Women Poets: Opening the Doors of Reception. University Press of Kentucky, 1999.]

Barbauld was a freethinker in many ways and a progressive democrat. She did not perceive herself a feminist. However, her poem, The Rights of Woman (1792), seems to endorse the rights of women. On the contrary, she contradicts that at the end of the poem, claiming, equal rights and the need to conquer the world become unnecessary when women do love their husbands. That could have been easier said because Barbauld had a good relationship with her husband, doing almost everything as equal partners. However, not every woman is lucky to get such an experience, especially in the historical context when the poem was written.[footnoteRef:8] So, is Barbauld really criticizing Mary Wollstonecraft’s ideas on sensibility and feminism or just being ironic, or is it a case of both? If she is indeed criticizing feminism, does that make her an anti-feminist? Is she just showcasing flaws in the approach some early feminists adopted at the time? It is not easy to answer these questions. In her poem, “The Rights of Woman,” she is definitely in support of women’s rights and criticizes the approach some feminists such as Wollstonecraft took during the period. A read of the poem gives an insight into the nuance and complexity of these issues.[footnoteRef:9] [8: Ferguson, Moira. "Mary Wollstonecraft and the problematic of slavery." Feminist Review 42, no. 1 (1992): 82-102.] [9: McCarthy, William. Anna Letitia Barbauld: Voice of the Enlightenment. JHU Press, 2008.]

In conclusion, Mary Wollstonecraft and Anne Letitia Barbauld share some similarities and differences in their publications ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Men’ and ‘The Rights of Woman,’ respectively. Wollstonecraft clearly supports sensible feminism not founded on traditions and cultures. Just like her, Barbauld endorses feminism and women’s rights. However, the approach she takes in her poem showcases her as an anti-feminism in the eyes of her critiques. Even so, she is ambiguous and contradictory in her poem, advocating for women’s rights at the beginning and concluding that there is no need to pursue such rights if women are in a good relationship (have equal rights) with their husbands.





Bibliography
Barbauld, Mrs. The Poems of Anna Letitia Barbauld. University of Georgia Press, 1994.
Berges, Sandrine. The Routledge guidebook to Wollstonecraft's A Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Routledge, 2013.
Craciun, Adriana. Mary Wollstonecraft's a Vindication of the Rights of Woman: A Sourcebook. Routledge, 2013.
Ferguson, Moira. "Mary Wollstonecraft and the problematic of slavery." Feminist Review 42, no. 1 (1992): 82-102.
Linkin, Harriet Kramer, and Stephen C. Behrendt. Romanticism and Women Poets: Opening the Doors of Reception. University Press of Kentucky, 1999.
McCarthy, William. Anna Letitia Barbauld: Voice of the Enlightenment. John Hopkins University Press, 2008.
Mellor, Anne K. "The Female Poet and the Poetess: Two Traditions of British Women’s Poetry, 1780–1830." In Women’s Poetry in the Enlightenment, pp. 81-98. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 1999.
Sapiro, Virginia. A vindication of political virtue: The political theory of Mary Wollstonecraft. University of Chicago Press, 1992.
Turner, Cheryl. Living by the pen: women writers in the eighteenth century. Routledge, 2002.