Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:36:55.411Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

From Nobility and Excellence to Generosity and Rights: Sophia's Defenses of Women (1739–40)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 November 2021

Jacqueline Broad Open the ORCID record for Jacqueline Broad [Opens in a new window]
Jacqueline Broad*
Affiliation:
Philosophy Department, Monash University, Level 6, 20 Chancellor's Walk, Wellington Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Australia
*
Corresponding author. [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article examines two early modern feminist works, Woman Not Inferior to Man (1739) and Woman's Superior Excellence Over Man (1740), written by “Sophia, A Person of Quality.” Scholars once dismissed these texts as plagiarisms or semi-translations of François Poulain de la Barre's De l’égalité des deux sexes (1673). More recently, however, Guyonne Leduc has drawn attention to the original aspects of these treatises by highlighting Sophia's significant variations on Poulain's vocabulary (Leduc 2010; 2012; 2015). In this article, I take Leduc's analysis a step further by demonstrating that Sophia's variations amount to unique and distinctive arguments for the restoration of women's rights, based on both the natural equality and the moral superiority of women compared to men. I argue that Sophia goes beyond Poulain's Cartesian insights to mount a critique of male tyranny characterized as a lack of generosity toward women. My contention is that Sophia's texts represent a culmination in a line of reasoning that extends from the querelle des femmes of the Renaissance to Poulain's Cartesian feminism of the seventeenth century, through to arguments for women's rights in the eighteenth century. Her works thus warrant greater recognition as significant turning points in the history of feminist thought.

Type
Article
Information
Hypatia , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , Winter 2022 , pp. 43 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Hypatia, a Nonprofit Corporation

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

Anonymous. 1739a. Man superior to woman; Or, a vindication of man's natural right of sovereign authority over the woman … By a Gentleman. London: T. Cooper.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 1739b. Commonsense: Or, the Englishman's journal 135–6 (September 1 and 8): n.p.Google Scholar
Blain, Virginia, Clements, Patricia, and Grundy, Isobel. 1990. Sophia. In The feminist companion to literature in English: Women writers from the middle ages to the present, ed. Blain, Virginia, Clements, Patricia, and Grundy, Isobel. London: B. T. Batsford Ltd.Google Scholar
Broad, Jacqueline. 2017. Early modern feminism and Cartesian philosophy. In The Routledge companion to feminist philosophy, ed. Garry, Ann, J, Serene. Khader, and Alison Stone. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Brown, Deborah J. 2006. Descartes and the passionate mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carter, Elizabeth. 2005. Elizabeth Carter, 1717–1806: An edition of some unpublished letters, ed. Hampshire, Gwen. Newark: University of Delaware Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Desmond M., trans. and ed. 2013. The equality of the sexes: Three feminist texts of the seventeenth century. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 1909. Oeuvres de Descartes, ed. Adam, Charles and Tannery, Paul, 12 vols. Paris: Léopold Cerf. [Abbreviated in text as AT followed by volume and page numbers].Google Scholar
Descartes, René. 1985. The passions of the soul. In The philosophical writings of Descartes. Trans. Cottingham, John, Stoothoff, Robert, and Murdoch, Dugald, in 3 vols., vol. I. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1985), vol. i. [Abbreviated in text as CSM I followed by page numbers.].Google Scholar
Deslauriers, Marguerite. 2018. Lucrezia Marinella. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2012 Edition - updated 2018), ed. Zalta, Edward N., http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/lucrezia-marinella/.Google Scholar
Deslauriers, Marguerite. 2019. Patriarchal power as unjust: Tyranny in seventeenth-century Venice. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 27 (4): 718–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Moira, ed. 1985. First feminists: British women writers 1578–1799. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Leduc, Guyonne. 2010. Réécritures anglaises au XVIIIe siècle de l’Égalité des deux sexes (1673) de François Poulain de la Barre. Paris: l'Harmattan.Google Scholar
Leduc, Guyonne. 2012. Reprise de l’Égalité des deux sexes (1673) de Poulain de la Barre dans les brochures de [Sophia] (1739–1740). Yanam 45: 97–114.Google Scholar
Leduc, Guyonne. 2015. The stylistic desacralization of man in Britain in the [Sophia] pamphlets (1739–1740). In Dynamics of desacralization: Disenchanted literary talents, ed. Partenza, Paola. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1689/1988. Two treatises of government, ed. Laslett, Peter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, John. 1998. Descartes's moral theory. Ithaca, N.Y., and London: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, Charlotte Hammond, and Botting, Eileen Hunt. 2014. Overthrowing the Floresta-Wollstonecraft myth for Latin American feminism. Gender & History 26 (1): 64–83.Google Scholar
Medley. 1897. Sophia, a lady of quality. Notes and Queries 8 (11): 348.Google Scholar
Montagu, Lady Mary Wortley. 1947. The nonsense of common-sense, 1737–1738, ed. Halsband, Robert. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Press.Google Scholar
Moore, C. A. 1916. The first of the militants in English literature. The Nation 102: 194–96.Google Scholar
Nyquist, Mary. 2013. Arbitrary rule: Slavery, tyranny, and the power of life and death. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, Karen. 2009. Women and enlightenment in eighteenth-century Britain. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poulain de la Barre, François. 1677. The woman as good as the man: Or, the equallity of both sexes. Trans. A. L., London: T.M. for N. Brooks.Google Scholar
Reuter, Martina. 1999. Questions of sexual difference and equality in Descartes’ philosophy. Acta Philosophica Fennica 64: 183–208.Google Scholar
Reuter, Martina. 2013. Freedom of the will as the basis of equality: Descartes, Princess Elisabeth, and Poullain de la Barre. In Freedom and the construction of Europe, ed. Skinner, Quentin and Gelderen, Martin van, vol. 2. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reuter, Martina. 2019. François Poulain de la Barre. In Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Winter 2019), ed. Zalta, Edward N., https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/francois-barre/.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Amy. 2018. Cartesian prejudice: Gender, education and authority in Poulain de la Barre. Philosophy Compass 13 (12): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, Lisa. 1999. Cartesian generosity. In Norms and modes of thinking in Descartes, ed. Aho, Tuomo and Yrjonsuuri, Mikko. In Acta Philosophica Fennica 64: 249–75.Google Scholar
Sophia, A Person of Quality. 1739. Woman not inferior to man: Or, a short and modest vindication of the natural right of the fair-sex to a perfect equality of power, dignity, and esteem, with the men. London: John Hawkins.Google Scholar
Sophia, A Person of Quality. 1740. Woman's superior excellence over man: Or, a reply to the author of a late treatise, entitled, Man superior to woman. London: John Hawkins.Google Scholar
Stuurman, Siep. 2004. François Poulain de la Barre and the invention of modern equality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wilkin, Rebecca. 2019. Feminism and natural right in François Poulain de la Barre and Gabrielle Suchon. Journal of the History of Ideas 80 (2): 227–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar