Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft

Template:Maintained

Quotations

Please do not change the spelling or punctuation of a quotation unless you have checked the source and found the quotation here to be in error. Thank you. Awadewit 03:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is this article protected?

thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Mary Wollstonecraft/Archive 4#Protection. Awadewit | talk 00:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems pretty old. Are the trolls in the wings ready to pounce on this? No big deal. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 17:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this article seems to be a prominent target for vandalism for some reason. If you have any suggestions for improving the article, please let us know. It is certainly not our intention to limit legitimate work on the article. Kaldari (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nominating an article for the main page

It is Mary Wollstonecraft's 250th birthday on April 27. Does anyone know how we could get her featured on the main page "On this day"? I am unsure of the procedure, but will ask around. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done put her in the queue! Here. I would appreciate it if interested parties could tweak it, or keep an eye on the page in case objections are raised. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that A Vindication of the Rights of Woman be the TFA - it was something I had been planning for a while. Awadewit (talk) 01:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

A kind editor called User:Zzyzx11 has moved Mary to the head of the day. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect Image?

Does anyone know why there is a painting of The Icebergs (1861) by Frederic Edwin Church at the bottom of this article? Is this is a mistake?

--Skb8721 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an image of the the sublime. Awadewit (talk) 18:05, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Mary's 250th anniversary

I don't know how to do this with a template, so I'll note here that on Monday 27 April 2009, the 250th anniversary of her birth, MW was featured on two places on the English Wikipedia homepage: her Vindication was the Featured Article, and the birthday itself was the lead item in the "On this day" section, with her portrait as a thumbnail. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Error on ref. number 2:

Should be Todd 17, instead of Todd 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dudu Steiner (talk • contribs) 23:16, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I checked the book - it is page 11. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 03:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

top biographies

She is listed here as one of the "core biographies". Is there a way to work that into the box at the top of the page? Also, the stray fact in a box of its own could be folded in. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Click on "show" on the WikiProject box and you will see the "Core" listing. I don't know how to fold in the fact box, but if you know how, that would be great. Awadewit (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

A wider legacy than we realised

The legacy section stated that few read her in the 19th century. A few weeks ago I dug up the case of suffragist Millicent Fawcett's introduction to the centenary edition of Vindication. I also knew about George Eliot's interest, and now have found, circuitously via our FA on Margaret Fuller, that GE wrote an essay about MW, although I have not been able to track down its content. Leslie Stephen, inter alia father of Virginia Woolf, alludes to it, for example. What wording would be best to include? I want to say "and George was a woman, by the way" for the benefit of the hypothetical intelligent 14 year old reader for whom I write.

In 1855, George Eliot (real name Mary Ann Evans), a prolific writer of reviews, articles, and translations, devoted an essay to the roles and rights of women, comparing Wollstonecraft and Margaret Fuller, an American journalist, critic, and women's right activist who had also travelled to the Continent, got involved in the struggle for reform (in this case the Roman Republic), and had a child by a man without marrying him. Leslie Stephen, in his biography of Eliot, refers to this essay in passing, and also posits that one of the characters in Daniel Deronda draws on Wollstonecraft.

• Dickenson, Donna. Margaret Fuller: Writing a Woman's Life. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09145-1
• Stephen, Leslie. George Eliot. London: Macmillan and Co., 1902. Full text available at the University of Toronto English Library here.

Any objections to putting that in the legacy section? BrainyBabe (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

We still want to make it clear to the reader that it was only a handful of women reading Wollstonecraft (this is only evidence of two more people, after all!). Perhaps we should present Eliot as an exception? Where should this come in the "Legacy" section, exactly? Awadewit (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Eliot was exceptional in many ways! Certainly it should be made clear to the reader that MW was little read (by middle-class men or women), but her works did not disappear completely. Without too much exertion, I have found these three examples of C19 people who read her. Two of them then wrote essays about MW, which were then read by thousands of other people (we can presume - I'd love to see data on their print runs or readership): that is a significant legacy. And it is not just a question of MW being read by other early feminists, but by anyone: pedagogues, republicans, historians of the French Revolution, Romantics on the sublime of Scandinavia. We quote Sapiro saying categorically, "there is little indication that anyone who played a key role in women's history or feminism, other than Lucretia Mott, read Wollstonecraft's work seriously after her death until the twentieth century." I think that is factually incorrect: Eliot and Fawcett did play such roles, the former as a auto-didact rule-breaker and great novelist, the latter as the leader of a political movement. I suggest inserting the info on George Eliot and Leslie Stephen into the paragraph between Mott and Fawcett. I also suggest dropping the whole sentence of Sapiro that I quoted above, which is little more than a restatement of the previous paraphrase "few read Wollstonecraft's works during the nineteenth century" a couple of sentences before. BrainyBabe (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should remove Sapiro's comment - that is obviously incorrect. I've taken that out. I've added the material about Eliot's essay. I'm a little more reluctant to add the Daniel Deronda comparison without more to say about it. See what you think of what I've added. Awadewit (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you've removed some of Sapiro's categorical comment. This remains:

As Wollstonecraft scholar Virginia Sapiro makes clear, few read Wollstonecraft's works during the nineteenth century as "her attackers implied or stated that no self-respecting woman would read her work".

The latter half of this syllogism is true, but I don't think the first half is necessarily accurate, unless we equate "few" with "self-respecting women". Barbara Taylor states that MW's work (at least Vindication) remained in print throughout the early C19, published by working class presses. I don't think their target markets cared very much about being thought of as self-respecting women: indeed, many or most of them may have been men. So I think the first half of needs to be reconsidered. Perhaps: "Scholar Virginia Sapiro states that during the nineteenth century Wollstonecraft's "attackers implied or stated that no self-respecting woman would read her work". What do you think?

That is fine with me. Also, do you think we should add that information from Taylor? Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I notice that you also removed Sapiro's mention of Lucretia Mott (referenced to pages 276-277). Was that intentional? As for Daniel Deronda, I think the dismissive reference to attempted suicide by drowning an interesting comparison to spring from the pen of a chap like Leslie Stephen, not least because his daughter had such different views. Weaving the web. But it is not overwhelmingly important.

I removed Sapiro's statement about Mott because it seemed demonstrably incorrect. I agree with everything you are saying about the Deronda reference, but I feel that perhaps in adding it without extensive explanation, we are overreaching the ability of the average reader to connect the dots and understand why it is significant. That is why I think if we want to include it, it would have to have much more explanation. Awadewit (talk) 20:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have found yet another C19 feminist writer and activist who leaned heavily on MW. (Both Wikipedia and Wollstonecraft are hobbies for me: how is it that the professionals, i.e. the biographers, have failed to tie the threads together, or got it so outright wrong, so factually incorrect, as Sapiro did?) This is Flora Tristan (1803-1844), who had, like MW, had a rougher childhood than her family background would have led one to expect, was self-taught, travelled internationally, analysed gender oppression, analysed the French Revolution, died young, produced one significant descendant (Paul Gauguin), etc. etc. The number of parallels makes it unsurprising that when FT wrote her social critique of Britain, she drew on MW. Promenades in London (1840) is subtitled "the English aristocracy and proletariat", but is often known in English as The London Journal of Flora Tristan; it followed her previous book, Peregrinations of a Pariah -- I bet MW would have liked that one.

In Promenades, FT asserts that MW's ideas presaged those of Saint-Simon, the utopian socialist, by a generation. The 2003 Broche edition, which I can only see in fragments online, gives more pages to MW than to him. There's an excellent paper delineating the links between the lives of the two women. Most of the text is available from Google books here. Cross goes so far as to call FT a disciple of MW (p123). "One pariah redeems another" is well worth reading, and the whole book sounds good too, as a source for the legacy section. Any objections to my adding the book Wollstonecraft's daughters : womanhood in England and France, 1780-1920 to the "Other secondary works" section? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Adding that book sounds like an excellent idea. I haven't read the introduction by Orr, but does it perhaps good material to add the article? Awadewit (talk) 20:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added most of these items now. In fact, I've read the two bios from 1879 & 1884 and am impressed. I've also done some little tweaks here and there. There is lots more to say, but this will do for now. BrainyBabe (talk) 09:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Mary Wollstonecraft and Thomas Taylor

I have just had the following removed on the grounds that it was "tangential information".

"- Her book inspired neo-platonist Thomas Taylor to write his A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. She had befriended the young Taylor and his wife Mary in their home when he was writing his Life of Proclus, and he encouraged her to read Plato."

and I was about to expand this as follows when I saw my edit had disappeared:

"- Her book inspired neo-platonist Thomas Taylor to write his A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes. - and she is acknowledged by Taylor on the first page as "Mrs. Woolstoncraft". She had befriended the young Taylor and his wife Mary in their home when he was writing his Life of Proclus, and he encouraged her to read Plato."

I hope you have no doubt that this edit was done in good faith and with consideration, and on my part it would seem inconsiderate to revert my edit without questioning the reason for this or providing my own justification.

The key facts, without expansion and links are: (a) Thomas and Mary Taylor befriended the young Mary Wollstonscaft. (a) Taylor influenced Wollstoncraft through his interest in Platonism. (c) Wollstoncraft's "Rights of Women" influenced Taylor in his "Rights of Brutes", as acknowledged by him.

These facts may be a little tangential in the section where I placed them, though I am not sure of this, but they are relevant there, and surely important in some place in a short account of Wollstoncraft's life and work. My consideration was that they were best placed where I put them, at the end of the "Rights of Women" section. I would appreciate any constructive discussion with a view to a solution.

I happen to be directly descended from Thomas Taylor, being the g-g-g-g-grandson of he and Mary - which is the reason for being led to discover the admirable Mary Wollstonecraft.P0mbal (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

[copied from P0mbal's talk page] Thanks for your addition to Mary Wollstonecraft. I've removed it because that section of the article is dedicated to explaining the Vindication itself. Another place for it might be the "Legacy" section, but I'm not sure it is quite important enough. Can you find some scholarly sources that mention the connection between the two? (The article is a featured article, which means that we need to use high-quality sources.) Thanks again! Awadewit (talk) 21:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Merci, vous avez raison ... pause for consideration P0mbal (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Awadewit that the addition does not appear to be notable enough to justify inclusion in the article. Obviously there are innumerable facts about Wollstoncraft's life and influences that could potentially be mentioned in the article. We have tried to focus on the aspects most central to her life and legacy, as conveyed by scholarly sources. Have you considered adding the information to the Thomas Taylor (neoplatonist) article instead? It looks like that article could use some expansion. You could also potentially create a new article on A Vindication of the Rights of Brutes and add the information there. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A philosopher who took the teenage Mary into his home, as the Thomas Taylor article asserts, who encouraged her to read the Greek philosophers, and who llater wrote a treatise whose title echoes her most famous works: this strikes me as a person worth mentioning in the article. The caveat is, these interesting facts must be verfiable -- there must be apropriate published sources to back them up. If you can find these, then I would welcome your re-addition of what was removed, though perhaps in a different section (early life influences is one thing, legacy another). (Sorry, no tildes on this keyboard, but it's BrainyBabe.)

Reputation of life vs. writings

I wondered about the statement "Among the general public and specifically among feminists, Wollstonecraft's life has received much more attention than her writing because of her unconventional and often tumultuous personal relationships." My (admitedly quite ignorant)impression was that her writings returned to center stage after the subsidence of her 19th century notoriety. That is, incidentally, the gist conveyed by the the "Timeline of Mary Wollstonecroft."

I was aware that her life is a topic of contemporary interest; an interest perhaps allied to moving away from just seeing her as a tract-writer. But the phraseology above seems disproportionate. The sentence is a bit clunky clausally, no offence to its author. Jason Townsend (talk) 13:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

A few questions. Have you read the "Legacy" section? That is the section that we are trying to summarizing with that sentence. Also, the sources cited in the "Legacy" section are the ones that support that view - do you have some other sources that suggest her writings are now at the center of the debate (the Timeline of Mary Wollstonecraft doesn't support this view, as it ends with her death). If so, we should add those sources to the article. Finally, how would you reword the sentence to make it clearer? Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

My apologies on commenting and running; I haven't been logged in to wikipedia since then.

I -had- read the whole article, but didn't quite make the connection between the preamble and the comment by Cora Kaplan. That does answer my question for the most part. Perhaps, thought, it would be good to somehow refer to the "past quarter century" periodization? If it's important.

In referring to the Timeline article I was thinking of the last line in the introduction: "Today, she is most often remembered for her political treatise A Vindication of the Rights of Woman and is considered a foundational feminist philosopher." That, in a sense, was what I thought "received attention" from the "general public." (I was also thinking to a lesser extent about where the entry for 1798 refers to "a century" as the period in which "her reputation was destroyed," as I'd also read a bit more on that via Claudia Johnson. With the notion that thereafter, she's again principally a thinker and not a "scandal", but I can see where that might be contentious.)

I guess I expected a history student, asked for a thing or two about Mary Wollstonecraft, to dutifully recite that she was an influential early feminist, and the author of the Vindication of the Rights of Woman. Or, if the student had run into her and Burke via studying the French revolution, the Vindication of the Rights of Man as well. It might be that a somewhat more knowledgeable observer - e.g., someone actually -studying- her rather than merely -identifying- her - would encounter her much more as a "notable life" and historical figure than as an author.

Regarding the wording, perhaps, without changing the sense at all, "Wollstonecraft's life - encompassing personal relationships that were unconventional and often tumultuous - has received more attention that her writing, particularly among feminists." I'm not in love with that either - the dashes aren't quite the thing - but the alternative seems to be splitting it up into two sentences or going with a proliferation of clauses, (which was my issue with the original.) At any rate, it's a bit of a nit-picky tangent anyway. If you felt the periodization mattered: "Until recently, Wollstonecraft's life, which encompassed several unconventional personal relationships, has received more attention that her writing."

That, however, leaves out the "particularly among feminists," bit, so I dunno. Thanks for responding! Jason Townsend (talk) 21:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

New version: Until the late 20th century, Wollstonecraft's life, which encompassed several unconventional personal relationships, received more attention than her writing. Awadewit (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Parents

A new sentence was added about Wollstoncraft's parents. Can someone find a citation for the info in one of the existing references so we don't have to use the awkward Google Books citation? Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I'm out of town right now - it'll have to wait a week. Awadewit (talk) 02:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Me too. Otherwise, I'd go down to the library. Kaldari (talk) 03:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey Awadewit, did you ever get a chance to look into fixing this? Kaldari (talk) 03:49, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It looks like this has been fixed. Kaldari (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Mary Wollstonecraft|b00pg5dr}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:17, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

External links

Alpini,Gloria Translating Social Action Texts Mary Wollstonecraft e Maria Edgeworth Aras Edizioni, Fano: 2009 Riferimento di Jack Zipes

Feminist

I've just been reading through the article. I think the section on the "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman" could do with some tidying. The author has stated "Her ambiguous statements regarding the equality of the sexes have since made it difficult to classify Wollstonecraft as a modern feminist, particularly since the word and the concept were unavailable to her."

Firstly, there is no proof within the article that her comments are ambiguous merely the authors own opinion earlier in the piece where they have written: "Wollstonecraft famously and ambiguously writes". Secondly, just because a word is not in usage, a fact I do not deny, doesn't stop it applying to someone. Thirdly, I would argue that the concept was available to her because as the author has already said, "What she does claim is that men and women are equal in the eyes of God"

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quantafied (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

It is a difficult point to argue as there is no agreed upon definition of "feminism" or "feminist". I think the section is just trying to emphasize that Wollstonecraft's version of feminism might not line up with modern notions of the concept, even though at its heart they are both simply arguing for equality. Kaldari (talk) 21:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Small error in "Primary Works" section

The entry for the Vindications includes incorrect publication information. "Broadview Literary Texts" is a publication series, not a publisher. The publisher for the book is Broadview Press and the series is the "Broadview Editions" series. This error may make it more difficult for people to find the appropriate text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enkidusfriend (talk • contribs) 20:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. It's fixed now. Kaldari (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Factual error in early life

Mary was the second of seven children, not six. She had six siblings: elder brother Edward (Ned), then her; then Henry, Elizabeth (Bess or Eliza), Everina, James, and Charles. (Source: Gordon's Vindication, family tree at front; also chapter 1, "Violence at Home", p 6-7.) It appears that all of the children Mary's mother bore survived to adulthood. I haven't seen the source that asserts there were only six children, but from its title, The Feminist papers: from Adams to de Beauvoir, it sounds like a derivative or analytic work, and a large overview to boot. It seems a strange choice for the basic facts, when there are several good full-length biographies. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a dispute arising if you change 6 to 7 citing Gordon. RashersTierney (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That sentence was added in relatively recently.[1] The source cited only says she was "the second child and first daughter of Edward John and Elizabeth Dixon Wollstonecraft". I think you are fine to change it and add the new citation. Nice work finding the error! Kaldari (talk) 05:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and corrected it. Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, it's safer that way. BrainyBabe (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

How did this woman die?

This article claims that Wollstonecraft died of septicaemia. I am pretty sure that in his documentary on October 2, called "Ian Hislop's Stiff Upper Lip: An Emotional History of Britain" it was Wollstonecraft that Ian Hislop claimed committed suicide by taking too much opium. Does any one know which is correct? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

She did not commit suicide. Please consult any (or all) of the biographies about Wollstoncraft cited in this article. All of them discuss how she died after childbirth, not from suicide. Wadewitz (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Newington Green influence

I am surprised that there is nothing in this article about the influence on Mary by Richard Price, her friend and then minister of the Newington Green Unitarian Church where Mary worshipped. It was an attack on Price's support for the French Revolution by Edmund Burke that induced Mary to write "vindication of the rights of man." Of course, that was followed by her pioneering feminist writing of similar name. I don't know who is permitted to make changes to this article, but these seem to be substantial gaps. --Flamingswordoflovingkindness (talk) 08:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyone can make changes to the article. Most of the sources on Wollstonecraft, however, suggest that it was Burke's work itself that prompted her to write VRM (see the sources quoted in Vindication of the Rights of Men). Wadewitz (talk) 21:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Portraits of Mary Wollstonecraft

One addition to this article is the portrait of a girl reading a book by Otto Scholderer. It was painted in 1883 and while it is a nice painting, it is not Mary Wollstonecraft's portrait. I question why this painting is in the article. It could be misleading by letting people think that is a real portrait. If someone has some documentation of the story behind the portrait justifying why the portrait is here, it would be appreciated. From the brief research I found, it looks like a blogger misread an article and attributed the portrait as a real one of Mary Wollstonecraft (AJ de Faria (talk) 04:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)).

It is not presented as a portrait of anyone in the article. It is a picture of a young woman reading to illustrate her novels - the caption says "Otto Scholderer's Young Girl Reading (1883); in both Mary and The Wrongs of Woman, Wollstonecraft criticizes women who imagine themselves as sentimental heroines. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Christianity

She's listed as a Deist in the Categories section, but the article offers no reference for this claim. She appears to have been a devout yet unorthodox Christian who was critical of institutional Christianity:

Wollstonecraft was a devout dissenting Christian who we can place in a long Enlightenment tradition of Christian humanism that was critical of institutional Christianity. As Barbara Taylor suggests, the ‘centrality of religion to Wollstonecraft’s worldview is evident in virtually every aspect of her thought, from her uncompromising egalitarianism to her hostility toward British commercialism…to her ardent faith in an imminent age of universal freedom and happiness’.[25] Here, in A Vindication of the Rights of Men, Wollstonecraft argues that ‘to act according to the dictates of reason is to conform to the law of God’.[26] She is, however, quite scathing about God’s representatives on Earth—the British clergy—who are dependent on the aristocracy for their income and who practise their profession for money rather than conviction.[27] She is equally scornful of the British Parliament, in which most MPs have gained their seats through their fortune and hereditary rank.[28]

http://epress.anu.edu.au/apps/bookworm/view/Humanities+Research+Vol+XVI.+No.+2.+2010/5271/ann.xhtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.91.82 (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, she is not a deist. Those categories have been removed. Wadewitz (talk) 21:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Last name

Collapsing edit by a sock of a banned user per WP:EVADE
Her tombstone says her last name was Godwin. Since she's best known as Wollstonecraft then the title of the article shouldn't change, but shouldn't the name in bold in the lead be her actual name, Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin? Whatly (talk) 15:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding a "religion" section to the page

I know that Mary was a member of Newington Green Unitarian church, and that many of the sermons there helped to influenced her ideology. I have a couple of sources that corroborate this fact, so I was wondering if it would be okay to add this section? I'm mostly asking because this is a protected page and do not know what the procedure is for adding a new section!