“Far Other Times Are These”: The Bluestockings in the Time of Ossian
As early as 1761 Elizabeth Montagu, Queen of the Blues, began hold ing eccentric dinner parties, during which guests "had the feast of shells and drank out of a nautilus shell to the immortal memory of Ossian."1 In honor of Ossian, the recently rediscovered Highland bard, Montagu recreated-down to the unconventional stemware-the ceremonial meals of the Highland warriors described by Ossian's self-proclaimed translator, the controversial James Macpherson.2 Montagu even counted "the Bard Macpherson" among the "tuneful train" who attended her Highland feasts held throughout the 1760s and 1770s (Montagu to Lyttleton, 17 November 1761). A letter dated 13 February 1772 from Montagu to Elizabeth Vesey, a close friend and fellow Bluestocking, describes another "feast of shells" more than ten years later attended by Macpherson (who seems to have been a regular), Sir Joshua Reynolds, Lord Lyttleton, and the playwrights Richard Cumberland and Alexander Dow.3 Montagu's feasts are just one example of the Bluestockings' passion for Ossian, a passion that crops up repeatedly in their voluminous correspondence and, most strikingly, in Catherine Talbot's imitations of the Ossian poems. These sources also establish the Bluestockings' indifference to the raging debates over the poems' authenticity, a subject to which much recent criticism has been devoted.4 In fact, in a letter to Lord Lyttleton, 31 October 1760, Montagu made light of the forgery accusations leveled at Macpherson soon after the initial publication of the Fragments of Ancient Poetry in 1760: "The Bishop of Ossory tells me Mr. Macpherson receives 100 per annum subscription while he stays in the Highlands to translate the poems; if he is writing them, he should have a thousand at least" (II, 211). The significance of the Ossian poems for Montagu and her fellow Bluestockings did not lie in their historical accuracy or ancient author ship, but rather in their egalitarian vision of gender. In many ways, the Ossian poems provided a template for Bluestocking salons, where both sexes debated issues of literary, social, and political interest. Although the term Bluestocking typically conjures the image of a socially awkward learned lady, whose devotion to study and the betterment of the female condition make her poorly suited for her domestic duties, this understand ing of the term did not emerge until the late eighteenth century. Among
“Never Was a Flock So Scattered for Want of a Shepherdess”: Elizabeth Vesey Between England and Ireland
In this elaborately polite letter from November 1771, Elizabeth Carter explicitly praises the many Irish women who resided in England during the late-eighteenth century, bringing with them both “sense” and “virtue.” These women “flourished” in England as well of course as in Ireland where their sense and virtue had been originally fostered and where they still occasionally resided. Many of Ireland’s aristocracy and gentry spent much of their time between the two countries, passing up to 18 months in England and then returning to Dublin for six months or more during the parliamentary season, thus contributing to the societies of both countries.2 One such woman who passed her time between the two countries was the Bluestocking hostess Elizabeth Vesey (c. 1715–1791), the recipient of Carter’s letter and praise.
PLEASURE, POWER, AND THE PURSUIT OF COMMUNISM: SOVIET YOUTH AND STATE-SPONSORED POPULAR CULTURE DURING THE EARLY COLD WAR, 1945-1968
art, with certain students accused of “showing political immaturity, failing to understand the Party’s positions on art.” This episode constituted part of a broader crackdown on abstract art by the Khrushchev administration from late 1962, precipitated the the Soviet leader’s derision of such art forms in December 1962 at the Manege exhibit. Such instances demonstrate the limitations of the top-level promotion of youth grassroots initiative, as the Khrushchev leadership reigned in youth autonomy when it threatened to go beyond the boundaries of the permissible. The dates cited above have particular resonance, since both 1957-58 and 1962-63 represent two periods when those at the top of the Party hierarchy moved away from pursuing a more pluralistic, tolerant policy course, due to anxiety inspired by both sharpening Cold War hostilities and domestic developments. In these periods, official rhetoric censured what it labeled as 639 TsAOPIM, f. 635, op. 13, d. 546, ll. 56-57. This is likely related to criticism of the Party associated with the fallout from the Secret Speech and the Hungary invasion. For more, see Polly Jones, “From the Secret Speech to the Burial of Stalin: Real and Ideal Responses to De-Stalinization,” in Jones ed., The Dilemmas, 41-63. 640 TsAOPIM, f. 6083, op. 1, d. 52, ll. 166-67. 641 Susan E. Reid, “In the Name of the People: The Manege Affair Revisited,” Kritika 6.4 (Fall 2005): 673716. 642 On these anxieties, see Dobson, Khrushchev’s Cold Summer, 156-88.