Femaleness, Political Opinion, and Romantic-era Writing

Francesco Corocco's article, "The Colonial Subtext of Anna Letitia Barbauld's Eighteen Hundred and Eleven" discusses Barbauld's perceived "counter-patriot" stance to British militarism: "Man calls to Famine, nor invokes in vain,/ Disease and Rapine follow in her train;/ The tramp of marching hosts distrubs the plough,/ The sword, not sickle, reaps the harvest now, And where the Soldier gleans the scant supply,/ The helpless Peasant but retires to die;/ No laws his hut from licensed outrage shield,/ And war's least horror is the ensanguined field" (Barbauld 15-22).  Barbauld makes the argument that death on the battle field is not the worst thing that happens during war.  The famine that the peasants encounter when armies march through their fields and take their crop is worse than the death of soldiers.  Stolen crops affect the lives of so many people.  If they are starving, they cannot mind the field, and if they cannot mind the fields they cannot feed their families.  The stolen crops create a vicious cycle that leads to more death than that on the battle field.  Not only does she make the connections between armies stealing crops and the death of peasants, she also denounce Napoleon as a leader, "Prostrate she lies beneath the Despot's sway,/ While the hushed nations curse him--and obey" (Barbauld 9-10).  She says that Britain cowers at Napoleon's feet.  She admonishes England for this.

Napoleon Crossing the Alps by Jacques-Louis David

Barbauld's negative stance towards British militarism and imperialism garnered her poor reviews in the Eclectic Review and the Quarterly Review; landed her in Richard Polwhele's "poetic diatribe" The Unsex'd Female.  Her caustic political views caused her to garner a negative opinion of her work.  She had a few things working against her at the time of her publication: her political opinion and her womanhood.  "Because writing was already a transgressive act for Romantic-era women, writing about politics constituted what Marlon Ross calls the "double dissension" of women deigning to write about politics for a public audience" (Corocco 91).  Writing for public consumption was considered to be a profession or activity that only men could do.  When women crossed over the line into a male dominated sphere, they were then considered to be not feminine.  In texts like Wollstonecraft's, there is a call for reform of education of women, but also what is considered feminine.  Wollstonecraft called for education to no longer be only for men.  She wanted an equal opportunity for women as well.  With this reform, Barbauld could have written this poem and had a constructive review on her writing not her womanhood.  She could have published this piece under a pseudonym or even anonymously but she chose not to.  She could have decided to do this, but decided to connect her name to the epic poem.  A male pseudonym could have brought her poetry positive notoriety, but she decided to let all who read her poetry know that the writer was a woman.

Portrait of who is thought to be Anna Barbauld by Richard Cosway

Here's a fun article about famous female writers who chose to use male pseudonyms at one point in their writing careers.  There is a mixture of writers from the past and more contemporary authors.

She chose to publish the poem under her own name instead of a pseudonym.  What do you think her purpose in doing that was?  Why do you think she decided to attach her name and femaleness to this poem?

Barbauld was know as a dissenter and as having an unpopular political opinion.  What do you think her purpose was in writing this poem?  Do you think that she achieved that purpose and how or how not?