Women Writing History in Early Modern England, by Megan Matchinske

Abstract

Perhaps this book should be called Women NOT Writing History: as Megan Matchinske indicates from the outset, women were excluded from the production of history in the early modern period, although they were intimately involved with birth and death, with dynasty—the stuff of history. Although theoretical concerns are very prominent in her introduction, ‘real embodied women’ (p. 8) are claimed to be at the heart of this study, as are ethics. They come together in the form of ‘a “gender-inflected” ethical field’ (p. 10). At its worst, women’s history can be seen as subjective and biased. At its best, women’s history, as Matchinske portrays it, is ethically committed, demanding action. Anne Dowriche’s The French Historie is the only one of the four texts treated here which is conventionally seen as history-writing; an account of the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in France, composed in a way that engages political, religious and national history. Matchinske shows how wide the definition of history was in early modern England; there is a useful quotation from Raleigh showing that history was seen as an ‘illustration of God’s Providence’(p. 20)—‘His’ story, perhaps. She points out that Dowriche’s Historie is primarily moral—‘a Puritan defence of religious freedom’. Matchinske uses this work in comparison with its (male-authored) source to consider the impact of gender on the form, manner and provenance of historical writing. She asserts that early modern historical writing is ‘a call to truth’ (p. 26)—and what Dowriche lacks in terms of power or status she makes up for in conviction. William Camden’s 1586 Britannia is criticised as ‘gentlemanly self-disclosure’ (p. 42) whereas Dowriche’s narrative ‘makes gendered sense’(p. 44). Matchinske finds her account more open-ended—there is an appeal to the reading community to solve the historical problem together.