Introduction

The idea of a single, unified conceptualization of what constituted a bluestocking and what was understood as a bluestocking philosophy is somewhat misleading, as the idea of a single voice emerging from this group is almost a contradiction in terms. What can be identified is who made up the bluestocking circles and what they aspired to be and to do. The idea of a group of like-minded educated women forming intellectual groupings where life beyond the private and domestic was the source of interest and discussion was certainly a break with a normative structure where the idea of a rationally based Enlightenment discourse was seen as the domain of men – and indeed, educated male philosophers, and social and literary commentators. The term ‘bluestocking’ originally applied to women and men and, as Eger and Peltz (2008: 1) show, the idea of a ‘bluestocking philosophy’ was something that applied to a mixed company and was seen as ‘social expression of an Enlightenment belied in freedom of enquiry’.

As Pohl and Schellenberg (2003: 2) comment of the bluestocking gatherings:

The bluestocking circles started to meet in the 1750s and appear to have been at least in part modelled on the French salonnières and were dedicated to ‘rational conversation’ (Montagu, 1765, cited in Pohl and Schellenberg, 2003). They formed around affluent, educated, conservative, prominent hostesses who were friends, including Elizabeth Montagu, Elizabeth Vesey, Frances Boscawen and Elizabeth Carter, who were avid correspondents and united in what they saw as the ‘bluestocking doctrine’ of rational conversation and debate.

Eger and Peltz (2008: 1) show that they largely met in the homes of Montagu, Vesey and Boscawen, who were regarded as innovative women who established salon-like discussions that provided a platform for women to have a voice.