Edith Thompson, Charlotte M. Yonge and the Boundary Work of Gender in the Nineteenth-Century Historical Discipline

Abstract: This paper examines the relationship Edith Thompson and Charlotte M. Yonge had with the nineteenth-century British historical discipline through the literary periodicals in which both were involved. The paper explores how their differing experiences illustrate the issues facing female scholars and authors during the period during which the historical discipline was narrowing into an exclusive club for male professionals. Working with Ian Hesketh’s concept of “boundary work” my paper seeks to analyze the processes of inclusion and exclusion that shaped the fields of literature and historical study in periodicals. Authorial identity in the nineteenth century required participation in the intellectual public sphere of periodicals, as well as acceptance by other historians. Both Thompson and Yonge utilized social networks to participate in articles and review work, as well as respond to the critiques of other scholars, in publications such as the Saturday Review and the English Historical Review. However, while Edith Thompson was a talented and proficient scholar, her rejection of a professional identity resulted in a marginalized position within the historical narrative, while Charlotte M. Yonge’s successful career as a popular author cost her any reputation as a serious historian. Nevertheless, both women were considered competent scholars and writers, and their contributions to nineteenth-century historiography should not be relegated to footnotes in the larger story of the nineteenth-century historical discipline.