Lost Property: The Woman Writer and English Literary History, 1380–1589 by Jennifer Summit (review)

138 The Journal for Early Modern Cultural Studies Jennifer Summit. LostProperty: TheWoman Writer andEnglish Literary History, 1380-1589.Chicago:University ofChicagoPress, 2000. 274+ pp. $45.00; $18.00 p/b/. Reviewed byLaurie Finke Forthelasttwodecades,feminist literary criticism inall periodshas focusedonthearcheological activity ofrecovering "lost" womenwriters,a projectElaine Showalterin 1981 dubbed "gynocriticism" ("Feminist Criticism in theWilderness," Critical Inquiry 8:179-205). Women,gynocriticism assumes, wrotein fargreaternumbersthan the scholarshiphad previously assumed ,butthismaterial had remained "lost"tous, largely inaccessiblebecause ofitsephemeral nature. Forthemedievaland earlymodern periods,thisinsight spawneda veritable explosion ofnewtexts,newauthors,and neweditions. Newinformation technologies liketheworldwideweband electronic textencodingencouraged ventures liketheBrown University Women Writers Project(see http://www.wwp.brown.edu), foundedin 1986 and devotedtomakingaccessibletoa wideraudienceofscholars ,students,and teachersthewriting ofearlymodern women, especially thosetexts published before 1830andpresumed thereforetobe accessibleonlyin specializedarchivesand rarebook rooms.Implicit from thestartinthenewscholarship onwomen writers generated bygynocriticism is a set ofculturalassumptions about authorshipand writing thathave not oftenbeen unpackedand whoseunpackinghas often been perceived as a threat tofeminist literary criticism. Thoseassumptions areneatly summarized byMichelFoucaultat theend ofhis 1979 essay, "Whatis AnAuthor?".In theprocessofrecovering "lost"medievalwomenwriters , feminist scholarshave tendedto ask ofa textquestionslike"whoreally wrote it?" "Isitreally herand not someoneelse?" "With whatauthenticity andoriginality?" "What partofherdeepestselfdidshe expressinherdiscourse?"Foucaultsuggestsreplacing thisfirst set ofquestionswithanother thatprobesmorefully ourownculturalassumptionsaboutauthorship . He asks: "Whatare the modes ofexistenceofthis discourse? Wherehas itbeen used, howcan itcirculate,and whocan appropriate it? Whataretheplaces initwherethereis roomfor possiblesubjects?Whocan assumethesesubject-functions ?"(160). Manyfeminist critics objectedtoFoucault'salternativesetofquestions ,finding ittroubling that,atthehistorical moment whenwomenwerefinally becoming authors,thenotion ofauthority shouldbe dissolvedintothefreeplayofsignifica- Reviews 139 tion,intoan "author-function." Forthesecritics, ithas seemed politically important toclaima verytraditional, evenromantic, idealofauthorship forthetextstheyare promoting ratherthan dispersing "thewomanwriter" intothecultural processesofreading ,transcribing, andtransmitting textsthatcirculate apartfrom theirauthors. Jennifer Summit's LostProperty: TheWoman Writer andEnglish Literary History, 1380-1589atlastgivesus a scholarly bookwhose analysisofthewoman writer takesseriously Foucault'salternative setofquestions, investigating thewaysinwhichideas aboutthe "lost woman writer" circulated during themedieval andearly modernperiods .Summit recognizes thatnotions ofauthorship havea history (notnecessarily an original argument, but one fewhave takenso seriously) grounded inthematerial practices ofbookproduction .Becausethematerial practices thatsurrounded theproduction ofbooks(both manuscript andearly printed books)during theseperiods weresovastly different from ourown,theanalysisof therolesgender playsinthecreation ofa literary tradition mustbe investigated usingtechniquesdifferent from thosedeveloped for theanalysisofauthorship underthejuridicalregime of"mechanicalreproduction ." Summit's topic isthehistory oftherepresentation ofthewoman writer, specifically thewaysinwhichherstatusas "lost"participatedinshaping ideasabout"English" literature. Shearguesthat, during theMiddle Agesandearly modern period, "the woman writer" was thenexusofdebatesaboutgender, writing, class, nationalism ,canonicity, andbookproduction andcirculation.Ina shrewd and persuasiveanalysis,Summitexaminesthe"modesofexistence "ofthefemale-authored text. Shearguesthatthedispossessed figure ofthewoman writer wasusedinthefourteenth andfifteenth centuries torepresent a marginalized vernacular literary tradition thatdepended heavily onthestatusofChaucer(whom theScottish poetGavinDouglasdubbed"evir wemenis frend") againsta longestablished classicaltradition alwaysdescribed as masculineand patriarchal.Gender figures so prominently intheformation ofa nationalist "English" literature notbecausemenandwomen write inwaysthatareinherently different, butbecause"drawing distinctionsbetween men'sand women'swriting naturalizes a broader network oftextualdifferences thatcan be organized underthis taxonomy" (59). Thesetextualdifferences includedistinctions of genre,language,and canonicity thatwereso centraltotheformationofan Englishliterary tradition. LostProperty provides a detailedand nuancedanalysisbased onarchival research ofthecirculation andappropriation ofmedi- 140 TheJournal forEarly Modern Cultural Studies evalwomen writers. Summit shows howtheworks oftheFrench poetChristine dePizanwere appropriated byfifteenthandsix teenth -century Englishmenattempting to constructan enunciatory position for anemerging layclassofgentleman bureaucrats . MenlikeStephen Scrope, William Worcester, WilliamCaxton andBrian Anslay whotranslated Christine's works intoEnglish inthefifteenth andsixteenth centuries were trying todefine a newconcept ofaristocratic masculinity thatsubstituted intellectual pursuits for thosetraditional markers ofaristocratic manhood, martial prowess andlandownership.She further examines thewaysinwhich religious writing ofwomen likeBrigid ofSweden, Margery Kempe, andAnne Askew circulated within thereligious controversies oftheReformation. These chapters amount tonothing less thana critique ofthewayin which theEnglish literary canonwasconstructed byeliding the dullfifteenth century (andmuchofthesixteenth), creating a tradition that linked Chaucer toWyatt toShakespeare anderasingthecomplex history of gender - including a surprising amount ofliterary activity bywomen - that underwrote it.Thefinal chapter examines notonly howElizabeth Iusedpoetry toconstruct a subject position that could reconcile monarchial power with femininedecorum , butalsohowthatenunciatory position wasappropriated byambitious courtiers likeGeorge Puttenham. Sucha brief summary hardly doesjusticetothecomplexities ofSummit's arguments orthedeftness with which shemoves between twoperiods - theMiddle Agesandtheearly modern which areusually considered quitedistinct areasofspecialization . Alongside itsskillful reconstruction ofthehistories of gender andwriting during thisperiod, LostProperty uncovers thehistories that havehadtobeerasedinorder toconstruct the "English literary tradition" as a chronological series ofahistorical monuments. She showshowtheworkings ofinstitutions like chivalry, government, andbureaucracy, practices likebookproduction , espionage, patronage, andbibliography, ongoing conflicts liketheHundred YearsWarortheReformation allparticipatedinthecultural work required toforge a national literary tradition forEngland weighty enough (for which readpatriarchalenough ) bytheendofthesixteenth century tocounter the authority oftheclassicaltradition. Ifthere areanyflaws inthisotherwise excellent study, itis inthechapter onChaucer.While I found itsargument about thegendering...