Is it possible that early eighteenth-century women enjoyed greater freedoms and more equality than their great-granddaughters? If we consider the history of gender, and specifically the figure of the female intellectual in early modern Germany, we will find evidence to support such an idea. During the eighteenth century, a dramatic and unexpected regression took place in the narrative and ideal of female intellectuality. This transformation can be detected in literature and art, as well as scientific and political discourse (Hausen Reference Hausen and Conze1976; LeGates Reference LeGates1976; Bloch Reference Bloch1978; Schiebinger Reference Schiebinger1989, 214–45).Footnote 1 In this article, I trace this development in the previously underresearched text corpus belonging to the genre of catalogues of learned women (gelehrte Frauenzimmerkataloge); a genre that was thriving in early modern Europe. These catalogues comprise entries about thousands of women who were active in scholarly fields such as theology, law, art, medicine, and philosophy, and they contain revealing information about the historical development of the ideal of the female intellectual. Nonetheless, very little research has been done on Germany's extensive contribution to this tradition, which counts more than 20 catalogues and lexica.Footnote 2 Due to the sheer size of this text corpus, my investigation will center on a systematic examination of entries portraying the famous Dutch polymath Anna Maria van Schurman (1607–78).Footnote 3 I will be using van Schurman as a case study, through which I will make visible the changing views on women's intellectual abilities as they evolve throughout the eighteenth century.
There are many reasons for choosing to focus this investigation specifically on van Schurman: First, she is mentioned in 16 out of 22 catalogues written within and after her lifetime, which, to my knowledge, makes her the most frequently mentioned woman in the German catalogues.Footnote 4 She is also one of the few women who actually appears in both the early and the later catalogues. The selection of women changes during the eighteenth century from a keen interest in ancient women (as well as mythical ones) to a preference for contemporary noble women and monarchs at the turn of the century. Secondly, there is no other woman who receives the same consistent and abundant praise as van Schurman, who is almost always provided with grandiose epithets such as a “female prodigy,” “German Minerva,” and “the alpha of maidens.” (Pasch Reference Pasch1701, 55; Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 94; Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 91). Using her as an example of how female intellectuality was conceptualized therefore seems quite fitting, as she is so often pointed out as the exemplar of female learning (Eberti Reference Eberti1706, 320; Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 94). But most interesting, perhaps, is the fact that Anne Maria van Schurman can be said to have lived two lives; one as a respected and admired young scholar and one as a controversial religious outcast.Footnote 5 This is especially interesting to the present inquiry, as it presents the catalogue authors with a choice: which van Schurman do they want to emphasize? And what parts of her life should be left out or downplayed? The fact that van Schurman lived such a rich and diverse life that can be framed in various ways allows us to see more clearly the priorities and values of her biographers. Hence this article can be seen as a contribution to three separate fields of research. First, there is the research on Anna Maria van Schurman, to which it provides new insights based on overlooked historical source material, shedding light on her early reception. At the same time, it contributes to the highly underdeveloped research field pertaining to the German catalogues of learned women. Finally, it adds to and supports already existing research about gender narratives and the history of womanhood.
In the following, I will start with a brief history of the text genre of catalogues of learned women, focusing on its role in the debate concerning women's intellectual abilities, which began in the renaissance but gained popularity in the early modern period. The main part of the article will consist of a thorough analysis of a selection of entries written on van Schurman, examining first the early catalogues from the first half of the eighteenth century, followed by entries published in the late eighteenth and start of the nineteenth century. The purpose of this analysis is to make clear the noticeable discursive changes that take place in the course of the eighteenth century, in which the ideal of female intellectuality transforms from focusing on gender-neutral virtues such as academic skill and learnedness to emphasizing traditionally feminine traits such as modesty, piety, and domesticity.Footnote 6 Finally, the last part of the article will be dedicated to a wider discussion about the historical conceptualizations of ideal, female intellectuality and why this ideal changed in the early modern period.
The peculiar text genre of catalogues of learned women
In the early modern period, a vibrant discussion was taking place concerning the nature of women, their intellectual abilities, and their role in society. This discussion is often referred to as the querelle des femmes and it can be traced back to the renaissance.Footnote 7 One of the most prominent issues being debated was women's capacity for learning and their access to education. The text genre of catalogues of learned women contributed to this debate by providing extensive lists of learned women along with brief biographies of their lives and works (Ebbersmeyer Reference Ebbersmeyer2019, 4). This genre can be traced back as far as antiquity where we find Plutarch's book De mulierum virtutibus (On the bravery of women), depicting the lives and heroic deeds of ancient women. Another well-known example of the genre is Giovanni Boccaccio's De mulieribus claris (Concerning famous women), which was written around 1361–62. Both works are written in praise of exceptional women of the past and from mythology but neither focus specifically on learned women. This focus did not become popular until the seventeenth century.
One of the earliest examples of a catalogue exclusively dedicated to learned women is the Catalogus doctarum virginum et foeminarum (Catalogue of learned maids and women, 1606) by Georg Martini von Baldhoven (1578–1615), which includes the names of around 70 women (Baldhoven 1606; see also Rang Reference Rang1992, 526). The book started a trend, and the genre spread rapidly across Europe, becoming especially popular in Germany where more than 20 catalogues were published between 1633 and 1812. The first of these was Die lobwürdige Gesellschafft der gelehrten Weiber (The praiseworthy society of learned women, 1633) authored by Johann Frawenlob (likely a pseudonym, as the surname literally means “Women's Praise”), which consists of 212 entries on women from antiquity up to his own time. Many other catalogues followed until the genre eventually disappeared in the nineteenth century (Rang Reference Rang1992, 514; Ebbersmeyer Reference Ebbersmeyer2019, 12).
The main aim of the cataloguists was to provide exemplars of female intellectuals in order to support the claim that women were rational creatures, and to motivate contemporary women to imitate these exemplary women (Frawenlob Reference Frawenlob1633, 38; Paullini Reference Paullini1705, 10; Eberti Reference Eberti1706, “An den Wohl-gesinten Leser!”; Finauer Reference Finauer1761, “Vorbericht”).Footnote 8 As Anne R. Larsen notes, this idea of the exemplar is “linked to the concepts of imitation and mimesis which are central in Renaissance exemplarity, whether male or female” (Larsen Reference Larsen2008, 106). She elaborates on this notion, explaining how “[e]xemplarity assumed two slightly differing forms [in the catalogues of intellectual women], one based on the lives of illustrious figures taken from the Christian past and Roman moral philosophers, and the other on conduct books containing examples to follow or avoid in the conduct of daily life” (106). In the first form, of which Boccaccio's De mulieribus claris is emblematic, the exemplar is rather progressive, facilitating “revisionist arguments on the nature of women,” whereas the second form offers conservative models of “the good woman” to be used as guidance in everyday life (106). These two forms of exemplarity are both present in the German catalogues.
Because the catalogue authors wanted to inspire women to take up studies themselves, many of the catalogues were written with women as their target audience.Footnote 9 Christoph August Heumann (1681–1764), who wrote the first German history of women philosophers in 1721, presents his catalogue with the hope that “our German women will let themselves be inspired to study philosophy, when we present the most distinguished examples of women who are well experienced in philosophy before their eyes” (Heumann Reference Heumann1721, 832).Footnote 10 In his view, examples were more effective in inspiring and motivating women than arguments. What was needed was for learning to become fashionable, so that “our women may laudably follow the example of French women in studying and reading philosophical books, just as they zealously imitate the clothing styles of French women” (832). Behind this veil of gender stereotypes, Heumann articulates a wish for his female readers to feel inspired by the accomplishments of other learned women and to emulate them.Footnote 11 The wish to reach female readers also explains the widespread use of the vernacular, as most German women at the time did not read Latin. Still, there are examples of some Latin catalogues as well. They appear to have been produced as academic dissertations, arguing for women's intellectual abilities within the university walls.Footnote 12 However, the interest in learned women faded by the end of the eighteenth century and by the turn of the nineteenth century the genre “fell into oblivion and is now barely known and not easily traceable” (Rang Reference Rang1992, 514). Before the genre died out, a discursive change took place within it, which involved a fundamental reconceptualization of its very object, namely the learned woman. In order to make this change visible, I will center my analysis on one particular woman, who embodies the notion of the femme savante, namely Anna Maria van Schurman. In the next section, I will provide some basic biographical information about van Schurman, so as to allow the reader to better appreciate the differences in how she is portrayed in the catalogues.
The case of Anna Maria van Schurman: “artist, scholar, saint”
Van SchurmanFootnote 13 was born in Cologne in 1607 to Frederick van Schurman and Eva von Harff, who also had three sons. The family had settled in Germany after fleeing their hometown of Antwerp due to religious tensions between Catholics and Calvinists, the van Schurman family belonging to the latter group. Already at an early age, Anna Maria van Schurman showed an aptitude for a variety of crafts such as paper cutting and engraving, as well as a talent for languages, for which she is perhaps best known. By the 1640s, she was fluent in 14 languages, which apart from the classical languages of Latin, Greek, and Hebrew also included Arabic, Syriac, Chaldean, and Ethiopic. Van Schurman lived most of her life in Utrecht, where she found a mentor in the French theologian André Rivet (1572–1651), with whom she discussed in correspondence the issue of women's education (Van Schurman Reference Van Schurman and Irwin1998, 39–57). These letters developed into her first published work Dissertatio de ingenii muliebris ad doctrinam, & meliores litteras aptitudine (A treatise regarding the fitness of the female mind for the study of the arts and sciences, 1638). Written as a scholastic disputation, van Schurman presents 14 theses, arguing that studying is fitting for a Christian woman and rebutting possible counterarguments. The Dissertatio found immense popularity and inspired several other similar writings across Europe.Footnote 14 During this time, the young van Schurman was even invited to attend lectures at the University of Utrecht by the professor of theology, Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), which she accepted, earning her the title of “the first female university student” in the Netherlands (Beek Reference Beek, Bonthuys and Ehlers2010).
For decades, Anna Maria van Schurman enjoyed her reputation as a renowned scholar and devoted all her time to her studies. But something changed in the 1660s. Van Schurman's growing discontent with the Dutch Reformed Church eventually led to her break with the institution in 1669, after which she joined the circle of the defrocked French priest Jean de Labadie (1610–74). In collaboration, they established a sectarian religious community in Herford under the protection of Elisabeth of Bohemia (1618–1680). In 1672, the group was driven from Herford to Altona where de Labadie died two years later, after which they moved to Wieuwerd in Friesland where van Schurman lived the remainder of her years.Footnote 15 Before de Labadie's death, she published a combined autobiography and apologia for the Labadist belief with the title Eukleria seu meliores partis electio (Eukleria, or choosing the better part, 1673).Footnote 16
In praise of female learnedness
I will now start the examination of the early entries on van Schurman, focusing on the catalogues of Johann Caspar Eberti (1677–1760), Ivo Hueber,Footnote 17 and Christoph August Heumann. I have chosen these authors because they give the most extensive and substantial accounts among the early catalogues, as well as present a wide variety of themes, which help to add nuance and complexity to the analysis.Footnote 18 When analyzing the early catalogue entries, a pattern emerges, in which certain concepts, virtues, and ideals are emphasized while others are downplayed or left out entirely. My analysis will follow the structure of first presenting the themes that are emphasized by Eberti, Hueber, and Heumann, namely learnedness, academic skills, ingenium, philosophical acumen, literary productivity, and professional acclaim within the learned world. Then, in the subsequent section, I will present some aspects that are noticeably missing from the early catalogues, to give a clear impression of the authors’ priorities.
In the book Eröffnetes cabinet deß gelehrten Frauen-Zimmers (Opened cabinet of learned women, 1706), Eberti starts off his entry on van Schurman with lavish words of praise. He declares that she is “decorated with so much learnedness, lofty sciences, and arts that one may either never in the history of the world, or maybe only every thousand years, come across such an excellent exemplar within the female sex” (Eberti Reference Eberti1706, 318).Footnote 19 As is clear from this quotation, Eberti's entry centers on the ability that one would expect to be the focus of a catalogue of learned women, namely learnedness (Gelehrsamkeit). With epithets such as “patroness of the learned” and “learned muse,” this undefined quality becomes the vital criterion for considering van Schurman as a scholar in her own right (Eberti Reference Eberti1706, 318; Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 94).
To support the notion that she was indeed the “quintessence of all learned maidens,” the early cataloguists list her academic accomplishments, starting with her impressive knowledge of ancient and modern languages (Eberti Reference Eberti1706, 320). Van Schurman's language proficiency is mentioned in almost all of the catalogues, and, unsurprisingly, it is often seen as her crowning achievement. Eberti also mentions her exceptional admission to the University of Utrecht, where she was granted an “honorable and private place in the auditorium” (Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 317), referring to the fact that she would “attend lectures in a special loge that concealed her from the male students” (Irwin Reference Irwin1998, 5). But her admission to the university is, indeed, one of the things that place her on a somewhat equal footing with the learned men of her time. Hueber also informs us of the specific kinds of studies that van Schurman was particularly interested in, namely the academic disciplines of philosophy and theology. This adds to the picture of her as a serious scholar, who is not only a keen student of languages but also someone who is sufficiently learned in “all arts and sciences that she may be a part of disputes with the most learned of men” (Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 95). Her ability to match and even challenge her male contemporaries on intellectual matters is also something that is often mentioned in the early catalogues (Paullini Reference Paullini1705, 126; Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 95; Heumann Reference Heumann1721, 850).
Similarly, Heumann states (via a quote by Ottavio Ferrari) that she was endowed with “[a] capable ingenium up to the competition with the best men” (Heumann Reference Heumann1721, 850). So, not only does she possess abilities that can rival those of male scholars, she is also endowed with a so-called ingenium.Footnote 20 Historically, the term ingenium has referred to a wide variety of phenomena, from simply meaning the ability to reason, associated with “wit, intelligence, cleverness, spirit, mentality, temper, and character,” to implying an exceptional mind with connotations of “inventiveness, resourcefulness, and even genius” (Steinberg Reference Steinberg2020, 159). But no matter which meaning one focuses on, ingenium is consistently associated with mental acuity and intellect. Both Hueber and Heumann consider the possession of an ingenium or genius a central criterion for the women in their catalogues.Footnote 21 Hueber directly ascribes van Schurman's fame and reputation as “a miracle and a wonder of the female sex” to her “remarkable ingenium“ (Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 94–95). For Heumann, the fact that van Schurman is characterized as possessing this ability is in large part what qualifies her for his catalogue of women philosophers, as he considers a powerful ingenium to be the most important characteristic of a true philosopher (Heumann Reference Heumann1721, 93–103, 576–670, 817–58).Footnote 22
Being the first German history of women philosophers, Heumann's catalogue only mentions women whom he considered to be philosophers due either to their education, form of life, or scholarly contributions within the field of philosophy. The fact that Heumann includes van Schurman in this catalogue, and even goes so far as to suggest that she is more learned than Mademoiselle de Scudéry, whom he calls “the queen of female philosophers,” shows just how capable a philosopher he believed her to be (851). As the title of philosopher was strongly associated with maleness, the fact that van Schurman was considered a philosopher (by Heumann) and described as “applying herself to philosophy” (by Hueber) is certainly noteworthy (Hueber Reference Hueber1717, 94).
Another emphasis that we find in the early catalogues is on van Schurman's writings. Both Heumann and Eberti refer to her collected works (Opuscula), and Eberti even gives a comprehensive list of all her books from the Dissertatio (1638) to Eukleria (1673). This tells us that publications were seen as an important proof of scholarly learning, and that van Schurman was seen as a productive intellectual rather than just a student.
The final proof of her extraordinary learnedness is given in the form of extravagant Latin eulogies from famous contemporary intellectuals such as her former mentor Gisbertus Voetius (1589–1676), Claude Saumaise (1588–1653), Pierre Gassendi (1592–1655), and several others. It is stressed by almost all of the early catalogue authors that she was highly respected in learned circles and that she corresponded and disputed with famous learned men of her time.
Lastly, some paragraphs are spent on praising her artistic skills as a multilingual poet and a naturalistic painter but compared to the prominence this is given in the later catalogues, the early cataloguists only seem to mention her art in passing, as a “bonus” rather than a dominant feature.
Oversights and understatements
Thorough as they may be, the early eighteenth-century catalogues do choose to downplay and ignore certain aspects of Anna Maria van Schurman's life such as her radical break with the learned world in the latter half of her life and her devotion to the Labadist cause. I will deal with these two omissions in this section.
In Eukleria, van Schurman retracts all of her earlier intellectual writings, stating that they exude “a vain and worldly spirit” (Van Schurman Reference Van Schurman1673, 11). She then proceeds to criticize the moral and spiritual deficiencies of theologians, philosophers, and other learned men, whom she refers to as “profane, greedy, proud, [and] scornful,” while distancing herself from the studies that once made up her entire world and her public identity (94). Her main concern is the corrupting dangers of scholarly studies, which, in her mature view, only distract from a direct and unmediated comprehension of God. Her hostility towards the learned world is not mentioned in any of the early catalogues. Instead, van Schurman is portrayed as the learned woman par excellence. One reason could be that they were simply unaware of this radical change in sentiment. The Eukleria was not translated into German until 1783. Before then, it was only available in Latin and Dutch (translated in 1684). But this explanation is not convincing, as Eberti explicitly mentions the work in his entry, in which he also refers to and quotes many other Latin works, indicating that he was proficient in Latin. For this reason, it seems more likely that Eberti wanted to preserve her reputation for learning and chose to omit any anti-intellectual statements to achieve a more coherent depiction.
The second aspect of van Schurman's biography to be omitted or downplayed is her role in the Labadist community. Hueber does not mention her affiliation with the Labadists or her commitment to piety at all, and this is also the case for other early cataloguists such as Pasch, Omeis, Paullini, and Lehms. Heumann gives a hint about her religious conversion, as he refers the reader to a quote from the Lutheran pastor Johann Balthasar Schupp (1610–61), in which he compliments van Schurman, saying that she “is missing almost no perfection except the true and sincere (Lutheran) religion” (Heumann Reference Heumann1721, 850). The fact that Heumann mentions this only in passing and in the form of a quotation tells us that he did not consider van Schurman's religious beliefs to be particularly important when it came to assessing her intellectual abilities. Rang similarly notices that “’knowledge and virtue’ are not necessarily thought in relation to Christian virtues by these 17th century humanists,” which supports the notion that, to the early cataloguists, it was possible to appreciate the learnedness of a woman independent of her religious confession (Rang Reference Rang1992, 529). Eberti is the author who spends the most time discussing her relation to Jean de Labadie but, still, he does not seem to think that her religious transgressions diminish her scholarly accomplishments. He writes that “this crown jewel of the female sex would have shone ceaselessly in posterity as the paragon of all learned women, had she not somewhat darkened her shine and reputation by her objectionable doctrines” (Eberti Reference Eberti1706, 319–20). By joining the Labadists, she somewhat tarnished her reputation, but Eberti seems to excuse this deviation by saying that she was led astray by her “genuine eagerness [to] improve her piety” (320). Common to all the early catalogues is the view that van Schurman's religious and spiritual life was not particularly relevant to her status as an extraordinarily learned woman, and that the most important part of her life was her younger years, before she became disenchanted with academic studies and the institution of the church.
While not the only omissions in the early catalogues, these two appear particularly striking to anyone familiar with van Schurman's biography. The following section, in which I analyze the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century entries, will reveal several new themes that are also left out of the earlier descriptions. These themes may, however, be surprising to a modern reader as they represent a quite radical shift in the notion of what it meant to be a woman intellectual.
The glorification of feminine virtue
In this section, I analyze the depiction of Anna Maria van Schurman in the late eighteenth-century catalogues of Johann Georg Heinzmann (1757–1802) and Christian August Vulpius (1762–1827). I follow the same structure as earlier and present first the themes, values, and virtues emphasized by these two authors, namely her personality, artistic abilities, feminine virtues, and religious zeal, after which I will dedicate a short section to elements that are noticeably missing from these catalogues such as learning, academic achievements, and philosophical ingenium. My analysis is focused on Heinzmann and Vulpius for practical reasons. The number of catalogues plummets at the end of the century, after which the genre dies out entirely, which means that there are only three catalogues in this period mentioning van Schurman.Footnote 23 The third is written by Paulin Erdt (1737–1800) in 1783, and although he does mention van Schurman's name, she does not have a separate entry (Erdt Reference Erdt1783, xxiii).
From the very first sentences, it becomes clear that the style of the catalogues has changed by the end of the century. Instead of presenting short, concise, and rather “dry” lexical descriptions of each learned woman, the entries become detailed biographies, poetically describing the life and character of the woman, heavily embellished with personal anecdotes. The Romantic zeitgeist of the late eighteenth century clearly shapes not only the language but also the content selected by the authors. Starting with Heinzmann's catalogue from 1790, we find his priorities expressed already in the opening lines where he describes van Schurman as “[a] learned woman but, more importantly, a noble, pure, and authentic soul, who throughout her entire inner life was one of the most virtuous, complete, and extraordinary persons that her sex has ever produced” (Heinzmann Reference Heinzmann1790, 56). To Heinzmann, van Schurman's learnedness comes second to her purity of heart; what matters to him is her personality, her inner life. He continues to stress her moral character as a kind of “antidote” to her intellect, stating that although she “knew all of the learned and ancient languages” her exceptional modesty meant that she “did not recognize all her merits” (56). It seems that Heinzmann is defending van Schurman from an anticipated criticism, in which intellectual skill is inextricably tied to arrogance and pride or other traits that would be considered “unbecoming” of a woman. This theme is continuous throughout the entry, where van Schurman's relationship with learning is described in strangely ambivalent terms: She is, at the same time, applauded for her intellectual accomplishments (such as her knowledge of languages), all the while being praised for distancing herself from the learned community. Heinzmann makes sure to emphasize that her recognition by the learned world was not something she actively pursued. Rather her early fame happened “without any effort on her part,” and later in life, she even fought to dissociate herself from this “learnedness trend,” which she found to be vain and futile (57). Hence, instead of admiring her scholarly talents, Heinzmann focuses on other talents that better fit the profile of a pious and modest woman, namely her skills in arts and crafts.
The fact that Anna Maria van Schurman was an artist is mentioned in most of the catalogues.Footnote 24 In the early catalogues, this is mentioned as a side note to show just how versatile her abilities were, whereas, in the later catalogues, her talents for painting, drawing, wax figures, and paper cutting take center stage along with her religious views. It is mentioned that “as a girl of barely six years of age she knew, without any lessons or examples, how to neatly cut any figure out of the paper that fell into her hands” (Heinzmann Reference Heinzmann1790, 59). But this interest was also abandoned for religious reasons later in van Schurman's life, as she came to feel “disgust and contempt” for all imitations of God's creation (59). Again, Heinzmann praises her for being able to do something but resisting the urge to do it for the good of her moral character.
Heinzmann's narrative relies heavily on van Schurman's autobiographical work Eukleria, which he cites at length. This is also the book in which she officially renounces her intellectual works and argues for a life dedicated solely to the contemplation of God (Van Schurman Reference Van Schurman and Irwin1998, 78). In fact, he does not reference or quote any of her earlier works, such as the Dissertatio, in which she argues for the appropriateness of studies for Christian women. The van Schurman of the late eighteenth-century catalogues is primarily the “mature van Schurman.” This stands in stark contrast to the woman we met in the earlier catalogues, who is built historically on a young van Schurman, in her years as a linguistic prodigy and champion of women's education.
This image only gets clearer as we turn to C. A. Vulpius’ catalogue from 1812. Vulpius similarly describes van Schurman primarily as an artist of many talents, of which he mentions papercutting, drawing, embroidery, singing, instrumental music, painting, and copper engraving (Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 91–92). He also bases his entry solely on her autobiography, and only the first couple of chapters, in which she describes her childhood and her aptitude for painting and sculpting. The third and fourth chapters that contain the theoretical core of the book where she discusses the disciplines of metaphysics, physics, moral philosophy, and theology, are not mentioned at all. The bulk of Vulpius’ entry is spent eulogizing van Schurman's character for possessing “true English purity, innocence, truth, simplicity, love, and humility” (97). In true Romantic fashion, she is depicted as a deeply sensitive person, who follows her passions and insists on being “true to her feelings” throughout her life, no matter the cost (96). Although she is often referred to as a “learned maiden,” her scholarly achievements are quickly summed up in just a few sentences, complementing her “splendid mind,” her knowledge of 14 languages and her schooling in geography, astronomy, and philosophy (92). The rest is dedicated to depicting van Schurman's “admirable heart” (103).
It is also in Vulpius’ entry that we find a particular emphasis on stereotypical female features that would most likely not have been mentioned in an entry about a male scholar. First, on the topic of love, he mentions how she refused a marriage proposal from the Dutch poet Jacob Cats. But, as he writes “the poet's heart remained hers … and, as his esteemed muse, she inspired him to write many beautiful poems” (93). Why Vulpius chooses to include this information, which was not mentioned in the earlier catalogues, is not explained. But one might venture the guess that he wants to prove to the reader that van Schurman was, indeed, an attractive and desired woman who could have married, had she wanted to. Later, when Vulpius returns to this subject, he laments the lack of romantic love in her life, saying that “regardless how much she knew, she never understood the language and beating of a love-struck heart” (94). Secondly, we find a change in the formal address used in the early catalogues where van Schurman is exclusively referred to as die Schurmannin Footnote 25 or by her full name. This is changed to the rather personal use of her first name Maria. The practice of calling women by their first names has been commented on by Martha Helfer, who rightly describes it as “an unreflected rhetorical gesture that implicitly suggests these women are not to be taken as seriously as their surnamed male counterparts” (Helfer Reference Helfer and Mahoney2003, 229). The use of van Schurman's first name infantilizes her, and this is not helped by the frequent use of other belittling forms of address such as calling her a “lovable maiden” (Heinzmann Reference Heinzmann1790, 58), and a “learned beauty” (Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 94). Finally, Vulpius calls attention to van Schurman's femininity by complimenting her for her talents for housekeeping. In telling her life story, he arrives at the death of van Schurman's mother, after which she took over the care of two elderly aunts and the management of the household. According to Vulpius, she performed this task “with such skill, as had she always done it,” which, he exclaims, should be “a hint to her learned sisters, especially in our time!” (95–96). It is clear that the praise of van Schurman's exceptional intellectual abilities is given on the condition that she still lives up to traditional domestic expectations for women, including being eligible for marriage (although not necessarily married) and a capable housekeeper.
Finally, her religious conviction receives a lot of attention in the later catalogues. Heinzmann and Vulpius applaud van Schurman's courage in her decision to leave the Dutch Reformed Church, while not necessarily supporting or condoning her theological views. Her unpopular commitment to the Labadist community was seen as proof of her passionate spirit and her commitment to following her heart. Vulpius calls her critics “prosaically rude” in their attacks on her newfound system of belief; van Schurman, on the other hand, “always remained balanced, quiet, [and] calm” (Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 96). They do not see her as a fallen woman, nor as someone who deviated from “the one true path.” On the contrary, Heinzmann states that “until her death she made it her chief concern to be a Christian; and indeed, in the sense of the true, active follower of the first church” (Heinzmann Reference Heinzmann1790, 57). This is also the understanding of Labadism present in Vulpius’ entry, where he defines a Labadist as “a person, who had joined a small congregation, and who imagines Christianity and true Christians as they were in the time of John and Peter” (Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 98). Both strive to present the Labadists in sympathetic terms and not in contrast to a “right” kind of Christianity.Footnote 26
Notable omissions
In the case of the late catalogues, it is particularly telling which elements of van Schurman's life are not mentioned. For the most part, her knowledge of philosophy and theology and other typically “male” scholarly fields is left out or only mentioned in passing instead of being emphasized as an important part of her studies. Van Schurman is never described as a philosopher, although her knowledge of philosophy is praised in both Hueber and Heumann's catalogue. Heinzmann does not mention philosophy at all, and Vulpius only briefly remarks that “[s]he was well-educated in philosophy, geography, and astronomy but, in spite of that, she was uncommonly modest and humble” (Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 92). Vulpius seems to suggest that her schooling in philosophy was in danger of compromising her modesty and was therefore something to tolerate rather than celebrate. Likewise, the term ingenium is completely absent. This might just be a linguistic trend but analyzed together with the general shift in the narrative around female intellectuals, it might also be a symptom of something bigger.Footnote 27 It may indicate a shift from applauding learned women for their ability to reason to casting them as disciples of learned men, what Sarah Hutton calls the “coat-tail-syndrome” (Hutton Reference Hutton2019, 687), and focusing instead on their “womanly” traits such as emotion and artistic skills over their scholarship.
Secondly, there is no reference to her time at the University of Utrecht, despite the fact that she was their first female student, making her admission a historical event. Although her studies at the university were unconventional compared to the education received by her fellow male students, she did receive some formal education, when she attended lectures there from 1636 onwards (Larsen Reference Larsen2016, 75–76). This leads us to the third omission from the late eighteenth-century catalogues, namely van Schurman's appeals for women's education. This early feminist idea is one of the primary reasons why scholars are interested in her life and work today. In her own time, people and especially women found the notion enticing, and she became famous as a champion of female learning. Her argument for women's education is most thoroughly presented in the Dissertatio, which is mentioned by neither Heinzmann nor Vulpius. In fact, this is the case for all her writings (including letters and poems) except for Eukleria, in which she has completely abandoned the fight for women's access to knowledge.
The last notable omission from the later catalogues is her correspondence with many learned men and women from all over Europe. Anne Maria van Schurman was an integral part of what has become known as the republic of letters, as well as what Carol Pal calls “the Republic of Women” (Pal Reference Pal2012). The term Republic of Women, inspired by Laura Cereta's description of learned women as muliebris respublica, denotes “an intellectual commonwealth whose citizens were all female scholars” (Cereta Reference Cereta and Robin1997, 80; Pal Reference Pal2012, 1). According to Pal, this network existed from 1630 to 1680 and included numerous famous writers and philosophers across Europe, such as Princess Elisabeth of Bohemia, Marie de Gournay, Marie du Moulin, and Bathsua Makin. As a part of the much larger commonwealth now called the republic of letters, this network of women was very influential in shaping early modern intellectual culture through their exchanges and collective forming of ideas, and Anna Maria van Schurman was a respected and important part of it (Pal Reference Pal2012, 52–78).Footnote 28 Some early catalogues mention van Schurman's correspondence with other learned women, such as her letter exchange in Hebrew with Marie du Moulin (e.g., Heumann Reference Heumann1721, 847). But even those who do not make references to her female “colleagues” instead remark on her intellectual interactions with learned men, as mentioned above. Heinzmann and Vulpius do neither. Their portrayals do not position her as a part of an intellectual network. If anything, they place her in opposition to the learned world. In Vulpius’ rendition, van Schurman is forced into scholarly life “entirely against her will” by her intellectual contemporaries Voetius, Saumaise, Rivet, Friedrich Spanheim (1600–49), and Daniël Heinsius (1580–1655) (Vulpius Reference Vulpius1812, 93). This is described as causing her great distress due to her modest and virtuous nature, leading eventually to her condemnation of the “learned republic,” which she finds “adorned with the vanity of learning” (99). It is true that she expresses these opinions in her autobiography. It is, however, only one side of her life story, given that she defended the pursuit of knowledge in her youth.
In conclusion, the major changes in the narrative of the learned woman that can be determined based on the lexical entries on Anna Maria van Schurman from the early to the late eighteenth century are the following: First, the focus on academic skill and exceptional learnedness is replaced by an emphasis on personal character and traditional feminine virtues such as purity, innocence, modesty, and piety. Secondly, the image of van Schurman as an internationally recognized scholar of many academic disciplines (languages, theology, philosophy, geography, and arts) is limited to centering on her skills in the arts. Thirdly, we see a shift in the description of her relationship with the learned world. In the early catalogues, van Schurman is seen as the crown jewel of learned society in the Netherlands—maybe even in Europe. They do not mention her renunciation of her academic works and her criticism of the sciences, which can be found in Eukleria. In the later catalogues, on the other hand, van Schurman is described as being in conflict with the learned world throughout her life; a tension that is only released when she decides to abandon this life in favor of a deeper religious commitment. Fourthly, she is stripped of her title as “philosopher” and genius (or as someone possessing philosophical ingenium) by the end of the century. From the point of view of feminist history of philosophy, it is interesting to note that, based on this particular text genre, early eighteenth-century writers were far more inclined to ascribe the role of philosopher to a woman than their successors were. In addition, we see a shift in focus from the public to the private sphere. In the catalogues of Eberti, Hueber, and Heumann, van Schurman is painted as a public figure, who is sought out by the most learned men of Europe. This stands opposed to the later catalogues where the authors stress how she never wanted to be famous and how she fought to lead a quiet life.Footnote 29 Finally, a striking change can be detected in the portrayal of the Labadists, shifting from little or no mention of the religious community to an extensive and mostly positive representation, emphasizing van Schurman's deep-felt emotional connection to the community and her authenticity in choosing a path in life that was unpopular but right for her.
Equality and complementarity: shifting ideals of female virtue
So far, I have shown how the portrayals of Anna Maria van Schurman in the catalogues of learned women dramatically changed through the eighteenth and early nineteenth century. For this last part, I want to “zoom out” and address how this change corresponds to a larger transformation of gender narratives that took place in Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth century. This transformation has been conceptualized in several ways: as the “polarization of gender characteristics,” as the rise of a “cult of womanhood,” a shift from “similarity” to “distinctiveness,” or the “triumph of complementarity” (Hausen Reference Hausen and Conze1976; LeGates Reference LeGates1976; Bloch Reference Bloch1978; Schiebinger Reference Schiebinger1989). All of these theories highlight similar elements in their analyses, such as women's exclusion from the public sphere, the accentuation of sexual difference over equality, and a Romantic view on femininity.
Marlene LeGates describes how “a dramatic change in the image of woman” occurred in the literature of the eighteenth century, leading to the idealization of character traits such as sensibility, innocence, virtue, obedience, religious piety, modesty, and amiability in women (LeGates Reference LeGates1976, 21, 28–29, 34–35, 37). According to LeGates, earlier literature mostly satirized domestic life, paying more attention to “unruly” women than the “virtuous and obedient” ones (LeGates Reference LeGates1976, 23). But that changed by the eighteenth century when “the image of the disorderly woman [was] replaced by the image of the chaste maiden and obedient wife” (LeGates Reference LeGates1976, 23); an image later popularized in the figure of “the Angel in the House.”Footnote 30 This account matches the analysis of Karin Hausen, who traced a polarization or typification of gender characteristics during the same period. She also found that certain traits were being attributed to the “nature or essence of man and woman,” separating them into two distinct groups with contrasting qualities (Hausen Reference Hausen and Conze1976, 363). Men came to be seen as active, strong, independent, rational, and contemplative, whereas women were perceived as passive, weak, dependent, emotional, and amenable.
In The mind has no sex? by Londa Schiebinger, this polarization of characteristics is also described but framed, instead, as the rise of the theory of complementarity.Footnote 31 According to Schiebinger, the most important discursive shift is that from a sixteenth- and seventeenth-century focus on sexual equality, in which the bodies of men and women are considered almost identical except for their reproductive organs, to an emphasis on physiological difference, which is then translated into social difference. She defines the late eighteenth-century idea of complementarity as “a theory which taught that man and woman are not physical and moral equals but complementary opposites,” and states that, based on this theory, “women were not to be viewed [as] merely inferior to men but as fundamentally different from, and thus incomparable to, men” (Schiebinger Reference Schiebinger1989, 217). Schiebinger, who is a historian of science, explains what this new narrative meant for female scientists and scholars. As women were seen as belonging in the domestic sphere, their learning should be aimed at developing specifically feminine talents and improving “a woman's abilities in the home” (226). This meant that some fields of study were viewed as off limits, fearing that “equal education would masculinize women” (230). Some scientific fields, such as the study of “history, the gospels, and the Old Testament,” were seen as appropriate for women, whereas “Latin, metaphysics, geometry, [and astronomy]” were not (239). An artistic education in “painting, music, and poetry” was also considered “particularly suitable for women” (241). However, regardless which scientific discipline female scholars practiced, it was the common notion that “their ambitions … should not transcend those of the amateur” (242). In other words, women should not be professional scholars but private dilettantes. This point also relates to the question of intellectual ability. Owing partly to the philosophy of Rousseau, who very much embodies the complementarian view,Footnote 32 Schiebinger states that women were thought to “lack the genius to engage in the search for abstract and speculative truths” (236). Women could be erudite, skilled, and well-read but not geniuses. Learning was seen as a fundamentally different practice for women than for men—different in content, purpose, and intensity.
The difference in kind rather than degree has also been noted by Ruth Bloch, who identifies this feature as one of the main changes in the gender narrative from the seventeenth to the eighteenth century. According to her, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were characterized by “a vertical, hierarchical definition [of sexual difference] that stressed qualitative similarities [over] traditional horizontal and qualitative sex distinctions, attributing to each sex a separate sphere of activity” (Bloch Reference Bloch1978, 238). Essentially, men and women were capable of doing the same things, but women were generally seen as capable to a lesser degree than men were, though not excluded by definition. Bloch identifies, in this period, a “tendency to blur many distinctions between the sexes,” arguing that “women lost some distinctiveness … but gained greater access to traditionally masculine sources of respect” (238). She also specifically mentions that literature, defending women in the debate over female nature (such as the early catalogues), “tended to emphasize the same qualities in women that were most admired in men” (245). This also changed in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; by this time, “[m]ale and female imagery and activities became more distinct and increasingly associated with contrasting ‘rational’ and ‘affective’ styles” (245). This description fits very well together with Schiebinger's account of the rise of complementarity. Both stress how seventeenth-century gender ideals were centered on similarities or equality, making it theoretically possible for women to compete with men, although social hierarchies still made this difficult in practice. Both scholars also agree that, by the end of the eighteenth century, the idea of womanhood had changed, and women were seen instead as complementing men by contributing specifically female qualities and virtues.
While the theories paint a quite coherent picture of the changes that took place during this period, the explanations they offer as to why this change occurred vary, depending on the methodological framework used by the scholars as well as their disciplinary backgrounds. Bloch attributes the change in gender roles to economic and cultural factors such as the emergence of Romanticism, evangelical Protestantism, and industrialism (Bloch Reference Bloch1978, 246). With production being commercialized and concentrated in factories and workshops, “domestic work [was transformed] into an activity with no commercial value,” which, according to Bloch, led to the devaluation of the “woman's sphere” (246).Footnote 33 Men became the “active breadwinners” of the family, and women's role was altered into that of the “passive nurturer” (247). On the other hand, women gained influence in “the sacred, moral, and emotional spheres of life” (246).
Schiebinger offers another explanation, which focuses on the aftermath of the Enlightenment. She argues that liberal, egalitarian Enlightenment philosophy created a problem concerning women's place in society, namely the issue of “how the continued subordination of women [was] to be reconciled with the axiom that all men are by nature equal” (Schiebinger Reference Schiebinger1989, 214–15). Or in Mary Astell's famous words: “If all men are born Free, how is it that all Women are born Slaves?” (Astell Reference Astell and Springborg1996, 18). Enlightenment thinkers had advanced the notion of universal equality seemingly without realizing the dramatic effects such an idea would have on the social structure of society. When women's rights advocates, then, used the same idea of equality to argue for women's involvement in public affairs, the notion of complementarity emerged as a response, and the argument was formed that women were by nature inferior to men due to their weaker physical constitution and the burden of motherhood.
Schiebinger is not the only one to see this change as the backlash of Enlightenment thought; LeGates also perceives the “new ideology of the nuclear family” and its emphasis on feminine virtues as a response to a fear of women's uncontrolled sexuality, supposedly an effect of the “new morality” of the Enlightenment (LeGates Reference LeGates1976, 35–36). Several other scholars have argued that the unrest preceding and following the French Revolution and the political instability which took hold of Europe during the revolutionary years likewise contributed to the suppression of women's rights (Schiebinger Reference Schiebinger1989, 225; Fraisse Reference Fraisse1994, 1–26; O'Neill Reference O'Neill and Kourany1997, 37).
Although the explanatory models vary, they do not contradict one another, and together they help to tell a nuanced story of the shift in gender narratives at this point in history. This story, I have found, is strongly supported by the catalogue entries on Anna Maria van Schurman, which provide concrete historical evidence of the discursive change. The early catalogues present van Schurman as being in conversation with contemporary learned men, even competing with them, indicating that she is seen, at least to some extent, to be their equal. She is also praised for her erudition in fields that would later be considered masculine, as well as being portrayed as an active scholar with several publications, rather than simply a passive recipient of knowledge. Lastly, she is credited with possessing an ingenium or genius; a term that is completely absent from the later catalogues. In contrast, these late eighteenth-century catalogues emphasize so-called “feminine virtues.” They focus on her domestic life, casting her as an attentive housekeeper and potential wife. She is primarily praised for her talents in what came to be seen as “feminine fields” such as the study of scripture, arts, and poetry. Finally, the story of how she was forced into academia against her will and only reluctantly participated in learned debates supports the complementarian view on women as belonging to the private sphere, fit to be intellectual amateurs rather than professional scholars. It is striking to see just how accurately this societal and cultural change, which has been identified and analyzed by numerous scholars, can be traced in the narratives built around the once legendary figure of Anna Maria van Schurman.
Lasting effects of the Romantic gender narrative
In this text, I have carried out a close examination of the entries on Anna Maria van Schurman in the catalogues of learned women and traced the redefinition of the female intellectual from the beginning to the end of the eighteenth century. I have identified distinct differences in the expectations and values related to female intellectuality, which support the notion that the overarching discourse on womanhood underwent a significant and radical transformation during this period. This change, which has been conceptualized in many ways, consists in a shift in focus from an Enlightenment notion of gender equality to a Romantic idea of sexual difference, stressing specific masculine and feminine traits as well as their complementarity.
This Romantic notion of womanhood provides the basis of many sexist ideas that are still dominant today, and this backlash has had serious long-term consequences for women's access to academia and to philosophy in specific (Riley et al. Reference Riley, Hannah Frith and Veseley2006; Baron et al. Reference Baron, Dougherty and Miller2015; Biggs et al. Reference Biggs, Hawley and Biernat2017). It was during this period that learned women stopped being considered geniuses and philosophers, paving the way for the male-dominated canon of philosophers we have today. The very role models or “exemplars,” which the early cataloguists found so important for motivating young women to become scholars, changed character and became “feminized” versions of themselves. The catalogues offer an important insight into this gradual devaluation of women's learning. In these works, van Schurman, once known as the most learned woman in Europe, was reshaped into a sensitive artist and modest pietist, while her philosophical engagement slipped out of sight. Most likely, this reconceptualization of the female intellectual has played a vital role in the historical development that has resulted in the current underrepresentation of women in many academic fields.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to the editors and two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and critical remarks on earlier versions of this article. I am also incredibly grateful for the valuable feedback and continual support from Sabrina Ebbersmeyer. Finally, I am thankful for many inspiring conversations on the topic with Rosa Skytt Burr, Matilda Amundsen Bergström, Martin Fog Lantz Arndal, and Anna Cornelia Ploug.
Anne-Sophie Sørup Wandall is a PhD Fellow at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. She has a BA in philosophy and comparative literature from the University of Copenhagen and an MA in philosophy from the University of Freiburg, Germany. Her main research areas are early modern philosophy and feminist history of philosophy. In her dissertation she examines the marginalization of female philosophers and the gendering of philosophy as an academic discipline in Germany and the Netherlands during the seventeenth and eighteenth century.
