The Bluestocking Society of London existed at a significant crossroads in European history: Throughout the mid-eighteenth century, The Enlightenment began to introduce concepts of liberalism and natural rights, inviting a reexamination of past absolutist approaches to government. The emergence of republicanism created the need for discourse surrounding new definitions of civic virtue. Enter the Bluestockings, a group of British socialites and female scholars, writers and philosophers. Through rich, epistolary networks and evening party scenes in London, Dublin, and Bath, (though this paper will only address the London group) the Bluestockings established a unique female literary community at a time when most women were barred from intellectual institutions. The Bluestocking Society, characterized by its guided discussions and emphasis on virtue, “sought to fashion their own identity as moral and social models for the nation.” [1] The Bluestocking Society of London was an embodiment of the changing definition of civic virtue in the eighteenth century, which emphasized women as moral centers of society and the pursuit of private virtue for the public good.

As the Bluestocking Society began to form, Europe was experiencing a time of unprecedented change in philosophical thought: The Enlightenment. The Enlightenment was characterized by the application of the rational laws developed during the Scientific Revolution to the study of human behavior and interaction. This brought a re-examination of the relationship between the government and the citizens[1] . Increasingly, scholars began to advocate for state protection of private property and the laissez-faire approach to economic development. These policy choices mark a greater emphasis on the separation between the private and the state-controlled public realm. As the concepts of republicanism began to prevail, greater discussions on new visions of civic virtue – particularly the relationship between public and private virtue – surfaced.

The Bluestocking Society of London emerged in the 1750s, as an informal intellectual community headed by Elizabeth Montagu and Elizabeth Vesey.[2] Bluestocking meetings most frequently took the form of literary salons and parties where “the conversation consisted of conversation on literary subjects.” Literary salons replaced the average evening party activities of playing cards with literary subject matter and allowed for women to receive a sort of higher education, at a time when that was extremely rare. Bluestocking assemblies were formed around the hostesses, who would not only open their doors but invite guests, direct discussions, and choose topics of conversation.[3] Frances Burney, a peripheral member of the Bluestocking circle, described a salon hosted by Elizabeth Montagu as follows:

At Mrs Montagu’s, the semi-circle that faced the fire retained during the whole evening its unbroken form, with a precision that made it seem described a Brobdignagian compass, The lady of the castle commonly placed herself at the upper end of the room, near the commencement of the curve, so as to be courteously visible to all her guests; having the person of rank, or consequence, properly, on one side, and the person the most eminent for talents, sagaciously, on the other; or as near to her chair, and her converse, as her favouring eye, and a complacent box of the head, could invite him to that distinction.[4]

Burney paints the image of an incredibly hierarchical meeting, centered particularly around the hostess, who was described as a stately supervisor. She was “The lady of the castle.” This description also illustrates the extent to which the Bluestockings were surrounded by powerful people, and the value they placed on the talent and consequence of their guests.

The individual wealth of the Bluestockings was a defining feature of the group, collectively making their assemblies part of British fashionable society. Guests were both men and women of the gentry or upper classes, with the occasional participation of some middle-class professionals.[5] The ability to facilitate literary salons and evening parties demanded a certain level of affluence, and as such, most of the essential Bluestockings were quite wealthy.[6] Their individual wealth allowed them to fund elaborate philanthropy efforts (see the chimney sweep events hosted by Montagu)[7] and placed them in proximity to highly influential members of society. 

The secondary layer of the Bluestocking Society was the epistolary community formed by Bluestocking hostesses, frequent meeting attendees, and close friends. Through their letter correspondences, the Bluestockings found another community: a written one, in which they were able to discuss in even greater detail concepts of politics, literature, and their own work.[8] Elizabeth Montagu was a particularly prolific letter writer and left behind four volumes of published epistolary work written before 1761.[9]  Her work in particular showed that Bluestocking letters were not only means of literary expression, but the grounds upon which close friendships and intellectual relationships were formed.[10] Those who participated in letter correspondences were the true Bluestockings, not only guests but community leaders who shaped the values and goals of the group. Members of this inner circle were nearly exclusively women, and thus the society was defined by its female leadership. The Bluestockings were unwaveringly and distinctly a group of intellectual women during a period when women were systematically barred from roles of political and intellectual consequence.

During the eighteenth century, popular view shifted from considering femininity a symbol of civic decay to viewing femininity as an essential civilizing power. In part, the association between lack of civic virtue and femininity originated from the language used by scholars to discuss civic virtue. The term “Effeminacy” was used to describe luxury and overindulgence to the extent of national weakness. In his 1714 book The Fable of The Bees: or, Private vices, Publick Benefits, Bernard Mandeville writes “That [economic gain] effeminates and enervates the People; by which the Nations become an easy Prey to the first invaders.” [11] Similarly, early eighteenth-century philosophers associated masculinity with militaristic and public dedication, both traits considered necessary for the state. In 1698, English economist Charles Davenant wrote that “For if they [citizens] are grown soft and luxurious by a long peace, their wealth will invite over to them invaders from abroad, and their being effeminate will make the conquest easy.”[12] Davenant alludes to the ties between masculinity and public service, — something that was seen as necessary to a stable society — by positioning effeminacy as opposite to the expected asceticism and militaristic savviness then associated with masculinity. The gendered connotations of language used by early eighteenth-century social philosophers extend to even the etymological roots of the words. The Machiavellian concept of virtù retained the association with the root vir.[13] When translated from Latin vir means man, and is the root for both virtue and virility, even further fundamentally indicating ties between civic servitude and masculinity. The continued conflation of exorbitance and femininity in the language of early eighteenth-century scholars, strengthened the belief that the femininity of citizens and political leaders was indicative of national weakness.

However, by the mid eighteenth century, through the work of scholars like James Fordyce and John Brown, the English public came to view women as arbiters and “springs of virtue.” Interactions between men and women, particularly through marriage, were seen as necessary components of a civil society. Women were believed to be superior to men in their ability to empathize and manners. Through their domestic roles, philosophers believed that women could act as civilizing agents, imbuing empathy and proper civic virtue on those they interact with.[14] Motherhood was a significant domestic role held by women. As mothers, women held both the responsibility and ability to teach their children correct morals and behaviors.[15] Through this teaching, women ensured that future citizens (their children) would have correct understandings of etiquette and deemed societal values. “This essential Want of virtuous Principle must necessarily be transfused into the Minds of Children educated under such (virtuous) Mothers.” [16] This quote, from Rev. John Brown’s sermon On the female Character and Education, illustrates the belief that not only would women lend “virtuous principle,” but that they were the only ones who could do so.

The interaction between women and men continued to be seen as an exchange of virtue and as such, conversation between men and women was emphasized as positively influencing society by civilizing men who surrounded them.[17] In 1809, James Fordyce, a minister, wrote in his Sermons to Young Women that “Those [men] who are most conversant with women of virtue and understanding will be always found the most amiable characters, other circumstances being supposed alike. Such society, beyond everything else, rubs off the corners that five many of our sex an ungracious roughness. It produces a polish more perfect and more pleasing, than that which is received from a general commerce with the world.”[18] Fordyce clearly outlines the role of the gentle woman and the unrefined man whom she civilizes through conversation. The men do not receive this “polish … from a general commerce with the world,” but solely through conversation with virtuous women, positioning women as possessing a necessary and unique role as a corrective agent of virtue.

The Bluestockings fiercely championed the polite conversation that women’s “civilizing power” was thought to rest in. Bluestocking meetings were centered around precisely the sort of civilized discussion that became so popular in the mid to late eighteenth century. Montagu once described assemblies as being united by “The Bluestocking doctrine” of “rational conversation,” indicating that the enlightenment concept of discussion and conversation was a central tenet of the Bluestocking work.[19] The Bluestockings were incredibly proud of their reputation of being able to “civilize” their guests. Frequently referenced in writing surrounding the Bluestockings, the calmness and manners of their guests was seen as a reflection of their own virtue.

Elizabeth Vesey in particular was known for her ability to keep people “in order.” This rumor even caused people to describe her as an “enchantress,” or to align her assemblies with witchcraft because guests were so well behaved.[20] Montagu illustrated these lauded qualities in a letter to Elizabeth Carter where she wrote “Such an influence has ye good humor & benevolent nature of our Vesey, that persons of the most contrary dispositions are harmonized if not brought into unison in her Concerto’s of conversations.” [21] Here, Montagu clearly outlines the “civilizing conversation” that scholars like Fordyce proposed, and references the idea that it is Vesey’s model virtue that allows her to exert this power. The female Bluestockings lend their good behavior (and thus implied virtue) to persons of “contrary dispositions ” (rowdy male guests), and bring them together through conversation. This phenomenon is also described by Sir John Macpherson, a visitor to the Bluestockings circle and friend of Elizabeth Montagu. Macpherson wrote to Montagu that “George the third does not know how much he is indebted to the chearful and Classic Assemblies of your Chinese Room. You gave that sweetness and refine-ment to the thoughts of our Statesmen which could alone counteract the acid and gloom of their Dispositions. … indeed, Madam, we are all indebted to you; and that without your being sensible of it.” [22] Macpherson implies that the civilizing work of the Bluestockings is significant even to the nation as a whole by referencing the idea that the King is “indebted” to the Bluestockings’ assemblies. Macpherson even further articulates the public/private dynamic that women participated in by giving “Sweetness and refinement to the thoughts of our Statesmen.” Women lent their emotional refinement and virtue to men through conversations and socialization that occurred in the domestic sphere. Men then brought these qualities into their positions of political power, thereby transferring the virtue held in the domestic sphere to the public. Women were positioned as the origin of virtue in society through these interactions and domestic roles. This was a significant shift from earlier concepts of national “effeminacy,” as well as power – though only within the domestic sphere – granted to women.

The eighteenth-century shift in definitions of civic virtue encompassed an overall re-emphasis on the cultivation of virtue within the private or domestic sphere as a method of improving the morality of society as a whole, compared to the civic humanist belief that virtue existed primarily in the public sphere. This shift in definitions occurred around the mid-eighteenth century, before Classical and Humanist philosophers adamantly engaged in a concept of virtue defined by public service. Public service as a concept emphasized direct involvement in the public sphere, with action existing to benefit the state.[23] Eighteenth-century scholars relocated virtue in the private and domestic sphere through emphasis on women and commerce as agents of virtue, as discussed in preceding and following points.[24] Both women and commerce were seen as inhabiting the private sphere – though in different ways. Women were given roles in the household and thus held the most stock and power in the domestic sphere. Commerce however, was considered private in the sense that it was disconnected from direct government control. Both concepts juxtaposed the idea of “Polis” or virtue in terms of direct involvement in politics or the public sphere.

The Bluestockings treated salons as microcosms of the public sphere in which they disseminated their political philosophiesand pursued ideals of civic virtue. The treatment of salons as political and intellectual microcosms was in part defined by the structure and hierarchy that existed within salon culture. Bluestocking hostess culture mirrored the hierarchical structure of salons, where hostesses acted as governors of the specific assembly. Hostesses selected guests, as well as mediated discussions and picked topics of conversations. Salonnières were often described as “uncrowned queens.” [25] Their positions within domestic salons allowed them to take on leadership roles in a time where women were frequently powerless. Elizabeth Montagu herself was often referred to as the “Queen of the Blues,” referring to the fact that her position echoed the monarchy surrounding the society.[26] Bluestocking meetings did not only mimic political life, but invited political figures to their meetings and facilitated discussions surrounding pressing political issues. The Bluestockings also saw this as an opportunity to civilize and domesticate the “angry” discussions and sphere of politics.[27] In his previously mentioned letter to Montagu, Macpherson references the “dark gloom of Politicks” [28] and the power of the Bluestockings to calm derisive political visitors, creating a space in which they could discuss political topics without verbal violence and conflict. The Bluestockings invited political conversations into the domestic community they nurtured and by doing so found a way for women to participate in and influence political discourse.[29]

 The microcosm of the Bluestocking Society not only allowed for removed female participation in public affairs, but also proved to be fertile ground for the creation of new works that emphasized Bluestocking philosophies. The Bluestocking Society often acted as a writers group in which Bluestockings were able create literature that held Bluestocking beliefs and philosophies when women were frequently barred from intellectual institutions.[30] These works would then exit the domestic confines of the society into the public sphere, where they disseminated Bluestocking philosophy.

            The Bluestockings’ literary works themselves emphasized the power of private virtue to influence the virtue of the public sphere. Perhaps the best example of this is Sarah Scott’s Millenium Hall, a novel set in the female utopia of the titular town. Millenium Hall has been described as a model of Bluestocking and mid-century reform philosophy. The women of Millenium Hall employ only those who would otherwise be without work (because of age or disability), and then pay them more than necessary as an act of philanthropy. Citizens themselves are expected to support each other through exchange of service: a disabled woman produces cloth for the woman who does the chores she is unable to.[31] George Ellison, a visitor to Millenium Hall in the sequel The History of Sir George Ellison, remarks that “all live in a state of reciprocal services, the great and poor linked in compact; each side has its obligations to perform.” [32] The role of the landowner gains nearly divine status, acting generously and implementing virtue within the confines of their property. Elizabeth Montagu executed a similar employment policy on her estate, both hiring disabled workers and engaging in the same concept of reciprocal service. Montagu “Paired them, and fitted their employments to their several faculties, that the remaining senses of one served to supply the deficiency of the other.” [33] In notes from her 1791 visit to Montagu’s estate, Mary Morgan remarks that “By this stroke of benevolent ingenuity … I hope it is not profane to say, she has made the blind to see, the deaf to hear, the dumb to speak, and the lame to walk.” [34] She implies that Montagu’s virtuous approach to labor had nearly supernatural effects. Writer Harriet Guest summed up this aspect of Millenium Hall’s approach to land ownership as follows: “The microcosm of the estate, which they govern with such exemplary benevolence, corrects or alleviates the inhumanity of commerce in the world beyond its boundaries.” [35] In other words, the women of Millenium Hall counteract the lack of virtue outside the microcosmic and domestic area of their land, through the realization and creation of a model community.

The Bluestockings – particularly Elizabeth Montagu’s – wealth and participation in mercantile commerce informed a belief in the social responsibility of wealth. Following the death of her husband, Edward Montagu, Elizabeth inherited extensive properties in Berkshire, Yorkshire, Northumberland and Durham.[36] The properties included several large coal mines, which Montagu eventually became involved in as the eventual sole owner and key manager. Elizabeth increasingly saw her wealth as a tool and opportunity to act as a benefactor; as an opportunity to economically empower her friends and her employees. Elizabeth wrote to her husband in 1751, that “Money is convertible to credit and pleasure; useful in the hands of the prudent; noble in the hands of the generous; pernicious with the bad; ridiculous with the prodigal, and contemptible with the miser.” [37] In this letter she demonstrates an ardent belief in the transformative power of money. She believed that she was responsible for the correct allocation of her wealth, frequently referencing the concept of “social usefulness.” In 1763 she wrote "If I had not inherited coal mines I should not have coveted them, but as they are fallen to me I am desirous to make use of them,” [38] referencing the notion that she must take advantage of the monetary privilege that has befallen her. She felt that the individually wealthy had the responsibility to engage in philanthropic efforts and patronage, which was heavily reflected in the rhetoric of the Bluestockings, who cited both philanthropy and artistic patronage as guiding principles.[39] As such Montagu took part in significant philanthropic efforts such as the events she held for London chimney sweeps[40] and the small labor reform she tried to implement in her mines.[41] Despite this, many of these efforts were relatively self-interested. The lasting impact of their actions was minimal, yet the Bluestockings relished their role as private icons of generosity. In part, this approach to wealth as a tool for virtue and benevolence may be caused by Montagu’s own struggle to reconcile her industrialist pursuits with her ideas of virtue: it positioned her prized virtue and commerce in agreement rather than conflict.[42]

In contrast to the moral distrust of commerce as outlined in civic humanism, eighteenth-century scholars began to believe private commerce was not immoral, but rather an arbiter and aid of public virtue. Civic humanist definitions of virtue contained a strong distrust of commerce, as philosophers believed that the pursuit of trade would “distract citizens from their service to the state” and would “feed the ‘selfish passions’.” [43] Philosophers like Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) and Robert Filmer (c. 1588 – 1653) cited their belief in the inherent self-interest of humans as reasoning for this distrust. They both believed that humans left to their own devices eventually spiraled into destruction because they were inherently motivated by individual greed.[44] Mid-century philosophers approached the question of private commerce and virtue quite differently compared to their earlier counterparts. David Fordyce (1711-1751) believed that economic prosperity was able to coexist with virtue and political stability, because true virtue relied on the happiness and “perfection” of the individual. Fordyce maintained that humans possess a "Proper Sense" of "Moral Obligation,” [45] countering Hobbes’ distrust of citizens' ability to self regulate commerce. David Hume (1711-1776), argued that the pursuit of trade and commerce would allow workers to have time off, which could be used to pursue civil conversation and virtue.[46] Hume’s argument aligns trade with the gain of individual virtue, positioning it as then a source of virtue and civility.

The Bluestockings participated in the moralization of commerce: projecting the concept of commerce onto intellectual and social discussion, and intellectual ideas onto their capitalist pursuits. The Bluestockings approached wealth by viewing it as an opportunity for virtue. They saw individual wealth as advantageous to the continuation and dissemination of Bluestocking beliefs, in that it allowed for them to host meetings and support the creation of Bluestocking work.[47] Elizabeth Montagu, and several other more affluent Bluestockings sponsored some of their friends so that they had the financial independence to be able to write. The sponsored Bluestockings would often do something to repay their patron: Elizabeth Carter taught Elizabeth Montagu how to read and write in ancient Greek.[48] The application of Bluestocking philosophy can clearly be seen in this model of sponsorship through its similarities to reciprocal service. The opportunity that wealth provided the Bluestockings allowed them to moralize capitalism, as they were able to view it as essential to their spread of virtue through their work. Elizabeth Montagu demonstrated this most clearly when discussing her own work as a colliery owner. Throughout her letters, she would frequently employ “novelistic” writing qualities when she wrote about her coal business, blurring the lines between her work as a writer and coal executive.[49] In the essay Elizabeth Montagu, Bluestocking Businesswoman Elizabeth Child writes that “In reconciling her mercantilism with her aspirations to virtue, Montagu calls on imagination and sensibility as transformative agents. Her imagination transforms coal from dirty lumps into a catalyst for neoplatonic reflection,” [50] allowing the disconnect between her mercantilist work and her role as a scholar of morals to be bridged. Montagu wrote that “The … coals look to the common eye as very ugly black objects but my imagination sees them taking various shapes: the hand of bounty may bestow them in seasonable assistance to distress, the hand of taste transform them to beautiful forms, they may purchase sometimes pleasure sometime ease, & indeed will procure many vulgar comforts.” [51] In this passage she literally “sees” the coals transform into opportunities for philanthropy, comfort, and “beautiful forms.” Montagu clearly outlines her vision that both her work as a collier and a virtuous member of the Bluestockings could align through both written word and the possibility that money held. In Elizabeth Child’s words, “Coal mines brought her real capital, currency that could fund the precepts of social usefulness and benevolence so important to her circle of friends. In that sense, profit becomes for Montagu a kind of moral agent that supersedes imagination.” [52]

The Bluestockings were many things: Writers, philosophers, socialites, activists and hostesses. Yet above all, they viewed themselves as virtuous creatures – amorphous and nearly divine, but aiming to act as icons of fashionable virtue for the nation and society as a whole. It is difficult to say whether the Bluestockings – who seemed so divinely aligned with this then newly created concept of virtue – were actually as virtuous as they represented themselves, but the strength of their rhetoric – both in writing and in action – was undeniable. They wrote works supporting their philosophies, they engaged in salon culture, they were fervent philanthropists and educated individuals; i.e., they were models of mid-eighteenth-century virtue. Ultimately, The Bluestockings existed as a cross-section of a transitory period in British history: they were unapologetic reform it-girls, inhabiting their identity as wealthy, intellectual women to a nearly exaggerated point. Their work speaks to the possibility and existence of quiet radical action within early feminist movements. The Bluestockings were deeply embedded in the conservative British society they inhabited, yet they managed to find and create space for women to hold power and prescience; exerting influence beyond the private sphere they were supposedly confined to.