Comments on: Lady Ranelagh by Michelle DiMeo

By: RadGradReviewer

RadGradReviewer — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 03:04:05 +0000

In reply to RadGradReviewer. *The implication is that Jones would have felt similarly, particularly since the two participated in the same intellectual circle (46-47). (added page numbers)

By: RadGradReviewer

RadGradReviewer — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 03:02:46 +0000

Despite the lack of a personal archive, I did not feel like I was missing out on details of Lady Ranelagh‘s personal life due to how DiMeo used the sources (2, 10). In chapter two, she articulates different types of letters and how women exercised agency in foregoing publication (40, 47). For instance, Dorothy Moore was angry with Samuel Hartlib’s publication of her work without her permission (47). Though her work was a letter meant for circulation (rather than private correspondence), printing meant she lost control over the message (40, 46-47). The implication is that Jones would have felt similarly, particularly since the two participated in the same intellectual circle. After chapter two, I felt like I had a better understanding of Lady Ranelagh and how she fit into the broader world of print and ideology.

Furthermore, compared to Black Tudors, the ability to write a monograph on this woman demonstrates to what extent this individual’s social status privileged her life and the resulting sources (7). Though DiMeo expressly disregards status in her analysis, I think it important for the author to recognize this source bias (4).

By: Vincent Cervone

Vincent Cervone — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 01:55:43 +0000

I also agree with Matt and Callan that Dr. Michelle DiMeo does a good job at forming the narrative surrounding the evidence of a prominent figure who does not have much of their primary work survive. I found the passage about the events of the Irish rebellion to be one of my favorite passages of this book. As Logan noted, it (along with others) had good connections between the mindsets of the people and historical events. While I like to read biographical histories, and find them to offer insights into parts of history that you might not get from other sources. I do agree that finding the general conclusion of the book was a challenge and that it might not have been the best approach since DiMeo tried to frame events through the biographical lens of Lady Ranelagh.

By: Anna Ciambotti

Anna Ciambotti — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 01:49:03 +0000

In reply to Matthew Inman. I agree with the fact that drawing any conclusion from a biography might not be the best idea. Throughout reading this book I found myself in awe of how much influence she had throughout society. In my brain, I automatically assumed that is what it was like for all women of this time. Reading your comment, Matt, helped bring me back down to earth. So yes, I also wonder about the purpose of this book. At first, I thought the purpose was to expand on the historiographical commentary about women in science, medicine, and philosophy in general. But now I realize that may not be a valid purpose. I wonder what could have been done to help the author make a more reliable argument.

By: Logan Skorupa

Logan Skorupa — Thu, 21 Apr 2022 01:02:07 +0000

Hi guys, I completely agree with Matt & Callan that DiMeo does a very good job of forming a narrative around an evidently prominent figure whose primary works largely did not survive the centuries. I personally found the passages discussing the events of the time such as the Irish rebellion, Charles I’s intransigence, and the Interregnum/restoration and their direct links to the beliefs and ideals espoused by Lady Ranelagh to be some of the better connections between historical events and the mindsets of certain admittedly non-ordinary people living through them. As indicated by my choice of words, I also agree with Callan’s argument that one can’t easily (or perhaps honestly) draw any general conclusions on the nature of hierarchical social-gender relations in the time discussed thanks to the decidedly biographical nature of this book. Despite this criticism I would say that if one does have a more detailed understanding of English society than what is offered in this book then this work is very useful in highlighting how the typical norms of English society could be subverted or otherwise worked around by certain exceptional members of said society without becoming social pariahs.

By: Matthew Inman

Matthew Inman — Wed, 20 Apr 2022 12:40:56 +0000

DiMeo should be commended for producing an engaging book that really does a fine job of focusing on Lady Ranelagh despite the challenges of documentation. While she did have a small core of documents produced by Lady R, she was forced to build her narrative using documents from those people who were connected to Ranelagh, something that Callan points out in the review. I think DiMeo has done this well and it seems as though she avoided taking too much license with speculation.
The issue I take with this book is the issue of the inherent problem with biographical histories in general. While I learned a lot about Lady Ranelagh’s life and experience, I question what the larger purpose might have been for this book. As Callan points out, Ranelagh had a rather unique life, she was an outlier, somehow able to move past many societal gender barriers without damaging her reputation or being considered an unruly woman. But can her experience lead a reader to any broader conclusions? A biography is so specific that I’m not sure that one can safely make any general statements about society. Perhaps Lady Ranelagh serves as an exception to the rule; by highlighting the unusual nature of her experience DiMeo shows that most women were unable to challenge the gender barriers that precluded women from having the type of influence that Lady Ranelagh possessed.