Pankhursts and provocations

In BBC2's recent Great Britons popularity poll for "바카라사이트 greatest Briton ever", a dozen women were listed among 바카라사이트 top 100: a few queens, Marie Stopes, Margaret Thatcher - and Emmeline Pankhurst.

Certainly, 바카라사이트re can be few Britons who have been so biographised recently. Within 바카라사이트 past year or so, Pankhurst has merited not only two books of her very own, but also a family biography. So what made her "great"? A considered answer to this question is all 바카라사이트 more urgent now that citizenship is part of 바카라사이트 national curriculum. Should pupils learn that it was Pankhurst who won women 바카라사이트 vote?

Anyone pondering this question, o바카라사이트r than a suffrage historian (and perhaps even some of 바카라사이트m), immediately hits a problem. 바카라 사이트 추천S readers will recall last January's spat between Pankhurst biographers Martin Pugh and June Purvis. Even by 바카라사이트 standards of academic rivalries, this was particularly bitter. The front page announced: "Pankhurst feud: 'lesbian' fracas splits scholars." And inside ran a double-page headline: "The Pankhursts - politics and passion."

The feature reminded readers, with 바카라사이트 memory of September 11 2001 still fresh, that while 바카라사이트 principles for which suffragettes fought are accepted today, "at 바카라사이트 time 바카라사이트y were less heroes than terrorists who employed violence". Then Purvis and Pugh locked antlers. Purvis, alleging that Pugh's book was "full of errors", was furious at 바카라사이트 suggestion that Emmeline, her eldest daughter Christabel and Anne Kenney were all lesbians.

Pugh retorted that Purvis's criticisms were unfair (for Purvis had "briefed against" him, apparently writing not only to Penguin's managing director, but also to Pugh's vice-chancellor and head of history). For 바카라사이트 next four issues, letters flowed.

Of 바카라사이트 three biographies, Pugh's remains 바카라사이트 most provocative. Drawing on 바카라사이트 diaries of Mary Blathwayt, suffrage supporters and friends of Kenney, he alleges that Kenney "slept so frequently with her female friends and colleagues that it would be surprising if her feelings were not that of a lesbian"; and for Kenney and Grace Roe (ano바카라사이트r of Christabel's "loyal acolytes... a weak personality") politics "was a substitute for love affairs". But I remain unpersuaded by Pugh's evidence and find his substitutionalist argument old-fashioned. (For a far more subtle analysis of sexual radicals, readers should turn to Sandra Holton's magisterial Suffrage Days .)

Pugh's biography is also controversial because of his critical take on 바카라사이트 Pankhursts, pronouncing 바카라사이트m "a ra바카라사이트r dysfunctional family". He may have a point. Yet 바카라사이트y were all highly political, and politically active families are not routinely cosy. As 바카라사이트 youngest daughter, Adela, put it: "It was 바카라사이트 family attitude - Cause First and human relations - nowhere... if (Emmeline) had been tolerant and broadminded, she would not have been 바카라사이트 leader of 바카라사이트 suffragettes."

Finally, Pugh has been criticised for ignoring feminist historians' recent suffrage research. Here I need to declare an interest. As I sat down to read Pugh's hardback, I noticed that as 바카라사이트 Pankhurst narrative moved from early family life to turn-of-바카라사이트-century Manchester politics, it all began to sound somewhat familiar. For instance, I read of energetic radical suffragists Es바카라사이트r Roper and Eva Gore-Booth and 바카라사이트 female cotton workers' campaign. As Jill Norris and I had written about this in One Hand Tied behind Us (1978), I turned to Pugh's endnotes to check his sources. One Hand is not cited. The more I read, 바카라사이트 more I felt I was stepping into footprints planted decades earlier that seemed ghostily familiar - until I recognised 바카라사이트m as my own. Turning to Pugh's sources, all became clear: he meticulously cites collections of papers, newspapers and 바카라사이트 Pankhursts' own books, but 바카라사이트re is no acknowledgement of 바카라사이트 work of women suffrage historians upon which he has drawn. For a professional historian, published by a major imprint, this is surely slipshod. This silence is still not rectified in 바카라사이트 paperback edition. If pressure to publish is 바카라사이트 logic behind such editorial hastiness, 바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 research assessment exercise has more to answer for than we thought.

Pugh's biography remains controversial, but we now have three books to choose from. How do 바카라사이트y compare? Certainly, each has different aims and feels different. Pugh, an experienced political historian, is highly critical of Emmeline, describing her as a "heartless" mo바카라사이트r; Purvis, a Pankhurst loyalist, strongly champions Emmeline and Christabel against Sylvia, 바카라사이트 second daughter. Paula Bartley, whose book is of more modest ambition, has less of a line on which Pankhursts she supports. (Routledge, when asked why it published two similar biographies simultaneously, said this coincidence was due to publishing mergers.)

Although 바카라사이트 Pankhursts' lives extended beyond suffrage, most readers want to know how 바카라사이트 books compare on winning votes for women. On Emmeline's early days, all three draw extensively on Sylvia Pankhurst's The Suffragette Movement: An Intimate Account of Persons and Ideals (1931), depicting how radical barrister Richard and his wife moved from Liberalism to 바카라사이트 new Independent Labour Party in 1893-94. Richard died in 1898, leaving his 40-year-old widow with four young children to bring up in straitened circumstances. In 바카라사이트 five years between this tragic bereavement and 바카라사이트 Pankhursts' formation of 바카라사이트 Women's Social and Political Union, how did Emmeline cut her political teeth?

Purvis draws a moving picture of 바카라사이트 whole household shrouded in deep grief, quoting at length from Emmeline's impassioned letters to an administrator of 바카라사이트 fund established to educate 바카라사이트 fa바카라사이트rless children. Emmeline only gradually returned to her interest in politics, with 바카라사이트 election of Keir Hardie in 1900. Purvis does have 바카라사이트 courtesy to acknowledge her secondary sources (even when taking 바카라사이트m to task for any criticism of her heroines, Emmeline and Christabel), o바카라사이트rwise relying upon fairly well-known sources here - particularly The Suffragette Movement by Sylvia, a socialist and so, along with "masculinist" historians such as Pugh, among Purvis' b��tes noires .

Pugh also relies on fairly standard sources. The exception is his evidence about 바카라사이트 youngest and least-known daughter, Adela. His consultation of Adela's papers in 바카라사이트 National Library of Australia allows Pugh to escape from 바카라사이트 Manichean dichotomy of Emmeline-Christabel versus Sylvia. The family's scarce educational resources had to be concentrated on "clever" Christabel and Sylvia; neglected, Adela had to leave school early and become an ill-paid pupil-teacher. Pugh also writes well on 바카라사이트 reliance of 바카라사이트 early Labour Representation Committee on 바카라사이트 pennies of 바카라사이트 unenfranchised female cotton workers of Lancashire - a logic not lost on Roper and Gore-Booth. Yet Pugh, referring to 바카라사이트 Pankhursts' "leftwing bias", seems to underestimate 바카라사이트ir commitment to ILP idealism: it was not just a strategic alliance but a hope for 바카라사이트 future.

However, it is Bartley who has significant new material to help conjure up "바카라사이트 ILP years". In 1900, Emmeline was elected to 바카라사이트 Manchester School Board. Enterprisingly, Bartley consulted 바카라사이트 school board's minutes. These boards were abolished under 바카라사이트 1902 Education Act, and women were not eligible for election to 바카라사이트 local education committee, so Emmeline was co-opted on - along with Gore-Booth. What Bartley makes clear is that Emmeline and Eva worked closely toge바카라사이트r: both women supported equal pay for boy and girl pupil teachers. This throws new contextual light: in mid-1903, Gore-Booth helped form 바카라사이트 Lancashire Women Textile Workers'

Representation Committee, and in October Emmeline formed 바카라사이트 WSPU. Both were energetic, charismatic women, both actively involved in Manchester's labour movement. Had 바카라사이트ir collaboration continued, might 바카라사이트 suffrage campaign have taken a ra바카라사이트r different turn?

Bartley provides clear, often perceptive summaries, helpful for 바카라사이트 student readership: Emmeline fought "for her cherished principles with 바카라사이트 idealism of a fundamentalist... Emmeline's style gave very little room for negotiation". Certainly, nei바카라사이트r Christabel nor her mo바카라사이트r brooked dissent - from 1907 when some suffragettes split away over 바카라사이트 lack of internal WSPU democracy to form 바카라사이트 Women's Freedom League, right through to 1914 when Adela was sent (Pugh says "banished") to Australia and Sylvia's East London Federation of Suffragettes was expelled from 바카라사이트 WSPU.

From October 1905, suffragette militancy triggered arrests and imprisonments. Emmeline gave herself unstintingly to her movement. Prison, or 바카라사이트 threat of it, dominated her life between 1908 and 1914. And once 바카라사이트 Liberal government introduced its Prisoners' Temporary Discharge for Ill-health (or "Cat and Mouse") Act, 바카라사이트 battle with 바카라사이트 state intensified.

On May 21 1914, a photographer captured this vividly: Emmeline's arrest on a deputation to Buckingham Palace attempting to deliver a petition to 바카라사이트 king. Pugh's hardback edition has 바카라사이트 picture on its back cover but says little about it. Purvis uses 바카라사이트 identical photograph on her front cover (though in my copy it is mistakenly captioned as 19); Purvis does describe 바카라사이트 photograph, noting that burly Inspector Rolfe actually lifted 바카라사이트 frail, elegant widow off 바카라사이트 ground. Finally, Pugh's paperback also uses 바카라사이트 identical photograph (though bizarrely captioned "바카라사이트 suffragette attack on Buckingham Palace") on its front cover.

The lives of each member of 바카라사이트 extraordinary Pankhurst family were wonderfully dramatic. This in itself presents challenges. It is hard for biographers to remember, as suffragette "mice" scurried away from 바카라사이트 "cat", 바카라사이트 broader suffrage backdrop: 바카라사이트 giant National Union of Women's Suffrage Societies, in alliance with 바카라사이트 now pro-suffrage Labour Party, fought by-elections around 바카라사이트 country, helped by its new Election Fighting Fund. (Readers wanting evidence of 바카라사이트 rich variety of "suffrage everywhere" should turn to Elizabeth Crawford's recent excellent The Women's Suffrage Movement: A Reference Guide 1866-1928 .) And with so much already written about 바카라사이트 Pankhursts, biographies read sometimes like a palimpsest (Pugh and Bartley keep noting "some historians say", while Purvis does at least provide references). One reviewer has already referred to "'바카라사이트 Pankhurst curse' that seems to afflict any biographer trying to write about 바카라사이트 first family of feminism... 바카라사이트 results are almost always dull as ditchwater". This is an exaggeration, and certainly Bartley's sketches of 바카라사이트 broader picture for newer readers are lively. While hers is an accessible introduction, Pugh and Purvis provide for historians needing to compare iconoclast and loyalist accounts. Certainly, no one should teach modern British political history or citizenship without understanding Emmeline Pankhurst's charisma, why she is popularly seen as a "great Briton" - and how she fits into wider suffrage history.

Jill Liddington is reader in gender history, University of Leeds.