The majority of selected texts depict the genesis of the futuristic, utopian societies. In a few selected texts, including Mercia, the Astronomer Royal and New Amazonia (included in this chapter), such origin stories are somewhat minimized. The narrator of the respective novels explains origins in an early chapter, and, generally, they are not brought up again or focused on. Such a model is common in many Victorian utopian stories. That said, many other feminist utopias heavily focus on an origin story in a manner unseen in more masculine texts. The works of Florence Dixie (excerpts from Gloriana and Isola are included in this chapter) are nearly entirely origin stories, depicting the stories of radical, subversive female protagonists whose actions lead to future feminist utopias. Ellis Ethelmer’s narrative, even epic poem, “Woman Free”, operates similarly. Although less specific in its depiction of revolutionary actions and subsequent liberty for women, it does denote women as their own saviors, making change for themselves: “So woman shall her own redemption gain/Instructed by the sting of bootless pain”. Jane Clapperton’s Margaret Dunmore lies somewhere in between, with about half of the novel devoted to the explicit origins of the central, radical home.

As mentioned, New Amazonia diverges in the quantitative length devoted to its utopian origins. That said, it stands out much more for its relatively unfeminist genesis. After a series of global, world war-like conflicts involving alliances between Germany and Scotland and France and Ireland, the entire population of Ireland and much of the male English population is wiped out, causing the excess women of England to resettle in Ireland. Radical women did not simply rebel against traditional, patriarchal society as in the other selected texts. Instead, women rather peacefully resettled due to the effects of global conflict likely caused by men--the text discusses the brave and benevolent (and ultimately unsuccessful) Carolus Patriotus, the leader of England at the time of the revolution. So, compared to the other texts in this selection, New Amazonia seems less radically feminist in its origins.

Gloriana and Isola offer the strongest contrast, as both offer (very similar) portrayals of radical women who dress in drag and directly fight the state. The self-titled protagonist of Gloriana disguises herself as Hector D’Estrange, which lets her receive an education, join parliament, and start a revolutionary movement for women’s rights. One-hundred years later, the world is at peace, women are equal, and Gloria is a hero. The entire novel is, essentially, an origin story, but the excerpt included in this chapter depicts Gloria/Hector leading the massive Women’s Volunteer Companies in the elaborate ‘great hall’, demonstrating the sheer numbers of women and hero worship of Hector that led to the novel’s revolution. Isola performs similar actions. Disguised as a male named Fortunatus, she helps her accomplice and lover, Vulnar, shoot through a police van in an attempt to save Vergli, another revolutionary. King Hector, Vergli’s father and Isola’s former husband, sentences the pair to death, but, upon realizing that Fortunatus was Isola, who he never stopped loving, and that they saved his son, Hector mourns and ultimately makes a national proclamation calling for Isola’s gender-based reforms, including reproductive rights and ending primogeniture; this proclamation, being the beginnings of a new, feminist utopia, is included in this chapter as an excerpt.

Both Dixie works exist in an odd grey area. Unlike New Amazonia, both do positively portray feminists successfully making change, suggesting a bit more confidence in radical women’s efficacy than the former text. Again, both are fully “origin stories”, focusing more on the women’s efforts to change society than new societies themselves. These large focuses on societal genesis in many women’s utopias recalls Beaumont’s idea of important “latent content”, focusing more on the ability of women to make a change than the change itself. As I discussed in the general introduction, New Women faced backlash related specifically to their ability to make progress, so perhaps it is unsurprising that both texts present successful revolutions. That said, below the surface, perhaps neither text is ideally “radical”. Albinski first introduces such an idea, arguing that Gloria/Hector has a rather typical, upper class “gentleman’s education”: Eton, Oxford, Parliament, which does not exactly recall life on the radical fringes of society. Also, Gloria only gains support and traction for her radical feminist movement after she is widely believed to be a man. Similarly, Isola’s reforms only come to fruition after her death and through a male monarch, whose actions are partially fueled by their prior heterosexual union. There are, of course, many potential explanations as to why both Dixie texts blur the lines between radical feminist activism and more conservative approaches to reform. Again, perhaps doing so is a sort of comfort for “New Woman” activists, unable or unwilling to take on a society that so derided them (such an explanation may also apply to the near completely non-matriarchal genesis of New Amazonia--the idea that society may just suddenly, radically change, allowing women to ‘take over’ without requiring such a strong fight on their part may be similarly comforting). In contrast, Dixie’s origin stories may also suggest an anxiety about female activists’ ability to really make change on their own. Perhaps (and, likely, to New Women’s chagrin), there were some continued fears about the inability of women to achieve reforms without male and/or governmental influence, either due to a lack of belief in the movement or a subconscious, internalized sexism. Either way, Dixie’s representations of utopian origins certainly show much more female efficacy than Corbett’s, but significantly less than Clapperton’s.



Margaret Dunmore does not portray a traditional revolution in the vein of Dixie’s works or even “Woman Free”. The characters’ socialism and egalitarianism is certainly revolutionary, but, instead of attempting a national or global change, Dunmore and her companions limit their scope to a singular, domestic space. They put most of their energy into educating children, a more feminine pastime. Is the novel, subsequently, less ‘feminist’ or ‘revolutionary’ than the other selected texts, considering their origins of radicalism and social upheaval?  In one sense, perhaps; the characters put all their energies into developing the utopian-socialist home, but do not consider any true, concrete efforts to reform society as a whole. They seem to posit the developing home as a refuge from dominant society, without bothering to really challenge it. That said, the individuals behind the Dunmore home appear more genuinely egalitarian than the Corbett and Dixie work, not requiring a man or masculine guise in order to make change. In fact, Dunmore is the major matriarchal origin story included here. The title character establishes the community, with a deeply intentional vision, using her personal riches. Most notably, nothing about the origins of La Maison suggest total impossibility for typical female readers. Even more so than the Dixie works, Dunmore literally recalls Beaumont’s “modest fantasy”. There is comparatively little anxiety in the origins of La Maison. A predominantly female, matriarchal, egalitarian group is able to set up the society, facing no opposition from the general world. Again, they do not need any form of maleness to succeed. Duangrudi Suksang echoes this point, also asserting that Clapperton’s decision to set the text in 1890, only two years after writing, further affirms the relative realism of starting such a utopian society (interestingly, Gloriana, perhaps the second most ‘realistic’ origin after that of Dunmore, is also set very close to Dunmore. New Amazonia and Isola are both set in fantastical, futuristic lands). Of course, the realism of Margaret Dunmore comes at the expense of little real revolution happening outside of La Maison, but, again recalling Beaumont, perhaps such an arrangement may have been a comfort to Victorian feminists. So often eschewed as “New Women”, unable to live up to their supposed biological role or equated with prostitutes, they may have found some comfort in the idea of happiness and liberation through a simple refuge from patriarchal society, instead of trying to fully dismantle it.

Finally, “Woman Free” does fit into this discussion, though, due to its vagueness, it is harder to situate. It, like Margaret Dunmore, effectively shows a total matriarchal reform, but it operates vaguely--the reader knows that women are the ‘savior’ of their own sex and that patriarchal society ultimately fades as a figment of a bygone age, but no clue is given to how women do so: radical political revolution, more liberal governmental reforms, etc. Again, such a construction may suggest women’s doubts about their own efficacy for reform--if they are not sure how to make the change they desire, it may offer more hope to keep the process vague and positive. That said, the poem’s tone seems significantly less tense than that of other origin stories. Keeping feminist success vague-yet-definite suggests an inevitability of the feminist agenda to ultimately succeed, even if the means to get there may be a bit unclear.


Ultimately, the texts in this section should be read as a continuum: New Amazonia shows feminist utopian society developing through a series of wars and incidents, not intentional revolution. The works of Dixie depict more revolutionary efforts, but they are stagnated by the use of maleness, monarchy, and tradition to succeed in the end. Finally, Margaret Dunmore and “Woman Free” portray more true, radically matriarchal origins. All texts suggest some tensions about New Women activist’s ability to make permanent, utopian change, but, at the same time, most (though perhaps not New Amazonia) focus on “latent content”, suggesting a sense of possibility for contemporary radical women.