September 16, 1911, to the Editor of The Queen, “The Suffragette”

During 1911 Davison frequently reviewed books and plays for Votes for Women. She writes

this “critique of a critique” as somewhat of an insider, both in respect to the fairness a review

should demonstrate, and in respect to her understanding of the history of the Pankhursts and

the WSPU. Her primary objection is that the reviewer faults the book for being what it is, a

history of the Suffragette movement, making it tantamount to a history of the WSPU. She

uses her critique to build a theme that begins by invoking the Anglican Church’s definition of a

sacrament as an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace, and building that

invocation into a metaphor—the WSPU public meetings and demonstrations are important

in themselves, but not only as singular events. Rather they are the outward and visible signs

of “the mighty spirit of the movement.” Contemporary history, like history of the past (see

Lord Acton Aug.6, “The Spirit Behind History”), is not a list of events, but a sense of the inspiration

that gives rise to and emanates from events.

With reference to our recent review of this book, we have received the following

letter:

“Will you allow me to offer a few remarks on your critique on Miss Sylvia

Pankhurst’s recently published book, The Suffragette?

“First of all you say that ‘Miss Sylvia Pankhurst takes little account of any work

accomplished by persons before the society known as the W.S.P.U. came into being.’ But

surely this statement is beside the mark. The very title of the book itself precludes

anything beside the short but grateful mention of the brave pioneers. The

term ‘Suffragette’ did not enter our language until the militant tactics had been

inaugurated, and was a term which the older society very much disliked, and repudiated as

applying to themselves. Nowadays, of course, it has changed its value, and has improved in

interpretation, even as has the militant movement. Still, its reference is clear.

“Then, again, Miss Sylvia Pankhurst did not need to go at any length into the earlier

history of the English movement, seeing that there are already excellent histories of this.

Thus, for example, Miss Helen Blackburn in her Record of Women’s Suffrage, goes at detail

into the previous history of the movement. My criticism also explains the exclusively

W.S.P.U. tone given to the work, seeing that it was for a time the exclusively Suffragette

society.

“Your remark as to public meetings and demonstrations demands also some

comment. The wonderful success of these, which you so generously praise, is but

the outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace achieved by militancy. It

is the cause rather than the result of the W.S.P.U. enthusiasm and activities which it has

been the aim of the authoress to bring before the public. She wishes to make people

understand the marvelous leverage which has produced all these results. As the book

does not aim at being a mere dry as dust report of events which resemble each other

closely, it would not be wise to chronicle every single demonstration and meeting. Who,

for example, would read what would be like a newspaper report of one great meeting after

another held in the Albert Hall, or demonstrations in Hyde Park, when they could peruse

Miss Pankhurst’s eloquent pages describing the hunger strike period? The former are but

ephemeral triumphs which achieved their meed of reward in attracting the public eye and

ear, but the latter get at the heart and brain of the public and make history. Moreover, the

demonstrations and the meetings, the successful newspaper and the vast funds, are all but

the manifestations of the mighty spirit of the movement, which it is the aim of the book to

reveal.

“The kindly remarks which are made here and there in appreciation of the book give

me the hope that you will, in fairness, publish this critique of a critique.

Emily Wilding Davison