1. “Dhikr al-sadīī;q ilā al-abad: wafāt khayrat al-sayyidāt fīī; al-Mahjar,” SR 9:10 (Sept. 1928): 739–40.

2. Armstrong, Desire, 60.

3. Ibid., 59.

4. Elizabeth Langland makes a similar critique in Nobody's Angels: Middle=Class Women and Domestic Ideology in Victorian Culture (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1995), 3 n., 5.

5. Badran, Feminists, 136. Badran argues that the EFU's al-Misriyya (founded 1937) differed from earlier “domestically oriented” magazines be-cause it focused on the wife's role as well as the mother's (137–38). Yet discussion of marriage and wives' (and husbands') roles pervaded earlier journals (and books). When the EFU used “maternal” arguments to call for women's paid employment Badran sees this as a feminist strategy; she labels other women's uses of similar arguments as “the cult of domesticity” (175–76, 214), although they used these to further demands for political rights and paid employment. If EFU arguments differed in substance, it is perhaps a matter of divergent contexts more than of textual differences.

6. “Tadbīī;r al-manzil,” AJ 2:3 (Mar. 31, 1899): 110–12; quotation on 111.

7. “Tadbīī;r al-manzil,” AJ 2:4 (Apr. 30, 1899): 155–57.

8. Judith Newton, “'Ministers of the Interior': The Political Economy of Women's Manuals,” in her Starting Over: Feminism and the Politics of Cultural Critique (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994), 126.

9. On “rationalizing” housework, Leonore Davidoff's pioneering article highlighted issues many scholars have since taken up for European societies and then for intersections of ideologies of domesticity and imperialist practices in the imperializing metropole and post/colonized societies. Leonore Davidoff, “The Rationalization of Housework,” reprinted in her Worlds Between: Historical Perspectives on Gender and Class (New York: Routledge, 1995), 73–102.

10. Glenna Matthews, “Just a Housewife”: The Rise and Fall of Domesticity in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), xiii, also 11, xvi. On the rhetoric of domesticity as a vocation in post-Revolutionary America, see Kerber, Women, chap. 7. But, noting that “the pride women expressed in their new learning was balanced by the promise that traditional values would be upheld and maintained” (212), Kerber does not adduce possibly expansive messages that contradictory, ambiguous, or ambivalent rhetoric might hold. This may be partly because she seems to see subject formation as prior to its constitution by and in language.

11. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 57.

12. Armstrong, Desire, 9, 1.

13. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 34, 33.

14. I cannot cite all work in this vein; see, e.g., Karen Tranberg Hansen, ed., African Encounters with Domesticity (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992), especially Jean Comaroff and John L Comaroff, “Home-Made Hegemony: Modernity, Domesticity, and Colonialism in South Africa,” 37–74; Poovey, Uneven Developments; Levy, Other Women; Inderpal Grewal, Home and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire, and the Cultures of Travel (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1996); Margaret Strobel, European Women and the Second British Empire (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1991); Burton, Burdens of History.

15. “Introduction,” pp. 1–33 in Hansen, African Encounters, 4–5. On the intersection of domesticity and civil society as concepts constructing a “public-private” division, and its centrality in the discourse of improvement by reformist nationalists looking to Victorian England and differentiating themselves from the imperial enterprise, see Dipesh Chakrabarty, “The DifferenceDeferral of a Colonial Modernity: Public Debates on Domesticity in British Bengal,” in Tensions of Empire: Colonial Cultures in a Bourgeois World, ed. Frederick Cooper and Ann Laura Stoler (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1997), 373–405. I find his discussion useful for Egypt. But he seems to see the “new woman” and her double, the “uneducated housewife/mother,” as wholly creations of nationalist/reformist anxiety about the domestic as a newly identified space of national strength (378).

16. Chakrabarty, “The Difference-Deferral,” 373, citing Chatterjee.

17. See chapter 6.

18. Tate, Domestic Allegories, 92. Cf. LaRay Denzer, “Domestic Science Training in Colonial Yorubaland, Nigeria,” in African Encounters with Domesticity, ed. Karen Tranberg Hansen (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1992): “Domestic science, which today seems so constraining to female ambition and equality, became a means for increasing women's participation in the colonial economy and raising their social status” (124).

19. Ahmed, Women and Gender in Islam, chap. 8.

20. Baron, Women's Awakening, 155.

21. Zaynab Fawwāz, “Iqtirāh,” F 1:3 (Feb. 1, 1893): 115–16.

22. F 1:1 (Nov. 20, 1892), 14–15.

23. Hind Nawfal, “Idāh wa-iltimās wa-istismāh,” F 1:1 (Nov. 20, 1892): 1–6; quotation on 2.

24. Al-Muqtataf noted al-Fatāt's appearance: while writers were founding periodicals in unprecedented numbers, this one was “an orphan . . . exclusively dedicated to subjects of interest to women and opening its pages to women writers only.” “Al-Fatāt,” al-Muqtataf 17:3 (Dec. 1892), 209–10; quotation on 209. Mentioning F's “Famous Women” feature, the text notes that its life of Morgan came from al-Muqtataf (210). In F and al-Hilāl this text is attributed to “al-Muqtataf.”

25. Mitchell's biography does not carry a byline in al-Muqtataf, but in its general index the article is attributed to Sarrūf. See Hay‘‘at al-dirāsāt al-‘‘arabiyya, al-Jāmi‘‘a al-Amrīī;kiyya fīī; Bayrūt, Fihris al-Muqtataf 1876–1952, vol. 2 (Beirut: American University in Beirut, 1968), 382. In the article “Women Astronomers” in al-Muqtataf attributed to Yāqūt Sarrūf's translation of an essay by “Monsieur Lākranj” (LaGrange?) from “Jarīī;dat al-samā‘‘ wa-al-ard,” Sarrūf adds a sentence on Mitchell; the original apparently did not mention her. (Sarrūf also expands the mention of Caroline Herschel.) “Al-Nisā‘‘ al-falakiyyāt,” al-Muqtataf (Bāb tadbīī;r al-manzil) 10:6 (Mar. 1886): 371–73; her additions, 372.

26. “Khasārat rabbāt al-aqlām,” al-Muqtataf 16:11 (Aug. 1892): 779–80.

27. “Hannā Bizānt wa-al-falsafa al-sharqiyya,” al-Muqtataf 17:8 (May 1893): 515–20; “Madām Blāfātsky wa-al-diyāna al-sirriyya” [attributed to Max Müller], al-Muqtataf 17:10 (June 1893): 668–70; “Madame Clemance [sic] Augustine Royer” [in Latin letters], al-Muqtataf 23:8 (Aug. 1899): 561–63.

28. Much of its material came from English periodicals. Ya‘‘qūb Sarrūf (Yāqūt's spouse) published his translation of Samuel Smiles's Self-Help in 1880. Al-Muqtataf was largely silent on Britain's presence in Egypt. Nadia Farag, “Al-Muqtataf 1876–1900: A Study of the Influence of Victorian Thought on Modern Arabic Thought” (Ph.D. diss., Oxford University, 1969).

29. Where biography prefaces a general topic (Besant, Blavatsky, Royer) or profiles a ruling monarch (Victoria, Catherine II, empress of China), it merits inclusion in front with the men. The queen of Rumania, writer and charity patron, like Sarrūf's friends, is in “Home Management.” Fourteen out of twenty-four biographies through 1913 are in “Home Management.”

30. Later years saw the link between “Home Management” and female biography formalized. In the January 1926 issue of al-Muqtataf (68:1, 71), we find under “Bāb tadbīī;r al-manzil: al-Ihtifāl bi-dhikrā Bāhithat al-Bādiya” an explanation: “We opened this section to include all that it is important for the woman and folk of the house [ahl al-bayt] to know concerning child raising, food arrangement, clothing, drink, the residence, adornment, the life histories of famous women, and other similar subjects that will bring benefit on every family” (my emphasis).

31. Yāqūt Sarrūf, “Bāb tadbīī;r al-manzil: al-Sayyida Nasra Ilyās,” al-Muqtataf 13:8 (May 1889): 549–50; quotations on 549.

32. The author uses the same verb (dhākara) with which she had described her subject's mode of tackling “scientific study” and subjects in al-Muqtataf. It suggests not light conversation about “woman's condition” but something more serious. The verb connotes memorization and study.

33. Yāqūt Sarrūf, “Bāb tadbīī;r al-manzil: al-Sayyida Nasra Ilyās,” al-Muqtataf 13:8 (May 1889): 550.

34. The first volume's “Ashhar al-hawādith wa-a‘‘zam al-rijāl” featured Napoleon Bonaparte, various Ottoman sultans, Confucius, Peter the Great, George Washington, the Emir ‘‘Abd al-Qādir, Victor Hugo, Muhammad ‘‘Alīī;, and Ramses II. The series featured “Eastern” and “Western” subjects from the start, except when it came to women.

35. On Zaydān's and his son's editorial directions, see Tarrāzīī;, Tārīkh, 3:86–89, who emphasizes their grasp of what readers across classes and ages wanted, the magazine's popularity, and the editorial concern with educating youth. See also Vernon Egger, A Fabian in Egypt: Salamah Musa and the Rise of the Professional Classes in Egypt, 1909–1939 (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1986), 13–17, 69–70, 169–70. Zaydān's exclusion of women from The Crescent's biographical feature, and from his biographical dictionary, is intriguing, since female protagonists structured many of his historical novels.

36. Should a link be made between the single exception and its male authorship, editorial control, and primary implied audience? In Ibrāhīī;m Ramzīī;'s al-Mar’ءa fī al-Islām, biographies of women were the last feature. This had a framing effect, too, but gave less prominence to life narratives.

37. A few did center on domesticity. A sketch of Lady Isabel Burton (1893) focused almost entirely on her marriage, stressing her influence over Richard Burton because she made wifehood a profession. This is preceded in “Home Management” (18:1, Oct. 1893) by a notice on writer Josephine Butler, quoted as saying girls need to know their worth and be able to depend on themselves financially. She then assures readers that she considers her wife and mother roles preferable to all else she has done. Al-Muqtataf's biographical practice had its own complexities. Space considerations prevent their exploration here.

38. Hind Nawfal, “Idāh wa-iltimās wa-istismāh,” F 1:1 (Nov. 20, 1892): 3–4.

39. See my analysis in “May Her Likes Be Multiplied: 'Famous Women' Biography and Gendered Prescription in Egypt, 1892–1935,” Signs 22:4 (summer 1997): 872–74.

40. Personal Narratives Group, “Origins,” in their Interpreting Women's Lives, 5.

41. Kerber, Women of the Republic, 226. “If they compiled lists of illustrious women, they had to range far back in the past: to Catherine of Siena, to Elizabeth I” (32).

42. Newton, “'Ministers,'” 140–41.

43. DM, 511.

44. The son is mentioned but not by name, attribute, or profession. The magazine says following issues will feature biographies of the daughters, but in extant issues I have not found them. Another difference is that detailing the subject's educational program, Fawwāz mentions “all kinds of handwork” last; FS adds “in addition to what adorned her of al-ādāb wa-al-tarbiya.” DM, 515–16; “SN: Maryam Nahhās Nawfal,” FS 2:3 (Dec. 15, 1907): 81–82; quotation on 82.

45. “Jān Awstīī;n,” JL 11:3 (Sept. 1918): 33.

46. Ibid., 33; “SN: al-Sayyida Admā Sursuq,” FS 2:7 (Apr. 15, 1908): 243.

47. Denzer notes the prominence of needlework in missionary strategies to teach “Victorian middle-class virtues” as well as to gain converts. “Domestic Science Training,” 118.

48. “Sīī;rat SN: Mariyā Anaysy,” MI 1:11 (Sept. 1, 1901): 175–76.

49. “SN: al-Sayyida Admā Sursuq,” FS 2:7 (Apr. 15, 1908): 244, 245.

50. “SN: Māry [sic] Mitshil al-falakiyya al-amīī;rikiyya,” FS 5:1 (Oct. 15, 1910): 5.

51. DM, 482.

52. The author ends with a verse homily on a good woman's qualities. ‘‘Isā Iskandar al-Ma‘‘lūf, “SN: Haylāna Hunt Jaksūn al-shā‘‘ira al-nāthira,” FS 5:8 (May 15, 1911): 281–83.

53. “Al-Marhūma Kristīī;nīī; Hindiyya,” FS 19:7 (Apr. 1925): 329.

54. Jurjīī; Niqūlā Bāz, “SN: “Hannā Kasbānīī; Kūrānīī;,” FS 2:10 (July 15, 1908): 364, 365.

55. His compatriot ‘‘Afīī;fa Karam's obituary-biography of Julia Ward Howe in her North American Arabic periodical al-Hudā (republished in FS) did not specify whether Howe's “best possible upbringing at home and school” entailed domestic training. But Howe expressed this in her memoir: “But surely, no love of intellectual pursuits should lead any of us to disparage and neglect the household gifts and graces. A house is a kingdom in little and its queen, if she is faithful, gentle and wise, is a sovereign indeed.” Julia Ward Howe, Reminiscences 1819–99 (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1900), 216 f., quoted in Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 73.

56. “SN: “Ilīī;sābāt Stāntūn, mu‘‘assisat al-nahda al-nisā‘‘iyya al-amirikiyya,” FS 19:4 (Jan. 15, 1925): 145–46; quotation on 146; “SN: Misiz Ilīī;sābāt Stāntūn,” FS 26:5 (Feb. 1932): 225–26; quotations on 226.

57. “SN: al-Duktūra Māry Stūbs,” FS 28:7 (Apr. 1934): 337. By then, Stopes's famous Married Love had been translated twice into Arabic: by Salīī;m Khūrīī; and ‘‘Abbās Hāfiz as Jannat al-azwāj (Cairo: Matba‘‘at al-Muqtataf wa-al-Muqattam, 1925) from the fourteenth English printing, introduced by Jessie Murray [Jāsīī; Murrī], “one of the famous physicians”; and in a forty-five-page, cheaply printed, abridgement, Firdaws al-azwāj, trans.Yūsuf Labīī;b (Cairo: al-Matba‘‘a al-mutawassita, n.d.).

58. “SN: Ba‘‘d al-shahīī;rāt fīī; Sūriyā,” FS 32:5 (Feb. 1937): 257–59. In a collec-tive article where each subject has one paragraph, for this to occupy so much of Marrāsh's space is striking.

59. “Ilīī;zābith Bārīī;t,” JL 11:2 (June 1918): 17; “SN: Misiz Barāwnin,” FS 32:3 (Dec. 1937): 130. None of the four lives of Browning in women's journals mention how she married.

60. And this leads her to conclude: “I ask for the East that its prosperity and benefit be made complete in this age by many women who will be guided by the light of that Yazijian star . . . enough glory for her that she is a woman who has surpassed men and competed equally with Western women in the noblest of arenas.” “Wardat al-‘‘Arab,” F 1:7 (June 1, 1893): 302, 305. Presumably the “arena” was literature; perhaps she was competitive, too, in domesticity. A few years later, another biography of Warda implores, “We ask God to make her life long and benefit us with her knowledge, for He is the Generous Giver.” “SN: al-Sayyida Warda al-Yāzijīī;,” FS 2:1 (Oct. 15, 1907): 7. She did not die until 1924.

61. Hasīī;b al-Hakīī;m, “SN: Min al-kūkh ilā al-barlamān: Mādām Bawb,” MM 8:3 (Mar. 15, 1927): 118.

62. “As the Westerners say in their proverbs, there is no rose without thorns,” comments the writer. This essay dates the “true women's awakening” in England to 1900, thereby asserting its contemporaneity with the nahda nisā‘‘iyya in Egypt as most commentators were then locating it.

63. “Tārīī;kh al-haraka al-nisawiyya fīī; Baritāniyā,” FS 25:1 (Oct. 1930): 6, 6, 7, 8–13. The article is followed immediately by one on the feminist movement in Japan (14) and “al-Mar‘‘a fīī; al-hayāt al-ijtimā‘‘iyya” (14–15), describing the head of a Richmond publishing house, Gillian Bowman, who had to fight for her position “because the southern states deny women [the right] to engage in business.” The finale: “With all the many duties she must perform in her large firm, she finds time to care for her children and play a serious role in Richmond society” (14).

64. “Ashhar al-nisā‘‘: Lūsīī; Stūn Blākwāl: Za‘‘īmat al-mutālibāt bi-huqūq al-nisā‘‘ fīī; Amīī;rikā (su’ءāl lil-qāri’ءāt fīī; mawdūء qadīī;m),” SB 1:1 (Apr. 1, 1903): 5. Cf. an article in SB 2:12 that warns against the dangers of women working outside the home.

65. See Kallās, al-Haraka al-fikriyya al-niswiyya, 38–42.

66. Or “little matters”: asāghirihim.

67. “Al-Nahda al-nisā‘‘iyya fīī; al-‘‘ālam: Lādy Burtūn,” MM 7:4 (Apr. 20, 1926): 188–89. A feature on women around the world, this did not usually focus so fully on one individual.

68. See Langland, Nobody's Angels, 56–58, on home visits as an exercise in teaching domesticity.

69. Personal Narratives Group, “Origins,” 7.

70. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 28.

71. Baron, Women's Awakening, 166. Both “religious nationalists” and “secular nationalists” extolled women's domestic roles (Badran, Feminists, 13). Both were influenced by a vision of modernity in which women's domestic roles might be differently defined. Baron and Badran view the textual construction of the domestic as a cult of domesticity that hampered women's wider movements, although their analyses differ: Baron sees this literature as empowering for women within the home, and as not totally antithetical to feminism, but she does not see it as feminist in the sense of working to redefine and/or erase gender boundaries. She also says the “adoption of a domestic ideology by female intellectuals in Egypt was in part a strategic decision” (Women's Awakening, 167), with which my findings are in accord. Although Baron emphasizes the constraining force of domestic ideology, she points to its legitimating function in women's nationalist activism. See her “Mothers, Morality, and Nationalism in Early Twentieth Century Egypt,” in The Origins of Arab Nationalism, ed. Rashid Khalidi et al. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), 271–88. Badran separates feminism from discourses of domesticity, although she agrees, citing my earlier work, that biography might have worked differently (Feminists, 64–65). While I concur that literature on domestic roles in this period could have circumscribed women's self-images and visions, I think it likely that women were capable of using domestic manuals without letting these wholly define their futures. Without evidence on reader response we cannot know. And the term “cult of domesticity” oversimplifies the discussion of domesticity in both the women's and nationalist presses. Domesticity was not just an ideal to be preached but an unavoidable aspect of women's lives. Women both Syrian and Egyptian, and of all religious groupings present in Egypt, probed its meaning and studied its place in their lives. Few women who wrote in the press, whatever their origins, religious identity, or class, seemed to regard it as women's only sphere, either practically or ideally. Its discussion also represented an acknowledgment and a rewriting of nationalist prescriptions for patriotic Egyptian women. The actual rhetoric around domesticity was potentially empowering as much as limiting, the doubled message of domesticity and boundaries there for the transgressing particularly evident in biography. And the same commentator could take varying stances on domesticity in different discursive contexts. Zaynab Fawwāz, whom Badran takes as exemplifying the “antithesis of the cult of domesticity” (65), posited domesticity's centrality elsewhere: like other writers, she could exploit the concept when necessary, and it is impossible to say to what extent her use of it was strategic. In this sense, the primacy of domesticity as a theme in the women's press is consonant with Badran's emphasis (as in the issue of veiling) on feminists' stances as concrete and practical, entwined in and totally a part of their everyday social experience. Also, the discussion of domesticity in Egypt started before women had realistic opportunities to move into public life (pace Badran, Feminists, 64). I agree that it was partly a “discourse of containment,” but this is more pertinent from the late 1920s, after the advent of organized feminism and in conjunction with a general move toward greater social conservatism at a time when nationalist political ideals and programs had been discredited by fragmentation and public perceptions of corruption and impotence within the ruling elite.

72. “SN: Madām Blanshār,” JL 7:1 (May 1, 1914): 4.

73. “Iftitāh sanat al-majalla al-sābi‘‘a,” JL 7:1 (May 1, 1914): 1–2; quotation on 2.

74. “SN: Madām Blanshār,” JL 7:1 (May 1, 1914): 4–5.

75. Jean-Pierre did much to popularize ballooning and achieved instant fame when he crossed the English Channel in 1785. The JL text attributes his financial ruin to expenditure on ballooning; other sources cite bad investments. See Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th ed. (1991), 2:272–73; Encyclopedia Americana (1992) 4:58. On Sophie, see Ann Hodgman and Rudy Djabberoff, Sky-stars: The History of Women in Aviation (New York: Atheneum, 1981), 6–8.

76. “SN: Madām Blanshār,” JL 7:1 (May 1, 1914): 5.

77. Ibid., 6.

78. “SN: Fiktūriyā Wudhūl,” FS 12:2 (Nov. 15, 1917): 41–43; quotations on 42, 42, 41. This was published ten years before Woodhull's death, at a time when she had become more conservative (Uglow, Continuum Dictionary, 588–89). Still, that it implies the animosity toward Woodhull as arising from her stance on curriculum and her publishing (without details), and makes no mention of her belief in free love, is striking. Fawwāz's entry on her (DM, 445–48) could have been the source.

79. “SN: Aliksandrā malikat al-Inkilīī;z al-mutawaffīī;,” FS 4:10 (July 1910): 361–64; quotation on 362. This adjective refers to her late husband.

80. “SN: Aliksandrā malikat al-Inkilīī;z,” FS 20:3 (Dec. 15, 1925): 97–100; quotations on 100, 98, 99, 100. An obituary-biography of Alexandra published the same day in The Egyptian Woman's Magazine is less overtly polemical but poses an implicit exemplarity as it takes the reader through Alexandra's day, from “awakening to the hubbub of her children” to her morning reading (“she would read to herself, contrary to the custom followed in the palaces of queens and princesses”), to lunch with her husband, “tête-à-tête as the Westerners say, in her service only a single doorman standing outside the room who would enter only to the sound of the bell.” “SN: al-Malika Aliksandrā: hayātuhā akhlāquhā ‘‘ādātuhā awqātuhā,” MM 6:10 (Dec. 15 1925): 539–42; quotation on 541. The title juxtaposes biography, moral training, and the specificity of guidance characteristic of conduct literature: “Queen Alexandria: Her Life, Her Morals, Her Practices, Her Schedule.”

81. The author goes on to note that he is “rare” among men in so completely mastering the attributes he “unites.” An explicit emphasis on the domestic element of fatherhood was emerging in many writings by men on the woman question. See my “al-Mar’ءa fī al-Islām.”

82. “Tarjamat al-imbiratūr Ghilyūm wa-qarīnatih,” AJ 1:11 (Nov. 30, 1898): 340, 341, 343, 344, 344–47. FS published a near copy in 1922, but the differences are instructive. FS omits the emperor's biography, placing more emphasis on Augusta, and adds to AJ's list of roles “a scholar among scholars and donor to the poor.” Describing the family's daily schedule, FS says that when the children were at their lessons and hubby with his ministers, Augusta “would go back to reading beneficial writings, in literature, philosophy, morals, and music.” Not just a predilection, reading is a habit, part of a daily schedule. FS injects a historical note, writing after World War I: German women “vied to model themselves after her and were the best help to their men in bearing the difficulties that came to Germany.” But FS, like AJ, maintains the linkage between exemplarity and domesticity. “SN: al-Imbiratūra Awghūsta Fiktūriyya,” FS 16:7 (Apr. 15, 1922): 241–43. A 1934 profile also in FS shows similar emphases. After marriage she was “embraced as an exemplar of the excellent wife, the teaching mother, and the wise household organizer.” And “she was not averse to entering the kitchen herself and preparing certain foods and sweets with her own hand for the emperor.” She aimed “to prove to the women of the world that there is nothing so imperative as to take a woman away from her household duties.” It repeats the theme of the “dangerous” servant and offers a telling anecdote: “It is said the servants and cooks went on strike . . . so the empress and her daughters undertook the cooking, performing so well that William said he had never tasted food of such quality or palate.” This biography ends with a homily on female influence as being through “good qualities” rather than—as some women think—“beauty.” And it names these qualities. “SN: Awghūsta Fiktūriyya, zawjat Ghilyūm althānī, imbiratūr Alamānyā al-sābiq,” FS 33:4 (Jan. 1934): 193–95.

83. “Tārīī;kh hayāt Grīī;tā Gārbū (1),” FS 28:7 (Apr. 1934): 369–73; quotations on 369, 370.

84. Baron (Women's Awakening, 157) offers an example of a schedule spelled out by a periodical, al-Sufūr, founded by liberal men to discuss the need to “unveil” society, and not a women's journal, to judge by my perusal and discussion with Muhammad ‘‘Afīī;fīī; (Cairo, 1998).

85. Chakrabarty's analysis of chronological time and schedules as fundamental to an emerging concept of colonial modernity among the Bengali bhadralok could be pursued along different cultural lines for Egypt; at this point I lack textual evidence to do so. On the import of time-space concepts to a regime of modernity in Egypt, see Timothy Mitchell, Colonising Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). On regulating time as an element in (and sign of) disciplined domesticity in the colonial context, see Chakrabarty, “The Difference-Deferral,” 378.

86. “SN: Fiktūriyā malikat al-inkilīī;z wa-imbirātūrat al-Hind,” FS 4:9 (June 1910): 321–27; quotation on 327. DM, 442–46.

87. “SN: Fīī;ktūriyā malikat al-inkilīī;z wa-imbirātūrat al-Hind,” FS 16:10 (July 15, 1922): 361–63. That female exemplary biography tended to become more didactic over time is suggested when we contrast the “objective,” uneditorializing style of F's 1892 life of Victoria. “Jalālat Fīī;ktūriyā malikat Injiltirā al-mu‘‘azzama,” F 1:1 (Nov. 20, 1892): 6–7.

88. “SN: Fitūriyā imbirātūrat Alamanyā” FS 15:10 (July 15, 1921): 361–62, 364, 362.

89. Labīī;ba Hāshim, “Wājibāt al-zawja,” AJ 1:1 (Jan. 31, 1898): 24–26.

90. Hasīī;b al-Hakīī;m, “SN: Min al-kūkh ilā al-barlamān: Madām Bawb,” MM 8:3 (March 15, 1927): 117–21.

91. “Ashhar al-nisā‘‘: Lūsīī; Stūn Blākwāl: Za‘‘īmat al-mutālibāt bi-huqūq al-nisā‘‘ fīī; Amīī;rikā (su’ءāl lil-qāri’ءāt fīī; mawdūء qadīī;m),” SB 1:1 (Apr. 1, 1903): 5.

92. “SN: al-Sayyida Zaynab Fawwāz,” FS 1:8 (May 15, 1907): 227–28.

93. “Sahīī;fat al-adab: ‘‘A’ءisha al-Taymūriyya,” H 1:20 (Feb. 6, 1926): 2. This text notes that she occupied herself with “administering the home” and with her children, but also that she wrote articles on girls' education for publication in the press, as well as poetry.

94. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 59, speaking of Antoinette Brown Blackwell.

95. Ibid., 72.

96. “SN: ‘‘A’ءisha Taymūr,” FS 17:3 (Dec. 15, 1922): 81.

97. F 1:10 (Feb. 15, 1894): 434.

98. “Al-Fatāt,” F 1:10 (Feb. 15, 1894): 436–46, especially 436. On this article's call for acceptable work for unmarried young women, see chapter 4. But it does support a gendered division of labor as divinely decreed: “As for imposing work on both sexes . . . it is evident from the divine text that men work the land and women have the children; comprised in this female work is the house, everything linked to it, and the hard work that follows from this” (440).

99. In its discussions of domesticity, al-Fatāt offers a clearer class distinction than do later magazines, in which the growing power of domesticity as a representation worked to “efface” class distinctions. After distinguishing “Eastern” from “Western” girls, F argues that Eastern girls of the “lower classes” help parents in the work of the house; “these are the kind of wives men want.” In the middle class, if the mother cannot afford servants, she relies on her daughters. In the upper classes, either girls have “adopted the customs of the Europeans” or retained “the good customs of their ancestors”; or they help their mothers in order to learn, since “girls of the East find no school for home management to teach them what is necessary except the school of the mother.” “Al-Fatāt,” F 1:10 (Feb. 15, 1894): 436–46; quotations on 445. Using idārat al-bayt rather than ‘‘amal al-bayt might signal an elite focalization wherein “management” of servants is assumed.

100. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 190.

101. “SN: Mīī;gān Luwīī;d Jūrj,” MM 19:10 (Dec. 1938): 421. The other is Isabel (“bint Ramsay”) MacDonald, praised for assuming domestic responsibility for 10 Downing Street at age twenty. Then her election to the London Council is mentioned. Nasīī;f Mīī;khā’ءīl, “SN: Ishabāl Mākdūnāld tatazawwiju muqāwilan,” MM 19:3/4 (Mar./Apr. 1938): 118–20.

102. She was “one of the most zealous supporters of female emancipation and rights [for women] equal to those of men. In this regard she says women must establish through deeds, not words, that they are worthy to acquire this equality and are not inferior to men in readiness and ability.” “SN: Mīī;gān Luwīī;d Jūrj,” MM 19:10 (Dec. 1938): 421, 421, 422 n.

103. Adelman, Famous Women, “Limitations of Women,” 189–91.

104. Badran, Feminists, chaps. 4 and 11.

105. Rajul hurr, “al-Misriyya,” MM 3:3 (Mar. 1922): 102. The same writer made the equation between the happiness of the family and the nation's success.

106. I thus disagree with Ghada Talhami's claim, for Islamist rhetoric in 1970s–1980s Egypt, that “for the first time what was considered the private realm became open to public debate and polemics.” Ghada Hashem Talhami, The Mobilization of Muslim Women in Egypt (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1996), 145.

107. A series of essays published late in 1914 in The Gentle Sex declared the importance of an affective history of the family to human history.

108. See Baron, Women's Awakening, 158.

109. “Al-Umm wa-al-walad wa-al-madāris: al-Tarbiya al-adabiyya,” SB 2:1 (Nov. 1904): 23.

110. “SN: Al-Sayyida Safīī;na ‘‘Ubayd,” AF 1:1 (Jan. 1926): 6–8. This immediately precedes an article on “the Egyptian woman in ancient times” that offers a rather different role model:

The first Egyptian woman had a virtuous freedom and an honorable liberation. She lived well and sat with men in public ceremonies. People's noble upbringing meant they permitted to outsiders [i.e., non–family members] all that was permitted to relatives. Married couples sat together in their reception rooms to receive and welcome visitors. . . . Herodotus was amazed and pleased by the civilization and advancement he saw there, especially women coming and going just like men, participating equally in work and taking positions, with equal skill. Woman in the era of pharaohs, Persians, and Greeks [in Egypt] had great position and power; she gave birth to the builders of the pyramids and Karnak. . . . She had the widest share of true learning; you would see her at home, the most wonderful wife, mother, organizer, child raiser. O young woman of Egypt, then be persistent in your awakening and follow the way of your ancient Egyptian mother. Perform that which will return to you your initial greatness—and be confident. (9)

111. Baron, Women's Awakening, 157.

112. “Hadīī;th al-Anīs,” AJ 2:6 (June 30, 1899): 240–41. This was not the only mention of servants in AJ's domestic column. See, e.g., “Tadbīī;r al-manzil,” AJ 2:7 (July 31, 1899): 277–80.

113. Ilyās Afandīī; Lutfallāh, “Maqāla fīī; tarbiyat al-banāt,” FS 1:6 (Mar. 15, 1907): 167–69.

114. “Nisā‘‘ al-sharq wa-al-iqtisād,” FS 1:2 (Nov. 15, 1906): 33, 36. The fact that the article discusses sewing a “shirt” rather than the customary gallabiyya suggests the author's (and magazine's) Westernizing outlook.

115. Baron, Women's Awakening, 120.

116. “SN: al-Sayyida Admā Sursuq,” FS 2:7 (Apr. 15, 1908): 243–45.

117. Armstrong, Desire, 27. Armstrong points to the elision of female labor in the conduct book genre in England. The ideal female “labor” was supervision of servants and self-regulation, extended safely into the public sphere as a “benevolent paternalism” toward those victimized most directly by the industrial revolution.

118. Langland, Nobody's Angels, 12.

119. Taken from an essay by American socialist writer Frances Treet [?] in La Clarté [?]. A French woman living in Russia told her husband that if she was going to do the cooking (there was a servant shortage, explained the essay), he could do the washing. “Al-Mar‘‘a al-rūsiyya fīī; al-‘‘asr al-sūfiyīī;tīī;,” MM 3:3 (Mar. 1922): 110–14. The article compared Russian women's acts to the “sickly women's movement,” “sum” of Western European women's efforts (111).

120. “SN: Bāhithat al-Bādiya,” FS 13:3 (Dec. 15, 1918): 81.

121. Balsam ‘‘Abd al-Malik, “SN: Tārīī;kh al-marhūma Malak Hifnīī; Nāsif,” MM 2:1 (Feb. 1921): 31–36.

122. “SN: Madām dīī; Kātīī;l,” FS 32:6 (Mar. 1938), 221.

123. “SN: al-Amīī;ra Aliksandrah dīī; Afirīī;nuh Fizinūskā,” FS 10:1 (Oct. 1915): 2–3.

124. See Grewal, Home and Harem; Partha Chatterjee, “The Nationalist Resolution of the Women's Question,” in Recasting Women: Essays in Indian Colonial History, ed. Kumkum Sangari and Sudesh Vaid (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1990), 233–53; Chakrabarty, “The Difference-Deferral”; Baron, “Mothers”; Beth Baron, “The Making and Breaking of Marital Bonds in Modern Egypt,” in Women in Middle Eastern History: Shifting Boundaries in Sex and Gender, ed. Nikki R. Keddie and Beth Baron (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1991), 275–91. Khalīī;fa emphasizes al-Tahtāwīī;'s contribution to the ideal of companionate marriage, for he stressed the importance of the intellectual bond in marriage (al-Haraka, 21–22).

125. Shajarat al-Durr, “Al-Talāq wa-ta‘‘addud al-zawjāt,” AJ 1:7 (July 31, 1898): 203–6; esp. 206.

126. Chakrabarty, “The Difference-Deferral,” 373, 374.

127. Baron, Women's Awakening, 164–66, and her “The Making and Breaking.”

128. Exclaiming that marriage is more important than “what Mercury is like” or a description of schools of philosophy, which “no one remembers . . . or understands, just a waste of ink on paper,” the writer might be mocking The Selected. “Risālat fādil,” AJ 2:1 (Jan. 31, 1899): 11–13.

129. Only very occasionally does the marriage relationship of a married subject go unremarked, as in al-‘‘Aruūsa's profile of Sarojini Naidu; it says she had married upon her return from England, but nothing more. “‘‘Alam almar‘‘a: Za‘‘īī;ma hindiyya tanzimu balīī;gh al-shi‘‘r bi-al-lugha al-injiliziyya,” AR 70 (June 2, 1926): 6. In another biography the marriage is mentioned in the context of Naidu, a Brahmin, marrying a non-Brahmin and being one of the first to call for “mixed marriages.” “Zahra” [Olivia ‘‘Abd al-Shahīī;d], “SN: Sārūjīī;nīī; Nāyidū,” FS 26:7 (Apr. 1, 1932): 337–40. But it is worth mentioning that as flamboyant Naidu's comings and goings were reported in India, her husband was a “shadowy figure.” See Parama Roy's fascinating analysis of Naidu in Indian Traffic: Identities in Question in Colonial and Postcolonial India (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1998), chap. 5; on her husband, 143–44.

130. “Aspāsiyā zawjat Biriklīī;s,” JL 11:9 (Mar. 1919): 129. “SN: Asbāsiyā zaw-jat Biriklīī;s,” FS 7:5 (Feb. 15, 1913): 161–63; 161. (This is a copy of DM, 26–28, but it omits a section on Pericles' emotions.)

131. “Sīī;rat SN: al-Sayyida Nafīī;sa al-‘‘Alawiyya,” MI 1:5 (June 1, 1901): 75–76; quotation on 76. DM, 521–24; “SN: al-Sayyida Nafīī;sa al-‘‘Alawiyya,” FS 13:5 (Feb. 15, 1919): 185. FS also speaks of her almsgiving and “boldness for the sake of truth” (186). DM's description of her tomb construction yields mention of another eminent woman, mother of the sultan, who gave money.

132. DM, 256; “SN: Sha‘‘ānīī;n zawjat al-Mutawakkil al-‘‘Abbāsīī;,” FS 23: 9 (June 1929): 450.

133. DM, 255; “SN: Shajarat al-Durr,” FS 7:8 (May 1913): 289.

134. “Awwal khatīī;ba Misriyya,” FS 3:9 (June 1909): 323–35; quotation on 326. In this vein see also “Fīī; sabīī;l inhād al-mar‘‘a: Madhā yuqālu ‘‘an al-mar‘‘a?” MM 4:1 (Jan. 1923): 4–5.

135. “SN: Zaynab ibnat Hudayr,” FS 33:3 (Dec. 1938): 129; DM, 228–29.

136. I am not suggesting that women's magazines ignored men's roles; I have proposed that magazines intent on a female audience tended to confront men's behavior more minutely. As always, the breadth of this field of magazines complicates the picture. But polemics on marriage (authored by both women and men) tended to place more responsibility on women. One example: an essay in FS darkly warns women who are not ready to regard marriage as a sacrifice on their part; its statement that “she must treat him as she wants to be treated” is the only hint that men's behavior is part of the picture. “Wājibāt al-zawja,” FS 1:1 (Oct. 15, 1906): 11–15. The dominant discourse on marriage thus diverges from that on girls' education, in which men's roles (positive and negative) are consistently stressed. Of course, since girls' education was supposed to lead to exemplary adulthoods as wives and mothers, these topics are intertwined.

137. The life of Amīī;na Najīī;b, unusually, refers to the unhappy marriage of a recently deceased and local subject: “We do not speak of her married life; it is known that she was unhappy.” “SN: al-Sayyida Amīī;na Najīī;b fīī; sanat althalāthīī;n (1887–1917),” FS 23:3 (Dec. 1928): 103–5.

138. “SN: Madām dīī; Safinayh,” FS 15:6 (Mar. 15, 1921): 201.

139. [Untitled], H 1:29 (Apr. 10, 1926): 2–3.

140. A twist on this theme is given by the famous “Laylā al-‘‘Afīī;fa” (d. 483 C.E.), who did not want to marry “outside the family” but was reluctant to go against her father's wishes when he betrothed her to the son of a Yemeni ruler. “She guarded herself and took the name of 'the Chaste.'” This story has a happy ending; Laylā married her beloved cousin. The text reproduces a bit of her poetry, but this is mostly a story about men fighting over women. “SN: Laylā al-‘‘Afīī;fa,” FS 7:4 (Jan. 15, 1913): 121–22.

141. Badran, Feminists, 127–28.

142. On condemning child marriages, see Baron, Women's Awakening, 165. These criticisms addressed changes already under way. At least in cities, girls were marrying later (163–64).

143. “SN: Madām Admūn Adām,” FS 15:3 (Dec. 1920): 83.

144. “SN: Dakhtanūs al-Tamīī;miyya,” FS 13:10 (July 15, 1919): 386.

145. “SN: Hind, umm amīī;r al-mu‘‘minīī;n Mu‘‘āwiya. Shā‘‘ira fasīī;ha nabīī;la,” FS 18:4 (Jan. 1924): 2–4; DM, 537–39. Note that FS's title presents Hind as mother and poet, rather than by the more traditional patronymic Fawwāz uses. I am not sure what to make of another biographer of Hind: “She insisted on choosing her own husband, took the wilder one, and had Mu‘‘āwiya; is there not a lesson for our daughters and parents in this?” “Sahīī;fat al-adab,” H 1:20 (Feb. 6, 1926): 3.

146. “Bāb al-tarbiya wa-al-ta‘‘līī;m: Ikhtiyār al-zawj: Tahdhīī;r lil-fatāyāt min al-fityān,” SB 2:9 (June 1906): 245–46. This journal's many features on marriage, tending to offer more specific advice to young women on the brink of marriage than did other magazines, even later ones, is consonant with its “hands-on” approach and woman-centered audience invocation.

147. “Madām dīī; Sayfīī;nay,” JL 7:2 (June 1, 1914): 43, 44, 45. See also “SN: Madām dīī; Sayfīī;nay,” MM 6:4 (Apr. 15, 1925): 186–88.

148. Badran sites this issue in the late 1930s (Feminists, 138) but it was an issue of public discussion earlier. On “mixed” marriage, see, e.g., “Shabābunā wa-banātunā,” MM 3:3 (Mar. 1922): 88–89; “Bāb al-rasā‘‘il: Zawāj ‘‘Alīī; Bek Fahmīī; Kāmil bi-ajnabiyya!” MM 4:4 (Apr. 1923): 208–10 (a letter from T. Hamdīī; and editor's response). It criticized the editor of NN for publicizing this marriage. This could be a criticism of polygyny; the writer says the event “has ended the hopes of his first, Egyptian, wife” (208). It notes the “contradiction” of this article in NN being followed by a “Mudhakkirāt” feature that attacks marriage with foreigners as leading to unhappiness. Articles on alleged national styles of womanhood make the same point. See Shaykh ‘‘Alīī; ‘‘Abd al-Rāziq, “Al-Fatāt al-injilīī;ziyya,” FS 13:3 (Dec. 15, 1918): 129–34.

149. “Al-Misriyyāt fīī; al-tārīī;kh: Misriyya malīī;ka ‘‘alā al-Isrā’ءīliyyīī;n,” MM 13:1/2 (Jan./Feb. 1932): 50–51; quotation on 51.

150. The writer was Michele David [?]; the novel's title is translated as Nihāyat al-safar (End ofthe Voyage) and had come out “this year” (1938). “SN: Mīī;shāl Dāfīī;t,” FS 33:1 (Oct. 1938): 3–4.

151. Nasīī;f Mīī;khā’ءīl, “SN: Ishabāl Mākdūnāld tatazawwiju muqāwilan,” MM 19:3/4 (Mar./Apr. 1938): 118.

152. “SN: Nūr Jahān,” FS 11:7 (Apr. 15, 1917): 281–82.

153. “SN: Turkān Khātūn al-Jalāliyya ibnat Tughfuj Khān, min nasal Farasiyāb al-Turkīī;,” FS 10:4 (Jan. 1916): 121–23. DM's biography of Turkān says her mother handled the negotiations, and makes it clear—as FS does not—that Turkān had the last word (DM, 106–9).

154. This article, unusually for a magazine run by a non-Muslim, attributes the “decline” in women's situation to “one of the principles of the Islamic religion . . . the law of hijāb” (as seclusion), but it does not mention polygyny. “Al-Mar‘‘a fī Misr: Ams wa-al-yawm,” JL 1:2 (Aug. 1908): 37–40; quotations on 38.

155. Jirjis Fīī;lūthānūs ‘‘Awad, “al-Qism al-tārīī;khīī;: al-Mar‘‘a al-misriyya qadīī;man wa-hadīī;than (‘‘awd ‘‘alā bad‘‘),” MM 4:3 (Mar. 1923): 143–46; quota-tion on 144. The writer saw Egypt's peasants as preservers of ancient customs; even in the age of “polygyny's licentiousness” they practiced monogamy to avoid “the conflict that happens among co-wives.” There is no hint here that poverty might have something to do with it. Jirjis Filūthanus ‘‘Awad, “al-Qism al-tārīī;khīī;: al-mar‘‘a al-misriyya qadīī;man wa-Hadithan (‘‘awd ‘‘alā bud‘‘),” MM 4:6 (June 1923): 334–35; quotation on 335. Constructing Egypt's women as models for Greece echoed nationalists' claim that Egypt was the West's “first teacher.”

156. “SN: “Ilīī;sābāt Stāntūn, mu‘‘assisat al-nahda al-nisā‘‘iyya al-amirikiyya,” FS 19:4 (Jan. 15, 1925): 146.

157. “SN: Asbāsiyā zawjat Biriklīī;s,” FS 7:5 (Feb. 15, 1913): 161–63.

158. “SN: Madām Niykur,” FS 16:4 (Jan. 15, 1922): 121, 122. Fawwāz's traditional diction foregrounds Necker's business prowess: “He gave his wife management of his home and properties and she loosened and bound and sold and bought.” DM, 497. But Fawwāz stresses her submersion in her husband's life: “Her husband took her as helper and adviser, and loved her; she deserved his love and esteem because she had made it her life's goal to please him” (496). “It is meet that he grieved and mourned her, for she raised the banner of his glory and lit the pathways of his life with her intelligence, acumen and the loftiness of her refinements” (497).

159. “SN: Ilizābīī;t Flamāriyūn,” FS 19:5 (Feb. 15, 1925): 193–94. Nine years later, a biography takes another path. In the context of Flammarion's work on starting a women's antiwar organization in France, it highlights her opinion that since women do the educating, through a certain kind of tarbiya women can have an influence “that international conferences have not had.” “SN: Madām Flamāriyūn,” FS 28:5 (Feb. 1934): 225.

160. “SN: Sabīī;ha malikat al-Andals,” FS 10:8 (May 1916): 281–85; quotation on 281.

161. “Al-Amīī;ra Sabīī;ha malikat Qurtuba,” H 1:36 (May 29, 1926): 2–3; quotations on 3.

162. “SN: al-Malika Tīī;tīī; Shīī;rīī; hawālīī; 1640–1570 BC,” FS 24:1 (Oct. 1929): 1–9; quotation on 5–6. The biography is authored by “Hātūr” (Hathor).

163. “SN: Madām dīī; Māntinūn,” FS 15:9 (June 15, 1921), 323.

164. The earliest I found was third in the series and unattributed: “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘—3: Zawjat Shiyāng Kay Shak,” MM 19:3/4 (Mar./Apr. 1938): 104–7. See also Abū Kawkab al-Sabāh, “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Frānklīī;n Rūzafalt,” MM 20:1/2 (Jan./Feb. 1939): 16–19; idem., “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zaw-jat Nifīī;l Shambirlīī;n,” MM 20:7 (Sept. 1939): 282–86; idem., “Zawjāt al‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Dilādiyeh,” MM 20:8 (Oct. 1939): 334–36; Mu‘‘arrikh, “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Samuwīī;l Hawr,” MM 20:9 (Nov. 1939): 363–65. A biography of Queen Mary of England published in this period does not place her in this series but in the title calls her “Model of Mothers and Wives” and reiterates her exemplariness in the text. Fā‘‘iza ‘‘Abd al-Hamīī;d Ahmad, “al-Malika Māry al-Barīī;tāniyya: Qudwa lil-ummahāt wa-al-zawjāt,” MM 19:10 (Dec. 1938): 422–23. Reference is made in the biography of Deladier to a biography of Dona Rachel Mussolini in an earlier issue, implied to be by the same author. This is probably not the one published four years earlier: ‘‘. M., “Zawjāt al‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Mūsūlīī;nīī;: wa-lamha tārīī;khiyya ‘‘anhā wa-‘‘anuh,” MM 16:10 (Dec. 1, 1935): 431–33. It stresses her loyalty to home and family, her focus on child raising and lack of interest in politics. Other essays in these magazines emphasized this behind-the-scenes role, for example in “Markaz al-mar‘‘a,” MM 1:2 (Feb. 1920): 41–43. “No great man arrives in this world unless a great woman has preceded him, who is his mother,” declared the long article “Ta‘‘thīī;r al-mar‘‘a fīī; mabādi‘‘ al-rajul wa-‘‘awātifih” by “Madame Farīī;d Fanjarīī;” (JL 12:7 [Apr. 1920]: 218–21; quotation on 218). The article moves to wives of great men—Gladstone, Sam Houston, Napoleon, Tamerlane, and the Abbasid caliphs.

165. Mu‘‘arrikh, “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Samuwīī;l Hawr,” MM 20:9 (Nov. 1939): 363–65; quotation on 363.

166. See Ahmed Abdalla, The Student Movement and National Politics in Egypt 1923–1973 (London: Al Saqi, 1985), 39–40.

167. Abū Kawkab al-Sabāh, “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Nifīī;l Shambirlīī;n,” MM 20:7 (Sept. 1939): 282–86; quotations on 284, 285.

168. Abū Kawkab al-Sabāh, “Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘: Zawjat Dilādiyeh,” MM 20:8 (Oct. 1939): 334–36; quotation on 335.

169. “SN: Madām Lūdindūrf,” FS 32:7 (Apr. 1938): 385–86, yet another biography foregrounding a husband seeking political advice, “proving his esteem for her level of knowledge.” Like other nationalist-oriented publications in Egypt, FS had no problem celebrating women associated with the Nazi regime, in light of continued British military presence in Egypt. Cf. the 1935 life of “Mussolini's Wife” referred to in note 164.

170. Thanking its readers and funders for a quarter century of support, the magazine's twenty-sixth volume noted that it had tried to serve Arabic letters by publishing on topics that drew readers and “guided young women to perform their household duties in the best possible manner, which will guarantee the happiness of families and the glory of the nation.” A few pages in, “The Misery of Beauty” concluded that physically attractive women's “sufferings” in the workplace “from the envy of female colleagues” could only be ended by marriage to “a young man of good morals.” This was juxtaposed with an article on women's accomplishments in electoral politics in the United States, Europe, and Australia. “Fatāt al-sharq fīī; sanatihā al-sādisa wa-al-‘‘ishrīī;n,” FS 26:1 (Oct. 1931): preceding page 1; “Shaqā‘‘ al-jamāl,” 9–10; “al-Nisā‘‘ wa-al-siyāsa,” 21–27. The issue's biography combined these emphases. Marriage was “a dilemma” for “princesses who naturally incline to seek their hearts' desires,” but Empress Zita (b. 1891) of Austria had been fortunate. A great reader as a child, she found a perfect companionate union in private life and public, a coupling of felicity, politics, and fortitude. It was she who had kept her husband from abdicating. “SN: al-Imbirātūra Zīī;tā,” FS 26:1 (Oct. 1931): 1–6. A profile of Zita two years later takes her life as a widowed refugee in Spain as exemplary of praiseworthy fortitude. “Virtue is not when one sits atop the throne of glory and wealth.” It was her “patience and courage that raised her status among women and put her into the ranks of famous women in whom we take pride and whose deeds we praise.” “SN: Zīī;tā: Imbirātūrat al-Nimsā al-sābiqa,” FS 28:1 (Oct. 1933): 2–3; quotation on 2. Her assumption of domestic tasks and thrift make her exemplary: “You can see the queen every morning going to market, net bag in hand. She buys the bread, meat, and legumes she needs and returns to her kitchen to do the cooking herself. When she has prepared lunch, she moves on to cleaning house, sewing clothes, darning socks, and other women's work. . . . There is no doubt that anyone who sees this fine woman in her kitchen peeling and chopping onions and potatoes, after she once sat on a throne that encompassed beneath its supports a large portion of Europe, cannot but stand humbly before her, bowed in respect” (3).

171. Other biographies articulating the “woman-behind-the-man” motif before the mid-1920s include profiles of Lady Asquith and Lady Roberts in JL (in 1913 and 1915, respectively) and of Josephine, de Maintenon, Necker, and Roland in FS (in 1912, 1921, 1922, and 1922).

172. “Al-Jinirāl Jūfr wa-qarīī;natuh,” JL 7:9 (Mar. 1915): 305–6.

173. In addition to texts I have mentioned, these include in MM profiles of Roland (1925), Zaghlūl (1927, also 1924), Rachel Mussolini (1935), Mrs. Darwin (1930), Empress Waizero of Ethiopia (1936), and—in the mothers-offamous-sons department—Monica, mother of Saint Augustine (1926), and the mother of George Washington (1926), as well as a collective article on mothers of famous men (1924). In other magazines they include two profiles of Zaghlūl in NN (1927) and one in AR (1932); a feature on Shajar al-Durr (H, 1926), one on the mother of Napoleon Bonaparte, described as “Mrs. Charles Bonaparte” (AF, 1926), another on Mussolini (F [NM], 1938), and two collective articles, on “wives of French presidents” (FS, 1931, in two installments), and on women who influence great men (NN, 1927) that mentions Jeanne d'Arc and Safiyya Zaghlūl, “who would be great even if she were not married to [Sa‘‘d] Zaghlūl.” This is in the series by Ibrāhīī;m that included the profile of Zaghlūl analyzed earlier. Muhammad ‘‘Abd al-Fattāh Ibrāhīī;m, “‘‘Azīī;māt al-nisā‘‘ fīī; al-‘‘ālamayni al-sharqīī; wa-al-gharbīī; qadīī;man wa-hadīī;than,” NN 5:50 (Feb. 1927): 62–63. The much larger overall number of biographies in FS than in MM makes the preponderance in the latter of “woman-behind-the-man” texts more striking. Another sign of this focus is that later magazines refer to subjects in the titles of their profiles more often as “wife of” rather than the traditional “daughter of” found in Fawwāz. E.g., “SN: Nā‘‘ila zawjat ‘‘Uthmān b. ‘‘Affān,” FS 13:2 (Nov. 15, 1918): 41–42; DM, 516–18.

174. Al-Zahra, “‘‘Uzamā‘‘ al-rijāl wa-qarīī;nātuhum: Misiz Dārwin,” MM 11:7 (Sept. 15, 1930): 262–65.

175. “SN: Madām Kūrīī;,” F (NM) 1:5 (Nov. 18, 1937): 37–39. Mūsā's first biography (Rachel Mussolini) similarly emphasizes simplicity and hands-on domesticity. “SN: Zawjat al-sinyūr Mūsūlīī;nīī; tut‘‘imu dajājahā biyadihā wa-takhriju ilā al-sūq wa-al-salla mu‘‘allaqa fīī; dhirā‘‘ihā,” F (NM) 1:4 (Nov. 10, 1937): 43–45.

176. Uglow, Continuum Dictionary, 32. This article is said to summarize an article in “one of the big ladies' magazines,” presumably in England. It is fascinating in its emphasis on tarbiya; it is unclear whether this is from the “translated” article. After describing her skill as a political spouse, it calls her the “first woman to gain the approval of all, and no wonder for her tarbiya prepared her to be thus. Her father [Sir Charles Tennant] raised her to be capable at mixing with politicians, writers, and aristocrats; and also how to treat the servants. . . . Her own daughter grew up resembling her, which prophecies a great and glorious future.” Describing her domestic schedule, the sketch exemplifies the elision that characterizes this genre. If it was Margot Tennant's father who raised her appropriately to fulfill her adult role in society, it is she herself who raises the children so that her husband will be free to pursue his public career. “As for the personal life of the Lord in his home, the Lady does not cause him to complain of a single thing. For she arises at eight a.m. and does not retire before one a.m. Not to mention that she concerns herself with the minutiae of her children's upbringing to the extent of not requiring her husband's help in anything. She does not fall short in attending most sessions of Parliament over which her husband exercises responsibility.” Asquith was prime minister from 1908 to 1916; that is, when this appeared. “Imra‘‘a fādila,” JL 6:2 (June 1913): 33–35; see 33, 35 n.

177. “SN: Margharīī;tā malikat Iytaliyā,” FS 20:5 (Feb. 1926): 193–94; quotation on 194.

178. One life of Nāsif mentions her husband's encouragement for her writing and that “other women were proud of her writings, and she obtained fame no other Egyptian in her time achieved. But none of this changed her morals or modesty in the slightest.” Balsam ‘‘Abd al-Malik, “SN: Tārīī;kh al-marhūma Malak Hifnīī; Nāsif,” MM 2:1 (Feb. 1921): 31–36. See also a biography of Zaynab bt. Muhammad ‘‘Alīī;, who, visiting the poor at home and giving sums to mosques, schools, and hospitals, “helped anonymously because she did not require fame from her work nor did she want thanks for her charity.” “SN: al-Amīī;ra Zaynab,” FS 20:8 (May 1926): 335–36; quotation on 335. But it is refreshing to hear in her case that “none of this distracted from her interest in politics, in which her views were respected; she held an esteemed place in Ottoman court circles” (336). In “SN: Wardat al-‘‘Arab,” F 1:7 (June 1, 1893): 301–5, modesty is a trait of the subject and a quality instilled in her children through her “perfect child rearing.”

179. “SN: al-Malika Margharīī;tā,” MM 7:1 (Jan. 15, 1926): 17–18.

180. “Nisā‘‘ mashāhīī;r al-rijāl: al-Lādy Rūbirts,” JL 7:10 (Apr. 1915): 345–49. This is said to be “arabized with some freedom from the writer on society Beryl Adam.” It would be nice to know what changes were made! Perhaps it is significant that this appeared before the nationwide nationalist activism of 1919. As we have seen, profiles of wives of British politicians appear in MM in the late 1930s, but perhaps all were comfortably far away. I have found no profiles of women who were in Egypt because of their association with the British imperial civil service.

181. “Nisā‘‘ mashāhīī;r al-rijāl: al-Lādy Rūbirts,” JL 7:10 (Apr. 1915): 345–49; quotation on 349.

182. ‘‘Alīī; Muhammad Nadā, “Zawjat al-Najāshīī; 2, mulakhkhassa min kitāb Zawjāt al-‘‘uzamā‘‘,” MM 17:1/2 (Jan./Feb. 1936): 70–73. I have not located this book.

183. “Mamlakat al-mar‘‘a: al-Nahda al-nisā‘‘iyya wa-Jurjīī; Bāz,” SB 3:4 (Jan. 15, 1923): 181–83. This is how the magazine announces a new feature, “Woman's Kingdom,” to “record every deed done for Women's Awakening . . . we want to broadcast the credit due those fine women and men who work to elevate women; we will publish their portraits if feasible. We do this as a means to encourage energetic people.”

184. “SN: Jamīī;la al-Hamdāniyya,” FS 28:10 (July 1934): 505.

185. “Ummahāt al-rijāl al-‘‘izām,” MM 7:8 (Oct. 20, 1926): 447. This was “arabized” by Antūniyūs Bashīī;r; this could mean a relatively straightforward translation or a freer borrowing.

186. DM, 133; “SN: Jurj Sand,” FS 4:6 (Mar. 1910): 201–3; quotation on 203.

187. Kerber, Women, 200.

188. “Wālidāt mashāhīī;r al-rijāl,” MM 5:7 (Sept. 15, 1924): 368–69.

189. “Malikat Isbāniyā,” AJ 1:5 (May 31, 1898): 139.

190. “Al-Mulūk al-mutasābūn: Qudwa lil-abā‘‘ wa-al-ummahāt,” SB 2:7 (May 1906): 185–87. This article adumbrates ideas about fatherhood, too, declaring sovereigns “a model for fathers and mothers”; King Edward played with his grandsons, one of Henri IV's ministers found him on all fours playing horsy with the heir to the throne, and Napoleon “never tired of playing with his one son.” The text thus legislates playfulness as an attribute of exemplary masculinity. It criticizes parents who discipline and train their children solely through commands and threats.

191. E.g., “al-Umm wa-al-walad wa-al-madāris: al-Tarbiya al-adabiyya,” SB 2:1 (Nov. 1904): 23–25.

192. An exception is ‘‘Iffat Sultān's sketch of Alice Ayres; see chapter 6 note 74. It illustrates a common tendency in “Famous Women” texts: when working=class or peasant women are subjects, it is because their acts benefit the nation as defined by a middle-class elite. The best example is Jeanne d'Arc (see chapter 6).

193. Rizqallāh Afandīī; Khawwām, “SN: al-Sayyida Mariyānā Marrāsh,” FS 5:10 (July 15, 1911): 362.

194. Avierino thanked him for his concern and warned readers to heed his warnings, which seems rather ironic in light of her British passport and apparent interest in international renown. “Al-Wataniyya wa-al-mar‘‘a al-‘‘uthmāniyya,” AJ 1:7 (July 31, 1898): 207–11.

195. Jirjis Fīī;lūthānūs ‘‘Awad, “al-Qism al-tārīī;khīī;: al-Mar‘‘a al-misriyya qadīī;man wa-hadīī;than (‘‘awd ‘‘alā bad‘‘),” MM 4:3 (Mar. 1923): 143–46.

196. “SN: Madām dīī; Māntinūn,” FS 15:9 (June 15, 1921), 324–25.

197. Baron says that “the new literature [on child raising, from the late nineteenth century] . . . focused more on the female child than had earlier literature” (Women's Awakening, 159). True, but the focus remained more on the son, or on the girl-child as putative mother. Articles linking motherhood to raising sons are too numerous to list; this cannot be dismissed as use of the “masculine universal” gender as conventional linguistic practice. Hāshim puts it in a nutshell, speaking of women's responsibility for the nation's felicity: “It is she that nourishes the man when he is an infant, rears him when he is young, is his companion when he is an adolescent, guides him when he is an adult, and aids him as an elderly man.” “Muqaddimat al-sana al-thālitha,” FS 3:1 (Oct. 1908): 1–2. Calls for a domestic curriculum were detailed: see an essay by a reader spelling out consequences for the nation. Duriyya Imām Fahmīī;, “Bāb al-tarbiya wa-al-akhlāq: al-Hāja ilā tarbiyat al-banāt wa-mazāyāhā,” MM 4:1 (Jan. 1923): 71–72.

198. Kerber implies that this elision marked the ideology of Republican Motherhood in the immediate postrevolutionary United States, too (Women, 229–31).

199. Ibid., 228; 284–85. Cf. Matthews: “The new valorization of 'home,' 'mother,' and 'wife' had profound consequences for American women. With home seen as the front line of action to produce virtuous citizens, women would need adequate training for their new tasks” (“Just a Housewife,” 21). See also Kerber, Women, chap. 7. Tate (Domestic Allegories, 14) also places “politicized motherhood” at the center of the novels she studies, whether “conservative or liberal.” Kerber notes the “ambivalent discourse” of female education in the early American republic: “On the one hand, republican political theory called for a sensibly educated female citizenry to educate future generations of sensible republicans; on the other, domestic tradition condemned highly educated women as perverse threats to family stability” (Women, 10).

200. “Muqaddimat al-sana al-thālitha,” FS 3:1 (Oct. 1908): 2.

201. Armstrong, Desire, 1.

202. “Al-Amīī;ra Yūliyāna al-Hūlandiyya,” FS 25:2 (Nov. 1930): 66–68.

203. “Hātūr,” “SN: al-Malika Tītīī; Shīī;rīī; hawālīī; 1640–1570 BC,” FS 24:1 (Oct. 1929): 3.

204. “SN: al-Markīī;zah dīī; Rambūyah,” FS 15:4 (Jan 15, 1921): 121. “AlFallāha,” “'Umm' al-biljīī;k,” JL 7:6 (Dec. 1914): 185.

205. The mother's emotional role emerges in a biography of Mary Stuart (1542–87), who, after a “praiseworthy upbringing,” lost her mother at the age of eight: “And she was in the greatest possible need of her supportive affection . . . for she left her very young, not understanding life's affairs.” Muhammad ‘‘Abd al-Karīī;m al-Sahalīī;, “Māry Stūart,” AR 2:58 (Mar. 10, 1926): 6.

206. “SN: Jullanār Hānim aw Mme Olga de Lébédef,” FS 1:7 (Apr. 15, 1907): 197–98; Jurjīī; Niqūlā Bāz, “SN: “Hannā Kasbānīī; Kūrānīī;,” FS 2:10 (July 15, 1908): 362–66; “SN: ‘‘Amra ibnat al-Khansā‘‘,” FS 3:9 (June 1909): 321–22. In the title, poet ‘‘Amra is daughter of her mother, one of Arabic literature's most famous poets. Texts may pointedly mention a subject's mother: see “Sīī;rat SN: ‘‘A’ءisha umm al-mu‘‘minīī;n,” MI 1:2 (Apr. 15, 1901): 26. This was a received practice (Roded, Women, 12) put to new use, as we saw for Sarrūf on Makāriyūs. As Sarrūf's text circulated, the criticism of silence on mothers was repeated.

207. “Sharlūt Barunteh” (Charlotte Bronte), JL 11:6 (Dec. 1918): 81–83; “SN: Misiz Barawnin” (E. Barrett Browning), MM 8:5/6 (May 15, 1927): 260–63. Silence on unsupportive mothers bespeaks fathers' greater ability to act but may also be due to a lack of information on mothers.

208. “SN: Fiktūriyā malikat al-Inkilīī;z wa-imbirātūrat al-Hind,” FS 4:9 (June 1910): 327. DM, 442–46. “SN: Ahmas Nifirtārīī;,” FS 8:7 (Apr. 1914): 245. “SN: Karistiyānā,” FS 29:2 (Nov. 1, 1934): 57–59. “Malikat Isbāniyā,” AJ 1:5 (May 31, 1898): 137–41.

209. “SN: Madām dīī; Sayfinay,” JL 7:2 (June 1, 1914): 41.

210. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 89.

211. Seth Koven and Sonya Michel, “Introduction: 'Mother Worlds,'” in Mothers of a New World: Maternalist Politics and the Origins of Welfare States, ed. Seth Koven and Sonya Michel (New York: Routledge, 1993), 18–19; 24, 4–6. Embracing activisms that might or might not be feminist, “maternalism” defines a concept of active public service as opposed to motherhood as a private act grounding the nation from a “protected” (isolated) site.

212. Cf. Kerber:

Searching for a political context in which private female virtues might comfortably coexist with the civic virtue that was widely regarded as the cement of the Republic, [some women] found what they were seeking in the notion of what might be called “Republican Motherhood.” The Republican Mother integrated political values into her domestic life. Dedicated as she was to the nurture of public-spirited male citizens, she guaranteed the steady infusion of virtue into the Republic. . . . This new identity had the advantage of appearing to reconcile politics and domesticity; it justified continued political education and political sensibility. But the role remained a severely limited one. (Women, 11–12)

213. Benedict Anderson's now-classic work on nationalism has been criticized for not attending to this nexus (Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. ed. [London: Verso, 1991]). The mutually bracing configuration “home”/“nation” is especially powerful if we couple Anderson's concept of “imagined community” as necessary to “nation” with Armstrong's observation that the space of the household as constituted through the modern discursive genres of the conduct book and domestic fiction became crucial to a notion of community: “By occupying a place in the mind, the household made it possible for masses of diverse individuals to coexist within modern culture” (Armstrong, Desire, 258).

214. Mitchell, Colonising Egypt, 111–13; Badran, Feminists, 63; Baron, “Mothers.”

215. “Ilā fatayātinā,” NN 1:1 (Aug. 1921): 73.

216. Kerber, Women, 9. Of course, vastly different legal systems and political situations shaped the issue; to suggest its ubiquity is not to propose an elision of historical circumstances!

217. Matthews, “Just a Housewife,” 6–9.

218. Qamar ‘‘Abduh, “Rajulun yusayyi‘‘u ummatahu,” NN 4:1 (Aug. 1924): 2.

219. Muhammad ‘‘Abd al-Fattāh Ibrāhīī;m, “‘‘Azīī;māt al-nisā‘‘ fīī; al-‘‘ālamayni al-sharqīī; wa-al-gharbīī; qadīī;man wa-hadīī;than 3,” NN 5:51 (Mar. 1927): 95–96. NN featured Zaghlūl again after Sa‘‘d's death, with a text from al-Balāgh: “SN: Safiyya Zaghlūl,” NN 5:58 (Oct. 1927), 348–49.

220. ‘‘Abbās Hāfiz, “SN: Safiyya Zaghlūl ka-mathal a‘‘lā lil-zawjāt alwafiyāt,” MM 8:8 (Oct. 1927): 386–89; quotations on 387, 388. Space does not permit me to unpack the rhetoric of this rich text; e.g., use of the ungendered zawj with gendered qualifiers domesticizes the discussion of “heroism.”

221. “Al-Mar‘‘a al-wahīī;da bayna hukkām al-Hind: Sāhibat al-sumuww Bigim awf Bhūpāl,” JL 9:3 (Sept. 1916): 81–84; Dalāl Safadīī;, “al-Anisa Nasra al-Barīī;dīī;,” SR 8:1 (Nov. 30, 1926): 60; ‘‘Abbās Hāfiz, “SN: Safiyya Zaghlūl ka-mathal a‘‘lā lil-zawjāt al-wafiyāt,” MM 8:8 (Oct. 1927): 386–89; Muhammad ‘‘Abd al-Fattāh Ibrāhīī;m, “‘‘Azīī;māt al-nisā‘‘ fīī; al-‘‘ālamayni al-sharqīī; wa-algharbīī; qadīī;man wa-hadīī;than 3,” NN 5:51 (Mar. 1927): 95–96; “SN: Sāhibat al-sumuww Umm al-muhsinīī;n” (attributed to al-Siyāsa), MM 4:8 (Oct. 15, 1923): 434–38; “SN: Umm al-muhsinīī;n sāhibat al-sumuww, al-amīī;ra al-jalīī;la, al-wālida al-mu‘‘azzama,” MM 4:9 (Nov. 15, 1923): 475.

222. Mrs. Hallcelebrated a parallel influence: “In few does the benefit conferred on society shine more conspicuously than in that gentle and amiable queen, mother of Alfred the Great, by whose beneficent attention to the education of her sons, some of the brightest rays of light have been shed on our English literature.” Mrs. Matthew Hall, Lives of the Queens of England before the Norman Conquest (Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1859), x–xi.

223. Tawfīī;q Afandīī; Zurayq, “SN: Flūrins Nāyitinkayl,” FS 3:6 (Mar. 1909): 202. This echoes Nightingale's own studied inscription of image within public discourse (Poovey, Uneven Developments, chap. 6). Dalāl Safadīī;, “al-Anisa Nasra al-Barīī;dīī;,” SR 8:1 (Nov. 30, 1926): 60.

224. “Annā Baflūfa 1,” FS 25:6 (Mar. 1931): 281–85; quotations on 283, 284 (by Catherine Eggleston Roberts, arabized and expanded by “al-Zahra”).

225. “Al-Fallāha,” “'Umm' al-biljīī;k,” JL 7:6 (Dec. 1914): 185, 187.

226. “SN: Suwar min risālat al-mar‘‘a fīī; al-hayāt: Sadīī;qat al-masājīī;n: Ilīī;zābīī;t Firāy,” MM 15:3 (Mar. 15, 1934): 118–21. “It may be that patriotism required translation into charity and service before it could be made plausible to the millions of women whose lives were defined by their domestic responsibilities” (Kerber, Women, 111).

227. “Miss Agnes Weston [in Latin letters]: Ajnas Wistūn: Umm albahriyya al-barīī;tāniyya,” JL 9:6 (Dec. 1916): 201–6; quotations on 201, 203, 204.

228. “Al-Mathal al-a‘‘lā lil-mar‘‘a al-sharqiyya al-rāqiyya. Mathal min risālat Udhkurū Sa‘‘dan wa-suhubahu al-mu‘‘taqalīn,” S 2:5 (Mar. 1922): 298–301; quotation on 298.

229. Newton, “'Ministers,'” 145–46.

230. Armstrong, Desire, 42.

231. Chatterjee, “Nationalist Resolution.” Kandiyoti cautions against seeing state regulation of women's public movement as an expansion of the private sphere (“Identity and Its Discontents”). Yet public patriarchy, entailing state regulation, has a part in defining “the private.”

232. I am grateful to Afsaneh Najmabadi and Zachary Lockman for helping me to clarify this.

233. Badran, Feminists, 38.

234. Grewal, Home and Harem, 15, 11, 7.