This article questions the extent to which the form of masculine subjectivity often associated with the men of Bloomsbury was distinctive and represented some kind of sharp break with that of an older generation. Their expectations of persistent gender advantage, and their continuing calls upon the services of mothers, sisters and female friends, suggest that a rejection of “Victorian” masculinity did not, in and of itself, disrupt the privileges that stemmed from manhood.
JoyceS. (2004). On or about 1901: The Bloomsbury Group looks back at the Victorians. Victorian Studies, 46(4), 631–654.
10.
LeeH. (1996). Virginia Woolf. London: Chatto & Windus.
11.
LubenowW. C. (1998). The Cambridge Apostles, 1820–1914: Liberalism, imagination and friendship in British intellectual and professional life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
SinhaM. (1995). Colonial masculinity: The “Manly Englishman” and the “Effeminate Bengali” in the late nineteenth century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
13.
SkidelskyR. (1983). John Maynard Keynes, Volume I, Hopes Betrayed 1882–1920. Har-mondsworth: Penguin Books.
14.
StracheyP. to FryR., (n.d., early 1918). Women's Library, Autograph Letter Collection.
15.
TaddeoJ. (2002). Lytton Strachey and the search for modern sexual identity: The last eminent Victorian. New York: Harrington Park Press.
16.
WoolfL. (1960). Sowing, an Autobiography of the Years 1880–1904. London: Hogarth.
17.
WoolfL. to StracheyL. (3 March 1907). In SpottsF. (Ed.). (1989). The letters of Leonard Woolf. London: Weideneld and Nicholson.
18.
WoolfV. (1978). Old Bloomsbury. In SchulkindJ. (Ed.), Moments of being (pp. 181–208). St Albans: Triad/Panther Books.
