Natural Equality of the Sexes.
“Without intending a silly compliment, I think I may say, if you look
at the two sexes and ask which is the best product, and does the most
credit to its own training, he would be a bold person who would say it
was the male sex.”
PROFESSOR SEELEY.
_DIFFERENCE AND SIMILARITY._
Whether woman’s powers are equal to those of man seems to us hardly to
admit of discussion. The proper question is not one of equality but of
adaptation. In the very nature of things, between the two sexes there
is a difference as well as a similarity. It was not good for man to be
alone, therefore God provided an help meet for him. The one sex is the
compliment of the other. “Man and woman,” to adopt the language of Dr.
Craik, “are fitted the one for the other as much by their difference as
by their similarity. The parts which they have to act, the spheres in
which they have to move, are as distinct in some respects as they are
identical. Of all false social philosophies, that is the blindest and
shallowest which overlooks or denies this, and would seek to improve
the character or elevate the condition of women by making them, as far
as possible, exchange their own proper character for that of the other
sex.” The functions, the occupations, and consequent duties of man and
woman grow out of their bodily and mental structures. Each sex is
perfect for its purpose; and when the one encroaches on the other,
inferiority, incongruity, and antagonism is the result. What so odious
as a masculine woman? What so contemptible as a feminine man? Alas!
both are frequently met in the world.
Woman’s claim to entire equality with man cannot on any pretence be
made to rest on the word of God. Some writers beg the question, and
insist that woman should be treated by man as she is by God: in all
respects equal. But the Scriptures do not teach that the sexes are in
all respects equal; nor from the earliest ages, down to the hour when
John laid by the pen, and closed the book, is there the slightest
intimation that the two sexes may not have peculiar privileges and
duties. By declaring the essential unity of the sexes, the Bible
bestows supreme honour upon woman, while shedding a dew, tender as the
blessing of God upon her affectional nature. In matters of conscience
there is no sex; consequently in the discharge of the duties of piety
each is equally capacitated, and therefore equally responsible. Love on
the part of husbands is made as binding as obedience on the part of
wives; and where love rules, instead of heartless ministrations, there
are affectionate assiduities, ingenious anticipation of wishes, and
noble self-sacrifices.
Woman is certainly not inferior to man, but the difference between them
is as evident as the similarity; and only by carrying out their joint
action in accordance with their inherent powers and susceptibilities
can the human race really be benefited. It is only a waste of time to
tell us that woman can do many things quite as well as man can,—that
there are many public occupations which she could fill as well as
he,—that were she properly educated, it would be seen that man had no
natural superiority over her except in physical strength. All that may
be true. Our argument is, that while woman, in consequence of her more
pliable nature, may be able to do man’s work as well as he can, it is
certain that he cannot do her work so well as she can; and therefore
the body politic would suffer loss were the sexes generally to exchange
places.
_POLITICAL EQUALITY._
The question of the proper position of woman in regard to politics has
become one of general interest. It lies in our way, and demands to be
dealt with. We cannot now ridicule the idea of putting legal power into
her hands, and as little can we discuss it superficially, for that were
all the same as to discuss it unfaithfully. It is therefore matter of
congratulation that John Stuart Mill, one of the intellectual _élite_,
alike as a metaphysician, a logician, a moralist, and a politician, has
taken up this subject, and carried his inquiry into somewhat wider and
deeper relations than men in general, or even women, with a few
exceptions, have been accustomed to regard it as involving. Several
years ago, when acknowledging a vote of thanks from the reformers of
York, Mr. Mill, M.P., took the opportunity of showing them the
legitimate consequences of one of the principles which they had laid
down in public resolutions. “It is unjust,” they had maintained, “that
the great bulk of the nation should be held amenable to laws in the
making of which they had no voice.” Mark the inference of the great
thinker from this proposition. “It cannot stop at residential manhood
suffrage; but requires that the suffrage be extended to women also:”
and then he adds, “I earnestly hope that the working men of England
will show the sincerity of their principles by being willing to carry
them out, when urged, in favour of others besides themselves.” This
logical deduction reminds us of Ann Knight’s retort upon the late
Joseph Sturge. Happening to meet that excellent man at a time when his
name was prominently before the public in connection with the demand
for “complete suffrage,” she thus accosted him: “Friend Joseph, art
thou aware of thine inconsistency? Thou talkest of complete suffrage.
Canst thou be thinking of what the words imply? Dost thou not know that
women are more numerous in our nation than men?” “Yes, friend Ann,” he
answered; “I believe thou art right.” “Well, then, friend Joseph,” she
replied, “how can the suffrage be complete when withheld from the
larger portion of the community?” Friend Joseph was obliged to own
himself beaten; and this amusing colloquy led to the substitution of
“manhood” for “complete” in the suffrage programme of Mr. Sturge and
the Reform party which he then led.
In asking, in sober form and phrase, for the enfranchisement of women,
the late member for Westminster, is quite aware of the difficulties of
his position. In every respect the burden is hard on those who attack
an old and deeply rooted opinion. The common rules of evidence will not
benefit them. In his recent work on the “Subjection of Women,” Mr. Mill
says:—“It is useless for me to say that those who maintain the
doctrine that men have a right to command, and women are under an
obligation to obey; or that men are fit for government and women unfit;
are on the affirmative side of the question, and that they are bound to
show positive evidence for the assertions, or submit to their
rejection. It is equally unavailing for me to say that those who deny
to women any freedom or privilege rightly allowed to men, having the
double presumption against them that they are opposing freedom and
recommending partiality, must be held to the strictest proof of their
case; and unless their success be such as to exclude all doubt, the
judgment ought to be against them. These would be thought good pleas in
any common case, but they will not be thought so in this instance.
Before I could hope to make any impression, I should be expected not
only to answer all that has ever been said by those who take the other
side of the question, but to imagine all that could be said by them—to
find them in reasons, as well as answer all I find; and besides
refuting all arguments for the affirmative, I shall be called upon for
invincible positive arguments to prove a negative.” Many views
expressed in this volume lie far apart from the thinking of ordinary
intellects, but they must become familiar before life can be purified
at its fountain. Is it creditable to English justice that women should
be classed for electoral purposes with idiots, lunatics, and criminals?
Nay, women are placed lower than the latter; for the House of Commons
has deliberately resolved not to disfranchise felons permanently, on
the ground that a citizen ought not to bear for life the brand of
political disqualification. The principle which we so often hear
enunciated in the epigrammatic form “that taxation and representation
should be co-extensive,” logically covers the claim of women to be
represented. All history teaches that women must have votes, in order
to protect their own interests. In the words of Lord Macaulay: “Even in
those countries where they are best treated, the laws are generally
unfavourable to them, with respect to almost all the points in which
they are the most deeply interested.” Lord Brougham said: “There must
be a total reconstruction of the law, before women can have justice.”
But we are told that the worst evils from which women suffer cannot be
cured by legislation. Government can certainly give them the equal
heritage, protection, and bequest of property; it can give them a
Christian marriage law, instead of visiting matrimony with the same
punishment as high treason—namely, confiscation; it can throw open to
them the existing universities, or endow others to give them the high
education that men value; it can restore to them the schools and
institutions destined by their founders for girls as well as boys, but
which are now used for boys only; it can distribute the public funds
equally for the good of both sexes; it can make restrictions on the
productiveness of female labour illegal. Concerning the evils which
legislation cannot cure, women are making no public complaint.
The objections to female suffrage are various. In an article in the
_Times_, it is said: “There exists, as it were, a tacit concordat
guaranteeing to the weaker sex the protection and deference of the
stronger, upon one condition only: that condition is the political
dependence of women.” Now, we admit that women have no physical power
to enforce the suffrage; and if the state is to be measured by might,
they will occupy the bottom of the scale. But the rights of women do
not depend upon their physical strength, but flow from the prevailing
sense of justice; and justice means that the interests of women be
consulted with as much impartiality as the interests of men. Another
objection to the enfranchisement of women is, that politics would
withdraw them from their proper duties. This apprehension is not well
founded. It is quite possible to unite an interest in politics with
attention to a family. In our free churches women vote equally with
men, and this privilege has largely contributed to the success of the
voluntary system. Moreover, women, if they have the same qualifications
as men, have votes at municipal elections. We are almost ashamed to
refer to the stock arguments upon this subject. They are about as
weighty as those recently employed against the enfranchisement of the
working classes. Women, in general, may know less of politics than men;
but educated women are surely not far behind many of the new voters in
political knowledge. We all know hundreds of women who are far more
competent to exercise the franchise than thousands already on the
register. Those who oppose the concession of the suffrage to women, are
astonishingly inconsistent. In one sentence they speak of the
difference of sex as something which ought to exclude them from any
share in the political workings of the world—something affecting all
their thoughts and impulses and actions, and making it right to keep
votes from them simply on the ground that they are women. In another
sentence we are told that this accident of sex affects the female
nature and career so lightly, that if they were permitted to go to the
polling booth they would become unsexed. Now, whether either or neither
of these positions be tenable, we submit that it is impossible to
sustain them both, and we believe that neither is true. It is said that
the claim of political action argues capacity for civil duty, ability
to serve the state in the jury-box, in the police, in the camp, in the
battle-fields, in port-surveys and defences, and in a routine of
official duties that suffer no intermission. But the state does not
compel _men_ to fulfil personally its demands on civil organization; it
hires men for these purposes, and women contribute as well as men to
the exchequer for their payment.
It is said, however, that women have not cared in the past, and do not
now care for political equality. Have they ever been consulted? A large
number believe that there is historical evidence that women have voted
at parliamentary elections, both in counties and boroughs, and are
striving to return to the ancient constitutional practice of Great
Britain. They have been too wise to keep perpetually dwelling on an
inquiry which, until lately, seemed utterly hopeless of redress; and
too proud and sensitive to betray the existence of a feeling which only
exposed them to the sneers and ridicule of the unthinking. But as soon
as the House of Commons showed signs of admitting them within the pale
of the constitution, the women of Great Britain began to prove that
they did care for their political rights. Recently, a petition from
Edinburgh in favour of women’s suffrage was presented by Mr. McLaren,
signed by upwards of 800 female householders. A supplementary petition,
followed soon after to the same effect, signed by eight university
professors, six doctors of law, eighteen clergymen, eight barristers,
ten physicians, ten officers in the army and navy, and upwards of 2000
other inhabitants. Colonel Sykes also presented 185 petitions from
independent women in Aberdeen. A petition adopted by a public meeting
held in Aberdeen, and signed by Professor Bain as chairman, was also
transmitted to the Prime Minister, the Lord Advocate, and the members
for the city and county of Aberdeen; praying the Honourable the Commons
of the United Kingdom, to pass the bill entitled, “A Bill to Remove the
Electoral Disabilities of Women.” In 1867, 3000 women of Manchester and
the surrounding districts signed a petition asking for the franchise.
On the evening of the 14th of April, 1868, a meeting in connection with
the National Society for Women’s Suffrage, was held in the same city,
in the assembly room of the Free-trade Hall, the Mayor of Salford
presiding. On the platform were a number of ladies, whose appearance
was the signal for loud and repeated applause. Several of the most
prominent leaders of the Reform party were similarly welcomed. Letters
containing expressions of regret at the inability of the writers to
attend the meeting, and of sympathy with its objects, were received
from many eminent men and women. A number of women possessing the
requisite qualifications have claimed their place on the register; and
the question was tried in November, 1868, in banquo, at Westminster, by
the Court of Common Pleas. The judges decided against them; but they
resolved that in 1869, a petition should be presented from every
important town in England and Wales, praying for an alteration of the
present law; and Lady Amberley, Mrs. Fawcett, Miss Becker, Miss
Faithful, and Miss Taylour, intend to continue their lectures on the
electoral disabilities of their sex, till the British people be a
nation of free women as well as of free men.
Mr. Mill’s motion for the bestowal of the franchise upon women
occasioned a good deal of silly giggling:—
“Fools have still an itching to deride,
And fain would be upon the laughing side.”
But it seldom happens that a really able man makes a proposal that is
entirely devoid of sense and reason; and we are glad that a minority of
seventy-three were found in the House gallant enough to vote for the
motion. The member for Westminster did not ask a vote for any woman
whose legal personality was even partially merged in that of another.
Neither married women, whose husbands are in life, nor domestic
servants, would be admitted by him to the franchise. But if a woman is
a householder, managing her own affairs, paying her way, liable to
every tax, and faultless in every civil capacity; where is the person
of intelligence who will dare to pronounce Mr. Mill’s proposal absurd?
On the 4th of May, 1870, Mr. Jacob Bright moved the second reading of
the bill for the enfranchisement of women, and adduced his best
arguments to prove that widows and spinsters should have votes. By a
majority of thirty-three votes, in a house of 215 members, the women
carried the day; and the bill was read a second time amid loud cheers.
This in future will be an important subject between constituencies and
candidates; and we have little doubt that in the course of a few years
the British parliament will know nothing of the distinctions of strong
and weak, male and female, rich and poor. Why should women be excluded
by law from doing the very things for which they are peculiarly
qualified? Had Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria not inherited the
throne, they could not have been entrusted with the smallest political
duties! The former was one of the most eminent rulers of mankind; and
the vocation of the latter for government has made its way, and become
conspicuous. Happy will be the day in our country—happy will be the
day throughout the world—when woman stands in this respect, as well as
in others, a help meet for man!
_SOCIAL EQUALITY._
God has planted in every breast a passion for congenial society, and
made its wholesome play essential for the fulness of happiness; but
depraved passions have rendered the claims and duties of both sexes
ambiguous, and disarranged the harmonies of the first creation. As
society becomes corrupt, power assumes authority over weakness; and
they who ought to help, begin to hinder. Upon this principle women have
been held in a state of social degradation in all countries in which
Christianity has been wholly unknown. The Egyptians decreed it to be
indecent in women to go abroad without shoes, and threatened with death
any one who should make shoes for them. Among Celtic nations, the
labours of the field, as well as domestic toil, devolved on the women;
which evidently originated in the general impression of their
inferiority in the scale of existence. The domestic life of the Greeks
exhibit unquestionable evidences of barbarity in the treatment of
women. At no time were they entrusted with any knowledge of their
husbands’ affairs, and they were totally excluded from mixed society.
According to the laws of the Romans, the wife was in servitude; though
she had in name the rights of a citizen. In savage, superstitious, and
Mahometan countries, the condition of females justifies the exclamation
of an ancient philosopher, who thanked God that _he was born a man and
not a woman_.
It is evident that the social condition of women, destitute of the
light of revelation, is inferior to that of men. But under the
influence of even a precursory and imperfect system of the true
religion, their glory emerges partially to view. Still under the Jewish
theocracy, the Levitical law appointed a variety of regulations which
evinced their imperfect emancipation from social inferiority. Polygamy
and concubinage prevailed even in pious families in these olden times.
The doctrine of vows, also, in the case of daughters, wives, and
widows, proves the subordination of the female sex. It is Christianity
that has raised women above the state of barbaric degradation,
Mahometan slavery, and Jewish subjection, and assigned to them their
proper place in society.
While the religion of Jesus elevates women to great consideration in
the social scale, it imposes a salutary restraint upon human passions,
and checks every approach to the assumption of an unnatural
superiority. Its principles allow neither the barbaric treatment of
uncivilized nations, nor the follies of the chivalrous ages. The great
principles of Christianity secure to women, as an unquestionable right,
equality with men. “Let every one of you so love his wife as himself;
and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” Paley writes, “The
manners of different countries have varied in nothing more than in
their domestic constitutions. Less polished and more luxurious nations
have either not perceived the bad effects of polygamy; or, if they did
perceive them, they who in such countries possessed the power of
reforming the laws, have been unwilling to resign their own
gratification.” In all Christian countries, polygamy is universally
prohibited; and the marriage of a second wife during the lifetime of
the first, is ranked with the most dangerous and cruel of those frauds
by which a woman is cheated out of her fortune, her person, and her
happiness. In the early days of the generation which is fast fading
away from among us, as in that which immediately preceded it, we know
that the education of women, if bestowed at all, was confined to the
shallowest acquirements and the most superficial of accomplishments. In
courtly circles, a few external graces, and a sufficient acquaintance
with polite phraseology were enough to constitute the woman of
refinement. That woman is slowly making her way into freer life is
evinced by the fact that professed authorship does not involve loss of
caste in society. Many widely known as writers, were placed in the
genteel ranks of society by birth; but are universally regarded with
increased respect, because they have enlarged their bounds of
usefulness, to strengthen and refresh thousands of minds.
_INTELLECTUAL EQUALITY._
Phrenologists affirm that the female head does not measure so much
round as the male; neither is it so wide, so high, nor so long. On the
other hand, many authorities, English and foreign, say that the brains
of women are larger than those of men _in proportion_ to the size of
their bodies, while their temperaments are more nervous and sensitive;
hence female mental inferiority would be a hasty generalization; for
although the brain is the intellectual organ, size is not the only
measure of power. Woman, like man, was created perfect; but the powers
of her mind are essentially different from those of man. The male
intellect is logical and judicious, while that of the female is
instructive and emotional. “They are one in the warp and woof of their
mental nature; but the interwoven threads are in bulk so differently
proportioned in the two, that they differ very considerably in
superficial colour and finish.” The theory that the strong, or male
mind, prefers the weak, or female mind, in its hours of leisure, is
contradicted by experience. Poets, philosophers, and orators, prefer
the fellowship of kindred souls. On the same principle, clever men
naturally court the society of clever women. A creature of inferior
mental powers would not be a help meet for man.
Who have a better right to speak to this theme than teachers of youth?
Their vocation leads them to see boys and girls studying the same
subjects, and they are pretty unanimous in their opinion that the
memories, perceptions, and understandings of girls are quite equal to
those of boys. Plato was of opinion that males had no superiority over
females, except in physical strength. Dugald Stewart was of the same
opinion, and ascribed the difference in the sexes to education. Several
of the school inspectors in England and Scotland report that they found
the capabilities of the girls as good in general as those of boys; that
although part of the school-day was devoted rightfully to needlework,
they made as much progress as lads of the same amount of training when
taught by the same masters. Of the six ladies who attended the separate
classes for women authorized by the university of Edinburgh, five were
found in the prize list—one, Miss Pechey, received a bronze medal, and
ought to have been a Hope scholar; Miss Blake, got a first-class
certificate of merit; while Mrs. Masson, Mrs. Thorn, and Miss Chaplin,
have certificates of merits of second-class. The Aberdeen lady
students’ classes were organized late last year. The lecturers were Mr.
M’Bain, formerly Assistant-Professor of Greek in the university, and
Dr. Beveridge—both eminently qualified; and the subjects undertaken,
were English Literature and Chemistry, and Experimental Physics. From
an address delivered by M. Krueger, we notice that eight ladies
attended the first of these classes, and eleven the second, and that
the students are highly spoken of alike for attention and ability. The
past session, especially seeing it may be regarded as merely
experimental, having been thus successful, it is hoped that in future
there will be a larger number of students, and that other subjects of
study besides those already engaged in may get encouragement. We are
informed that at the examination of Mr. M’Bain’s class, Miss Sherar
obtained the highest certificate. At the examinations of the
Metropolitan University, females have demonstrated the possession of
acquirements sufficient to procure them high honours at the elder seats
of learning on the banks of the Isis and the Cam. These facts ought to
make us pause before condemning Sidney Smith for claiming, in the pages
of the _Edinburgh Review_, perfect equality in mental endowment for
women. “As long as boys and girls run about in the dirt and trundle
hoops together, they are both precisely alike. If you catch up one-half
of these creatures and train them to a particular set of actions and
opinions, and the other half to a perfectly opposite set, of course
their understandings will differ as one or the other sort of occupation
has called this or that talent into action; there is surely, therefore,
no occasion to go into any deeper or more abstruse reasoning in order
to explain so very simple a phenomenon.”
What is there in science, literature, or art, which the genius of woman
cannot accomplish? If we have had starry sons of science, we have had
starry daughters too. Not only has woman lifted the telescope, but she
has lifted the pen, and written treatises of great learning and
originality. “The Mechanism of the Heavens” and “The Connection of the
Physical Sciences,” by Mrs. Somerville, would not have disgraced the
pen of Sir Isaac Newton. We have had chemistry represented by Mrs.
Marcet, and botany by Mrs. Loudon. Woman has risen to eminence in
divinity. Miss Jane Taylor was thoroughly acquainted with that science.
Medicine has had its female students. In early times, and also in the
middle ages, female physicians and surgeons were as common as male; and
sometimes the patient got enamoured of his doctor:—
“No art the poison could withstand;
No medicine could be found,
Till lovely Isolde’s lily hand
Had probed the rankling wound.
With gentle hand and soothing tongue,
She bore the leech’s part;
And while she o’er his sick-bed hung,
He paid her with his heart.”
Miss Garrett, finding that she could be admitted by the Society of
Apothecaries to the medical profession, qualified herself for practice.
But the society discovering that her example was likely to be
contagious, at once shut the door. Miss Garrett is now an M.D. of the
University of Paris. Nine ladies in New York and five in Boston have
recently graduated at medical colleges as physicians. One of the
professors of the New York College stated that there are in America 300
women practising medicine whose professional incomes range at from
10,000 to 20,000 dollars per annum. The thorny science of the law has
also been a female study. The Roman Hortensia, seems to have been
rather an eloquent pleader than a consummate lawyer; but several
Italian women of the middle ages were renowned as jurists. Contrary to
expectation, the mechanical and mathematical sciences are those in
which woman has most distinguished herself. The least gallant of
critics are now compelled to admit that female authorship has taken up
a full and conspicuous place in literature. If three hundred years ago,
Ariosto could write with more than poetic truth, his well known stanzas
commencing with the words—
“Le donne sono venute in eccellenza,
Di ciascun arte ove hanno posto cura”—
with how much greater truth might the affirmative be repeated amidst
the blaze of female talent, by which the present century is signalised!
Not to go beyond the limits of our own land, we have had delineations
of life worthy of Cervantes and Le Sage, of Fielding and Smollett, but
traced with faultless purity, from that great school of writers in
which the names of Miss Edgeworth, Miss Austen, Mrs. Hall, Mrs.
Gaskell, Mrs. Hamilton, Mrs. Oliphant, George Eliot, and Miss Mulock,
are only some of the most conspicuous. Joanna Bailey and Miss Mitford
have given tragedies to the stage which would have gained a rich
harvest of golden opinions in the days of Massinger and Ford. In lyric
poetry, we have Miss Landon, the Hon. Mrs. Norton, and Mary Howitt.
Miss Martineau has made the most practical and unimaginative of
studies, political economy, as attractive as the most interesting
fictions of romance. In art, woman holds a distinguished place. She can
dip her pencil in hues borrowed from the rainbow, and transfer her
genius to canvas. The master works of Landseer are more than rivalled
by Rosa Bonheur; and Mrs. Jameson is the best art-critic England has
ever produced. Till recently, women could be Associates of the Royal
Academy; but they were distinguishing themselves, and to the burning
disgrace of the Academy, the privilege was taken from them. Do the
Academicians know of what sex were the Muses and the Graces?
“Woman sister,” says Thomas de Quincey, “there are some things which
you do not execute as well as your brother man. No, nor never will.
Pardon me, if I doubt whether you will ever produce a great poet from
your choirs, or a Mozart, or a Phidias, or a Michael Angelo, or a great
philosopher, or a great scholar. By which last is meant, not one who
depends simply on an infinite memory, but also on an infinite and
electrical power of combination; bringing together from the four winds,
like the angel of the resurrection, what else were dust from dead men’s
bones, into the unity of breathing life. If you _can_ create yourselves
into any of these great creators, why have you not?”
This passage _is_ not true. Whatever man may perform, woman taken out
of his side may equal. Right truly has Ebenezer Elliott, a sincere and
energetic, if not graceful bard, sung:—
“What highest prize hath woman won
In science or in art?
What mightiest work by woman done
Boasts city, field, or mart?
‘She hath no Raphael!’ Painting saith;
‘No Newton!’ Learning cries.
‘Show us her steamship! her Macbeth!
Her thought-won victories!’
Wait, boastful man! though worthy are
Thy deeds, when thou are true,
Things worthier still, and holier far,
Our sister yet will do;
For this the worth of woman shows
On every peopled shore,
That still as man in wisdom grows,
He honours her the more.
Oh, not for wealth, or fame, or power,
Hath man’s meek angel striven;
But, silent as the growing flower,
To make of earth a heaven!
And in her garden of the sun,
Heaven’s brightest rose shall bloom;
For woman’s best is unbegun,
Her advent yet to come.”
Miss Becker, of Manchester, in a paper on some supposed differences in
the minds of men and women, read before the British Association for the
Advancement of Science, in Norwich, August 25, 1868, submits the three
following propositions:—“I. That the attribute of sex does not extend
to mind: that there is no distinction between the intellects of men and
women, corresponding to and dependent on the special organization of
their bodies. II. That any broad marks of distinction which may at the
present time be observed to exist between the minds of men and women
collectively, are fairly traceable to the influence of the different
circumstances under which they pass their lives, and cannot be proved
to adhere in each class, in virtue of sex. III. That in spite of the
external circumstances which tend to cause divergence in the tone of
mind, habits of thought, and opinions of men and women; it is a matter
of fact that these do not differ more among persons of opposite sexes
than they do among persons of the same; that comparing any one man with
any one woman, or any class of men with any class of women, the
difference between their mental characteristics will not be greater
than may be found between two individuals or classes, compared with
others of the same sex.”
_MORAL EQUALITY._
The capacity for goodness is greater and nobler than the ability to
acquire knowledge; and it is almost universally admitted that woman is
more largely endowed with the lofty moral sense and the generous
affection from which all true greatness springs, than man. Intellectual
glory cannot compare with the moral halo that gilds the following
picture: “Take a woman who is possessed of a large intellect, say—but
intellect well disciplined, well stored—gifted with mind, and graced
with its specific piety, whose chief delight it is to do kind deeds to
those beloved. Her life is poured out like the fair light of heaven
around the bedside of the sick; she becomes like a last sacrament to
the dying man, bringing back a reminiscence of the best things of
mortal life, and giving a foretasted prophecy of the joys of
heaven—her very presence an alabaster box of ointment exceeding
precious, filling the house with its balm of a thousand flowers. Her
love adorns the path in which she teaches youthful feet to tread, and
blooms in amaranthine loveliness above the head laid low in earth. She
would feel insulted by gratitude. God can give no greater joy to mortal
men than the consciousness whence such a life wells out. Not content
with blessing the few whom friendship joins to her, her love enlarges
and runs over the side of the private cup, and fills the bowl of many a
needy and forsaken one. Oh, in the presence of such affection as this,
the intellect of Plato would be abashed, and say,—‘Stand back, my
soul, for here is something holier than thou. In sight of such
excellence, I am ashamed of intellect; I would not look upon the
greatest that ever spoke to ages yet unborn.’”
We cannot but feel that the eloquent author was right in making the
embodiment of such goodness a woman; for under all conditions, from the
lowest barbarism to the highest civilization, her sense of right is
conspicuous, and her generous affection is proverbial. Both in Latin
and Greek almost every moral excellence is expressed by nouns in the
feminine gender. Virtus, Sophia, Fides, Justitia, and Charitas, are
examples. Some are of opinion that there was much philosophy in the
mythology of the ancients; but, be this as it may, it is certain that
in nearly all languages the virtues, when personified, are spoken of in
the feminine gender; intimating that the nature of woman is
pre-eminently adapted for their exemplification.
“Perhaps,” says William M’Combie, in his “Hours of Thought,” “if we
would see moral elevation apart, as far as possible, from all earthly
excitements, we must leave the halls of riches, and the possessors of
high intellectual endowments, and enter the dwelling of the lonely
female of threescore years and ten, whose ‘acquaintances’ have gone
down into ‘darkness,’—who has outlived all that were dearest to her
heart on earth. We shall, perhaps, find her sitting in a corner of her
confined apartment, scarcely visible amidst smoke, distressed with
disease, or suffering under acute pain, with only the literal ‘bread’
and ‘water,’ which the word of God hath made sure. Yet the language of
thankfulness is on her tongue, and her countenance brightens with
contentment as if lighted by a ray from heaven; the withdrawment of
earthly comforts and cares seem to have opened a wider entrance for the
heavenly consolation; and her distresses and her pains only impel her
forward in her journey to the celestial city. In the want of earthly
associates, she enjoys more intimate communion with her God, and the
ineffably animating language of the Saviour has become, as it were, an
element of her mind.” “These things have I spoken unto you, that in me
ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation, but be of
good cheer; I have overcome the world.”
_RELIGIOUS EQUALITY._
The capacity for religion is the highest part of human nature, and the
qualities which constitute religion, the noblest which it is possible
to cultivate. If the choice were possible, that to-morrow every woman
and maiden should become worthy of being associated with those splendid
intellects, some few score of which have done the main part of the work
of thinking for the rest of the world; or else should become
unchangeably and fearlessly religious,—would any true and wise lover
of his country for a moment hesitate to choose the latter? Can there be
any doubt which would contribute most to the happiness, and in the end,
to the honour, greatness, and security of the world.
In the most explicit terms, the sacred writers affirm that neither the
male nor the female have any peculiar claims or advantages in regard to
religion. Both sexes are alike sinners, and are alike saved by grace.
Christianity smites pride to the dust, by proclaiming that the human
family have a common origin, and esteems them all to be equal in the
matter of salvation. At the foot of the Cross, at the communion table,
and in heaven, there is neither male nor female. The personal conduct
of the Divine author of Christianity tended to elevate the female sex
to a degree of consideration in society unknown before. Jesus was
present at the marriage of Cana of Galilee, conversed with the
Samaritan woman, and in some of his most illustrious miracles females
were personally concerned. He mingled his tears with those of Martha
and Mary, restored their brother to their affections, and gave the
widow of Nain back her son. The conduct of Christ naturally induced His
disciples to imitate His example; and the subsequent admission of women
to all the privileges of the Christian Church, tended mightily to
confirm their elevation and evince their importance in society. Women
ministered to the Saviour in the days of His humiliation; and when one
professed friend denied Him, and another betrayed Him, and all forsook
Him and fled, their fidelity was never impeached. They were the last at
the cross—they were the first at the sepulchre. Through all succeeding
ages, they have been conspicuous for their works of charity and their
labours of love,—through all the phases of persecution the women have
suffered for their religious faith like the men; and it has been
remarked that no woman ever put forward her sex as a reason for being
spared. The congregations and churches of the present day testify how
well women have understood their privileges.
Religion, indeed, in itself is venerable; but it must be attractive in
order to be influential; and it is impossible to tell how great might
be the benefit to society, if the personal loveliness, versatile
powers, and lively fancy so lavishly bestowed upon woman were
conscientiously employed on its behalf. Right truly has James Russell
Lowell, one of the most original poets America has yet produced, sung:—
“The deep religion of a thankful heart,
Which rests instinctively in heaven’s law,
With a full peace that never can depart
From its own steadfastness; a holy awe
For holy things—not those which men call holy,
But such as are revealed to the eyes
Of a true woman’s soul bent down and lowly
Before the face of daily mysteries;
A love that blossoms soon, but ripens slowly
To the full goldenness of fruitful prime,
Enduring with a firmness that defies
All shallow tricks of circumstance and time;
By a sure insight knowing where to cling,
And where it clingeth never withering.”
---------------------
Butler & Tanner, The Selwood Printing Works, Frome, and London.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WORKS BY WILLIAM ANDERSON.
---------------------
_SELF-MADE MEN. Fourth and Cheap Edition,_ crown 8vo, price 3_s._ 6_d._
“This extraordinary book has just reached us as we are closing our
sheet. It is a glowing, a glorious talk about all sorts of men, and all
sorts of things; a cyclopædia of biographical facts. It must have
required no small portion of the lifetime, even of a laborious man, to
prepare himself for such an undertaking. To every young man in England
we would say, ‘Haste and procure it, and then con it by incessant
perusal till you have caught its spirit, and you will be a gainer as
long as you live.’”—_Christian Witness._
“We should like to know that every young man in the land had this work
in his possession. It would greatly aid his studies, and stimulate his
exertions. It is a valuable and useful volume.”—_Wesleyan Times._
“His appeals are not got up in slow measured tones, but burst upon us
with all the force and fiery eloquence of the true orator; and his
reasonings are sound in every part. To him who desires to be a man, and
not a milksop, we tender our advice to consult ‘Self-made
Men.’”—_Peterhead Sentinel._
“There is earnestness, right principle, and good sense in what Mr.
Anderson has written.”—_British Quarterly._
---------------------
_KINGS OF SOCIETY; or, Leaders of Social_, Intellectual, and Religious
Progress. New and Cheap Edition, crown 8vo, price 3_s._ 6_d._
“Mr. Anderson’s estimate of true social influence may be gathered from
the names of the men on whose heads he places the coronet. The names
selected are five in number,—Luther, the hero of the Reformation;
Cromwell, the champion of Puritanism; Raikes, the founder of Sunday
Schools; Carey, the pioneer of Missions; and Pounds, the originator of
Ragged Schools. It would be difficult to find a book we should place in
the hands of an intelligent youth with greater confidence that he would
read it, and that it would do him good.”—_London Quarterly Review._
“The author’s estimate of greatness is rightly founded on moral rather
than on mere intellectual considerations. The standpoint is that of
evangelical orthodoxy. The style that of a vigorous, self-reliant
writer, able to seize characteristic features with success, and to
present them in nervous and vivid English. The result is a book which
will be heartily welcomed by many, especially heads of families,
readers to a class, and Sunday School librarians.”—_Meliora._
“Too much praise cannot be given to the author for clearness,
pointedness, and force, as well as for his diligence in collecting
facts, some of which have the interest of novelty besides the
attraction of truthfulness. He writes in a genial, appreciative tone,
and the book abounds in healthy moral sentiments, the outcomings of a
pure Christian philosophy.”—_Christian World._
“The ground surveyed by the author is very extensive, and the
particulars introduced innumerable. There will be general thankfulness
for a work so eloquently written, and so greatly adapted for
usefulness.”—_Christian Times._
“The whole aspect and style of this volume is sure to commend it at
once to a large class of readers. The way in which the author arranges
his materials, and exhibits them to his readers, prevents dulness, and
encourages perusal.”—_Christian Witness._
“Mr. Anderson gives us a very good selection of those who may claim our
reverence as the teachers of men.”—_Quiver._
Transcriber’s Notes
Some presumed printer’s errors have been corrected, including
normalizing punctuation. Page number references in the Table of
Contents and Index were corrected where errors were found. Further
corrections are listed below.
PAGE PRINTED TEXT CORRECTED TEXT
p. 4 bodil bodily
p. 11 mutally mutually
p. 18 ascendency ascendancy
p. 22 my lay hold may lay hold
p. 30 auguments augments
p. 31 industrous industrious
p. 37 whereever wherever
p. 45 stedfast steadfast
p. 69 seventeeth seventeenth
p. 72 dressd dressed
p. 74 neighbourood neighbourhood
p. 88 minature miniature
p. 96 degress degrees
p. 98 suprised surprised
p. 114 interouse intercourse
p. 114 villanous villainous
p. 130 incribed inscribed
p. 154 concern- concerning
p. 173 pupularity popularity
p. 181 glady gladly
p. 206 everthing everything
p. 207 other another
p. 229 situate situated
p. 230 soltitude solitude
p. 252 unsual unusual
p. 253 calvinistic Calvinistic
p. 254 unimpunged unimpugned
p. 259 The first six years The first six years
of her life was spent of her life were spent
p. 275 every ready ever ready
p. 285 geniuneness genuineness
p. 293 thorougly thoroughly
p. 295 frem from
p. 295 Nestorious Nestorius
p. 295 appproach approach
p. 318 religous religious