temper of its agitation for the enfranchisement of women, and the
enlargement of her sphere of duty and privilege. More definitely than
any other, this reform can trace its beginnings and the source of its
inspiration to the disciples of the transcendental philosophy. The
transcendentalists gave it their countenance to some extent, to a man
and a woman, conceding the truth of its idea even when criticising the
details of its application. With almost if not quite equal unanimity,
the other school regarded it with disfavor. The cause of woman, as
entertained by the reformers, was not likely to commend itself to people
who consulted custom, law, or institution; who accepted the authority of
tradition, took history to be revelation, deferred to the decree of
circumstance, or, under any other open or disguised form, bowed to the
doctrine that might makes right. The philosophical conservatives and the
social conservatives struck hands on this; for both, the one party in
deference to established usage, the other party in deference to the
opinion that mind followed organization, defended things as they were,
and hoped for a better state of things, if they hoped for it at all, as
a result of changes in the social environment. The disciples of the same
philosophy now hold the same view of this particular reform. From them
comes the charge of unsexing women and demoralizing the sex. In the
belief of the transcendentalist, souls were of no sex. Men and women
were alike human beings, with human capacities, longings, and destinies;
and the condition of society that doomed them to hopelessness in regard
to the complete and perfect justification of their being, was,
in his judgment--not in his feeling, or sentiment, but in his
judgment--unsound.
The ablest and most judicial statement on the question was made by
Margaret Fuller in the "Dial" of July 1843. The paper entitled the
"Great Law Suit" was afterwards expanded into the little volume called
"Woman in the XIXth Century," which contains all that is best worth
saying on the subject, has been the storehouse of argument and
illustration from that time to this, and should be read by all who would
understand the cardinal points in the case. The careful student of that
book will be amazed at the misapprehensions in respect to its doctrine
that are current even in intelligent circles. Certainly Miss Fuller does
claim everything that may fairly be comprehended under woman's
education; everything that follows, or may be honestly and rationally
held as following in the course of her intellectual development. But
she claims it by rigorous fidelity to a philosophical idea; not
passionately or hastily. Not as a demand of sentiment, not as a right
under liberty, not as a conclusion from American institutions, but as
the spiritual prerogative of the spiritual being. Her argument moves on
this high table-land of thought; and moves with a steadiness, a
serenity, an ease that little resemble the heated debates on later
platforms. Miss Fuller was thoroughly feminine in her intuitions. It was
impossible for her to treat any subject, to say nothing of a subject so
complex and delicate as this, with any but the finest tempered tools.
Her sympathies were with women; she attracted women by the power of her
intelligence and fellow feeling. Women of feeling and aspiration--pure
feeling and beautiful aspiration,--came to her. The secrets of the best
hearts were revealed to her, as they could not have been, had she failed
to reach or attract them on their own level. Her idea of womanly
character as displayed in sentiment and action was as gracious as it was
lofty.
"We would have every arbitrary barrier thrown down. We would have
every path laid open to women as freely as to man. Were this done,
and a slight temporary fermentation allowed to subside, we believe
that the Divine would ascend into nature to a height unknown in the
history of past ages; and nature, thus instructed, would regulate
the spheres, not only so as to avoid collision, but to bring forth
ravishing harmony."
Yet then, and only then, will human beings, in her judgment, be ripe for
this, when inward and outward freedom for woman as much as for man,
shall be acknowledged as a right, not yielded as a concession.
"What woman needs is not as a woman to act or rule, but as a nature
to grow, as an intellect to discern, as a soul to live freely, and
unimpeded to unfold such powers as were given her when we left our
common home. If fewer talents were given her, yet, if allowed the
full and free employment of these, so that she may render back to
the giver his own with usury, she will not complain, nay, I dare to
say, she will bless and rejoice in her earthly birth-place her
earthly lot."
"Man is not willingly ungenerous. He wants faith and love because
he is not yet himself an elevated being. He cries with sneering
skepticism: Give us a sign! But if the sign appears, his eyes
glisten, and he offers not merely approval but homage."
The Transcendental idea makes her just to all, to the Hebrews who
"greeted with solemn rapture all great and holy women as heroines,
prophetesses, nay judges in Israel, and if they made Eve listen to the
serpent, gave Mary to the Holy Ghost;" to the Greeks whose feminine
deities were types of dignity and loveliness; to the Romans, whose
glorious women are "of threadbare celebrity;" to Asiatics, Russians,
English. It gave her generous interpretations for laws, institutions,
customs, bidding her look on the bright side of history.
"Whatever may have been the domestic manners of the ancient
nations, the idea of woman was nobly manifested in their
mythologies and poems, where she appeared as Sita in the Ramayana,
a form of tender purity; in the Egyptian Isis, of divine wisdom
never yet surpassed. In Egypt too, the sphinx, walking the earth
with lion tread, looked out upon its marvels in the calm,
inscrutable beauty of a virgin face, and the Greek could only add
wings to the great emblem." "In Sparta the women were as much
Spartans as the men. Was not the calm equality they enjoyed well
worth the honors of chivalry? They intelligently shared the ideal
life of their nation." "Is it in vain that the truth has been
recognized that woman is not only a part of man, bone of his bone,
and flesh of his flesh, born that man might not be lonely, but in
themselves possessors of and possessed by immortal souls? This
truth undoubtedly received a greater outward stability from the
belief of the church that the earthly parent of the Saviour of
souls was a woman."
"Woman cannot complain that she has not had her share of power.
This in all ranks of society, except the lowest, has been hers to
the extent that vanity could crave, far beyond what wisdom would
accept. It is not the transient breath of poetic incense that women
want; each can receive that from a lover. It is not life-long sway;
it needs to become a coquette, a shrew, or a good cook, to be sure
of that. It is not money, nor notoriety, nor the badges of
authority that men have appropriated to themselves. It is for that
which includes all these and precludes them; which would not be
forbidden power, lest there be temptation to steal and misuse it;
which would not have the mind perverted by flattery from a
worthiness of esteem. It is for that which is the birthright of
every being capable to receive it,--the freedom, the religious, the
intelligent freedom of the universe, to use its means, to learn its
secret as far as nature has enabled them, with God alone for their
guide and their judge."
"The only reason why women ever assume what is more appropriate to
men, is because men prevent them from finding out what is fit for
themselves. Were they free, were they wise fully to develop the
strength and beauty of woman, they would never wish to be men or
manlike. The well instructed moon flies not from her orbit to seize
on the glories of her partner."
"Give the soul free course, let the organization be freely
developed, and the being will be fit for any and every relation to
which it may be called."
"Civilized Europe is still in a transition state about marriage,
not only in practice but in thought. A great majority of societies
and individuals are still doubtful whether earthly marriage is to
be a union of souls, or merely a contract of convenience and
utility. Were woman established in the rights of an immortal being,
this could not be." But "those who would reform the world, must
show that they do not speak in the heat of wild impulse; their
lives must be unstained by passionate error; they must be severe
lawgivers to themselves. As to their transgressions of opinions, it
may be observed, that the resolve of Eloise to be only the mistress
of Abelard, was that of one who saw the contract of marriage a seal
of degradation. Wherever abuses of this sort are seen, the timid
will suffer, the bold will protest; but society has the right to
outlaw them, till she has revised her law, and she must be taught
to do so, by one who speaks with authority, not in anger or haste."
"Whether much or little has been or will be done; whether women
will add to the talent of narration, the power of systematizing;
whether they will carve marble as well as iron, is not important.
But that it should be acknowledged that they have intellect which
needs developing, that they should not be considered complete, if
beings of affection and habit alone, is important. Earth knows no
fairer, holier relation than that of mother. But a being of
infinite scope must not be treated with an exclusive view to any
one relation."
"In America women are much better situated than men. Good books are
allowed, with more time to read them. They have time to think, and
no traditions chain them. Their employments are more favorable to
the inward life than those of men. Men are courteous to them;
praise them often; check them seldom. In this country, is
venerated, wherever seen, the character which Goethe spoke of as an
Ideal: 'The excellent woman is she, who, if her husband dies, can
be a father to the children.'"
Nothing can be more reasonable than this; and this is the tone of
transcendental feeling and thought on the subject. The only criticism
that can fairly be made on the Transcendentalist's idea of woman, is
that it has more regard for essential capacities and possibilities, than
for incidental circumstances, more respect for the ideal than for the
actual woman. However grave a sin this may be against common sense, it
is none against purity, nobleness, or the laws of private or public
virtue. The dream, if it be no more than a dream, is beautiful and
inspiring.
The Transcendentalist believed in man's ability to apprehend absolute
ideas of Truth, Justice, Rectitude, Goodness; he spoke of The Right, The
True, The Beautiful, as eternal realities which he perceived. The
"Sensational" philosophy was shut up in the relative and conditioned;
knew nothing higher than expediency; held prudence, caution, practical
wisdom in highest rank among the virtues; consulted the revelations of
history; recognized no law above established usage; went for guidance to
the book, the record, the statute; it could not speak therefore with
power, but could only consider, surmise, cast probabilities, devise
plans and work carefully towards their execution. The Sensationalist
distrusted the seer, rejected the prophet, and disliked the reformer.
His aim was law; his work within easy distance; his object, some
plainly visible and appreciable satisfaction. His faith in men and women
was small; his trust in circumstances and conditions was unbounded; but
as this faith had no wings, it could neither raise its possessor from
the ground, nor speed him faster than a walking pace. He was easily
satisfied with the world as it was; or if dissatisfied, had little hope
of its being made better by anything he could do. His helplessness and
hopelessness will make him in opinion an optimist, who finds it easier
to assume that the order of the world is perfect and will so appear by
and by, than that it is made imperfect for him to mend. Optimism is
perhaps oftener the creed of the indolent than of the earnest.
The Transcendentalist was satisfied with nothing so long as it did not
correspond to the ideal in the enlightened soul; and in the soul
recognized the power to make all things new. Nothing will content him
short of the absolute right, the eternally true, the unconditioned
excellence. He prays for the kingdom of Heaven, lives in expectation of
it; would not be surprised at its coming any day. For though the
distance is immense between the world as it is and his vision of the
world as it should be--a distance that the Evolutionist despairs of
seeing traversed in thousands of years, if he believes it will be
traversed at all,--still, as the power of regeneration is supposed to be
in the soul itself, which is possessed of infinite capacities and is
open continually to inspirations from the world of soul, the
transformation may begin when least expected, and may be completed
before preparation for it can be made. Hence his boundless enthusiasm
and hope; hence the order of his feeling, the glow of his language.
Hence his disposition to exaggerate the force of tendencies that point
in his direction; to take the brightest view of events, and put the
happiest construction on the signs of the times. In the anti-slavery
period the Transcendentalist glorified the negro beyond all warrant of
fact, seeing in him an imprisoned soul struggling to be free. The same
soul he sees in woman oppressed by limitations; the same in the
drunkard, the gambler, the libertine. His eye is ever fixed on the
future.
VIII.
RELIGION.
It was by no accident that the transcendental philosophy addressed
itself at once to the questions of religion. It did so at the beginning,
in Germany, and later, in England, and did so from the nature of the
case. Its very name implied that it maintained the existence of ideas in
the mind which transcended sensible experience. Such ideas fall within
the domain of religion; ideas of the infinite, the eternal, the
absolute; and the significance and import of these ideas exercised the
minds of transcendental thinkers, according to their genius. Kant felt
it necessary to reopen the problem of God and immortality; Fichte
followed, Schelling and Hegel moved on the same plane.
Transcendentalism was, in fact, a reaction against the moral and
political skepticism which resulted directly from the prevailing
philosophy of sensation. Since Bacon's day, religious beliefs had been
taking hold on the enlightened mind of England and Europe. The drift of
speculation was strongly against, not the Christian system alone, but
natural religion, and the ideal foundation of morality. The writings of
Collins, Dodwell, Mandeville, expressed more skepticism than they
created, and betrayed a deeply-seated and widely-spread misgiving in
regard to the fundamental truths of theology. Hume's argument against
the credibility of miracles was never answered, and the anxiety to
answer it was a confession of alarm from the heart of the church. The
famous XVIth chapter of Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"
was assailed furiously, but in vain, each assault exposing the weakness
of the assailants; and it was only by adopting his history, and editing
it with judicious notes, that the church silenced the enemy it could not
crush. The deists of the seventeenth century in no wise balanced their
denials by their affirmations, but left Christianity fearfully shattered
by their blows. The champions of the church fought skepticism with
skepticism, conceding in substance the points they superficially
attacked. Towards the close of the seventeenth century Cudworth
confronted atheism with idealism, retreating upon Plato when the foe had
carried the other works; early in the century following, Butler, in the
celebrated "Analogy," fought infidelity with weapons that infidelity
might have turned, and since has turned with deadly effect, against
himself. The ablest representative of Unitarianism was Joseph Priestley,
a materialist of the school of Hartley. The cardinal beliefs of religion
were debated in a way that was quite unsatisfactory in the light of
reason, showing the extent to which faith had been undermined. Indeed,
had it not been for the power of institutions, customs, respectability,
and tradition, the popular beliefs would have all but disappeared, so
deep into the heart of the people unbelief had penetrated. The church
stood fast, because it was allied with power and fashion, not because it
was supported by reason or faith. The whole tone of feeling on sacred
and ethical topics was low; divine ideas were defended by considerations
of expediency; God was a probability; the immortality of the soul a
possibility, a supplement to skepticism, an appendix to a philosophy
which, finding no God here, presumed there must be one hereafter. There
is no more soulless reading than the works of the Christian apologists
of the seventeenth century. The infidels had more ideas, and apparently
more sincerity, but in neither was there any spiritual impulse or
fervor.
In Germany the philosophy of Bacon and Locke did not strike deep root.
The day of Germany was to come later. Her thoughts were pent up in her
own breast. She was isolated, and almost speechless. Her genius awoke
with the new philosophy. Under the influence of idealism it bloomed in
the richest of modern literatures. Her very skepticism, the much
talked-of rationalism, had an ideal origin. Strauss was a disciple of
Hegel. Bauer, and the "historical school" of Tuebingen worked out their
problem of New Testament criticism from the Hegelian idea, the
constructive force whereof was so powerful, that the negations lost
their negative character, and showed primarily as affirmations of
reason. By being adopted into the line of intellectual development of
mankind, Christianity, though dethroned and disenchanted, was dignified
as a supreme moment in the autobiography of God.
Frederick the Great, in the middle of the eighteenth century, attracted
literary celebrities to his court, and gave an impulse, so far, to the
German mind; but the French genius found more encouragement there than
the German, and in his time French genius was speeding fast in the way
of skepticism. Condillac, Cabanis, d'Holbach, Helvetius, were of that
generation. The "Encyclopaedists," the most brilliant men and women of
the generation, were planning their work of demolition. Voltaire was the
great name in contemporary literature. The books of Volney were popular
towards the end of the century. Skepticism and materialism had the
floor. It was fashionable to ridicule the belief in personal
immortality, and in enlightened circles to deny the existence of God.
The doctrines of Christianity were abandoned to priests and women;
philosophers deemed them too absurd to be argued against. Had the
assault been less witty and more scientific, less acrimonious and more
reasonable, less scornful and more consistent, its apparent success
might have been permanent. As it was, a change of mood occurred; a
conservative spirit succeeded the destructive; order prevailed over
anarchy; and the Catholic church, which had only been temporarily thrust
aside--not fatally wounded, not by any means disposed of--regained its
suspended power.
But rational or intellectual Christianity--in other words the system of
Protestantism, in whatever form held--received a severe blow in France
from these audacious hands. Religion took refuge in institutions and
ceremonial forms; and there remained little else except a kernel of
sentiment in a thin shell of tradition. What beliefs were entertained
were accepted on authority; reason sought other fields of exercise,
scientific, philosophical, literary; and a chill of indifference crept
over the once religious world. From France, opinions adverse to
Christianity were brought to America by travelled or curious people;
they pervaded the creative minds of our earliest epoch, and penetrated
far into the popular intelligence. The habit of thinking independently
of authority and tradition became confirmed, and as a matter of course
led to doubts and denials; for thinking was done in a temper of
defiance, which constrained the thought to obey the wish. Such
philosophical ideas as there were, came from France and England. Paley's
was the last word in morals; the "Bridgewater Treatises" were the
received oracles in religion; the rules of practical judgment had
usurped the dominion of faith.
What pass things had come to in New England, in the centre of its
culture, has been described in a previous chapter. It was time for a
reaction to set in; and it came in the form of Transcendentalism. The
"sensational" philosophy, it was contended, could not supply a basis for
faith. Its first principle was "_Nihil in intellectu quod non prius in
sensu_." "There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the
senses." From this principle nothing but skepticism could proceed. How,
for instance, asks the Transcendentalist, can the sensational philosophy
of Locke and his disciples give us anything approaching to a certainty
of the existence of God? The senses furnish no evidence of it. God is
not an object of sensation. He is not seen, felt, heard, tasted or
smelt. The objects of sense are material, local, incidental; God is
immaterial, universal, eternal. The objects of sense are finite; but a
finite God is no God; for God is infinite. Is it said that by men of
old, bible men, God was seen, heard, clasped in human arms? The reply
is, that whatever Being was so apparent and tangible, could not have
been God. To the assertion that the Being announced himself as God,--the
infinite, the eternal God,--the challenge straightway is given: To whom
did he say it? How can it be proved that he said it? Is the record of
his saying it authentic? Might not the Being have made a false
statement? Can we be certain there was no mental hallucination? Suppose
these and other doubts of a similar character dispelled, still, hearing
is not knowing. All we have is a tradition of God, a legend, a rumor, a
dim reminiscence, that passes like a shadow across men's minds. The
appeal to miracle is set aside by historical skepticism. The wonder
lacks evidence; and to prove the wonder a miracle, is beyond
achievement. A possibility, or at most, a probability of God's existence
is all that sensationalism, with every advantage given it, can supply.
And if this philosophy fails to give an assurance of God's existence,
the failure to throw light on his attributes is more signal. The senses
report things as they exist in relations, not as they exist in
themselves. Neither absolute power, absolute wisdom nor absolute
goodness is hinted at by the senses. The visible system of things
abounds in contradictions that we cannot reconcile, puzzles we cannot
explain, mysteries we cannot penetrate, imperfections we cannot account
for, wrongs we cannot palliate, evils we cannot cover up or justify.
That a vein of wisdom, an element of goodness, an infusion of
loving-kindness is in the world is evident; but to show that, is to go
very little way towards establishing the attributes of a Perfect Being.
A God of limited power, wisdom or goodness, is no God, and no other does
Sensationalism offer. Transcendentalism points to the fact that under
the auspices of this philosophy atheism has spread; and along with
atheism the intellectual demoralization that accompanies the
disappearance of a cardinal idea.