because we do not become modified in a few months; because we do not
accomplish great works in a few months; because we do not rear children
in a few months; duration is so truly an aspiration of love, that it
imagines that eternity will hardly suffice for it. It must have equality;
division is hateful to it; it will therefore have a unit for a unit, both
male and female. Now polygamy and polyandria are the negation of
equality, of dignity in love.
Let us consider the effects of these two deviations of instinct.
Oriental polygamy renders human beings profoundly unequal, transforms
women into cattle, mutilates thousands of men to guard the harems,
depraves the possessor of women by despotism and cruelty, concentrates
all his vitality upon a single instinct at the expense of intellect,
reason and activity; whence it follows that he is lost to science, art,
industry, society according to right: that he submits without repugnance
to despotism, and passively extends his neck to the halter. There, no
influence is wielded by woman, who is subjected to designed enervation,
who is depraved in as hideous a manner as the eunuch, her keeper. Thus,
inequality in love and in right, abandonment of art, science and
industry, intellectual and physical enervation, debasement of the moral
sense--such are vices inherent to the polygamy of the East. You see that
this is far from the ideal of our destinies.
In our West, polygamy _de facto_ produces the cattle of the brothel,
legions of courtesans who ruin families. As many of these women are
diseased, they infect those who associate with them with fearful maladies
which undermine their constitutions, and thus pave the way for puny
offspring, consequently, for weak minds and feeble intellects. I appeal
for proof to the conscription; never were so many exemptions seen as now
on account of under size, although the standard has been lowered, never
were so many exemptions seen as now for constitutional imperfections and
acquired disease.
To vitiate the generation in its germ is not the only crime of our
polygamy; it enervates those who practice it, for nothing leads to
excess, consequently to enervation, so much as the change of relations.
On the other hand, our polygamists become transformed into machines of
sensation; then intellect grows weak; they become stupid and selfish.
Look at the pitiable young men of the present time, emaciated by their
vices and by those of their sires; scoffers, faithless, jesting at the
most sacred things, despising, not only the corrupt women, their worthy
companions, but also the whole sex to which their mothers belong; look at
them; so gross as to sicken the observer, nothing longer commands their
respect; they thrust aside gray haired women from the sidewalk into the
gutter; they are impertinent to old men; they put young girls to the
blush with their cynical speeches; polygamy has rendered them ignoble,
and has destroyed our native urbanity as well as all dignity.
They will tell you that women are but little better than they. But this
result becomes inevitable in a country in which women are not kept in
seclusion. Polyandria becomes the necessary companion of polygamy; for
since men consider themselves at liberty to have more than one woman, why
should women consider themselves forbidden to have more than one man?
Finally, my son, the results of irrepressible love, Polygamy and
Polyandria in our Western country are:
The seduction and corruption of women;
Adultery, debasement of character; the moral and intellectual enfeebling
of both sexes;
The enervation and degeneracy of the race;
Falsehood, deceit, cruelty, injustice of every kind, the use of woman by
man for her beauty, that of man by woman for his money or position;
The dissolution and ruin of the family;
Several thousand illegitimate children annually, without counting
abortions;
Such is the value of these theories put in practice.
Is this in conformity with our ideal of human love? Is it in conformity
with our ideal of human destiny, which requires that we shall progress
and cause others to progress in good; that we shall practice Justice and
Goodness?
A word more, and we have done.
When Rome had ceased to believe in chastity, in the sacredness of oaths;
when she wallowed in polygamic and polyandric customs; when she took
pleasure for her end, tyranny appeared. Nothing was more natural: man
binds captive those only who have first suffered themselves to be bound
under the yoke of bestial instinct: he who knows how to govern himself
does not yield obedience to man; he bows only before the law when it is
the expression of Reason.
Remember, my son, that we are powerful only through chastity; only thus
can we produce great works in science, art and industry; only thus can we
practice Justice, be worthy of liberty. Outside of chastity, there is
nothing but degradation, injustice, impotence, slavery; and every nation
that forsakes it falls from the arms of despotism into the grave.
Do not suffer yourself therefore to be moved by modern sophisms, have
always before your thoughts your obligations as a moral and a free being,
your duties as a member of humanity; subject all that is within you to
Reason, to Justice, to the sentiment of your dignity, and live like a
man, not like a brute.
MARRIAGE, A DIALOGUE.
READER. We are about to speak of Marriage from the stand point of the
modern ideal--how do you define it?
AUTHOR. Love, sanctioned by Society.
READER. Do you consider Marriage as indissoluble?
AUTHOR. Before the law, I do not; but at the moment of their union, the
spouses should have full confidence that the bond will never be
dissolved.
I believe that Marriage becomes indissoluble by the will alone of the
spouses; that it can be so only in this manner.
READER. What part do you assign to Society in Marriage?
AUTHOR. You shall fix it yourself after recalling our principles.
If man and woman are free beings at any period of their life, they cannot
_legally and validly_ lose their liberty.
If man and woman are beings socially equal in any of their relations, the
one cannot _legally, validly_ be subordinated to the other.
If the continual end of the human being is to become perfected through
liberty, and to seek happiness, no law can legitimately, _validly_ turn
him aside from its pursuit.
If the end of society should be to render individuals _equal_ it cannot,
under penalty of forfeiting its mission, constitute inequality of persons
and of rights.
If Society cannot without iniquity enter the domain of individual
liberty, it cannot _lawfully, validly_ prescribe duties that pertain only
to the jurisdiction of the conscience, and annul moral liberty.
Now draw your conclusions.
READER. From these principles, it follows that man and woman should
remain free and equal in Marriage; that Society has no right to intervene
in their association except to render them equal; that it has no right to
prescribe to them duties which proceed only from love, nor consequently
to punish their violation, that it cannot in principle grant or refuse
divorce, because it belongs to the husband and wife alone to know whether
it is useful for their happiness and progress to be separated from each
other.
AUTHOR. Your conclusions are right, but if Society has no right over the
body or the soul of the husband and wife in their capacity of spouses, if
it cannot without abuse of power interfere in any of their intimate
relations, it is its right and duty to intervene in Marriage as regards
interests and children.
READER. In fact, in the union of the sexes, there is not merely an
association of two free and equal persons, but also a partnership of
capital and labor; then, from the marriage, children are born for whose
education, occupation and subsistence it is necessary to provide.
AUTHOR. Now, the general protection of material interests and of the
rising generation devolves of right upon Society. In the sight of the
law, the husband and wife ought to be regarded only as partners, engaging
to employ a certain share of capital, together with their labor, for a
definite purpose. Society takes note only of a contract of interests, the
execution of which it guarantees like that of any other contract, and the
breach of which it makes public, should it take place by the wish of the
parties interested. On the other hand, the education of the rising
generation is a question of life and death to Society. The children being
free with respect to development, and liable to be useful or injurious to
their fellow citizens according to the training which they have received,
society has a right to watch over them, to secure their material support,
their moral future, to fix the age of marriage, to entrust the children
to the more deserving parent in case of separation, and if both are
unworthy, to take them away entirely.
READER. Do you not go a little too far; on the one hand, do not children
belong to their parents, on the other, may not Society err with respect
to the choice of the principles to be instilled in them?
AUTHOR. Children do not belong to their parents because they are not
THINGS: to those who obstinately persist in believing them _property_, we
say that Society has the right of dispossession for the public good. Then
the social right over children is limited so far as principles are
concerned to those of morality. Society has no right over religious
beliefs which belong to the domain of spiritual jurisdiction. The power
that should take away children from their parents because they were not
of a certain religious faith would be guilty of despotism, and would
merit universal execration. If you say that Society has no right to
impose a dogma upon children, you speak truly; but I cannot conceive how
you can entertain the thought of forbidding it the right to teach them,
even against the will of their parents, enlightening science, purifying
morality. Is it not the duty of society to secure the progress of its
members, and can any one have a right to keep a human being in ignorance
and evil?
READER. You are right, and I condemn myself. Let us return to Marriage. I
see with pleasure that you differ in opinion from a number of modern
innovators who deny the lawfulness of social interference in the union of
the sexes.
AUTHOR. If the union were without protection, who would suffer by it? Not
men, but rather women and children.
No one can compel a man to live with a woman whom he has ceased to love;
but he must be constrained to fulfill his duties with respect to the
children born of this union, and to keep his business engagements: in
wronging his companion and escaping from the burdens of paternity, he
takes advantage of his liberty to the detriment of others: Society has a
right to prevent this.
READER. So you do not grant to Society the right of binding souls or
bodies; but that of guaranteeing the contract of Marriage, and the
obligations of the spouses towards their future children; of forcing
them, in case of separation, to fulfill this last obligation?
AUTHOR. Yes; thus in case of the rupture of the marriage tie, society has
only to state publicly the responsibilities of the spouses, the number of
children, and the name of the parent on whom their guardianship devolves,
either by mutual consent or by social authority. And in confining itself
to this part, Society would do more to prevent the separation of married
couples than by all that it has hitherto foolishly invented for the
purpose. The parties would be free to marry again; but what woman would
be willing to unite herself to a man who was burdened with several
children, or who had treated his first companion unkindly? What man would
consent to wed a woman in the same position?
Do you not think that the difficulty that would be experienced in
contracting a new marriage would be a curb on the inconstancy and bad
conduct that lead to a rupture?
READER. I believe indeed that marriage, as you understand it, would have
more chances of duration than ours: first, because it is our nature to
cling most closely to that which we may lose. I have often asked myself
why many men remain faithful to their mistresses and treat them kindly,
while they are disrespectful and unfaithful to their wives; I have asked
myself also why many couples who had long lived happily together when
voluntarily united, were unhappy and often driven to a legal separation
when they had finally married; and the only reason that I have been able
to find is that we set the most value on that which we know may escape
us. Man has more respect for a woman who is not his legal property, his
inferior, than for her who is thus transformed by the law.
Notwithstanding, it must be acknowledged that your ideas appear
eccentric.
AUTHOR. Yet they are nothing more than an application of our laws;
indeed, do they not decree that covenants can have _things_ only, not
_persons_ for their object. That Society _does not recognize vows_, and
that proceedings cannot be instituted against their violation?
Now the existing law of marriage _alienates_ one of the partners in favor
of the other; the wife _belongs_ to the husband; she is in his _power_.
What is such a contract, if not the violation of the principle which
affirms that no covenant can be made involving persons? can it be more
lawful to alienate one's person by a contract of slavery?
Some say that we are at liberty to dispose of our freedom as we choose,
even though it be to renounce it. Indeed, we may do this, as we may
commit suicide, but to make use of our liberty to renounce it or to
commit suicide is much less to use aright than to violate the laws of
moral or physical nature; these are acts of insanity which we should
pity, but which we are not at liberty to erect into a law.
Why does Society refuse to recognize vows and to punish their violation,
if not because it admits that it is forbidden to penetrate into the
jurisdiction of the conscience? if not because it does not admit that an
individual may alienate his moral and intellectual being any more than
his body, and devote himself to immobility when it is his duty, on the
contrary, to go forward?
I ask then if this same Society is not inconsistent in exacting perpetual
vows from the husband and wife, in exacting from the wife a vow of
obedience, a tacit vow to deliver up her person to the desires of the
husband?
Is not the moral liberty of the spouses as worthy of respect as that of
nuns, priests and monks?
Have married persons more right in Nature and Reason, to alienate their
moral and intellectual being, their liberty and their person than the
celibates of the Church?
Another inconsistency of the law is that it declares Marriage an
association; the contract of Marriage is therefore a contract of
partnership. Now I ask whether, in a single contract of this kind, it is
enjoined by law on one of the partners to _obey_, to be subjected to a
_perpetual minority_, to be _absorbed_?
I doubt not that the law would declare such a contract between
independent partners void; why then does it legalize such a monstrosity
in the partnership of husband and wife? It is a relic of barbarism, as
you will see if you reflect on it.
READER. I hope that, through reason and necessity, the law will be
reformed sooner or later: but a reformation which will not take place is
that of the forms of religious marriage, which prescribe to the spouses
the same oaths as the code, and like it, subject the wife to the husband.
AUTHOR. Well, what matters it to us, since, thanks to liberty, the
religious marriage is merely a benediction with which we can dispense.
Those who have a disposition to go to the Church, the Temple, or the
Synagogue should have full liberty to receive the blessing of their
respective priests! this does not concern Society. What we need is that,
if afterward their vows should not seem to them binding, social authority
should not make them obligatory; they have a right to be absurd, but
society has no right to impose absurdity on them. Its duty is, on the
contrary, to enlighten them, and to render them free.
IV.
READER. Those who subordinate woman in marriage rest on the assertion
that unity of direction, consequently a ruling power, is needed in the
family; now, your theory evidently destroys this ruling power.
AUTHOR. What is the ruling power? Practically, it is manifested through
the function of government. Formerly, it was based upon two principles,
now recognized as radically false: _Divine right_ and _inequality_. It
was the _right_ of those who exercised it to call themselves kings,
autocrats, priests, men; it was the _duty_ therefore of the people, the
church, woman to obey the elect of God, their superiors by the grace of
right delegated from on high.
But in modern opinion, the ruling power is nothing more than a function
delegated by the parties interested in order to execute their will.
It is not our business to inquire here whether this modern interpretation
has become incarnated in facts; whether the old principle is not still
struggling with the new; whether the holders of political and familial
authority are not still making insane pretensions to divine right; we
have only to show what the notion of the ruling power has become in the
present state of thought and feeling.
What will be the ruling power in marriage, in accordance with modern
opinion, if not the delegation by one spouse to the other of the
management of business and of the family--a delegation of function; no
longer a right?
And if man and woman are socially equal in principle, if the aptitudes,
upon which all functions are based, are not dependent on sex, by what
right does society interfere to give the authority either to the husband
or the wife?
If there is need of a ruling power in the household, are not the parties
themselves best capable of bestowing it on the one who can best and most
usefully exercise it?
But among partners, is there really room for a ruling power? No, there is
room only for division of labor, mutual understanding with respect to
common interests. To consult each other, to come to an agreement, to
divide the tasks, to remain master each of his own department; this is
what the spouses should do, and what they do in general.
The law has so little part in our customs that to-day things happen in
this wise: many rich women translate two articles of the Code as follows;
_the husband shall obey his wife, and shall follow her wherever she sees
fit to dwell or sojourn_. And the husbands obey, because it would not do
to offend a wife with a large dowry; because it would make a scandal to
thwart their wife; because they need her, being unable, without
dishonoring themselves, to keep a mistress.
Husbands in the great centres of population escape obedience through love
outside of marriage; they lay no restrictions on their part; Madame is
free.
Among the working classes of the citizens and the people, it is
practically admitted that neither shall command, and that the husband
shall do nothing without consulting his wife and obtaining her consent.
In all classes, if any husband is simple enough to take his pretended
right in earnest, he is cited as a bad man, an intolerable despot whom
his wife may hate and deceive with a safe conscience; and it is a curious
fact that the greater part of the legal separations are for no other
cause at the bottom than the exercise of the rights and prerogatives
conceded to the husbands by law.
I ask you now, what is the use of maintaining against reason and custom,
an authority which does not exist, or which is transferred to the spouse
condemned to subjection.
READER. On this point, I am wholly of your opinion; not a single woman of
modern times takes the rights of her husband in earnest. But your theory
not only attacks his authority; it also wages war against the
indissolubility of marriage, which it is affirmed, is necessary to the
dignity of this tie; to the happiness and future of the children, to the
morality of the family.
AUTHOR. I claim, on the contrary, that my theory secures, as far as is
humanly possible, the perpetuity and purity of marriage. At present, when
the knot is tied, the spouses, no longer fearing to lose each other, find
in the absence of this fear the germ of a mutual coolness; they may
quarrel, be discourteous or unfaithful to each other; there will be
scandal, a legal separation perhaps, but they are riveted together; they
can never become strangers. Contrast with this picture a household in
which the bond is dissoluble; all is changed; the despotic or brutal
husband represses his evil propensities, because he knows that his
companion, whom after all he loves, would quit him and transfer to
another the attentions she lavishes on him; and that no honest woman
would be willing to take her place.
The husband disposed to be unfaithful would continue in the path of duty,
because his abandonment and offences would alienate his wife, blast his
reputation, and prevent him from forming an honorable alliance.
The worn out profligate would no longer espouse the dowry of a young
girl, because he would know that, promptly disenchanted, the young wife,
instead of having recourse to adultery, would break the ill assorted
union.
The woman who should take advantage of her dowry, of the necessity of her
husband to remain faithful, to tyrannise over him, would fear a divorce
which would throw the blame on her and condemn her to a life of solitude.
A shrewish wife would no longer dare to inflict suffering on her husband,
or a coquette to deceive or torment him; who would marry them after a
separation?
Do you not see that free marriages are happier and more lasting than any
others?
Have you not yourself admitted that to separate the parties in these
unions, it often suffices to join them legally?
I know myself of a voluntary union that was very happy during
_twenty-two_ years, and was dissolved by separation at the end of three
years of legal marriage; I have known of many others of a shorter
duration which legality contributed to dissolve instead of rendering
eternal.
You would hardly believe how many married couples reformed in their
treatment of each other in 1848, when they feared that the law of divorce
might be accepted. If the simple expedient of divorce has power to
produce good results, what may not be expected from a rational law.
We need only to reflect in order to comprehend that voluntary
dissolubility, without social intervention, would render unions better
assorted, for it would be for one's interest, for his own reputation, to
enter into them only with the moral conviction of being able to preserve
them; then only would no excuse be found for infidelity; loyalty would
make part of the relations of the spouses. The law of perpetuity has
perverted everything, corrupted everything; on the side of the woman, it
favors, yes, necessitates stratagem; on the side of the man, it favors
brutality and despotism; it provokes on both sides adultery, poisoning
and assassination; and leads to those separations which are daily
increasing in number, and which, by giving the lie to the indissolubility
of marriage, place the partners in a painful and perilous situation, and
bring in their train a host of irregularities.
In fact, if the spouses are separated while young, concubinage is their
refuge. The man in this false position finds many to excuse him; but the
woman is forced to conceal herself, to tremble at the thought of a
pregnancy and to make it disappear. Legal separation leads the spouses
not only to concubinage, to mutual hatred, but causes the birth of
thousands of children whose future is compromised, destroyed by the fact
of their illegitimacy. Let the spouses be free in accordance with their
right, and all will fall into its proper order, for all will be done
openly and truly.
READER. But the future of the children?
AUTHOR. The morality of the children is better insured under the system
of liberty than under that of indissolubility, for they will not be
witnesses for years of the bitter contention and licentiousness which now
render them deceitful and vicious, and inspire them with contempt or
hatred for one of the authors of their being, sometimes of both, when
they do not take them for models; if life in common becomes impossible to
the parents, which will be more rare under the law of liberty, the
children will not be subjected to the power of those who violate the law
of received morality; they may see these parents contract a new alliance
_as now_, but this alliance will be honored by all.
From these unions children may be born _as now_, but these children,
instead of being cast into the hospital, will share with the first the
affection and inheritance of their father or mother. The so-styled
legitimate children will lose in fortune, it is true; but they will gain
in good examples; many children who are now in the category of the
illegitimate will be ranked among the former, and will be no longer
condemned by desertion to die young, or else to grovel in ignorance, vice
and misery; to see their brow branded with the fault of their parents as
of their own by a host of imbeciles and men without heart, who have no
other guarantee for what they call their legitimacy than the presumption
accorded them by the law.
III.
READER. It will be long yet, perhaps, before collective Reason
comprehends liberty in the union of the sexes as you do, and men will
ascribe to themselves the right not only of binding the interests, but
the souls and bodies of the spouses.
AUTHOR. As far as we can foresee, Society must necessarily? pass through
two stages to realize our opinion; it must first grant divorce _for a
declared cause_; later it will grant divorce decreed in private on the
petition of one or both of the spouses. We will not take up this last
form of the rupture of the conjugal tie, but that which is nearest
us--divorce for a declared cause.
What are the reasons which you would consider valid for a petition for
divorce?
READER. First, those which now give rise to separation from bed and
board: adultery of the wife, cruelty, grave abuses, condemnation of one
of the spouses to punishment affecting the liberty or person, the
fraudulent management of the property by the husband; next, infidelity of
the husband, qualified adultery, incompatibility of temper, notable
vices, such as drunkenness, gaming, etc.
AUTHOR. Very well; these causes suffice.
READER. During the proceedings for divorce, the wife should be as free as
the husband. The child that should be born to her after more than ten
months' separation should be reputed natural, even though the divorce had
not been pronounced; and should bear her name and inherit from her like
one of her legitimate children.
AUTHOR. Who should take custody of the children and the property during
the proceedings?
READER. The court should decide who should have the care of the children,
in accordance with the causes for the petition for divorce and the
testimony of the parents, friends and neighbors.
AUTHOR. But if the spouses ask to be divorced only on account of
incompatibility of temper, and are both honorable?
READER. They should be requested to agree mutually either to share the
children, or to entrust them to one of the two, or to give the younger
children to the mother, leaving the sons over fifteen to the father. The
court, besides, should appoint from the family of the mother, a guardian
to watch over the conduct of the father towards the children left in his
care; and from the family of the father, a similar guardian to the mother
and the children remaining with her. This guardianship, which should be
strictly moral, should continue till the children had attained majority.
AUTHOR. And in case the parents should be alike unworthy?
READER. In such a case, which would seldom happen, the judge, in behalf
of society, should deprive them of the custody of the children, and
entrust it to a member of the family of one of the parents, appointing a
guardian to watch over his conduct and protect the interests of his ward
from the family of the other.
AUTHOR. Very well; I see with pleasure that you are cured of the
erroneous belief that the children _belong_ to the parents, and that you
comprehend the high function of society as the protector of minors.
During the suit for divorce, who shall have the control of the property?
READER. If the contract has been made under the system of separation of
property, and for paraphernalia, there is no need of putting the
question; each one will manage his own.
But I am somewhat puzzled how to answer you in case of communion of
goods, or in case the capital is embarked in a common business, carried
on solely by one of the parties. The present law does not seem to me
sufficiently to protect the interests of the wife in case of separation.
AUTHOR. Without entangling ourselves in a host of individual cases which
modify or contradict each other, let us provide that in case of communion
of goods, the administration of the property shall be taken from the
spouse holding it if the petition for divorce be based on his bad
management, his dissipated habits, or his condemnation to a penalty
affecting his liberty or person; that in all other cases, he shall make
an inventory of the property and the condition of the business; and a
person shall be appointed from the family of the spouse excluded from the
management to watch over the conduct of the spouse to whom it is
entrusted, who shall be bound to pay alimony to the other until the
divorce shall be decreed.
READER. And if there is no fortune?
AUTHOR. Until the spouses become strangers, they owe assistance to each
other: the court should therefore require the spouse that earns the more
to aid the other.
READER. How long a time should elapse between the admission of the
petition and the judgment of divorce?
AUTHOR. A year, in order that the parties may have time for reflection.
READER. The divorce being granted, and the ex-partners restored to
liberty, would you permit them to marry others?
AUTHOR. Most assuredly; else what signifies our arguments against
separation?
READER. What! the adulterous and brutal spouse, he who has inflicted
suffering on his partner, who has been wholly in the wrong, should enjoy
like the other the privilege of marrying again? I confess that this
shocks me.
AUTHOR. Because you are not sufficiently imbued with the doctrines of
liberty and the sentiment of right. Marriage is the natural right of
every adult; society has no right therefore to prohibit it or to make it
a privilege; on the other hand, in every divorce, there is wrong or the
lack of something on either side with respect to the other; the man or
woman who commits adultery may be a model of fidelity to a partner
better suited to his or her temperament and disposition; he who has been
brutal and violent may be wholly different with a wife possessing a
different character; in short, we repeat, to prohibit marriage is to
permit libertinism, and it is not the interest of society to pervert
itself. Both partners therefore should have a right to marry, but the law
should take care that all should be informed of the burdens resting upon
them by reason of their first marriage, and know that they are divorced.
Consequently, society has a right to publish the bill of divorce, and to
require that the parties divorced should provide for the necessities of
their minor children, and that the bill of divorce, joined to the one
setting forth this obligation, should accompany the publication of the
bans of a new marriage; in this, there is neither injustice nor abuse of
power; for each one will submit to the consequence of what he has done in
perfect freedom.
READER. And would you not fix the number of times that a divorced person
might re-marry?
AUTHOR. Why fix it? do you fix the number of times that a widow or
widower may marry again?
READER. But a libertine, a bad man might marry ten times, and thus render
ten women unhappy.
AUTHOR. What are you talking of! do you seriously believe that there
would be a woman insane enough to marry a man _nine times_ divorced, a
man obliged to accompany the publication of his bans with nine bills of
divorce, with nine judgements compelling him to pay so much yearly for
the support of seven, eight or nine children. Do you seriously believe
that a woman would consent to become the companion of such a man! This
man might indeed marry twice--but three times! do you think that it would
be possible?
READER. You are right, and on reflection, the measures which you advocate
appear perhaps severe.
AUTHOR. I know it; but our aim is not to favor divorces nor subsequent
unions; but, on the contrary, to prevent the former as far as possible by
the difficulties of forming the latter. Now for this it is not necessary
to restrict the liberty of the individual, but to render him responsible
for his acts, and to rivet the chain that he has forged for himself in
such a manner that he can neither cast it aside nor lay the burden of it
on others unless they are duly warned of it and consent thereto.
IV.
READER. Ought society to permit unions disproportioned in age? Is it not
to expose a woman to adultery, to marry her at seventeen or eighteen to a
man of thirty, forty or even fifty years of age? What harmony of
sentiments and views can exist at that time between the spouses? The wife
sees in her husband a sort of father, whom notwithstanding she can
neither love nor respect like a father, and she remains a minor all her
life.
AUTHOR. These unions are very prejudicial to woman and the race, and they
would be for the most part averted, if the law should fix the
marriageable age at twenty-four or twenty-five for both sexes. At
seventeen, we marry to be called Madame, and to wear a bridal dress and a
wreath of orange flowers; we certainly should not do this at twenty-five.
If the flower is not called on to form its fruit until it is fully
matured, neither should man and woman: now, in our climate the
organization of neither is complete until twenty-four or twenty-five.
Woman gives more to the great work of reproduction and wears out faster
in it; to render her liable to become a mother prematurely is therefore
to expose her to greater sufferings.
In the first place, she is forced to share between herself and her
offspring the elements necessary to her own nutrition, which weakens both
her and the child.
Her development is checked, her constitution is changed, she becomes
predisposed to uterine affections, and runs the risk of becoming an
invalid at the age when she ought to enjoy robust health.
The enervation of the body brings with it that of the mind: the woman
becomes nervous, irritable, and often capricious; she cannot nurse her
children; she will not be capable of rearing them properly, she will make
dolls of them, and will favor the development of faults which afterwards
becoming vices, will afflict the family and society.
This woman, a mother before her time, not only will never become the
thoughtful companion and counsellor of her husband who, being much older
than she, will amuse himself with her as with a child, but will be his
ward for her whole life, and will have recourse to artifice to have her
own way. Thus to weaken woman in every respect, to shorten her life, to
put her under guardianship, to prepare the way for puny and badly reared
offspring,--such are the most obvious results of her precocious marriage.
To hold women in voluntary subjection and to organize the harem among us,
we need only take advantage of the permission of the law authorising
their marriage at the age of fifteen.
That woman may not be in subjection; that she may be able to become a
mother without detriment to her health and under circumstances favorable
to the good organization of her children; that she may be a worthy and
earnest wife, prepared to fulfill all her duties, she must not be
married, I repeat, before twenty-four or twenty-five; and she must not
marry a man older than herself.
READER. But it is claimed that the husband ought to be ten years older
than the wife, because the latter grows old faster, and because it is
necessary that the husband should have had experience in life in order to
appreciate his wife and to render her happy.
AUTHOR. Errors and prejudices all. Woman grows old sooner than man only
through premature marriage and maternity; a well preserved man and woman
are alike old at the same age. But the woman consents to grow old while
the man is much less willing to do so, since he does not blush when gray
haired, to marry a young girl, and to set up the ridiculous pretention of
being loved by her for love. Men must be broken of the habit of believing
themselves perpetually at the age of pleasing; of imagining that they are
quite as agreeable to our eyes when they are old and ugly as if they were
Adonises. They must be told unceasingly that what is unbecoming in us is
equally so in them; and that an old woman would be no more ridiculous in
seeking the love of a young man, than an old man in pretending to that of
a young girl.
The husband and wife should be nearly of the same age; first, to treat
each other more easily as equals; next, because there will be more
harmony in their feelings and views, as well as in their temperaments,
all things very necessary to the organization of children.
It is necessary besides, in order that the woman may not be tempted to
infidelity; you know how many troubles arise from unions disproportioned
in age.
The husband must have _seen life_, it is said; this is the opinion of
those who permit their sons to _sow their wild oats_; who believe that
man is at liberty to wallow in the mire of dens of infamy, and that there
are two kinds of morality. We do not belong to this class. You would not
give your daughter to a man who had _seen life_, because he would be
_blasé_, because he would pervert her or expose her, through the
disenchantment that would follow, to seek in another what she did not
find in her husband.
What we have said as regards your daughter applies also to your son; he
must not marry a woman younger than himself; for you would no more desire
a disadvantageous position for your daughter-in-law than for your
daughter; both are dear to you and worthy of respect before the
solidarity of sex.
READER. I shall educate my son to comprehend that the form of marriage
prescribed by the Code is merely a relic of barbarism, that his wife owes
obedience only to Duty, that she is a free being and his equal; and that
he has no rights over her person but those which she herself accords to
him. I shall tell him that love is a tender plant which must be tended
carefully to keep it alive; that it is blighted by unceremoniousness and
slovenliness; that he should therefore be as careful of his personal
appearance after marriage as he was to be pleasing to the eyes of his
betrothed. I shall say to him: ask nothing except from the love of your
wife; remember that more than one husband has excited repulsion by the
brutality of the wedding night. Marriage, my son, is a grave and holy
thing; purity is its choicest jewel; know that many men have owed the
adultery of their wife to the deplorable pains that they have taken to
deprave her imagination. Far from using your influence over her who will
be the half of yourself in order to render her docile to your wishes, and
to make her your echo, develop reason and character in her; in elevating
her, you will become better, and will prepare for yourself a counsel and
stay. I have married you under the system of separation of goods in order
that your wife may be protected against you, should you depart from your
principles; and should you ever grieve me by straying from them, your
wife will became doubly my daughter. I shall be her companion and
consoler, and shall close my arms and my doors on you.
AUTHOR. Right, and you will do well to add: interest your wife in your
occupation; take care that she is always busy, for labor is the preserver
of chastity.
READER. To my daughter I will say: the social order in which we live
requires, my child, that you shall superintend your house; the state of
Society is still far distant in which our sex will be relieved from this
function. Do not forget that the prosperity of the family depends on the
spirit of order and economy of the wife. What your fortune or special
business exempts you from executing, superintend and direct. Extravagance
of dress and furniture now surpasses all bounds. Luxury is not wrong in
itself, but in the existing state of things, it is a great relative evil,
for we have not yet resolved the problem of increasing and varying
products without at the same time increasing the wretchedness and
debasement of their producers. Be simple therefore: this does not exclude
elegance, but only those piles of silks and laces which trail in the dust
of the streets, those diamonds and precious stones which make the fortune
of the few at the expense of the morality of the many, and which are only
dead capital, the liberation of which would be productive of great good.
Do not suffer yourself to be ensnared by the sophism that honest women
must adorn themselves to hinder men from passing their time with
courtesans. Would you not be ashamed to compete in dress with women whom
you do not esteem, and would the man who could be retained by such means
be worth the trouble?
I have instructed you in your legal position as wife, mother and property
holder; I marry you under the system of separation of goods in order to
spare your husband the temptation of regarding himself as your master; in
order that he may be obliged to take your advice and to look upon you as
his partner. Despite these precautions, you will be a minor, since the
law thus decrees. But our law is not Reason: never forget that you are a
human being; that is, a being endowed like your husband with intellect,
sentiments, free will, and inclination; that you owe submission only to
Reason and your conscience; that if it is your duty to make sacrifices to
the peace in little things, and to tolerate the faults of your husband as
he should tolerate yours, it is none the less your duty resolutely to
resist a brutal--_I will have it so_.
You will be a mother, I hope; nurse your children yourself, rear them in
the principles of Right and Duty which I have instilled into your
intellect and heart, in order to make of them, not only just, good,
chaste men and women, but laborers in the great work of Progress.
You understand the great destiny of our species; you understand your
rights and duties; I need not therefore repeat to you that woman is no
more made for man than man for woman; that consequently woman cannot,
without failing in her duty, become lost and absorbed in man; for with
him, she should love her children, her country, humanity; she owes more
to her children than she does to him; and if forced to choose between
family interests and generous sentiments of a higher order woman should
no more hesitate than should man to sacrifice the former to justice.
AUTHOR. It will be said that you instruct your daughter in a very manly
way.
READER. Since in our days men play the mandolin, is it not necessary that
women should speak seriously? Since men, in the name of their naïve
selfishness, claim the right to confiscate woman to their use, to extol
to her the charms of the gyneceum, to suppress her rights, and to preach
to her the sweets of absorption, must not women re-act against these
soporific doctrines, and recall their daughters to the sentiment of
dignity and individuality.
AUTHOR. I endorse you with all my heart!
Now that we are nearly agreed on all points, we have only to sum up what
we have said, and to give an outline of the principal reforms necessary
to be wrought in order that woman my be placed in a position more in
conformity with Right and Justice.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED REFORMS.
I.
AUTHOR. Identity of right being based on identity of species, and woman
being of the same species as man, what ought she to be before civil
dignity, in the employment of her activity and in marriage?
READER. The equal of man.
AUTHOR. How will she become the equal of man in civil dignity?
READER. When she shall hold a place on the jury and by the side of all
civil functionaries; shall be a member of boards of trade and mercantile
associations; and shall be a witness in all cases in which the testimony
of man is required.
AUTHOR. Why ought the testimony of woman to be admitted in all cases in
which that of man is required?
READER. Because woman is as credible as man; because she is, like him, a
civil personage.
AUTHOR. Why ought woman to have a place on the jury?
READER. Because the Code declaring her the equal of man as regards
culpability, misdemeanor, crime and punishment, she is thus declared
capable like him of comprehending wrong in others;
Because the jury being a guarantee for the male culprit, the female
culprit should have a similar guarantee;
Because if the _male_ criminal is better comprehended by men, the
_female_ criminal will be better comprehended by women;
Because society in its aggregate being offended by the crime, it is
necessary that this society, composed of two sexes, should be represented
by both to judge and to condemn it. Because, lastly, where the moral
sense is concerned, the feminine element is the more necessary inasmuch
as men claim that our sex is in general more moral and more merciful than
their own.
AUTHOR. Why ought woman to hold a place among civil functionaries?
READER. Because society, represented by these functionaries, is composed
of two sexes;
Because even now in a number of public functions, there is a department
more especially belonging to woman;
Because, in the ceremony of the marriage celebration for instance, if
woman does not appear as magistrate, not only is society insufficiently
represented, but the wife may regard herself as delivered up to the power
of a man by all the men of the country.
AUTHOR. Why ought woman to have her place in boards of trade and
mercantile associations?
READER. Because she shares equally in industrial production;
Because she shares equally in commerce;
Because she understands business transactions and contracts as well if
not better than man;
Because, in all questions of interests, she should be her own
representative.
AUTHOR. When will woman become the equal of man in the employment of her
activity and of her other faculties?
READER. When she shall have colleges, academies and schools for special
instruction, and when all vocations shall be accessible to her.
AUTHOR. Why ought women to receive the same national education as men?
READER. Because they exercise a vast influence over the ideas, sentiments
and conduct of men, and because it is for the interest of society that
this influence should be salutary;
Because it is for the interest of all to enlarge the views and elevate
the sentiments of women, in order that they may use their natural
ascendency for the advancement of progress, of truth, of good, of moral
beauty;
Because woman has a right, like man, to cultivate her intellect, and to
acquire the knowledge bestowed by the state;
Because, lastly, as she pays her part of the expenses of national
education, it is robbery to prohibit her from participating in it.
AUTHOR. Why ought woman to be admitted to academies and professional
schools?
READER. Because Society, not having a right to deny the existence of any
aptitude among its members, has consequently no right to prevent those
who claim to possess them from cultivating them, nor to lock up from them
the treasures of science and practice which are at its disposal.
Because there are women who are born chemists, physicians,
mathematicians, etc., and because these women have a right to find in
social institutions the same resources as man for the cultivation of
their aptitudes;
Because there are professions practised by women who need the instruction
that is interdicted them.
AUTHOR. Why ought every field of occupation to be accessible to woman?
READER. Because woman is a free being, whose vocation no one has a right
to contest or to restrict;
Because she, no more than man, will enter vocations forbidden her by
temperament, lack of aptitude or want of time; and it is therefore quite
as unnecessary to interdict them to her as to those men who are unfit to
enter them.
AUTHOR. Do you not even interdict to her those vocations in which
strength is needed, or which are attended with danger?
READER. Women are not forbidden to be carpenters or tilers, yet they do
not become such, because their nature opposes it; it is precisely because
nature does oppose it, that I think society unreasonable in meddling with
the nature. There is no need to prohibit what is impossible; and if what
has been declared impossible is done, it is because it is possible: now
society has no right to prohibit what is possible to any of its members;
this appears even absurd where vocation is in question.
AUTHOR. Let each one follow his private occupation at his own risk and
peril, then; but are there not certain public functions which are not
suitable for women?
READER. No one knows this, since they are not open for her admission;
and, were it so, the prohibition would be useless: competition would show
the falsity of ill-founded pretentions.
AUTHOR. When will woman become the equal of man in marriage?
READER. When the person of the wife is not pledged in marriage; when the
engagements are reciprocal, and when the wife is not treated as a minor
and absorbed in the husband. And this should be so:
Because it is not allowable to alienate one's personality, such an
alienation, being _immoral_ and _void_ of itself;
Because the wife being a distinct individual, cannot be actually absorbed
by the husband, and a law is absurd when it rests on a fiction and
supposes an impossibility;
Because, in fine, woman, being the equal of man before Society, cannot,
under any pretext, lose this equality by reason of a closer association
with him.
AUTHOR. There are two questions in marriage, aside from that of the
person--property and children. Do you not think that the married woman
ought, like the unmarried woman who has attained majority, to be mistress
of her property, to be free to exercise any profession that suits her,
and to be at liberty to sell, to buy, to give, to receive, and to
institute suits at law?
READER. The married man having all these rights, it is evident that the
married woman ought to have them under the law of equality. Are you not
of the same opinion?
AUTHOR. In all partnerships, we pledge a portion of our liberty on
certain points agreed upon. Now the husband and wife are partners; they
cannot therefore be as perfectly free with respect to each other as
though they were strangers; but it is necessary, we repeat, that their
position should be the same and their pledges mutual. If the wife can
neither sell, nor alienate, nor give, nor receive, nor appear in court
without the consent of the husband, it is not allowable for the husband
to do these things without the consent of the wife; if the wife is not
permitted to practise a profession without the consent of the husband,
the husband is not at liberty to do so without the consent of the wife;
if the wife cannot pledge the common property without authority from the
husband, the husband cannot pledge it without the consent of the wife. I
go further; I would not willingly permit the wife, before the age of
twenty-five, to give her husband authority to alienate anything belonging
to one of the two; the husband has too much influence over her for her to
be really free before this age.
READER. But what if one of the parties through caprice or evil motives is
unwilling that the other should do something that is proper and
advantageous?
AUTHOR. Arbiters are frequently chosen in the differences that arise
between partners in business; society, represented by the judicial power,
is the general arbiter between the husband and wife; still we think that
it would be well to establish between them a perpetual arbiter, holding
the first degree of jurisdiction: this might be the family council,
organized differently from the present. Before this confidential
tribunal, better fitted than any other to understand the case, the
husband and wife should carry, not only the differences arising between
them concerning questions of interests, but those relating to the
education, profession and marriage of the children. This tribunal should
give the first judgment, and much scandal would be avoided by its
decisions, from which besides one could always appeal to the social
court.
I need not add that the right of the father and the mother over the
children is absolutely equal, and that, if the right of either could be
contested, it would not be that of the mother, who alone can say, I
_know_, I am _certain_ that these children are mine.
READER. In fact, it is odious that the plenitude of right should be found
on the side of the mere legal presumption, the act of faith, uncertainty.
Regarding marriage as a partnership of equals, do you not think that it
would be well to mark this equality and the distinction of personalities
in the name borne by the spouses and their children?
AUTHOR. Certainly, on the day of marriage each of the spouses should join
his partner's name to his own; this is done already in certain cantons of
Switzerland, and even in France, among a few individuals.
The children should bear the double name of their parents until marriage,
when the daughters should keep the mother's name, and the sons the
father's; or else, if we wish to bring into the question the system of
liberty, it might be decreed that, on attaining majority, the child
himself should choose which of the two names he would bear and transmit.
II.
READER. Now, let us take up the political right.
AUTHOR. A nation is an association of free and equal individuals,
co-operating, by their labor and contributions, to the maintenance of the
common work; they have an incontestible right to do whatever is necessary
to protect their persons, their rights and their property from injury.
Man has political rights because he is free and the equal of his
co-partners; according to others, because he is a producer and a
tax-payer; now, woman being, through identity of species, free and the
equal of man; being in point of fact, a producer and a tax-payer; and
having the same general instincts as man, it is evident that she has the
same political rights as he. Such are the principles, let us proceed to
the application.
We have said elsewhere, that it is not enough that a thing should be true
in an absolute sense; it is necessary under penalty of transforming good
into evil, to take into account the surroundings into which we seek to
introduce it; this men too often forget, the _practical_ truth in our
question is that it is profitable to recognize political rights _only to
the extent to which it is demanded_, because those who do not demand it
are intellectually incapable of making use of it, and because if they
should exercise it, in a majority of cases, it would be against their own
interests; Prudence exacts that we should be sure that the possessor of a
right is really emancipated, and that he will not be the blind tool of a
man or a party.
Now, in the existing state of affairs, women not only do not demand their
political rights, but laugh at those who address them on the subject;
they pride themselves on being thought unfit for that which regards
general interests; they recognize themselves therefore as incapable.
On the other hand, they are minors civilly, slaves of prejudice, deprived
of general education, submissive for the most part to the influence of
their husbands, lovers or confessors, clinging as a majority to the ways
of the past. If therefore they should enter without preparation into
political life, they would either duplicate men or cause humanity to
retrograde.
You comprehend now why many women who are more capable than an infinite
number of men of coöperating in great political acts, choose rather to
renounce them than to compromise the cause of progress by the extension
of political right to all women.
READER. Personally, I am of your opinion; but it is necessary to foresee
and to refute the objections that may be made to you by very intelligent
women; these women will say, Reflect, the negation of right is
iniquitous, for it is the negation of equality and of human nature. It is
as false as dangerous to lay down the principle of the recognition of
right only to the extent in which it is claimed; for it is notorious that
slaves are not the ones in general to demand their own rights; your
affirmation therefore condemns the emancipation of slaves and serfs, and
universal suffrage.
The objection that you raise against the right on account of the
incapacity of women and the low use which they would make of it, might
apply quite as well to men who are scarcely more fully emancipated than
they; who are often the duplicate of their wife or confessor, or who have
no other opinion than that of their electoral committee.
In right, as in everything else, an apprenticeship is necessary: woman
will make use of it at first badly, then better, then well; for we learn
to play on an instrument much more quickly by using it than by learning
its theory.
The exercise of right gives elevation and dignity, elevates the
individual in his own esteem, and causes him to study questions which he
would have neglected had he not been obliged to examine them in order to
concur in and resolve them. Do you wish women to take to heart matters of
general interest? Then give them political right.
These objections, may be raised against you.
AUTHOR. They were raised against me in 1848 by a number of eminent women,
and by many men devoted to the triumph of the new principles.
I answered them then and I answer them again to-day: We should speedily
agree, if our modern society were not the scene of conflict between two
diametrically opposite principles.
The question is not to decide whether political right belongs to woman,
whether she would develop it, enlarge it, etc., but rather whether she
would use it to ensure the triumph of the principle that says to
humanity, Advance! or of that which gives as the word of command,
Retreat!
What is the end of political right? Evidently, to accomplish a great duty
in the direction of progress. Well, is it not dangerous to accord it to
those who would employ it against this end?
What! you struggle for right, in order to obtain the triumph of a holy
cause, yet feel no hesitation in according it to those who would
certainly make use of right to kill right!
You reproach me for acting like the Jesuits, who value justice much less
than expediency. Well, gentlemen, if you had had half their ability, you
would have been successful long ago. Like true savages, you would think
yourselves dishonored by possessing prudence and practical sense, by
offering yourselves to battle otherwise than with naked bodies; this may
be very fine, very courageous--but as to being sensible, that is another
thing.
I am not guilty of the crime of denying right, since I do not deny it; I
only desire that it shall not be demanded since this would be suicidal, I
do not lay down the principle that _every kind_ of right should be
recognized only to the extent in which it is claimed, since I speak to
you of political rights alone; there are rights which make their own
demand, such as those of living, of development, of enjoyment, of the
fruit of one's labor, and it is shameful for society not to recognize
them to their full extent. But we awaken later to the sentiment of civil
right, and still later to that of political right; take the logical
advance of humanity into account therefore and do not remain in the
absolute.
I know that my objection on the score of the incapacity of women is quite
as applicable to that of men; but is it a reason, because you have
admitted the right of the ignorant masses of men who had not demanded it,
to show yourselves equally unwise with respect to women who are in the
same position? I will correct myself, gentlemen, of what you term my
_aristocratic_ spirit, when I see your political freedmen comprehending
the tendencies of civilization, and making use of their right to drive
the abettors of the past to despair by promoting the triumph of liberty
and equality. Until then, permit me to keep my opinion.
And I have kept my opinion, which is this: the exercise of political
right is a means of reform and progress, only if those who enjoy it
believe in progress and are anxious for reforms: in the opposite case,
the popular vote can be nothing but the expression of prejudices, errors
and passions--instead of learning to exercise it through the use of it,
as it is urged, they employ it simply to cut their own fingers.
READER. May it not be objected that, in accordance with your theory of
right, all being equal, no one can arrogate to himself the function of
distributing rights?
AUTHOR. Theory is the ideal towards which practice should tend; if we had
not this ideal, we could not know by what principle to guide ourselves;
but in social _reality_, there are individuals who have attained
majority, and others who, being minors, are destined to attain it.
If I should assert that those who have attained majority can rightfully
accord or refuse right to the minors, I should depart essentially from my
principles; it is by the _law_, which is the expression of the conscience
of those most advanced, while waiting till it shall be the conscience of
all, that political majority is decreed and that its conditions are
established. The right is virtual in each of us; no one therefore has the
right to give it, to take it away, or to contest it; it is recognized
when we are in a condition to exercise and to demand it; and we prove
that we are in a condition to exercise it when we satisfy the conditions
fixed by the law.
READER. What should be these conditions for the enjoyment of political
right, in your opinion?
AUTHOR. Twenty-five years of age; and a certificate attesting that the
individual knows how to read, write and reckon, that he possesses an
elementary knowledge of the history and geography of his country;
together with a correct theory with respect to Right and Duty, and the
destiny of humanity upon earth. The knowledge of a small volume would be
sufficient, as you see, to enable every man and woman, twenty-five years
of age and healthy in mind, to enjoy political rights, after having been
subjected to an initiation by the enjoyment of civil rights. But, I ask
you, what could those do with political right who confound liberty with
license, who scarcely know the meaning of the words Right and Duty, and
who are even incapable of writing their own vote! Men have their rights,
let them keep them! a right once admitted cannot be taken away: let them
render themselves fit to exercise them. As to women, let them first
emancipate themselves civilly and become educated: their turn will come.
READER. It is very important that men should comprehend that you do not
deny, but merely postpone the political rights of our sex.
AUTHOR. Be easy; they will comprehend it rightly; they will not mistake
counsel dictated by prudence for an acknowledgement of inferiority and a
resignation of functions.
III.
READER. Will you now state the legal reforms which we should demand
successively.
AUTHOR. So far as civil life is concerned, we should ask:
That a woman who is a foreigner may be able to become naturalized in a
country otherwise than by marriage.
That woman shall not lose her nationality by the same sacrament.
That woman be admitted to sign, as a witness, all certificates of social
condition, with all others that have been hitherto interdicted to her.
You know that already, in derogation of the law, midwives sign
certificates of birth of unacknowledged natural children, and that, in
certain notarial documents, drawn up by justices of the peace, to attest
to a fact in the absence of written evidence, the testimony of women is
admitted.
We demand that tradeswomen and merchant women shall form a part of the
boards of trade; that in every criminal trial, women shall be placed on
the jury: that to women shall be entrusted the management and
superintendence of hospitals, prisons for women, and charitable
associations.
That in every district, a woman shall be appointed to superintend girls'
schools, infant asylums, and nurses.
You know that women are already filling public employments in derogation
of the law, since the teaching and inspection of girls' schools, and
other asylums, are entrusted to them, and since women keep post-offices,
stamp offices, etc.
READER. This regards civil Right in general; what reforms shall we demand
concerning married women?
AUTHOR. That the conjugal abode shall be that which is inhabited by the
husband and wife _together_, no longer by the man alone.
That the articles shall be suppressed which command the wife to obey her
husband, and to follow him wherever he sees fit to reside.
That the prohibition to sell, mortgage, receive, give, appear in law,
etc., without the consent of the husband or court, shall be extended to
the husband as far as to the wife.
That marriage under the system of separation of goods shall become the
public law.
READER. What reforms do you demand with respect to the family council and
guardianship?
AUTHOR. We demand that the family council shall be composed of twenty
persons; ten men and ten women, parents, relatives and friends, chosen by
the spouses.
That the powers of this council, presided over by the justice of the
peace, shall be so determined that it shall give the first judgment in
differences arising between the spouses as to children, property,
guardianship, etc.
We demand that every woman may be qualified to be appointed guardian or
to watch over the conduct of the guardian towards the ward.
That the guardianship of the spouse interdicted shall be always confessed
by the family council.
That the wife like the husband, may name a definitive guardian and a
council of guardianship for her surviving spouse.
That the spouses may name during their lifetime, the father, a male
inspecting guardian from his family, the mother, a female inspecting
guardian from hers, that in case of pre-decease, the children may be
always under the influence of both sexes.
That this superior guardianship, in the absence of any expressed desire,
belongs of right to a member of the family of the defunct, who must be of
the same sex.
That in case of a second marriage, if the child is maltreated or unhappy,
the inspecting guardian, whether male or female, can have it adjudged to
him by the family council, without excluding the appeal of the guardian
to the courts.
That in case of the death of the father or mother, the guardianship
belongs of right to the nearest ancestor, and the inspecting guardianship
to the nearest ancestor of the other line.
If there be competition between the two lines, the family councils shall
choose the guardian from one family and the inspecting guardian from the
other, and of opposite sex.
That the duties of guardianship and inspecting guardianship shall
comprehend, not only the material, but also the moral and intellectual
interests of the wards.
That the father who is guardian, shall lose the right of guardianship
over the children if he re-marries without first having had it continued
to him by the family council.
That lastly, the State shall so organize a board of guardianship for
abandoned children that the boys shall be under the superintendence of
the men and the girls under that of the women; this board will form a
great family council.
READER. I like your system better than that of the law, not only because
woman is the equal of man therein, but because wards will be better
protected by it; I have known men to cause their wives, over-excited by
their ill treatment, to be placed under interdict, in order to remain
masters of their property; on the other hand, you know how many children
are wronged or made unhappy by the second marriage of their father. A
step-mother has full power to inflict suffering on the little
unfortunates.
But you have said nothing of the authority of parents over their
children.
AUTHOR. The authority of the parents over the children is the same; the
expression, paternal authority, is incomplete; the true phrase would be
_parental_ authority. On this head, we demand that if there be dissension
between the father and mother with regard to the children, the family
council shall decide in the first instance.
That neither the father nor the mother shall have power to shut up the
child unless _both are agreed_.
That the father or the mother acting as guardian shall not have power to
have recourse to this measure except with the concurrence of the
inspecting guardian, or, in case of difference, with the approbation of
the family council, always reserving the right of appeal to the court.
That the marriageable age shall be fixed at twenty-five for both sexes.
READER. Shall we demand the suppression of separation from bed and board?
AUTHOR. No; but we must demand that _divorce shall be established_.
That divorce may be obtained for the adultery of one of the parties,
cruelty, grave abuses, condemnation to punishment affecting the liberty
or person, notorious vices, incompatibility of temper, mutual consent.
That, during the suit for separation or for divorce, the guardianship of
the children shall be given to the most deserving parent; and that, if
both are alike unworthy, a guardian and inspecting guardian of different
sexes shall be appointed.
That, if both are deserving, they shall settle it amicably between
themselves before the family council.
That parties married under the dotal system or under that of the
separation of goods, shall have control of their own property.
That if the petition for divorce be on account of the bad management of
the common property, the administration shall be taken away from the
husband and entrusted to the wife.
That if the petition be on account of the condemnation of one of the
parties to punishment affecting the liberty or person, the other shall
remain administrator.
That, in all other cases, an inventory shall be made and the spouse best
fitted to the task be appointed guardian under the surveillance of one or
two members of the family of the other spouse, with the obligation of
furnishing estovers to the other.
That the decree granting the divorce or separation shall bear the number,
name and age of the children born of the marriage, together with the
annual sum that each party is bound to furnish for their maintenance and
education.
That this decree shall state to whose custody the children are entrusted,
whether by natural consent or by familial or judicial authority.
That it shall be placarded publicly in the courts, and inserted in the
leading journals of the vicinity.
That this instrument shall accompany the publication of the bans of a
subsequent marriage, under pain of heavy penalties.
READER. These measures are severe; if it would be easy to become
divorced, it would not be easy to marry afterwards.
AUTHOR. I do not deny it; but it is better to prevent divorce by the
difficulty of marrying afterwards, than by placing restrictions upon it;
in the first case, the difficulty comes from the fetters which the
individual has forged for himself; he makes his own destiny; in the
second, individual liberty is infringed upon by social authority, which
is an abuse of power.
READER. Let us enter upon the legal reforms concerning morals.
AUTHOR. We demand that every promise of marriage which is not fulfilled
shall be punished with a fine and damages.
That every man whom an unmarried mother can prove by witnesses or
letters, to be the father of her child, shall be subject to the burdens
of paternity.
That the investigation of paternity shall be authorized like that of
maternity.
That the seduction of an unmarried woman under twenty-five shall be
severely punished.
That no unmarried woman can be registered among the public women before
twenty-five years old, and that she shall be put into the house of
correction if she abandons herself to prostitution before this age.
That every abandoned woman who receives a man under twenty-five years of
age shall be punished with fine and imprisonment, and that the penalty
shall be terrible if she is diseased.
READER. It will be said that paternity cannot be proved.
AUTHOR. I do not deny that it may be possible that the father attributed
to the natural child will not be the true one; but it will be necessary
to establish by proofs that he has rendered himself liable to be reputed
such: it is the probability of paternity in marriage extended to
paternity out of marriage. So much the worse for men who suffer
themselves to be caught! it is shameful to attach impunity to the most
disorderly and subversive of selfish desires; women must no longer bear
alone the burden of natural children, and no longer be tempted to abandon
them.
READER. But what if it be proved that a married man has rendered himself
liable to become a father outside his household.
AUTHOR. This should be first a case of divorce; next, of punishment for
him and his accomplice. As to the child, the man should bear the charge
of it in concert with the mother.
READER. These are indeed Draconian laws!
AUTHOR. Do you not see that corruption is shutting us in, body and soul;
and that if we do not create a vigorous reaction against it by the
severity of the laws, the reform of education, and the awakening of the
ideal, our society will be, ere long, only an immense brothel?
READER. Alas! it is but too true.
AUTHOR. Let us demand then, not only a rational reform of the national
education, but also that the number of lyceums shall be doubled for
girls.
That all the institutions of higher instruction dependent on the state
shall be open to them as to boys.
That they shall be admitted to receive the same university degrees, and
the same diplomas of capacity as men.
That every field of occupation shall be opened to them as to men;
So that, elevated in public opinion by equality, their activity shall no
longer be nominally compensated; that they may live by their labor, and
that want, discouragement and suicide may no longer terminate their life
when they do not make choice of the sad part of elements of
demoralization.
I.
APPEAL TO WOMEN.
Progressive women, to you, I address my last words, Listen in the name of
the general good, in the name of your sons and your daughters.
You say: the manners of our time are corrupt; the laws concerning our sex
need reform.
It is true; but do you think that to verify the evil suffices to cure it?
You say: so long as woman shall be a minor in the city, the state and
marriage, she will be so in social labor; she will be forced to be
supported by man; that is to debase him while humbling herself.
It is true; but do you believe that to verify these things suffices to
remedy our abasement?
You say: the education that both sexes receive is deplorable in view of
the destiny of humanity.
It is true; but do you believe that to affirm this suffices to improve,
to transform the method of education?
Will words, complaints and protestations have power to change any of
these things?
It is not to lament over them that is needed; it is to act.
It is not merely to demand justice and reform that is needed; it is to
labor ourselves for reform; it is to prove _by our works_ that we are
worthy to obtain justice; it is to take possession resolutely of the
contested place; it is, in a word, to have intellect, courage and
activity.
Upon whom then will you have a right to count, if you abandon yourselves?
Upon men? Your carelessness and silence have in part discouraged those
who maintained your right; it is much if they defend you against those
who, to oppress you, call to their aid every species of ignorance, every
species of despotism, every selfish passion, all the paradoxes which they
despise when their own sex is in question.
You are insulted, you are outraged, you are denied or you are blamed in
order that you may be reduced to subjection, and it is much if your
indignation is roused thereby!
When will you be ashamed of the part to which you are condemned?
When will you respond to the appeal that generous and intelligent men
have made to you?
When will you cease to be masculine photographs, and resolve to complete
the revolution of humanity by finally making the word of woman heard in
Religion, in Justice, in Politics and in Science?
What are we to do, you say?
What are you to do, ladies? Well! what is done by women believing. Look
at those who have given their soul to a dogma; they form organizations,
teach, write, act on their surroundings and on the rising generation in
order to secure the triumph of the faith that has the support of their
conscience. Why do not you do as much as they?
Your rivals write books stamped with supernaturalism and individualistic
morality, why do you not write those that bear the stamp of rationalism,
of solidary morality and of a holy faith in Progress?
Your rivals found educational institutions and train up professors in
order to gain over the new generation to their dogmas and their
practices, why do not you do as much for the benefit of the new ideas?
Your rivals organize industrial associations, why do not you imitate
them?
Would not what is lawful to them be so to you.
Could a government which professes to revive the principles of '89, and
which is the offspring of Revolutionary right, entertain the thought of
fettering the direct heirs of the principles laid down by '89, while
leaving those free to act who are more or less their enemies? Can any one
of you admit such a possibility?
What are we to do?
You are to establish a journal to maintain your claims.
You are to appoint an encyclopedic committee to draw up a series of
treatises on the principal branches of human knowledge for the
enlightenment of women and the people.
You are to found a Polytechnic Institute for women.
You are to aid your sisters of the laboring classes to organize
themselves in trades associations on economical principles more equitable
than those of the present time.
You are to facilitate the return to virtue of the lost women who ask you
for aid and counsel.
You are to labor with all your might for the reform of educational
methods.
Yet, in the face of a task so complicated, you ask: what are we to do?
Ah, ye women who have attained majority, arise, if ye have heart and
courage!
Arise, and let those among you who are the most intelligent, the most
instructed, and who have the most time and liberty constitute an
_Apostleship of women_.
Around this Apostleship, let all the women of Progress be ranged, that
each one may serve the common cause according to her means.
And remember, remember above all things, that _Union is strength_.
THE END.
NEW BOOKS
And New Editions Recently Issued by CARLETON, PUBLISHER, NEW YORK.
_418 BROADWAY, CORNER OF LISPENARD STREET._
N.B.--THE PUBLISHER, upon receipt of the price in advance, will send any
of the following Books, by mail, POSTAGE FREE, to any part of the United
States. This convenient and very safe mode may be adopted when the
neighboring Booksellers are not supplied with the desired work. State
name and address in full.
Victor Hugo.
LES MISERABLES.--The only unabridged English translation of "the
grandest and best Novel ever written." One large octavo vol.,
paper covers, $1.00, or cloth $1.50
LES MISERABLES.--A superior edition of the same Novel, in five
octavo vols.--"Fantine," "Cosette," "Marius," "St. Denis," and
"Valjean." Cloth, each vol., $1.00
THE LIFE OF VICTOR HUGO.--(Understood to be an Autobiography.)
"As charming and interesting as a Novel." octavo, cloth $1.50
By the Author of "Rutledge."
RUTLEDGE.--A deeply interesting novel. 12mo. cloth, $1.50
THE SUTHERLANDS.-- $1.50
FRANK WARRINGTON.-- $1.50
LOUIE'S LAST TERM AT ST. MARY'S.-- $1.50
A NEW NOVEL.--_In press._
Hand-Books of Good Society.
THE HABITS OF GOOD SOCIETY; with Thoughts, Hints, and Anecdotes,
concerning nice points of taste, good manners, and the art of
making oneself agreeable. Reprinted from the London Edition. The
best and most entertaining work of the kind ever published.
12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
THE ART OF CONVERSATION.--With directions for self-culture. A
sensible and instructive work, that ought to be in the hands of
every one who wishes to be either an agreeable talker or
listener. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
Mrs. Mary J. Holmes' Works.
DARKNESS AND DAYLIGHT.--_Just published._ 12mo. cl. $ 1.50
'LENA RIVERS.-- A Novel. $ 1.50
TEMPEST AND SUNSHINE.-- $ 1.50
MARIAN GREY.-- $ 1.50
MEADOW BROOK.-- $ 1.50
ENGLISH ORPHANS.-- $ 1.50
DORA DEANE.-- $ 1.50
COUSIN MAUDE.-- $ 1.50
HOMESTEAD ON THE HILLSIDE.-- $ 1.50
Artemus Ward.
HIS BOOK.--An irresistibly funny volume of writings by the
immortal American humorist and showman; with plenty of comic
illustrations. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
Miss Muloch.
JOHN HALIFAX, Gentleman. A novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
A LIFE FOR A LIFE.-- $ 1.50
Charlotte Bronte (Currer Bell).
JANE EYRE.--A novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
SHIRLEY.-- $ 1.50
VILLETTE.-- $ 1.50
Edmund Kirke.
AMONG THE PINES.--A thrilling work. 12mo. cloth,
MY SOUTHERN FRIENDS.--
DOWN IN TENNESSEE.--_Just published._
Cuthbert Bede.
VERDANT GREEN.--A rollicking, humorous novel of student life in
an English University; with more than 200 comic illustrations.
12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Richard B. Kimball.
WAS HE SUCCESSFUL?-- A novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
UNDERCURRENTS.-- $ 1.50
SAINT LEGER.-- $ 1.50
ROMANCE OF STUDENT LIFE.-- $ 1.50
IN THE TROPICS.--Edited by R. B. Kimball. $ 1.50
Epes Sargent.
PECULIAR.--One of the most remarkable and successful novels
published in this country. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Miss Augusta J. Evans.
BEULAH.--A novel of great power. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
A. S. Roe's Works.
A LONG LOOK AHEAD.-- A novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
TO LOVE AND TO BE LOVED.-- $ 1.50
TIME AND TIDE.-- $ 1.50
I'VE BEEN THINKING.-- $ 1.50
THE STAR AND THE CLOUD.-- $ 1.50
TRUE TO THE LAST.-- $ 1.50
HOW COULD HE HELP IT.-- $ 1.50
LIKE AND UNLIKE.-- $ 1.50
A NEW NOVEL.--_In Press._ $ 1.50
Walter Barrett, Clerk.
OLD MERCHANTS OF NEW YORK.--Being personal incidents, interesting
sketches, bits of biography, and gossipy events in the life of
nearly every leading merchant in New York City. Two series.
12mo. cloth, each, $ 1.50
T. S. Arthur's New Works.
LIGHT ON SHADOWED PATHS.-- A novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
OUT IN THE WORLD.--_In press._ $ 1.50
NOTHING BUT GOLD.-- $ 1.50
The Orpheus C. Kerr Papers.
A COLLECTION of exquisitely satirical and humorous military
criticisms. Two series. 12mo. cloth, each, $ 1.25
M. Michelet's Works.
LOVE (L'AMOUR).--From the French. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
WOMAN (LA FEMME).-- $ 1.25
WOMAN MADE FREE.--French of D'Hericourt, $ 1.50
Novels by Ruffini.
DR. ANTONIO.--A love story of Italy. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
LAVINIA; OR, THE ITALIAN ARTIST.-- $ 1.50
VINCENZO; OR, SUNKEN ROCKS.-- 8vo. cloth, $ 1.50
Rev. John Cumming, D.D., of London.
THE GREAT TRIBULATION.--Two series. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
THE GREAT PREPARATION.-- $ 1.25
THE GREAT CONSUMMATION.-- $ 1.25
TEACH US TO PRAY.-- $ 1.25
Ernest Renan.
THE LIFE OF JESUS.--Translated by C. E. Wilbour from the
celebrated French work. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
RELIGIOUS HISTORY AND CRITICISM.-- 8vo. cloth, $ 2.50
Charles Reade.
THE CLOISTER AND THE HEARTH.--A magnificent new novel, by the
author of "Hard Cash," etc. 8vo. cloth, $ 1.50
The Opera.
TALES FROM THE OPERAS.--A collection of clever stories, based
upon the plots of all the famous operas. 12mo. cl., $ 1.25
J. C. Jeaffreson.
A BOOK ABOUT DOCTORS.--An exceedingly humorous and entertaining
volume of sketches, stories, and facts, about famous physicians
and surgeons. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Fred. S. Cozzens.
THE SPARROWGRASS PAPERS.--A capital humorous work, with
illustrations by Darley. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
F. D. Guerrazzi
BEATRICE CENCI.--A great historical novel. Translated from the
Italian; with a portrait of the Cenci, from Guido's famous
picture in Rome. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Private Miles O'Reilly.
HIS BOOK.--Rich with his songs, services, and speeches, and
comically illustrated. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
The New York Central Park.
A SUPERB GIFT BOOK.--The Central Park pleasantly described, and
magnificently embellished with more than 50 exquisite photographs
of the principal views and objects of interest. A large quarto
volume, sumptuously bound in Turkey morocco, $25.00
Joseph Rodman Drake.
THE CULPRIT FAY.--The most charming faery poem in the English
language. Beautifully printed. 12mo. cloth, $ 0.75
Mother Goose for Grown Folks.
HUMOROUS RHYMES for grown people; based upon the famous "Mother
Goose Melodies." 12mo. cloth, $ 1.00
Stephen Massett.
DRIFTING ABOUT.--A comic illustrated book of the life and travels
of "Jeems Pipes." 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
A New Sporting Work.
THE GAME FISH OF THE NORTH.--One of the best books on fish and
fishing ever published. Entertaining as well as instructive, and
full of illustrations. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Balzac's Novels.
CESAR BIROTTEAU.--From the French. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
THE ALCHEMIST.-- $ 1.25
EUGENIE GRANDET.-- $ 1.25
PETTY ANNOYANCES OF MARRIED LIFE.-- $ 1.25
Thomas Bailey Aldrich.
BABIE BELL, AND OTHER POEMS.--Blue and gold binding, $ 1.00
OUT OF HIS HEAD.--A new romance. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.00
Richard H. Stoddard.
THE KING'S BELL.--A new poem. 12mo. cloth, $ 0.75
THE MORGESONS.--A novel. By Mrs. R. H. Stoddard. $ 1.00
Edmund C. Stedman.
ALICE OF MONMOUTH.--A new poem. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.00
LYRICS AND IDYLS.-- $ 0.75
M. T. Walworth.
LULU.--A new novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
HOTSPUR.-- _in press_.
Author of "Olie."
NEPENTHE.--A new novel. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
TOGETHER.-- _in press_.
Quest.
A NEW ROMANCE.--_In press._ 12mo. cloth,
Victoire.
A NEW NOVEL.--_In Press._ 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Red-Tape.
AND PIGEON-HOLE GENERALS, as seen by a citizen-soldier
in the Army of the Potomac. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.25
Author "Green Mountain Boys."
CENTEOLA.--A new work, _in press_. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
C. French Richards.
JOHN GUILDERSTRING'S SIN.--A novel. 12mo. cloth,
J. R. Beckwith.
THE WINTHROPS.--A novel, _in press_. 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Jas. H. Hackett.
NOTES AND COMMENTS ON SHAKSPEARE.-- 12mo. cloth, $ 1.50
Miscellaneous Works.
ALEXANDER VON HUMBOLDT.--Life and travels. 12mo. cl., $ 1.50
LIFE OF HUGH MILLER, the Geologist. $ 1.50
ADAM GUROWSKI.--Diary for 1863. $ 1.25
DOESTICKS.--The Elephant Club, illustrated. $ 1.50
HUSBAND AND WIFE, or human development. $ 1.25
ROCKFORD.--A novel by Mrs. L. D. Umsted. $ 1.00
THE PRISONER OF STATE.--By D. A. Mahony. $ 1.25
THE PARTISAN LEADER.--By Beverly Tucker. $ 1.25
SPREES AND SPLASHES.--By Henry Morford. $ 1.00
AROUND THE PYRAMIDS.--By Gen. Aaron Ward. $ 1.50
CHINA AND THE CHINESE.--By W. L. G. Smith. $ 1.00
WANDERINGS OF A BEAUTY.--Mrs. Edwin James. $ 1.00
THE U. S. TAX LAW.--"Government Edition." $ 0.75
TREATISE ON DEAFNESS.--By Dr. E. B. Lighthill. $ 1.00
LYRICS OF A DAY.--or newspaper poetry. $ 1.00
GARRET VAN HORN.--A novel by J. S. Sauzade. $ 1.25
THE NATIONAL SCHOOL FOR THE SOLDIER.-- $ 0.50
FORT LAFAYETTE.--A novel by Benjamin Wood. $ 1.00
THE YACHTMAN'S PRIMER.--By T. R. Warren. $ 0.50
GEN. NATHANIEL LYON.--Life and Writings. $ 1.00
PHILIP THAXTER.--A novel. $ 1.00
LITERARY ESSAYS.--By George Brimley. $ 1.50
HAYING TIME TO HOPPING.--A novel. $ 1.25
THE VAGABOND.--Essays by Adam Badeau. $ 1.00
EDGAR POE AND HIS CRITICS.--By Mrs. Whitman. $ 0.75
TACTICS; or, Cupid in Shoulder-Straps. $ 1.00
JOHN DOE AND RICHARD ROE.--A novel. $ 1.25
LOLA MONTEZ.--Her life and lectures. $ 1.50
DEBT AND GRACE.--By Rev. C. F. Hudson. $ 1.50
HUSBAND _vs._ WIFE.--A comic
illustrated poem. $ 0.50
TRANSITION.--Edited by Rev. H. S. Carpenter. $ 1.00
ROUMANIA.--By Dr. Jas. O. Noyes, illustrated. $ 1.50
VERNON GROVE.--A novel. $ 1.25
ANSWER TO HUGH MILLER.--By T. A. Davies. $ 1.25
COSMOGONY.--By Thomas A. Davies. 8vo. cl., $ 1.50
NATIONAL HYMNS.--By Richard Grant White. $ 1.50
TWENTY YEARS Around the World.--J. Guy Vassar. $ 3.50
SPIRIT OF HEBREW POETRY.--By Isaac Taylor. $ 2.50