8.—“_To compass power unknown in body and in mind_.”
“We need a new ethic of the sexes, and this not merely, or even mainly,
as an intellectual construction, but as a discipline of life, and we
need more. We need an increasing education and civism of women.”—P.
Geddes and J. A. Thomson (“The Evolution of Sex,” p. 297).
Newnham and Girton, Vassar and Zurich, are already rendering account of
woman’s scope of mental power; while the circus, the gymnasium, swimming
and mountaineering are showing what she might do corporeally, apart from
her hideous and literally impeding style of clothing. As for some other
forms of utilitarian occupation, read the following concerning certain
of the Lancashire women:—
“Mr. Edgar L. Wakeman, an observant American author, is at present on a
visit to this country, and is giving his countrymen the benefit of his
impressions of English life and social conditions.
“The ‘pit-brow’ lasses of the Wigan district will not need to complain,
for he writes of them not only in a kindly spirit, but even with
enthusiasm for their healthy looks, graceful figures, and good conduct.
We need not follow his description of the processes in which the women
of the colliery are employed, but we may say in passing that Mr. Wakeman
was astonished by the ‘wonderful quickness of eye and movement’ shown by
the ‘screeners,’ and by the ‘superb physical development’ and agility of
the ‘fillers.’ He had expected to find them ‘the most forlorn creatures
bearing the image of women,’ and he found them strong, healthy,
good-natured, and thoroughly respectable. ‘English roses glow from
English cheeks. You cannot find plumper figures, prettier forms, more
shapely necks, or daintier feet, despite the ugly clogs, in all of
dreamful Andalusia. The “broo gear” is laid aside on the return home
from work, and then the “pit-brow” lass is arrayed as becomingly as any
of her class in England, and in the village street, or at church of a
Sunday, you could not pick her out from among her companions, unless for
her fine colour, form, and a positively classic poise and grace of
carriage possessed by no other working women of England. Altogether,’ he
says, ‘I should seriously regard the pit-brow lasses as the handsomest,
healthiest, happiest, and most respectable working women in
England.’—(_Manchester Guardian_, Aug. 28, 1891.)
_Id._... Concerning the question of male and female dress, evidence as
to how far woman has been hindered and “handicapped” by her conventional
attire, and not by her want of physical strength or courage, is reported
from time to time in the public prints, as witness the following,
published generally in the English newspapers of 14th Oct., 1891:—
“Not long since a well-known European courier, having grown grey in
his occupation, fell ill, and like others similarly afflicted, was
compelled to call in a doctor. This gentleman was completely taken by
surprise on discovering that his patient was a female. Then the sick
woman—who had piloted numerous English and American families through
the land of the Latin, the Turk, and others, and led timid tourists
safely through many imaginary dangers—confessed that she had worn
men’s clothes for forty years. She stated that her reasons for this
masquerade were that having, at the age of thirteen, been left a
friendless orphan, she had become convinced, after futile struggling
for employment, that many of the obstacles in her path could be swept
away by discarding her proper garments and assuming the _rôle_ and
attire of masculine youth. This she did. She closely cut her hair,
bought boy’s clothes, put them on, and sallied forth in the world to
seek her fortune. With the change of dress seems to have come a change
of luck, for she quickly found employment, and being an apt scholar,
and facile at learning languages, was enabled after a time to obtain a
position as courier, and, but for her unfortunate illness, it is
tolerably certain that the truth would never have been revealed during
her lifetime.”
In the early days of April, 1892, the Vienna correspondent of the
_Standard_ reported that—
“On the 30th ult., there died in Hungary, at about the same hour, two
ladies who served in 1848 in the Revolutionary Army, and fought in
several of the fiercest battles, dressed in military uniform. One of
them was several times promoted, and, under the name of Karl, attained
the rank of First Lieutenant of Hussars. At this point, however, an
artillery major stopped her military career by marrying her. The other
fought under the name of Josef, and was decorated for valour in the
field. She married long after the campaign. A Hungarian paper,
referring to the two cases, says that about a dozen women fought in
1848 in the insurrectionary ranks.”
Somewhat more detailed particulars concerning “Lieutenant Karl” were
afterwards given by the _Manchester Guardian_ (June 6, 1892), as
follows:—
“The Austrian _Volkszeitung_ announces the death of Frau Marie Hoche,
who has had a most singular and romantic career. Her maiden name was
Lepstuk. In the momentous year of 1848 Marie Lepstuk, who was then
eighteen years of age, joined the German legion at Vienna; then,
returning home, she adopted the name of Karl and joined the Tyroler
Jager Regiment of the revolutionary army. She showed great bravery in
the battlefield, received the medallion, and was raised to the rank of
lieutenant. A wound compelled her to go into hospital, but after her
recovery she joined the Hussars. As a reward for exceeding bravery she
was next made oberlieutenant on the field. Soon after this her sex was
discovered, but a major fell in love with her, and they were married.
At Vilagos both were taken prisoners, and while in the fortress she
gave birth to her first child. After the major’s death she was
remarried to Oberlieutenant Hoche. For the past few years Frau Hoche
has been in needy circumstances, but an appeal from Jokai brought
relief.”
All of which goes far to discredit M. Michelet’s theory that women are
“born invalids,” an assertion which Dr. Julia Mitchell “stigmatises
naturally enough as ‘all nonsense,’” and is thus approved—with a strange
magnanimity—by the _British Medical Journal_.—(See _Pall Mall Gazette_,
April 29, 1892.)
The “incapacity of women for military service” has been of late days
continually quoted as a bar to their right of citizenship, as far as the
Parliamentary Franchise is concerned. In the face of the foregoing
cases, and of the fact that every mother risks her life in becoming a
mother, while very few men, indeed, risk theirs on the battlefield, it
might be thought that the fallacious argument would have perished from
shame and inanition long ago. But the inconsistencies of
partly-cultivated, masculine, one-sexed intellect are as stubborn as
blind.
See also Note XLV., 6.