{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_11632/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_11632","id":"gutenberg_11632","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11632","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Gender & Sexuality Studies","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Sociology","Women -- History"],"text":"WOMAN\n\nMAN'S EQUAL.\n\n\nBY\n\nRev. THOS. WEBSTER, D.D.\n\n\nWITH\n\nAN INTRODUCTION BY BISHOP SIMPSON.\n\n\n\n\nCINCINNATI:\nHITCHCOCK AND WALDEN.\n\n\nNEW YORK:\nNELSON AND PHILLIPS.\n\n1873\n\nEntered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1873,\n\nBY HITCHCOCK & WALDEN,\n\nIn the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington.\n\n\n\n\nTO READERS.\n\nThe publishers of \"WOMAN MAN'S EQUAL\" conscientiously feel that they are\nplacing before the public the discussion of one of the most important\ntopics of the day; and they indulge the strong conviction that the\nauthor of this little volume presents this important topic in a manner\nat once attractive and convincing. The teachings of nature, history, and\nthe Word of God are freely drafted, and skillfully arranged to show what\nnature designed, what God has taught, and what woman has proved herself\ncapable of being and doing in the world. The abuses to which the sex has\nbeen subject from the physically stronger \"lords of creation,\" in\nheathen nations and in brute ages, are ably and fully set forth.\n\nThe lessons of the past are the teachings of the future. Christianity\nhas enlarged woman's area, and multiplied her duties and\nresponsibilities. America is ahead of all other nations in\nopportunities offered to woman. Public sentiment is in favor of\nenlarging her sphere, and woman is venturing into hitherto untried\navenues of employment and usefulness. This is an age of experiment. An\nounce of experiment is worth a pound of theory. Woman's capacity will\nfirst be tested; and, if found equal to the opportunity, no door will be\nclosed against her. She may preach, orate, lecture, teach, practice\nmedicine or law or politics; may vote, marshal armies, navigate ships,\nand go sailoring or soldiering to her heart's content, and at her own\ngood-will and pleasure, if she only proves to the age that she has\nability to do and dare in all these directions. This is an age of\ndiscovery, as well as of experiment; and man is daily waking up,\napplying, and marshaling new forces for the benefit of the race. Steam,\nlight, electricity, magnetism, mechanics, have all contributed of their\nboundless capacities to human welfare. Man is gradually coming to be\naware that, in the latent powers of woman, only just now on the eve of\ndevelopment, half the capacities of the human race, like the powers of\nsteam and lightning, have slumbered, until now, from the beginning of\nthe creation. A new era is dawning upon the world. This little volume is\none of the rays that herald the coming sun.\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nNATURAL RIGHTS.\n\nEquals in the Beginning--Apparent Mental Inferiority result to be\nexpected when Means of Mental Culture are denied--Natural\nRights--Flattery not an Equivalent for Justice--Dawning\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nWOMAN IN ANTIQUITY.\n\nWomen of Antiquity--Their Condition in Heathen and Mohammedan\nCountries--Marriage, Divorce, etc.\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nLATER ESTIMATE OF WOMAN.\n\nEstimation in which Women were held later--Cause and Effect--Mental\nAttainments despite of Oppression and Prohibition--Equal Men in\nGovernment, etc.--Frivolity, Literature, and Home Duties--Muscle not\nMind--Marriage Ceremonies\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nTHE SEXES EQUAL AT CREATION.\n\nCreated Equal--Genesis iii, 16, considered--Monogamy--Lapse into\nHeathenism--Polygamy--The Patriarchs--The Law of Maid-servants and\nBondwomen--Divorce; Christ recognized the Equality of Right\ntherein--Eminent Women of Israel--Virtue and Vice of no Sex\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nNEW TESTAMENT TEACHINGS.\n\nThe New Testament Scriptures--How they Define the Position of Women\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nWOMAN BEFORE THE LAW.\n\nEqually amenable to Laws, Human and Divine--To rear and govern a Family\nrightly, requires Sound Judgment--Relative Mental Capacity of the Sexes\nnot yet fairly tested--Comparisons--Christianity has done much, yet much\nremains to be done--Right in Each Other's Property--Men juster than the\nLaws--Query--Justice should be even-handed--A United Head--Women trained\nto perpetuate the Wrongs of their Sex\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nWOMAN AND LEGISLATION.\n\nTaxation without Representation--One-sided Legislation--Similar\nObjections urged against the Extensions of Franchise--Domestic\nDiscord--Present Causes--Citizenship not Inconsistent with Home\nDuties--The State has been benefited at the Risk of her Life through all\nAges--Assertions confuted--Modern Churches have departed from Primitive\nUsages--The Friends--Women as Philanthropists, Public Speakers, Artists,\nPhysicians--Educated Women during the Late War--The Universities\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nFAMOUS WOMEN OF ANTIQUITY.\n\nDido, Queen of Carthage--Cleopatra--Lucretia--Zenobia--Hypatia--Other\nFamous Names\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nEMINENT WOMEN OF MODERN TIMES.\n\nThe Countess of Montfort--Anna Askew--Esther Inglis--Lady\nPakington--Mrs. Mary Washington--Mrs. Wesley--Mrs. Fletcher--Miss\nCrosby--Ann Hasseltine--Sarah H.B. Judson--The Misses Chandler--Other\nEminent Characters of Modern Times\n\n\n\n\nINTRODUCTION.\n\n\nChristianity is the special friend of woman. Christian civilization has\nexalted her almost infinitely above the position to which either\npaganism or Mohammedanism assigned her. This elevation is the natural\noutgrowth of the example and teaching of Jesus of Nazareth. Unlike other\nancient great instructors, he did not repel women from discipleship, but\ncordially welcomed her presence wherever he taught. His lessons of\nwisdom, and his precious promises of life everlasting, were in all their\nfullness addressed to her as freely as to the most honored of men. His\nillustrations of sweeping the house to find the lost piece of silver,\nand of the leaven hid in three measures of meal, were drawn from her\nemployments, and were probably suggested by her presence. To the cry of\nthe poor Syro-Phenician woman, no less than to that of the centurion or\nnobleman, did he give his attention and sympathy, and with equal speed\ndid he answer the agonizing prayer. Rising far above the trammels of\nJewish prejudice, while he sat weary at the mouth of Jacob's well, he\ntaught the beauty of spiritual worship to the astonished woman of\nSamaria. She became his first missionary to the people of her city, to\nwhom she told the story of his wonderful wisdom, and said, \"Is not this\nthe Christ?\" How kind must have been his spirit, how tender his words,\nto the sisters at Bethany, to cause the exclamation, \"If thou hadst been\nhere, my brother had not died!\" How consoling must have been his\naccents, which drew the fair penitent to his feet, and which led her, in\nloving adoration, to wash them with her tears and to wipe them with the\nhairs of her head! How wonderful the manifestation of that Divine\ncondescension and love which elicited that gratitude which still lingers\nin the rich perfumes of the alabaster-box of precious ointment! No\nmarvel that women \"followed him from Galilee,\" stood sorrowfully\nbeholding his crucifixion, and when he was taken from the cross,\n\"followed after and beheld the sepulcher, and how his body was laid.\"\nTheir devotion was rewarded, on the morning of his resurrection, by\ntheir being made the first messengers of his glorious triumph. On such\nperfect equality were men and women placed by the blessed Savior as to\nterms of salvation and Gospel privileges, that the apostle exclaims, \"In\nChrist Jesus there is neither male nor female.\" All are members of his\nbody, and in him all become one.\n\nAs Christian influences more fully control society, and as the spirit of\nChrist permeates the masses, the position of woman becomes more\nelevated. She is no longer considered as a slave, and compelled to bear\nevery burden, as in savage life; nor is she a mere attendant, or\nminister to sensual pleasure, as among the Mohammedans. The bars are\nremoved from the doors of the harem, and the veil is taken from her\nface. She sits with the family at the table, entertains her guests, and\nenjoys their society. She studies with her brothers in the same school,\nrecites to the same teachers, and reads the same books. With her\nfriends, she joins in the service and song and worship of, the\nsanctuary, converses in the social assembly, and listens to\ndistinguished speakers as they discuss topics of literature, art,\nscience, or statesmanship. The cry of suffering humanity touches her\nheart, and she is deeply interested in the great movements toward the\nelevation of the race. In this ascent, every step she has taken has been\nin opposition to the protest of the spirit of other civilizations, which\nyet lurks in many a breast. To be seen by strangers, to have her face\nunveiled, to sit in public assemblies, to study sciences and arts, is\ncontrary to nature, is an offense against purity, and tends to destroy\nher loveliness,--said these inveterate croakers. Yet society recognized\nher influence and power, and believed she had both rights and duties.\nStep by step, odious laws have been repealed, her right to her own\nproperty has been in great measure secured, doors of usefulness have\nbeen opened before her, her voice is welcomed from the platform, and her\nwritings from the press. She visits the sick and the prisoner, and\npleads for the suffering, until hospitals and asylums are founded in\ntheir behalf. She soothes the sorrows of the aged, takes the hand of the\norphan to lead him in paths of safety, and in the tumult of war\nministers to the wounded and dying.\n\nAmidst her general activity, many questions arise as to what further\navenues of usefulness may properly open. How far may she engage in\nbusiness, and in what branches? what is her proper work in the Church,\nand to what extent may she perform public religious services? is she\nproperly a citizen, and what privileges or rights should she enjoy?--are\ninquiries which are considered and discussed. The greatest interest is\nat present excited by the question, \"Should women have the ballot?\" and\nboth in this country and in England it has able advocates and strong\nopponents.\n\nIt can not be denied that the answer of the large majority is in the\nnegative, and that in many instances this answer comes in the form of\nthe laugh of ridicule or in the sneer of contempt. Such is the fate of\nall incipient efforts for reformation; but where a cause is\nintrinsically just, it can survive and triumph.\n\nWithout entering into the general discussion, two points may be briefly\nnoted. First, this question is considered only in Christian lands. It is\nnot even heard of elsewhere. It is mooted only in countries where the\nBible is placed in the hands of the common people. It is strong only\nwhere free institutions have been established, and where liberal ideas\nhave prevailed. It is the outgrowth of Bible freedom. Secondly, many of\nits opponents are persons of strong intellect, of broad views, of great\nbenevolence, and of unquestioned piety. Yet in the opposition we find\nalso all, or nearly all, of the most ignorant classes of society. We\nfind also in the opposition, with very few exceptions, the entire class\nof venders of intoxicating drinks, drunkards, gamblers, and other\nnotoriously vicious characters. Is there any reason for such an\naggregation? On the other hand, the friends of the measure, though fewer\nin number, are generally found among the intelligent and religious\nmembers of the community. It is true that a few of those who desired to\nbe recognized as leaders of the movement are known as free-thinkers or\ninfidels; and a still smaller number have been advocates of free-love\nand other loathsome vagaries. The opponents of the cause have skillfully\npresented their names as representatives of the idea, and have thus cast\nsuch odium upon it that many timid persons, dreading even an apparent\nassociation with them, have feared to express their own convictions.\nThese odious parties, however, are very few in number, and their\ninfluence is constantly diminishing. There can be no question that\nfour-fifths of the friends of female suffrage are to-day active members\nof various Christian Churches; and of them no small number are ministers\ndistinguished for their learning, benevolence, and piety.\n\nThe signs of the times indicate a determined struggle between temperance\nand intemperance. The use of intoxicating liquors is the source of\nnine-tenths of all the dark and terrible crimes that disgrace humanity.\nIt whets the assassin's dagger, and pours poison into the cup of the\nsuicide. It beggars the laborer, breaks the heart of the anguished wife,\nand starves the helpless children. It fills jails and penitentiaries\nwith victims, and hospitals and asylums with the injured and hopelessly\nwrecked. It fastens on society an army of police to be supported, and it\noppresses the land with taxes. The money amassed by the venders buys our\nlegislators, corrupts our judges and governors, and controls our\npolitical parties. Who shall stay its ravages, or curtail its power?\n\nMy conviction is, and for years has been, that the only hope is in\ngiving the ballot to women. True, some women love strong drink, and some\nare vile; yet the vast majority are utterly opposed to intemperance.\nNone so well as the drunkard's wife knows the terrible evil, or so\nkeenly feels its pangs. Could the mother, who bows her head in sorrow as\nshe beholds her loved boy hastening to ruin; the wife, whose once\naffectionate husband has been transformed into a demon; the daughter,\nwhose cheek has been mantled with shame at her father's fall, and who\nhas suffered the bitterness of blasted hopes and of dismal\npoverty,--could they have the ballot, how quickly would the rum-shops be\nclosed, and our youth be preserved from multi-fold temptations! What\nother triumph could compare with this?\n\nWith this conviction, I hail with pleasure this volume from the pen of\nDr. Webster. It discusses an important question calmly, clearly,\nforcibly. I may not agree with all of his positions, or with some of his\nBiblical criticisms, yet I believe the work possesses much merit, will\nlead to serious thoughtfulness, and be productive of good.\n\nI also rejoice that the enterprising publishers whose names appear on\nthe imprint have added this volume to their catalogue, and have thus\ngiven the influence of their names, and their widely extended means of\ncirculation, to a cause so intimately connected with the interests of\nhumanity. The Church, in its various denominations, and by its varied\nagencies, must ever be, as it ever has been, the leader and the guide in\ngreat moral movements.\n\nM. SIMPSON.\n\n\n\n\nWOMAN MAN'S EQUAL.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\n\nNatural Rights.\n\nIn the discussion of the question of woman's equality with man, I\npurpose to prove from the Bible, as I believe I can, that at the\ncreation there was neither superiority nor inferiority ordained between\nAdam and Eve; and that the partial distinctions which have for ages\nexisted, and which still exist, are of man's invention; and may,\ntherefore with propriety, be examined, and, where found unfair or\noppressive, may be justly condemned.\n\nI hope also to be able to establish the fact, from history, that in\nevery age, whenever an opportunity has afforded itself, women have\nproved themselves to be fully men's equals in intellectual capacity, in\nmorality, industry, and religion; and that, in matters of government,\nthey have proved themselves to be as wise and judicious rulers as any of\nthe opposite sex, under the same, or similar, circumstances. That the\ninstances in which women have been called to places of power and\nresponsibility in the State are comparatively rare, is not to be\nattributed to natural incapacity or mental inferiority, but to the fact\nof the persistent efforts made by men to keep them as much as possible\nin the background; that in many instances women have broken the fetters\nof oppression and prejudice by which they were bound, and have ascended\nthe hill of fame in advance of their male opponents. If, then, women\nhave in other and darker ages over-leaped the formidable barriers placed\nin their way, and thus benefited their respective nations, and sometimes\nthe world, by their intrepidity, why should obstructions be placed in\ntheir path now, in this day of professed light and progress? Freedom,\nimprovement, and righteousness ought to be the watchwords of the\nnations.\n\nAfter enduring years of ridicule and contempt, the advocates of women's\nrights begin to see some slight indications that their labors have not\nbeen altogether futile. Both in England and America the movement is now\nmaking considerable progress. Persons of wealth, of high position in the\nsocial scale, and of sound education, have become its warm friends and\nadvocates; but, so hard is it to remove old-time prejudice, it is\nprobable that many years may yet elapse before women will be allowed to\nenjoy equal rights and privileges with men.\n\nAll great reforms, whether European or American, are of slow growth,\nand are usually denounced as running counter to Scripture and common\nsense; as witness the discussions on the disestablishment of the Irish\nChurch in Britain, and on the abolition of slavery in the United States;\nboth of which reforms were fiercely assailed as contrary to the Word of\nGod and reason, and declared to be in fact the offspring of infidelity.\nBut, like these two great reforms, when movements of vital importance\nare once inaugurated, their arriving at perfection is but a matter of\ntime. Right is almost always sure to prevail in the end.\n\nThe claiming for women equality with men, not only in mental capacity,\nbut in civil and ecclesiastical rights, may shock the preconceived\nopinions of many persons, and will probably subject the individual\nadvancing such views to the charge of fanaticism and false teaching; yet\nwe conceive the claim to be consistent with reason, justice, and the\nWord of God; and its full recognition to be of vital importance to the\nentire race of mankind. In the discussion of this question, the object\nwill not be to flatter women, or to give offense to men; but simply to\npresent the requirements of impartial justice with regard to a portion\nof the human race, who, because of their sex, have for centuries been\nheld in a position little, if any, better than that of slaves; and who,\nup to the present time, are deprived of their natural rights and\nprivileges by the laws of our own and other countries, professedly\ncivilized, enlightened, and Christian. While, therefore, the injustice\nsuffered, both in the past and the present, by women, will be briefly\npresented in the following pages, there is still no wish to deprive the\n\"lords of creation\" of any really God-appointed privilege. But should we\nhappen to come in contact with the selfishness and the usurped\nprerogatives of men, we will not hesitate to expose what we conceive to\nbe grievous wrongs, because of their antiquity.\n\nThere is no human tie so sacred as that of marriage; and yet there is\nno covenant so generally violated in some way or other by many of the\ncontracting parties. The alliance, it is true, may be continued, and\neven observed, so far as the letter is concerned. But what of the\nspirit? When once true confidence is lost, the sublime and exalted\ncharacter of the relation is destroyed. There is no longer any genuine\naffection, or real union of heart, between the parties. Nothing will\ndestroy mutual confidence between two parties sooner than an arrogant\nassumption by one of them of fancied superiority over the other.\nSelf-respect is an inherent principle in human nature. The mind of\nprince and peasant is alike actuated by it, and by an instinctive desire\nfor freedom and independence of action, for the advantages of civil and\nreligious liberty, and for the exercise of individual rights; and this\ninstinctive desire is no less strong in the hearts of women than of\nmen. It is impossible for a woman of proper discernment, and of refined\ntaste and liberal education, to consider herself, simply because of her\nsex, inferior to her own male relatives, or indeed to any one of the\nopposite sex, of the same intellectual powers, literary attainments, and\nposition in society. Nothing but the influence of a misdirected or\nperverted education, or the most extreme degradation and ignorance, can\nin any one induce the belief that woman is the inferior of man, merely\n_because she is a woman_.\n\nNo business firm could remain together in harmony for a single day, if\nit were understood that one of the partners assumed the position that he\nwas superior to the other, who, prior to entering into the partnership,\nhad been received in the same social circles, and who had brought into\nthe business an equal proportion of funds and of business talent. And\ndoubly preposterous would the assumption be, if it were based on the\nfact that the assumer was the larger or physically stronger man; and,\nbecause possessed of more of the animal nature than his partner, it\ntherefore became his right to dictate to and control the other.\n\nSuch an assumption as this is no more absurd, nor is the reasoning upon\nwhich it is based more illogical, than that which asserts that woman,\nbecause she is a woman, is therefore an inferior, to be ruled at the\ndiscretion of her husband or sons in her own home; and that she ought to\nbe contented to be considered such, and to be so treated by her own\nnation and in her own family. The carrying out of such an idea is more\nthan absurd. It is monstrous. It is an imposition that has only been\ntolerated because the exactions are not in every case so bad as the\nsystem is capable of enforcing; and it is one from which every advocate\nof Christian liberty, to be consistent with his profession, should\nwithdraw both countenance and toleration.\n\nThe history of woman's wrongs has for ages been written in tears, often\nwith her life-blood; and yet the volume has, in most instances, been\nconcealed in her own bosom, notwithstanding its fearful weight. But if,\nat any time, as sometimes happens, unable to keep it hidden longer, she\nunfolds the pages of her grief to others, what an outcry is raised\nagainst her! The oppressed Italian peasant, the Russian serf, the\nSpanish or American black, all, if they are only of the male sex, may\nmake their wrongs public, may even resist oppression to the death, and\nbe applauded for so doing. But let a woman speak so that she can be\nheard, no matter how great the outrages from which she has suffered, let\nher couch her timid complaint in ever such delicate language, and what a\nstorm of invective is hurled at her! The very act of complaining is\ndeclared--by the advocates of her inferiority--to be in itself unwifely,\n_indecent_. \"A woman's voice has no business to be heard outside of her\nown house; nor _there_, if her lord decrees otherwise,\" say they. It is\nasserted that she has been induced to give publicity to her\nsorrows--indeed, has _occasioned them_--by peevishness or imprudence, or\nby something worse; and thus, by an, unfair, sometimes an altogether\n_false_, issue being raised, the unhappy victim not merely of\noppression, but of downright brutality, is shut off from justly merited\nsympathy. And women, too, who are more fortunately situated, in\npossessing somewhat kinder husbands, or in being possessed by them,\nshaping their views according to those entertained by the sterner sex,\nunite with them in the condemnation of a sorrow-stricken sister; and,\ninstead of making her burden lighter, contribute to increasing its\nweight. Such women having never felt the iron pierce their own souls,\ncan not realize the woes of those in whose bosoms the barb is rankling\nat every pulsation, and they weakly fancy that the sorrows of those\nsuffering ones are but the inventions of an ill-ordered mind, or, at\nmost, that the picture has been overdrawn.\n\nUnkind men are not the only class, however, who assert the inferiority\nof the gentler sex. If they were, they might be disposed of in a very\nsummary manner. There is another class not less dangerous, not less\ntyrannical or less arrogant, though somewhat more plausible. These\nspeak, when occasion suits, quite eloquently, often with indecorous\nflippancy, of the \"great influence which the _ladies_ are capable of\nexerting upon society;\" and for the qualified good which the orators\ngraciously concede that women have accomplished, or may be capable of\naccomplishing, they bespatter them with a sort of sneering praise that\nis absolutely insulting to a woman of common sense. This style of\nfulsome flattery, with some degree of soft attention, graciously\nbestowed upon women, these men deem adequate compensation for all the\nindignities put upon their so-called inferiors. With what supreme\ncontempt, therefore, must every right-minded woman listen to such\nharangues, or read them when in print!\n\nLearned orators and divines and grave professors may, indeed sometimes\ndo, soar away almost to the seventh heaven while recounting the heroic\nor generous actions of women in past ages. Admiring audiences are told\nthat \"gentle women are the ministering angels, sent by the wisdom of God\nto be the comforters of mankind upon earth, as the beloved of our\nhearths and homes; that the world, without the gentle hand of woman to\nalleviate our sorrows, would be a dark and dreary solitude swept by the\nwhirlwinds of despair.\" The delighted listeners are borne away on the\nwings of fancy--alas! it is only fancy--till, in imagination, it would\nappear that woman had escaped from her worse than Egyptian bondage, had\ncrossed, without trouble, the Red Sea, passed the dreadful wilderness,\nmoved out from the plains of Moab, and, by some peculiar magic of her\nown, had been deftly wafted over Jordan into the promised land; that\nalready she had gloried in the tumbling-down of the walls of Jericho,\nand had enjoyed the triumph of having the delegation of Gibeonites\ncoming, in their old garments, to seek an alliance with her as the\nchosen of the Lord.\n\nBut let a woman allured by such an oration ask a _right_, and how soon\nthe strain is changed! Let her ask to be placed on an equality with man\nin regard to the holding of property, or to civil or ecclesiastical\nrights, or authority or position; let the daughters ask equal rights and\nprivileges with sons; let them request admission into the same colleges\nand universities with their brothers, so that they may compete with them\nfor the honors and degrees conferred in such institutions,--and what\nthen? The flowery oratory is all gone. The \"angels,\" the \"heroic, brave,\nand virtuous women,\" have suddenly become agitators whose conduct is\nunseemly. They \"are ambitious, indelicate, not to say immodest,\nbold-faced females\"--whether of the human or some other race we are not\ntold.\n\nForgetting, apparently, that the Creator's universal law is liberty of\nthought and freedom of action, coupled with a strict responsibility for\nthe use of both, those who are opposed to women exercising or enjoying\nequal rights with men, contend, as an excuse for their opposition, that\nsome of the women engaged in the present reform movement are extravagant\nin their demands, and abuse the privileges they already possess.\nPrecisely the same thing was said of the slaves in the South. Indeed,\nthe same argument, variously worded, has been used by oppressors in all\nages. \"Ye are idle, ye are idle,\" is a very old cry.\n\nBut, admitting that some women are injudicious and occasionally one is\nirreverent, are not men, in advocating their peculiar views on politics,\nthe same, only in much larger proportion? Are they, therefore, deprived\nof the franchise or other privileges? If men were obliged to come to\nsuch a standard as they lay down for women, they would consider the\nmeasure meted out to them a very hard one. Still, if it is a just and\nfair way of dealing with woman's suffrage and other questions of\nimportance, it is an equally just and fair way to deal with men\nconcerning their right to exercise the franchise.\n\nBut, though deprived of the civil and ecclesiastical privileges accorded\nto their sons and brothers, women are yet held equally accountable with\nthem for any infraction of these same civil and ecclesiastical laws. Not\nsupposed to have sufficient mental capacity to understand what a law\nreally means, she is yet, if she violates that law, punished for such\nviolation. And, in the face of all this, it is sneeringly asked, \"What\ncan reasonable women want more than they already have?\" The answer is\nsimple: Equal rights and privileges with men.\n\nAnd it is to be hoped, for the honor of Christianity and civilization,\nthat these will soon be accorded.\n\nVery much has been accomplished in several of the States of the\nRepublic, in regard to giving women a proper position in civil and\neducational matters, but much still remains to be done; and just now it\nwould seem doubtful which country will first accord the suffrage to\nthem--England or the United States. Eminent statesmen in both of these\ncountries are moving in the matter.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\n\nWoman in Antiquity.\n\nIn the preceding chapter it is mentioned that the intention is to\npresent to the reader, in as condensed a form as possible, some of the\nindignities put upon women, both in the past and the present, so that\nthe reader may be able to form a candid judgment on the subject of\nwoman's rights and woman's wrongs. We will, therefore, first consider\nthe condition of the women of antiquity, and of those in heathen and\nMohammedan lands; and, afterward, her position in professedly civilized\nand Christian countries.\n\nAfter the dispersion of mankind at Babel, we behold, through the mists\nof the surrounding gloom, the various tribes into which the race had by\nthat event become divided, subsisting at first by the spontaneous fruits\nof the earth, and by the chase. Then they became herdsmen, tillers of\nthe soil, and traffickers, varying these occupations by predatory\nwarfare. They are all astir, passing to and fro through the wide extent\nof the regions as yet inhabited. History, so far as it deals with the\nearlier portion of this period, necessarily derives its material from\ntraditionary legends, more or less credible, as the case may be. These\nrecount the marvelous exploits--not unfrequently manifestly fabulous--of\ntheir rude heroes; their deeds of might, their noble enterprises, their\nindomitable courage, their persistent activity, and often their deeds of\nmost revolting cruelty.\n\nOf the women of this period we obtain but slight glimpses, but\nsufficient to show that, in their domestic arrangements, the ancients\nearly acted upon the principle, that \"might makes right.\" Muscle\nappears to have been at a premium during these eras.\n\nLater, the nations are found still engaged in war, as if each esteemed\nthe slaughtering of its neighbors the grandest and noblest of human\nachievements; but their equipments indicate that, meanwhile,\nmanufactures have been making some advancement. Warriors present a more\nformidable appearance than did those of former ages. They are clad in\narmor, and guard themselves with breastplates and with shields. Their\nglittering swords and spears, their battle-axes and their bows, are\ngrasped in hands only too eager to use them; and the combatants press\nproudly on toward the scene of conflict; while others, equally intrepid,\nbut less military in their tastes, still employ themselves in the chase;\nand the more indolent pursue pleasures of a less exciting character.\n\nBut where, meanwhile, are the counterparts of these--the wives, sisters,\nand daughters of these grim warriors and sturdy huntsmen, or of these\ndreaming idlers? In existence they certainly are; but they exist only to\ndrudge and suffer. While their masters are employing or non-employing\nthemselves, according to the bent of their inclination, they are\ncultivating the fields or watering and herding the flocks, bearing heavy\nburdens, carrying the luggage of their husbands to facilitate progress\non the war-path; or at home rearing up children, who rarely rise up to\ncall them blessed; or they are waiting, in submissive obedience, at the\nfeet of their reclining lords, to be petted and caressed or cursed and\nkicked, as passion or caprice may dictate--subjected alike to neglect,\ncontempt, and abuse. Exceptions to this general rule doubtless occurred\noccasionally; for irresponsible power does not of necessity convert\nevery man into an unfeeling tyrant, just as under other systems of\nslavery, some were fortunate enough to fall into the hands of kind,\nconsiderate owners, whose hearts they inspired with love and\ntenderness; but neither bound wife nor bond slave was treated with\nkindness, respect, or common justice, because their inherent right to be\nso treated was recognized. It mattered little to the women of this\nperiod whether they were held as wives or concubines; their actual\ncondition was that of slavery.\n\nIn none of the countries of antiquity had women more liberty than in\nEgypt; and yet what was her real condition there? Alexander remarked, it\nis true, that though \"the women promised obedience, men often yielded\nit;\" and, in many instances, it is equally true that the laws respecting\nwomen were immeasurably in advance of those of neighboring nations; as,\nfor instance: Each wife had entire control of her own house. Among the\nprinces nearest the throne, women might take their places, and even\nreign as sovereigns (a regency was frequently committed to their care);\nor they might rule as joint sovereigns with another party; and as Isis\ntook rank above Osiris, so in such a case the woman might take rank\nabove the man.[A]\n\nBut notwithstanding this advance beyond other nations, they were still\nspoken of, and in many instances not only treated as inferiors, but held\nin hopeless bondage.\n\nAmong the Greeks, the wife was at times permitted to take part in public\nassemblies, but never as the equal of her husband. She neither went with\nhim to dinner, when he dined out, nor sat at table with those whom he\ninvited to his house. Aristotle held that \"the relation of men to women\nis that of governor to a subject.\" Plato says: \"A woman's virtue may be\nsummed up in a few words: for she has only to manage the house well,\nkeeping what there is in it, and obeying her husband.\" Again, in further\nproof of the low estimation in which he held women, he says: \"Of the men\nthat were born, such as are timid and have passed through life unjustly\nare, we suppose, changed into women in their second generation.\"\nPlutarch tells us that women \"were compelled to go barefoot, in order to\ninduce them to keep at home.\"\n\nThe Spartan women were better off than their neighbors; and, in\nconsequence, we get glimpses of a higher type of womanhood. The Spartan\nmother has furnished a theme for the pen of every ancient Greek\nhistorian. Under the Lycurgean system, women were considered \"as a part\nof the State,\" and not simply household articles belonging to their\nhusbands--chattels to be disposed of according to the supreme pleasure\nof their masters. Free women were trained for the service of the State\nwith scarcely less severity than men. Lycurgus remarks: \"Female slaves\nare good enough to sit at home, weaving and spinning; but who can expect\na splendid offspring--the appropriate mission and duty of free Spartan\nwomen toward their country--from mothers brought up in such\noccupations?\" But though, like the Egyptian women, and indeed in advance\nof them, the Spartan women were treated with, for the times, a marked\ndegree of attention and respect, still, even in Sparta, there were laws\nin force by which women suffered grievous injustice. With all the\napparent freedom accorded to them, fathers claimed and exercised the\nright of disposing of their daughters in marriage to suit their own\nviews or interests. Though free-born, a girl had no choice, if her\nfather willed it so, in the selection of her husband; and husbands\nmight, if they wished, dispose of their wives by will, at death, as they\nwould of any other piece of property. Though in a measure free, because\nshe was a woman, she was still a slave.\n\nAmong the other infringements of the rights of women, and one of the\nmost barbarous, common to the heathen, both ancient and modern, and to\nthe Mohammedans, is early betrothal. In fact, the system of betrothal\nprevailed to a very great extent among the very earliest nations of\nwhich history furnishes any account, the laws affecting it being only\nslightly modified to suit the circumstances of the various tribes by\nwhich it was adopted. The main feature was still the same--the girl had\nno choice; there was nothing for her but submission.\n\nThe lot of woman in China has, from time immemorial, been a hard one.\nSays a writer in the _Westminster Review_ for October, 1855: \"Of all\nnations, the Chinese carry out the system of early betrothal most\ncompletely; parents in China not only bargain for the marriage of their\nchildren during their infancy, but while they are yet unborn. If, when a\ndaughter is betrothed during infancy, the contract should not assume the\nform of actual sale, it is nevertheless usual for the bridegroom, at the\ntime he acquires possession of the bride, to pay into the hands of her\nfather a sum considered equivalent to the current value of a wife.\"\nImmortality is denied to woman by them. A Christian, intent on the\nevangelization of the Chinese, spoke to one regarding the salvation of\ntheir women. \"Women,\" replied the Chinaman; \"women have no souls. You\ncan't make Christians of them.\" Few persons born in civilized lands,\nunless brought into immediate contact with the heathen, can have any\nidea of the wretched condition of their women, even at this day. Kept in\na state of abject bondage, they are compelled to serve with rigor.\nControlled as though they were possessed of less intelligence than male\nchildren of tender years, it might yet be supposed, from the burdens\nlaid upon them, that they were possessed of far superior strength,\nphysically, than men. In some countries--not all of them heathen or\nMohammedan either--the amount of labor imposed upon women of the lower\norders in society would task the strength of beasts of burden. The only\nexercise of reason allowed among such, is a sort of instinct which will\nenable them to perform all kinds of drudgery, and to act with\nscrupulous fidelity to their unkind, very often brutal and _faithless_,\nhusbands--task-masters would be the better name. Of women under such\nrule, it may truly be said, the grave is their best, their only friend.\n\nAmong the Arabs, prior to Mohammed, the women were in a wretchedly\ndebased condition, which has been but slightly improved by the rules of\nthe Koran. By its sanction, wives were bought by their husbands, though\nit was asserted that it was not lawful for men to exchange their wives.\nThe price paid by Mohammed for his wives, of which he had nine, varied,\naccording to their rank and beauty, from one to one hundred dollars\neach. The common people procured theirs at a cheaper rate. Specific\ndirections are given, too, for the proper government of women. \"Those\nwives,\" says Mohammed, \"whose perverseness ye may be apprehensive of,\nrebuke, and remove them into separate apartments, and chastise\nthem.\"[B] When such precepts as these were laid down in the Koran,\nwhich was considered a direct revelation from God, it is not surprising\nthat the severest punishment was inflicted on women who attempted to\nexercise any control over themselves or their households. The will of\nthe proud, insolent Arab was supreme, whether his demands were\nreasonable or otherwise; having bought his wives cheap, he might\nmaltreat or divorce them at pleasure. Like the Chinese, the Mohammedan\nwomen are denied the hope of immortality. \"Earthly women, when they die,\ncease to have any existence; but men, if faithful to Mohammed, are to\nenter paradise, and be associated with a _new_ race of transcendently\nbeautiful female beings.\" \"The glories of eternity,\" says the Koran,\n\"will be eclipsed by the resplendent 'women of paradise,' created 'not\nof clay, as mortal women are, but of pure musk, and free from all\nnatural impurities, defects, and inconveniencies incident to the sex;\n... secluded from public view in pavilions of hollow pearl.'\"[C]\n\nA distinguished European writer observes: \"The Hindoos seem to have\nlegislated with the greatest care and detail concerning women. Yet by no\npeople, legally speaking, is her individuality more entirely ignored;\nand in no country is the slavery in which she lives, at once so\nsystematic, refined, and complete as it is in India, where the lawgiver\nand the priest are one. The oppressive custom of life-long guardianship\nis expressly ordained. By a girl, or by a woman advanced in years,\nnothing must be done, even in her own dwelling-place, according to her\nmere pleasure. In childhood must a female be dependent on her father, in\nyouth on her husband; her lord being dead, on her sons; if she have no\nsons, on the near kinsman of her husband; if he left no kinsman, on\nthose of her father; if she have no parental kinsman, on the sovereign.\nA woman must never seek independence.\"[D] Not permitted to have any\ndiscretionary power over her own actions at any period of her life, but\nheld in every respect subject to the will of her husband, or some other\nmale guardian, she is nevertheless to be unswervingly faithful to her\nlord while he lives; and no matter how cruelly he may have treated her,\nshe is loaded with contumely, reproach, and scorn, if she refuses to lay\nherself upon the funeral pile, and in the flames pass into another state\nof being, to do honor to him who through life had been an unrelenting\ntyrant. Knowing the obloquy which attaches itself to the widow who\nrecoils from such a fearful death-bed, and ignorant, too, of the \"better\nway,\" the unfortunate creature generally yields to the pressure brought\nto bear upon her, and terminates a miserable life by an awful death; her\nhorrid shrieks, while burning, mingling with the clamor of sounds\nraised to drown them by the heartless throng of spectators, and yet\nsometimes rising with distressing distinctness above them. When the wife\nof a Hindoo dies, does he sacrifice himself upon a funeral pile, in\norder to honor her in another state of existence? By no means. His\nprecious body can not be committed to the flames; they are too hot for\nhis manly courage. He burns her corpse with what are termed appropriate\nofferings; and, if so disposed, adds a new wife to his household, thus\nsoothing his sorrow.\n\nIn Australia, the practice of early betrothal is nearly universal among\nthe natives; men of distinction having several wives at the same time,\nand these varying in age from the little child to the woman of mature\nyears. But while polygamy prevails to a fearful extent among the men of\nthe wealthier class, many of the men of the humbler ranks remain\nunmarried, because they are unable to raise the purchase-money which\nsecures them their domestic drudge. In the western part of Australia,\nespecially before the benefits of civilization began to be felt in the\nisland, it was the practice to betroth the daughters to some individual,\nimmediately upon their birth; and should the man, or male child to whom\nthe infant girl was betrothed, die before she arrived at maturity, she\nbecame the property of the heirs of her betrothed husband, though she\nmight never have seen either this reputed husband, or the person who, as\nhis representative, claimed her as his wife by virtue of the betrothal.\nIn New Zealand, if the spouse of a female child dies before she is taken\nto his home, she is never allowed to marry any one else. By this custom\nyoung children become the widows of little boys or old men, according to\nthe whims of their fathers. Another horrible practice of the Australians\nis, the exchange of daughters by their fathers. This is very common\namong the chiefs, the exchange being made with as little concern as\njockeys exchange their horses. It is stated that the poorer men\nsometimes supplied themselves with wives after the manner of the Romans\nin the case of the Sabine Rape; and that when victorious in war, the\nwomen and girls captured were taken as wives, while the male prisoners\nwere put to death. But where they were able to afford it, they preferred\nthe betrothal system, as giving them more consequence. Not only in\nAustralia, but in the other countries where early betrothal was\npracticed, if, when a boy grew up, he formed a dislike to his betrothed,\nor for some other whim desired to cast her off, he was at liberty to do\nso, but no such privilege was granted the girl. Then, as now in\ncivilized nations, those making the laws were careful to make them all\nto their own advantage.\n\nIn the foundation of some of the nations of antiquity, men were\nfrequently gathered, from almost every quarter of the then known globe,\nto the particular spot that seemed best suited for the purposes of\nself-aggrandizement; and, in the rude horde thus congregated together,\nthere was necessarily an undue preponderance of the male element. In\nsome instances, not one woman was to be found in such a community. The\ntribes more immediately contiguous to these settlements, if such they\nmight be called, were not inclined to enter into friendly relations with\nthem, and therefore they were unable to supply themselves with wives in\nthe usual manner; consequently, they had recourse to other means.\nSometimes women were procured by stratagem; sometimes bands of marauders\nsallied forth, and stole, or in some other equally exceptionable way\ntook possession of, the women of the neighboring or of hostile tribes.\n\nOrdinarily, the poor victims submitted to their fate with the best grace\nthey might; but if one thus taken by force attempted to make her escape\nfrom him who claimed her as his wife, and was unfortunate enough to be\nretaken, a spear, or some similar weapon, was thrust through the fleshy\nportion of one of her limbs, effectually disabling her from making\nanother attempt of the kind; and not unfrequently the combined bodily\npain and mental anguish terminated in death--a happy release.\n\nIn process of time, however, the various tribes began to regard each\nother with less aversion than formerly; and it became safer and more\nprofitable to purchase women, on the same principle that any other kind\nof merchandise was bought. Prices were regulated according to the supply\nin the market and the beauty or the muscular strength of the hapless\ncreatures exposed for sale. Fathers sold or exchanged their daughters,\nbrothers their sisters, without the slightest shame or remorse. Among\nthe Tambanks, in exchanging the women for stock, a woman, full-grown and\nof ordinary strength, was considered equal in value to two cows or one\nox.\n\nAs the settlements became more permanent, assuming by degrees the\ncharacter of established nations, and the centers of enterprise grew\ninto populous cities, the barter and exchange traffic naturally\ndeclined; but in its place were established regular markets for the sale\nof female slaves. Civilization was beginning to make some slight\nprogress; and fathers began to entertain doubts regarding the propriety\nof _selling_ their own flesh and blood, though they did not hesitate to\n_buy_ their wives.\n\nThe slaves who were exposed in the marketplaces, therefore, were\ngenerally the overplus not desired in the harems of those who had\ncaptured them in war; and as the most beautiful brought the highest\nmarket-price, the public exhibitions of the poor unfortunates drew\nthither crowds of gaping people--some merely curious, some intent on\nbusiness. Even in more modern days, the slave-markets of the East, and\nin the Southern States of the American Republic, have attracted crowds\nof spectators--some to condemn the horrible practice, some to\ncompassionate the unhappy victims, but most to engage in the monstrous\ntraffic.\n\nIt is not necessary to review further, in detail, the condition of women\nin the various nations as they sprang into existence, or through the\nsuccessive periods of their history to the commencement of the Christian\nera. Various causes brought about a partial liberty for women, in both\nthe Jewish and Roman nations, prior to the birth of Christ; but for\nthose of other lands the blackness of darkness still remained. It was\nbut a partial liberty, it is true, even for the Hebrew or Roman women,\nbut their condition was much improved. Concessions had been made slowly.\nThey had come in shreds, and had not amounted to much in ameliorating\ntheir situation when they came; but slight as were the privileges\nyielded, they were yet indications of the dawning of a brighter day for\nEve's poor daughters.\n\nThe reformations effected were like wresting prey from the mighty. And\nhow could it be otherwise, with selfishness and love of power, sustained\nby unjust and one-sided laws, arrayed against merely natural rights--not\ndemanded, scarcely even asserted--and those to whom these rights\nbelonged excluded from every position where they might hope to do either\nthe one or the other successfully? The law of divorce was still common;\nand, like every thing else where the sexes were concerned, all the\nadvantages were on the side of the oppressor, man.\n\nThe laws of the Romans, though according a greater degree of freedom to\nwoman than had hitherto been granted, were still not only imperfect, but\nwere not properly carried out, in many instances, where it suited venal\njudges to side with wealthy libertines who might have it in their power\nto bestow a favor. Professedly, each Roman had but one wife; but\ndivorces, on most frivolous pretexts, were of frequent occurrence,\ngranted in favor of one who wished to gratify his licentious passions\nwithout rebuke. Slavery was yet in force; and it gave ample opportunity\nfor the practice of this injustice, even upon the free-born Roman woman.\nEvery true Roman held his wife's or his daughter's honor sacred, and\nwould resent to the death any attempt to violate it; but, by the\nconnivance of corrupt officials, the protection of an upright father was\nrendered of no avail, by a perjurer being found who would appear before\nthe proper tribunal and swear the maid or woman in question to be his\nslave. The decision once given in the libertine's favor, there was no\nlonger hope for her--she was lost forever.\n\nNot always, however, would Roman freemen tamely brook open injustice,\nmuch less shame, without revenging it, though they died in doing so. The\ncase of Appius--who was himself both the libertine and judge--is in\npoint. Having set his licentious eyes upon the beautiful\nVirginia--daughter of Virginius, a centurion of the army--and having in\nvain sought to obtain possession of her person by tampering with the\nmatron who conveyed her to and from her school, he induced an equally\nlicentious individual, one Claudius, to claim her as his slave, and\nbring the matter before himself for decision. In vain the anguished\nfather asserted that Virginia was his child. With an air of apparent\nimpartiality, Appius decreed that she belonged to Claudius, who\nthereupon proceeded to remove her. The father begged that they might at\nleast be allowed to take leave of each other, which request was granted,\non condition of their doing so in the presence of the oppressor. Drawing\nthe girl, now nearly dead from fright, toward himself, and also toward\nthe shambles, adjoining which they were, he snatched thence a knife,\nand, before any suspected his intention, stabbed her to the heart,\ncrying, \"This alone can preserve your honor and your freedom.\"[E]\n\nThe fearful deed of the centurion is appalling; but remember his ideas\nof right and wrong were veiled in pagan darkness. He took the life of\nhis child to save her from a fate incomparably worse than that of death;\nand made his name historic by doing so. Thousands of fathers have found\ntheir efforts to protect the innocence of their daughters as unavailing\nas did the unhappy Virginius, unless, like him, they shortened life. The\nvictims, too, are as little free-will agents in the matter as Virginia\nwould have been; and many thousands of daughters have fallen, not by\ntheir father's hand to save their honor, but by cruel deception, and\ndied to all that was beautiful or pure on earth, and to every hope of\nheaven.\n\nAnd while the woman who has sinned, and fallen through that sin, is\npitied by few, despised by nearly all, and but little effort made to win\nher back to the path of purity, how is the companion of her sin treated?\nHe, the seducer--often the grossest of deceivers, the instigator of the\ncrime--because he is a man, is countenanced by the many, his conduct\npalliated, and himself received as an honored guest, even in the highest\ncircles of society. The law of God makes no distinction between the male\nviolator of His holy law and the female violator of the same; but man,\narrogating to himself superior wisdom, makes a very marked one.\n\nNo wonder, then, that women groan because of their bondage.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote A: Sharpe's \"History of Egypt.\"]\n\n[Footnote B: Koran, chap. iv.]\n\n[Footnote C: Sale's \"Preliminary Discourses on the Koran,\" sec. 4.]\n\n[Footnote D: \"Laws of Menu.\"]\n\n[Footnote E: Bloss, page 334.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\n\nLater Estimate of Woman.\n\nIn the discussion of the position occupied by women as wives, those only\nhave been spoken of who were betrothed in infancy, or were captured,\nstolen, or bought. These latter were, without further ceremony, merely\n_taken_ home to the abode of their future husband and lord. In the later\nperiods of antiquity, betrothal terminated in a marriage ceremony, the\nrite varying according to the prevailing customs of each nation.\n\nOpinions with regard to the qualifications which ought to be possessed\nby a woman to fit her for marriage--which were, in fact, considered\nindispensable--were as various as the nations or the rites; and, truth\nto tell, are about as conflicting now as they were centuries ago. In all\nthe ages, and in every country, one thing seemed to be agreed upon,\nhowever, and sedulously kept in view; namely, _woman's inferiority_. Let\nher be free-born or a slave, to be married or bought, she must still be\na bondwoman--a creature subject to guardianship.\n\nAfter men began to desire wives who were not altogether drudges, women\nbegan to be esteemed in proportion to their beauty, not their wisdom or\ngood judgment. A fine figure, delicate hands, and handsome face, with\nfascinating manners, a graceful carriage, and such accomplishments as\nwere the fashion, quite regardless of the accomplishments of head or\nheart, were all that were required by the class of men who could afford\nto keep such dainty wares. But love, inspired by such attractions as\nthese and nothing else, is ever fickle as the wind. When health declined\nand beauty faded, the fire of passion, misnamed love, died out; and the\nhapless wife frequently found herself deserted--if not openly, none the\nless shamefully--for a younger rival, whose eye was brighter and whose\ncheek more plump. Then shrewd women began to study artifice. Deception\nis wrong, without doubt; but before we too severely censure these women,\nlet us remember how deeply they were wronged, how great their\ntemptations, how much they had at stake. In order to retain any thing\nlike a comfortable or respectable position in their husband's houses,\nthe waning beauties resorted to flattery and to the invention and\nskillful use of various articles which would conceal the declension of\nbeauty or artfully counterfeit it. The ways and means by which\nattractiveness of face and figure might be enhanced, preserved, or\nsimulated, became the subject of serious study--something neither to be\nsneered at nor laughed at. The happiness of a life-time often depended\nupon it. The sex, taught by a bitter experience, learned that men, as a\nrule, were more easily influenced by blandishment and show than by good\nsense and genuine worth, and, with a few exceptions, strove somewhat to\nbetter their condition by practicing the lesson so learned. If, in the\nlong run, women became frivolous, brainless, and heartless, why was it?\n\nThere were, however, in all ages, exceptions. Women, yielding to the\nGod-given yearning after higher and better things than idle frivolities,\nand longing just as ardently for love and happiness in their married\nhomes, sought to work out life's problem differently, and went to work\nas rational creatures. Breaking through or over the obstacles which\ndebarred them from enjoying or making use of the sources of information\nopen to the opposite sex, they strove to cultivate their minds and store\nthem with useful knowledge, that they might indeed be helpmeets for\ntheir husbands, and so not only win, but by true worth retain, their\nlove.\n\nThen those who had hitherto sneered at woman's incapacity for\nintellectual attainments, or lectured her roundly for frivolity,\nheartlessness, and deception, sneered all the more at her presumption in\nfancying her heart, or head either, required any other cultivation than\nman, in his wisdom, saw fitting. Any thing at all likely to elevate\nwoman to her proper place of equality with her husband, must be put down\nat once and forever, if possible. But, notwithstanding all the pains\ntaken to place women in an inferior position, and keep them there, they\nhave, in many instances, despite the sneers and _persecutions_ of the\nopposite sex, proved their aptitude in acquiring knowledge; and, when\nplaced in positions to call forth such powers, have manifested a\njudicious tact in the government of nations or generalship of armies,\nquite equal to men, with all their vaunted superiority. Nor did those\nwomen who thus distinguished themselves, or those who in private life\nbecame proficients in the various branches of science or in music,\npoetry or the languages, _necessarily_ neglect their homes and families\nin consequence. Experience, in our own times, proves exactly the\nreverse. Dereliction of duty with regard to home duties results much\nmore frequently from devotion to fashionable pleasures--considered quite\nallowable and _womanly_--than from the pursuit of literature.\n\nThat marriage was designed by the Creator for the mutual benefit, help,\nand happiness of those entering into that relation, there can be no\ndoubt; but, through the selfishness of man--helped on by the fact that,\nlike the partner referred to previously, he was physically the stronger\nof the two--the gracious purposes of the Creator were lost sight of, or\n_ignored._ And God suffered it so to be, for the time, just as he did\nother forms of slavery and outcrying sins of various kinds.\n\nIt has been said that the marriage ceremonies and festivals were as\nvarious as the several nations in which they were performed. A\ndescription of a few of these may not be uninteresting.\n\nAmong the Jews, the period of betrothal having expired, the marriage was\ncelebrated by a feast, the bride being arrayed as magnificently as her\ncircumstances would allow. If the contracting parties were distinguished\npersonages, the ceremony was frequently celebrated at night, the bridal\nparty, carrying their lamps or torches with them, going forth in\nprocession to meet and do honor to the bridegroom.\n\nWith the Romans, the consent of the father or guardian of the maiden\nhaving been obtained, a sacrifice was prepared. \"The gall was carefully\nremoved,\" and the propitiatory offering made to the gods. To have been\nemblematical, the gall should have been presented to the bride. In most\ncases, it fell to her lot. On the wedding-day the bridegroom, with his\nattendants, presented himself at the place designated for the\nperformance of the ceremony, where he was met by the bride, gorgeously\nappareled, and her maids. Then, in presence of her father or guardian\nand proper witnesses, the pair went through a formula of words as given\nthem by the officiating priest. On the completion of this part of the\nceremony, the company partook of a cake made of flour, salt, and water.\nThis was the original \"bride-cake.\" After night, the bride, accompanied\nby her relatives and maids of honor, was escorted with due pomp to the\nresidence of the bridegroom, the door of which she found bound with\nstrings, over which she was obliged to step. Having effected an\nentrance, she received the keys of the house, and the bridegroom and\nherself again repeated, after the priest, the formula which had been\ngone over earlier in the day. Then, having touched fire and water, and\nsacrificed to the domestic gods, which were placed on the table, the\nwedding festivities commenced, and were continued till midnight, when\nthe guests dispersed.\n\nIn India, the magnificence of the marriage-feast can scarcely be\nimagined, especially when celebrated by torch-light procession.\n\nIn almost all the nations of antiquity, who had any marriage ceremony at\nall, a woman's wedding-day was one of splendor and apparent honor, the\nonly day in which any of her wishes were deferred to during her whole\nlifetime. Light was soon lost in darkness--anticipated pleasure in\ndisappointment, degradation, and despair. The day of her death was the\nfirst day of her freedom.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\n\nThe Sexes Equal at Creation.\n\nFrom the arguments brought forward by the advocates of woman's\ninferiority, it might be inferred that she was designed, from the very\ndawn of creation, for man's servant, not for his companion; and, indeed,\nit is not only inferred by the great mass of mankind, but broadly\nasserted to be the fact by very many who, from their knowledge of the\nhistory of creation, ought to know better.\n\nThose who have striven to establish this doctrine have contrived to\nbring the Scriptures to their aid by wresting them to suit their own\nparticular view of the question, and in this manner have endeavored to\nsilence any controversy respecting their dogma. The result has been--and\nit is the legitimate result of such a pernicious course--that this\nwresting of the Scriptures, and its having been allowed for a length of\ntime to go unchallenged by the Christian world, has produced scores of\ninfidels, who, not having examined the Word of God critically for\nthemselves, have accepted as true expositions of the doctrines contained\ntherein the statements of men, apparently supported by isolated texts,\nseparated from their contexts; and thus, having been led to believe that\nthe Scriptures sanctioned, if they did not enforce, manifest injustice,\nthey have repudiated the whole as unworthy of belief. A deplorable\nconclusion, truly! Then, though responsible for this infidelity through\ntheir perversion of Scripture, these same writers, or those of a kindred\nspirit, denounce every argument or movement in favor of the equal rights\nand privileges of women as evil, and only evil, and necessarily evil,\nbecause among the advocates of measures according these rights there are\nfound some men and women who are skeptics.\n\nBut what say the Scriptures upon the subject? In the history of the\ncreation, there given, we search in vain for any evidence of the Divine\nappointment, at that time, of masculine domination.\n\n\"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let\nthem have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the\nair, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every\ncreeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.\n\n\"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he\nhim; male and female created he them.\n\n\"And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and\nmultiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over\nthe fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every\nliving thing that moveth upon the earth.\"[F]\n\nThis dominion of the human race over the inferior creation seems to have\nbeen the only dominion instituted at the time of the creation; nor is\nthere any indication that it was to be confined to the male portion of\nthe race. As between the human pair, there is not here the slightest\nintimation given of the subjection of the one to the other. The Great\nInfinite in wisdom, who created \"them,\" and who could not be mistaken in\ntheir capacities, appears to have placed \"_them_\" on a perfect equality,\ncommitting to them conjointly the dominion over the earth and all that\nit contained.\n\nIn the second chapter of Genesis we find a brief recapitulation of the\nevents narrated in the first, the sacred historian entering more fully\ninto the creation of the woman. God, in his wisdom, saw that Adam was\nnot sufficient alone to sway the mighty scepter over the vast domain\nabout to be intrusted to him; therefore he created for him \"an\nhelpmeet,\" and gave \"_them_\" a joint authority over the rest of\ncreation. \"And the Lord God said, It is not good that man should be\nalone; I will make him an helpmeet for him.... And the Lord God caused a\ndeep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs,\nand closed up the flesh thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had\ntaken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her to the man.\"[G]\n\n\"This implies,\" says a distinguished commentator upon Holy Writ, \"that\nthe woman was a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither\ninferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to\nhimself.\"\n\nThus it was in the beginning. But, in process of time, men, glorying in\nthe physical strength in which they excelled women, refused to recognize\nas its equivalent the peculiar qualities and faculties possessed by\nwomen which were lacking in themselves. And overlooking the importance\nof the duties which the mothers of mankind were discharging, they plumed\nthemselves upon their own prowess, and concluded that women and all else\nwere made only to minister to their pleasures. Reason and justice were\nobliged to succumb to the strong arm, and women were forced into a\nsubordinate position.\n\nIf the Creator, in the arrangements of his plans, designed that women\nshould be inferior to men in intellect and freedom of action, then, in\nregard to one-half of the human family, God worked by the law of\nretrogression, producing Eve, an inferior, from Adam, a superior being;\nwhich is clearly contrary to the law of progression, and contrary to the\ngeneral plan of his creation; and, if this be true, the laws of\nprogression and retrogression were to alternate perpetually. Is this\nsupposition of inferiority in the case of woman consistent with what we\nknow of God's method of working, as given in the history of the\ncreation? Let us recapitulate the whole briefly, and see.\n\n1. He created inanimate matter. 2. He brought vegetable life into\nexistence. 3. The inhabitants of the waters were created. 4. \"The cattle\nafter their kind.\" Still ascending, God said: \"Let us make man in our\nimage, after our likeness. So God created man in his own image, in the\nimage of God created he him; male and female created he them.\" Here,\nthen, we see that God created man from a portion of inanimate earth; but\nthat he produced the woman from a perfect portion of the perfect man,\nplainly appears from the twenty-first and twenty-second verses of the\nsecond chapter of Genesis, which, though quoted recently, necessarily\ncome in, in this place. \"And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall\nupon Adam, and he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the\nflesh thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from the man,\nmade he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is\nnow bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called woman,\nbecause she was taken out of man.\"[H]\n\nPrior to the fall, then, it is quite evident that woman was equal to man\nin every respect. Did Eve, then, because she was first in the\ntransgression, forfeit her right of equality with Adam, who just as\nflagrantly transgressed the Divine command; or was the penalty inflicted\nin consequence of her disobedience another matter altogether?\n\nGenesis iii, 16, is usually brought forward to prove that, if woman was\nnot inferior before the fall, she became so absolutely and\nunconditionally then. A disinterested reader--could such be found--would\nscarcely so render it. \"Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply\nthy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth\nchildren, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over\nthee.\" Upon the latter clause of this verse, separating it from all\nconnection with the former part of the sentence, with which, however, it\nis connected in the Sacred Word, is based the dogma of the continued,\nunchangeable curse of inferiority of all the daughters of Eve, and their\nobligation to serve and implicitly obey their husbands. And yet if a\nwife, in obedience to the command of her husband, violates the law,\neither of God or man, she is the party held responsible. If she is not\npossessed of sufficient mental capacity to judge for herself in all\nthings, how can she know when she should obey or when disobey? If\nimplicit obedience is her duty, is there any justice, then, in punishing\nher for obeying the order of him whom she is bound to obey? Those who\nconstrue this and other portions of the Word of God to suit themselves,\nwould protest loudly enough against the \"manifest injustice\" if it were\nmeted out to them. But we know there is no unrighteousness with God. The\nBible expressly declares that \"God is no respecter of persons,\" and that\n\"his ways are true and righteous altogether.\"\n\nIf then we examine this text (Gen. iii, 16) candidly, even taking the\ngenerally accepted translation, and construe it with the same fairness\nwith which we would construe a sentence the meaning of which was not in\ndispute, the conclusion arrived at would be very different from what it\nusually is; and it would be apparent that the words, \"And thy desire\nshall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,\" has reference to\nthe subject of generation, of which the entire passage treats. There\nare, however, some commentators who incline to the opinion that the\nwords \"and he shall rule over thee,\" might with equal propriety be\nrendered, \"He shall _have power with thee_.\" We know that at this very\ntime the promise of the Messiah--the seed that was to bruise the\nserpent's head--was given to the woman. \"He,\" thy husband, \"shall have\npower with thee,\" would not then be an inappropriate termination to the\nsentence relating to generation. Raschi, a celebrated Hebrew writer and\nrabbi, who flourished in the twelfth century, supports this reading, \"He\nshall have power with thee;\" but the majority of commentators and the\nTalmud are against such a rendering. It is to be borne in mind, however,\nthat the Talmud is not the Pentateuch, and that learned and sincerely\npious commentators have differed, and do so still, as widely as the\npoles, upon passages quite as easily understood as the one now under\ndiscussion. There is no more proof in this verse that a woman is bound\nto serve and obey her husband, in the common acceptation of the term,\nthan that a man is obligated to serve and obey his wife, or worship her\nwith his body--whatever that may mean--as he solemnly vows to do in\ncertain marriage services. The endowment with worldly goods and the\nworship promised, were perhaps put in as an offset to the pledge of\nservice and obedience. Certainly the man's vow to worship his wife is no\nmore inconsistent than is the woman's to obey implicitly; and her\nobedience, if it is not implicit, is not obedience at all, but is merely\nacceding to the wishes of her husband when they accord with her own\njudgment.\n\nInfidels, in seeking to disparage the Word of God, quote this passage\nand kindred ones, and, accepting the commonly received idea of their\nmeaning, endeavor to subvert the faith of the masses. With those who do\nnot carefully examine the matter for themselves, they often succeed. It\nhas been asserted, too, by those who would wish the teachings of the\nKoran to take precedence over those of the Bible, that the position\naccorded to women by the Mosaic law was quite as degrading as that\naccorded to them by Mohammed; but a careful reading of the Scripture\nwarrants no such conclusion. Many matters are spoken of, both in the law\nand the prophets, as having been practised and tolerated, and even rules\ngiven for their regulation, which were by no means of Divine\nappointment. This distinction should always be carefully marked in\nregard to the sacred text; and in addition to this it should be\nremembered that the Word of God is not responsible for the erroneous\nopinions of mankind. When the Almighty placed human beings upon the\nearth, he created _one_ man and _one_ woman, destining them to be the\nprogenitors of the entire race, thereby indicating that monogamy was of\nDivine appointment. But original purity was soon departed from; lawless\npassion was allowed to mar the beautiful completeness and concord of the\nmarriage relation as instituted by God; and, in time, many even of those\nwho were nominal worshipers of the true God, fell into polygamy. The\ntrue idea and design of marriage, and the rights of woman, with the\nrespect due to her, was lost sight of, and the requirements of the\nDivine law set at nought. Men became the slaves of their own lusts. God\nwas not in all their thoughts. Iniquity prevailed to such a frightful\nextent that \"it repented the Lord that he had made man upon the earth,\nand it grieved him at his heart.\"[I]\n\nAt this time of general apostasy, Noah--and, it would seem, he\nalone--was seen righteous before God. Him, therefore, with his family,\nthe Almighty preserved in the ark, when in his fierce wrath he caused\nthe deluge to sweep away the corrupt inhabitants from the face of the\nearth they had polluted. Notwithstanding the wide-spread corruption of\nthe times, it does not appear that either Noah or his sons were\npolygamists. Certainly, if any one of them had been such prior to the\nbuilding of the ark, he was not permitted to bring his harem into it for\nprotection from the fearful storm. Only \"eight persons,\" we are\ninformed, were preserved alive; namely, Noah and his wife, with his\nthree sons and their wives. Then, at what may be termed the second\nstarting-point of the human race, there was again an equal number of men\nand women upon the earth; clearly pointing out that the design of the\nAlmighty in this matter was the marriage of _one_ man with _one_ woman.\nGod made no provision for the marriage of either man or woman after the\nobtaining of a divorce.\n\nIt might have been supposed that so fearful a display of the wrath of\nGod would have made a lasting impression upon the descendants of Noah;\nbut as is the case with perverse mankind now, so it was then; the\nlessons of the past were lost upon them. No very great period of time\nelapses till we find the posterity of this good man, Noah, impiously and\ndaringly conceiving the idea of measuring strength with the Almighty by\nattempting to build a tower so high that it could not possibly be\noverflowed should a subsequent deluge occur. The dispersion of mankind,\nand the consequent division into tribes, or races, was the result of\nsuch presumption. The desperately wicked heart of man began to devise\nnew mischiefs, and revive old ones. Monogamy, the great conservator of\nmoral purity, was disregarded, and one corruption viler than another\nfollowed in rapid succession. Before the calling of Abraham, mankind, as\na whole, appear to have lapsed, if not into absolute heathenism, at\nleast into something very near it. The knowledge and worship of the true\nGod seems to have been retained only in isolated families, and even\nthere to have been but partially observed, being marred and dishonored\nby human inventions and substitutions.\n\nThat Abraham might be delivered from the pernicious example of his\nneighbors, and that his mind might be prepared for the reception of the\ngrand manifestations of the Divine character which God designed to\nimpart to him, he was commanded to break off all association with them;\nand, the more completely to effect this, he was desired to leave his\nkindred and his country, and become a stranger in a strange land. Yet\nsomewhat of the contamination of early association seems to have clung\nboth to him and Sarah, as is evidenced in the matter of Hagar. In\nsomething very like doubt of God's power to fulfill his own promise,\nAbraham yielded to Sarah's suggestion, and thus was partially drawn into\nthe evil current, though he does not appear to have been a willful\npolygamist. It is asserted by Jonathan Ben Uzziel, the Jerusalem Targum,\nand other learned authorities, that Hagar and Keturah are the same\nperson; but if this be a mistake, there is still no evidence that\nAbraham took Keturah till after the death of Sarah. Polygamists, both in\nthe Jewish nation and elsewhere, have not failed to plead Abraham's\nexample in defense of their conduct. Early association had somewhat\nobscured his moral perceptions of right and wrong. Had he waited for the\nDivine command before carrying out Sarah's suggestion, no incident in\nhis life would have given countenance to the demoralizing practice.\nIsaac was a monogamist, though Jacob, through the artifice of Laban,\nbecame a polygamist. That Laban's family were tinctured with idolatry is\nunquestionable; and with idolatry came many other vices. When Jacob with\nhis household took his departure from Laban, Rachel stole certain images\nwhich were her father's, the character of which was unmistakably\nindicated by Laban when he demanded, \"Wherefore have ye stolen my gods?\"\nYet such was the general apostasy of the times, that this family was so\nmuch in advance of any other, that it was to it that Abraham was obliged\nto send, a generation previous, for a suitable wife for the amiable and\nmeditative Isaac. What wonder then that many practices prevailed among\nthe descendants of Jacob that were not in accordance with either the\nwill or the word of God!\n\nThough plurality of wives was customary both before and after the giving\nof the Law, it was by no means ordained by it. A man had no more right,\nin carrying out the designs of the Almighty, to have two or more wives\nliving at the same time, than a woman had to have two or more husbands\nliving at the same time. Wherever the Bible speaks of the duty of\nhusbands to wives, or of wives to husbands, the singular form is\ninvariably used, as husband and wife. For instance, when God brought the\nwoman he had made to Adam, he (Adam) says: \"Therefore shall a man leave\nhis father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife\"--not\nwives--\"and they shall be one flesh.\" And again, \"They twain shall be\none flesh.\" What God has directly commanded, and what he merely suffers\nmen to do without imposing insuperable restraints upon them, are two\nvery different things.\n\nIt is asserted that the Mosaic Law makes a very great and decidedly\npartial distinction between men-servants and maid-servants, greatly to\nthe disadvantage of the latter, particularly in their release from\nservitude. These same texts--some of them, at least--have been quoted in\ndefense of African slavery. The term, selling a Jewish servant, in the\nScripture, is simply the same as binding out a child under English law.\nA Jewish father could only \"sell,\" or in other words bind out, his\ndaughter for six years, and that before she was of a suitable age to be\nmarried.[J] At the expiration of six years her apprenticeship ceased,\nand the maid-servant was free, unless she voluntarily perpetuated her\nown servitude.\n\nThere were two classes of servants among the Jews. The first, those who\nwere taken from among themselves; the second, those obtained of the\nstrange nations by which they were surrounded, or who were taken captive\nin battle. This second class of servants were called bondmen and\nbondwomen. The former class were denominated servants. The practice\nauthorized by law, regarding those who were the lineal descendants of\nAbraham, placed men and women in the very same relation to the master,\nwho was bound to reward them alike when the period of service should\nterminate. This is evident from Deuteronomy xv, 12-17: \"And if thy\nbrother, a Hebrew man, or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve\nthee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from\nthee. And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let\nhim go away empty: thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock,\nand out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath\nblessed thee thou shalt give unto him. ... And it shall be, if he say\nunto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and\nthine house, because he is well with thee; then thou shalt take an awl,\nand thrust it through his ear into the door, and he shall be thy servant\nforever. And also unto thy maid-servant thou shalt do likewise.\"\n\nThose who declare that the law of Moses makes a distinction in the\nmatter of release from servitude, between men-servants and\nmaid-servants, to the disadvantage of the latter, in confirmation of\ntheir assertion quote Exodus xxi, 7; but if they read also, in\nconnection with it, the eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh verses of the\nsame chapter, a careful consideration of the entire passage will, we\nthink, clearly show that the reference therein contained is not to the\nordinary maid-servant, but to one whose master had betrothed her to\nhimself, or to his son. In the case of betrothal to himself, if the girl\nfailed to please her master, he was not to return her to her former\nposition of a servant, but to let her be redeemed. He must not sell her,\nor otherwise dispose of her services during the unexpired period of her\nservitude, because \"he had dealt deceitfully with her.\" In case of\nbetrothal to his son, as in the other, she was not to be reduced to her\nformer rank as a menial, but to be treated in every respect as a\ndaughter. Even when the affection of the man to whom she was betrothed\nwaned, he was to yield to her all the rights and privileges which\nbelonged to her as his wife; and, if any of these were withheld, she was\nat liberty to go forth a free woman.\n\nThe circumstance of Jacob serving Laban fourteen years for Rachel, is by\nsome deemed a parallel case with the prevailing custom of purchasing\nwives among the people of the East; but the cases are not at all\nsimilar. Jacob and Rachel had met at the well where she usually watered\nher father's flock. He had introduced himself to the maiden, and won\nher regard, before he proposed to her father for her, having spent a\nwhole month in the house of Laban prior to his doing so. There is no\nreason whatever to doubt that he had Rachel's full consent to the\narrangement. It was not Jacob's fault that, through the stratagem of\nLaban, he became the husband of Leah. The plurality of wives in this\ninstance was not so much the choice of Jacob as the fault of the wily,\nsemi-idolatrous Laban.\n\nShechem offered dowry to Jacob and his sons if they would consent to his\ntaking Dinah to wife; but it is evident he did so in order to conciliate\nthe outraged brothers of the girl whom he had so basely humbled, and\nwhom he really desired to retain.\n\nIt is very clear, from the testimony of sacred history, that women, in\nthe families of the patriarchs, and in the Hebrew nation generally, for\nseveral generations after the delivery of the Mosaic Law, occupied a\nposition very much superior to those of the neighboring nations. A\nwoman taken captive in war, whom a Jew chose to marry, could not be sold\nby her husband, should he afterward take a dislike to her so great that\nhe might put her away. Even though a heathen, she was permitted to go\nout free.\n\nBoaz is said to have bought Ruth when he purchased the possession of\nNaomi; and this circumstance is referred to by those who would bring the\nBible into contempt, to prove that Ruth was bought according to Jewish\nlaw, as though she were a chattel. The facts, as given in the sacred\nnarrative, do not, however, warrant any such interpretation.\n\nElimelech, with his wife and two sons, Mahlon and Chilion, left\nBethlehem-Judah in consequence of a severe famine, and removed to Moab.\nAt the time of their emigration, they were obliged to leave all their\npossessions, not portable, behind them; and were in consequence in\nstraitened circumstances. While in Moab, both his sons married\nMoabitish women; and, in process of time, Elimelech and his sons all\nthree died, leaving their respective widows destitute. Under these\ncircumstances, the famine being now over in Judah, Naomi determined to\nreturn thither, and advised her daughters-in-law to return each to the\nhouse of her father. After some persuasion, the widow of Chilion did so;\nbut Ruth, Mahlon's widow, expressed her determination to cling to the\nfortunes of her mother-in-law in the following touching strain:\n\n\"Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee;\nfor whither thou goest I will go, and where thou lodgest I will lodge;\nthy people shall be my people, and thy God my God; where thou diest will\nI die, and there will I be buried.\"\n\nNaomi, having such proof of her attachment to her, expostulated with her\nno further; and, disconsolate and weary, the poor women made their way\nto Naomi's old home. During the absence of the family, the parcel of\nland which had been possessed by Elimelech had passed into the hands of\nstrangers. Naomi naturally desired that it might be redeemed, as both\nherself and Ruth would be greatly benefited if it were. Boaz, though not\nthe nearest kinsman, on being made acquainted with the circumstances of\nthe case by Ruth, generously took up the cause; and the nearest of kin\nhaving relinquished his claim, he redeemed the property with it; and,\nwith Ruth's own free consent, took her to be his wife. Her individual\nconcurrence is apparent throughout the whole transaction. No one had any\nright to sell at all, or otherwise to dispose of her, except by her own\nwish.\n\nThe rape of the Benjamites is sometimes referred to in terms expressive\nof the desire to cast opprobium upon the teachings of the Bible.\nUnfortunate as was the condition of the Benjamites on this occasion,\nthey had no more sanction for what they did from the law of Moses, than\nhad Ahab for destroying the prophets of the Lord. Neither was the order\nof the Jewish elders for the massacre of men and elderly women, and the\nsaving of the four hundred young women to make up the deficiency of\nwives still existing in this tribe, in any sense chargeable to the\nDivine law.\n\nWe might with as much propriety hold the Gospel responsible for the\nMassacre of St. Bartholomew, as to hold the law of Moses responsible for\nthe acts of the Israelites. The Mosaic precepts concerning adultery and\ndivorce might at first sight appear to give more latitude to men than to\nwomen, and therefore to be partial; but when we accept the\ninterpretation given by our Lord, the apparent partiality vanishes. The\nSavior's testimony on the subject is very explicit. Matthew xix, 3-10,\nwe read: \"The Pharisees also came to him, tempting him, and saying unto\nhim, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And\nhe answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made\nthem at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this\ncause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife:\nand they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but\none flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put\nasunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing\nof divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses because\nof the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but\nfrom the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall\nput away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry\nanother, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away\ndoth commit adultery.\"\n\nThat in this matter of divorce Christ recognized the right of women to\nbe equal to that of men, is apparent from Mark x, 2-12, the eleventh\nand twelfth verses of which we here quote:\n\n\"And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry\nanother, committeth adultery against her. And if a woman shall put away\nher husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.\" It is\nmanifest that the design of God was, that there should be an equal\nfidelity on the part of both man and wife.\n\nBut, as ages rolled on, the depraved appetites of sinful mankind desired\na different ordering of the affairs of life. In the Jewish Commonwealth,\nthe rabbis became less and less favorable to the just rights of women,\nespecially after their people began to intermix more freely with their\nidolatrous neighbors; their precepts were assimilated more fully to\nthose of the heathen; and for doctrines, the commandments of men were\ntaught instead of the pure law of God.\n\nHistory proves that woman sometimes took a very prominent part in the\npublic affairs of the Jewish nation. But, while not attempting to\ndisprove the statements which are therein recorded, there are many who\nmake light of any mention of the public labors of these women.\nSometimes, indeed, the talents and usefulness of these women, and of the\nearnest women of our own day, are admitted after a fashion; but it is\ndone in such a way as, in reality, to belittle the sex as much as\npossible. They are considered as occupying the same relation to men that\nthe moon does to the sun, and all that is desired of them is to reflect\na borrowed light. If she be unable to reflect a light when there is none\nto borrow, what then? Even in religious matters, she is judged to be\nincapable of taking any public part, though she may be ever so well\ninformed and pious, and those of the opposite sex in her vicinity ever\nso deplorably ignorant and wicked. A few distinguished writers will,\nhowever, allow her--as a favor, it may be supposed--to go out in public\nto collect money for charitable or Church purposes. What a wonder the\nfunds so collected are not defiled by passing through \"female\" fingers!\nSome of the religious denominations who gladly accept of the fruit of\nwomen's labor, either in collecting from others or in giving themselves,\nwould yet not suffer a woman to pray or speak in public, though God has\nendowed her with more than ordinary talent. She may not even give advice\nas to how the money she has collected or given is to be expended. In the\nchoir, women may sing of salvation; but it is fearful presumption for\nher to speak of it in the body of the Church, or let her voice be heard\nthere imploring salvation for herself or others. This might defile the\nsanctuary or tempt her to \"usurp authority over the man.\" Occasionally\nthere is to be found a denomination which will allow a woman to pray in\npublic, or to relate her Christian experience; but even in some of\nthese the practice does not receive a very large amount of\nencouragement, and her right to exhort or teach publicly is seriously\nquestioned, most frequently denied.\n\nWhat was Scripture usage? From Exodus xv, 20, we learn that Miriam was a\nprophetess, and, in the verse following, it appears that not only she,\nbut the women of her company, took a prominent part in the celebration\nof Israel's triumphant passage of the Red Sea. Not only was Miriam a\nprophetess, but a joint leader with Moses and Aaron of that great host\nwhich went up to possess the promised land, as is seen by reference to\nMicah vi, 4: \"For I brought thee up out of the land of Egypt, and\nredeemed thee out of the land of servants, and I sent before thee Moses,\nAaron, and Miriam.\" Thus did God, in the very beginning of the Jewish\nChurch and nation, associate a woman with men, giving her an equally\nresponsible position with her brothers. Moses was the lawgiver, Aaron\nthe priest, and Miriam the seer. This threefold office was fulfilled in\nChrist; and therefore Miriam, as well as Moses and Aaron, was a type of\nthe Messiah.\n\nIf the Almighty had not designed women to occupy prominent positions,\nboth civilly and ecclesiastically, he certainly would not have qualified\nthem to fill such places with honor; and history proves that he did both\nqualify and employ them. Deborah was both a prophetess and a judge, and\nat one time was the chief ruler in Israel, even leading on the hosts of\nthe living God; for timorous Barak would not go without her. Huldah,\nwife of Shallum, a prophetess who flourished in the reign of Josiah, was\nconsulted by him on matters of vital importance to his kingdom, although\nboth Jeremiah and Zephaniah were then alive. Josiah evidently considered\nher fully equal to either of them, or he would not have consulted her,\nor at her dictation set about reforming the abuses which were prevalent\nat the time. He could not have set to work more earnestly in this good\ncause if Jeremiah had spoken to him. There have been learned men--and\nthere are those still--who think it exceedingly strange that Josiah\nshould have condescended to send the messengers to Huldah to inquire of\nthe Lord, when he might have consulted either Jeremiah or one of the\nbrother prophets. Is it not equally strange that the Lord should have\nanswered him by her mouth? or rather should not his having done so,\nforever silence such questioning?\n\nOther women have been emphatically the \"called,\" according to \"God's\npurpose,\" to combat evil in countries even where women were treated with\ngreater indignities than in Israel. We do not make any distinction\nbetween prophets and prophetesses. Men and women were alike called to\nthe prophetic office, as God pleased, and kings and princes\nacknowledged their authority. Many women became noted for their active\nservice rendered to the Jewish Church and nation.\n\nWomen have proved themselves to be skillful diplomatists, and to be\npossessed of an equal amount of courage and perseverance with men; but\nthese capabilities have not always been employed aright. There have been\ndistinguished statesmen who have been frightfully wicked men; and,\nunhappily, there have been clever women who have been fully their equals\nin wickedness. In nothing is the mental equality of women with men more\nclearly indicated than in the manner in which both pursue a career of\nsin.\n\nJezebel appears to have been a stronger-minded person than Ahab, and to\nhave excelled him in subtlety and wickedness. She was as active as he in\npushing the persecution against the people of God; indeed, more active\nand determined than her weak and wicked husband. At the time the life of\nElijah was threatened, she would seem not only to have been the more\ndetermined of the two, but to have exercised greater authority over the\nrealm. Athaliah, the daughter of Jezebel, was no whit behind her mother\nin atrocious wickedness. Indeed, where women are brought up in\nwickedness, they differ nothing in the depth of their depravity from men\neducated in like manner.\n\nThe more frequently the Hebrews relapsed into idolatry, the less\ninclined were they to allow women their legitimate privileges. The\nadministrators of the laws constantly curtailed female liberty,\ntenaciously exacting from them the service and obedience of slaves. A\nwoman, even among the Jews, must have had no small amount of both\ncourage and wisdom, to have surmounted the difficulties which hedged up\nthe path to fame and honor, and risen to the distinction which some of\nthem reached. \"The rabbins\"--not Moses--\"taught that a woman should know\nnothing but the use of her distaff.\" Their idea of the education\nfitting for a woman was, that she should understand merely how to manage\nthe work of a house; in other words, know nothing but how to minister to\nthe appetites or whims of her husband, regarding him as her lord, her\nirresponsible master. Rabbi Eliezer said, \"Let the words of the law be\nburned rather than that they should be delivered to a woman.\" Why, we\nwonder? Because they might, if they read it, learn what privileges it\naccorded them, and perhaps claim them--a state of things to be prevented\nby any means, no matter how unscrupulous.\n\nNotwithstanding the teachings of the rabbins, however, and dark as was\nthe day just prior to the coming of the Messiah, we find a woman who was\nprophesying in the temple even then. The prediction of Anna the\nprophetess is mentioned in the New Testament without a word of censure\non the unwomanliness of her conduct, or her profanation of the temple\nby it. Modern writers would perhaps have been wiser, and treated her\nwith what they considered deserved contempt.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote F: Gen. i, 26, 27, 28.]\n\n[Footnote G: Gen. ii, 18, 20, 21, 22.]\n\n[Footnote H: For the original meaning of the word _woman_ see Dr. Clarke\non Genesis ii, 23.]\n\n[Footnote I: Gen. vi, 6.]\n\n[Footnote J: Clarke on Exodus xxi, 7.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\n\nNew Testament Teachings.\n\nIn this enlightened age, the sentiment of the Rabbi Eliezer, that the\nlaw should be burned rather than delivered to women, would be execrated\nby the right-minded of every Christian country. But was such a sentiment\nany farther from right, either in theory or practice, than are those\nheld and openly avowed by some of the advocates of the theory of the\ninferiority of women; who, while asserting that these inferior creatures\nare, by the constitution of their minds, incapable of comprehending the\nmeaning of a law, yet hold them equally accountable with men--who are\nsupposed to understand all about it--for any violation of that law? If,\nindeed, there is any difference made in the punishment of delinquents,\nthe greater severity is most frequently meted out to the woman.\n\nThose who insist on the absolute, unqualified subjection of women to the\nopposite sex, and place them in a subordinate place in the Christian\nChurch, persistently quote the writings of St. Paul as authority for the\nposition which they take. We apprehend that the great apostle to the\nGentiles is as wrongfully misapprehended and misrepresented by certain\nclasses of believers now, as he was by the Jews at the memorable time\nwhen he was brought before Felix. Paul, therefore, must \"answer for\nhimself in the things whereof he is accused.\"\n\nIn I Cor. xi, 3-5, he says to the Church at Corinth: \"But I would have\nyou know that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman\nis the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or\nprophesying, having his head covered, dishonoreth his head. But every\nwoman that prayeth or _prophesieth_ with her head uncovered, dishonoreth\nher head.\" Here is a positive direction given to a _woman_, as to the\nmanner of her procedure when she either prayed or prophesied in public,\nand not a prohibition of either act, as we might expect from the\nrendering given by many divines.\n\nChrist is the head of the man, because he is the first-born from the\ndead--the Redeemer of mankind--and because \"he was before all things,\nand by him all things consist.\" Having made provision for the life of\nthe world, he is therefore entitled to the love, devotion, and fidelity\nof man. Christ is also mentioned under the figure of the vine, of which\nhis people are the branches.\n\nMan is the head of the woman, because he was before her; and because,\nbeing physically stronger, he has been constituted her protector. A man,\ntherefore, is to love his wife ever as himself, with an unselfish\nintensity, only to be compared with the love which Christ bears to his\nChurch; and the wife is bound by the same sacred law to be, in heart and\npractice, undeviating in her love and fidelity to her husband.\n\n\"And the head of Christ is God.\" Is Christ therefore not equal with God?\nIs there superiority and inferiority between the Father and the Son? If\nbecause the apostle declares that the man is the head of the woman, the\nproposition is to be taken for granted that, in consequence, she is not\nhis equal but an inferior, we may, with equal propriety and fairness,\nquote the same text to prove, and prove as conclusively, that the Son is\nnot equal with, but is inferior to, the Father. God may be understood to\nbe the head of Christ in regard to his manhood, and that only. The\nScriptures amply testify that he is not only co-eternal with the Father,\nbut coequal with him as well. There is neither inferiority nor\nsuperiority in the Divine nature between the Father and the Son; and so\nalso, since man and woman are derived from one nature, being both human,\nthere is neither superiority nor inferiority between them. They are\ncoequal.\n\nIs there, then, no distinction made between the sexes in the text?\nCertainly there is. Men were directed to remove their caps or turbans\nwhen they prayed or prophesied in public, while women, on the contrary,\nwere to remain with their heads covered; that is, to keep veiled when\nthey prayed or prophesied in public. The latter, it is evident, was\nsimply a prudential or local arrangement. Throughout the East, and more\nespecially in heathen countries, it was the custom for women to be\nveiled when they made their appearance in public; but immodest women not\nunfrequently violated the usage, appearing in public unveiled. In the\nstate of society then in Corinth, for a Christian woman to have appeared\nin public, or to have taken any prominent part in an assembly with her\nhead uncovered, would have placed her in a false position before\nunbelievers, both Jews and Gentiles. That their liberty under the\nGospel, then, might not be made occasion of offense by gainsayers,\nagainst the cause of Christ, that their good should not be evil spoken\nof by the profane multitude, the apostle counseled them to submit to the\nusages and restraints which the customs of the times and place imposed\non women, wherever the usages or restraints so imposed were not in\nthemselves sinful. In the same spirit he returned Onesimus to his\nmaster; not that he thereby gave his sanction to slavery, but in this,\nas other directions regarding civil affairs, advising submission to the\nexisting state of things, \"that the Gospel be not blamed.\" The effecting\nof civil or political reforms, however much they might be needed, was\nnot the immediate object of Paul's preaching or writing. His grand,\nall-absorbing business was to proclaim the Gospel in all its fullness,\ntrusting to its benign influence to right every wrong. There is no\ndoubt Paul clearly understood and did not intend to controvert the\ndeclaration of the prophet Joel (ii, 28), which was quoted by Peter as\nbeing one evidence of the ushering in of the Christian dispensation\n(Acts ii, 17, 18): \"And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith\nGod, I will pour out my spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your\ndaughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your\nold men shall dream dreams. And on my servants and on my handmaidens I\nwill pour out in those days of my spirit, and they shall prophesy.\" \"The\nlast days\" evidently means the Gospel dispensation; and this text alone,\ntwice given by inspiration, even if there were no other, would establish\nthe right of women to all the immunities and ordinances of the Christian\nChurch.\n\nI Cor. xiv, 34, 35, is always presented by the opponents of women's\nprivileges as positive proof that women should not take a public part\nin religious worship: \"Let your women keep silence in the churches, for\nit is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be\nunder obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any\nthing, let them ask their husbands at home, for it is a shame for a\nwoman to speak in the Church.\"\n\nIn the passage first quoted in this chapter, Paul gives explicit\ndirections for the manner in which women should be arrayed while\nspeaking in the Church. Since, then, there can be no contradiction in\nthe Word of God, and we have positive proof that women did speak in\npublic assemblies by permission of the apostles, nothing remains but to\nreconcile the two texts so apparently contradictory, by ascertaining to\nwhat kind of a public assembly the apostle had reference in the text\nlast quoted. By reference to the verses preceding this text in the\nfourteenth chapter of First Corinthians, it will be seen that the\napostle is pointing out the impropriety and unprofitableness of\nspeaking in unknown tongues; and of the contention and disorder that\nthen existed at Corinth. False teachers had caused dissension and\ntumults in the Church; and, besides, the whole system of Christianity\nwas violently assailed by both the Jews and the pagans. The disciples at\nCorinth were in the midst of a great controversy. According to Eastern\nideas, it was an outrage upon propriety and decency, not only for a\nwoman to take part by publicly asking questions, or teaching in any such\ndisorderly assembly, but even for her to be present therein. To avoid\nthe very appearance of evil, they were to absent themselves from these\ncontentious meetings because it was a shame for a woman to speak or\ncontend in such riotous assemblies. It is more than probable that\nChristian women had done so prior to this; and therefore Paul warns them\nagainst such improprieties; not, however, forbidding them to pray or\nprophesy in the Church, providing they \"covered their heads.\" The\nGospel proclaims an equal freedom to all; Paul earnestly asserting (Gal.\nin, 28), that \"there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor\nfree, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ\nJesus.\" Nevertheless, lest the cause of God should be hindered by women\nasserting their Christian liberty, by speech or action, he desired them\nto comply with the common usages of the society in which they lived,\nwhere those usages were not in themselves immoral or contrary to the\nWord of God. Kindred to I Cor. xiv, 34, 35, and referring to the same\nthing, is I Tim. ii, 11, 12: \"Let the women learn in silence with all\nsubjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor usurp authority over\nthe man, but to be in silence.\" For a woman to attempt any thing either\nin public or private that man claimed as his peculiar function, was\nstrictly prohibited by Roman law; and Christian women, as well as men,\nwere to be submissive to the \"powers that be.\" Those who contend, from\ntheir rendering of these texts, that women are prohibited by them from\ntaking part in the public worship of God, to be consistent, should also\ninsist that they must not enter the house of God at all; because they\nare as strictly charged by Paul to remain at home and learn in silence\nfrom their husbands, as to refrain from speaking.\n\nNow, if women are to be silent in the Church; that is, if they are\nneither to pray, speak, nor sing in public--for singing is certainly one\nmethod of conveying instruction to those who hear, and is therefore\nteaching them how to ascribe praise to God--if they are, upon Scriptural\nauthority, to know nothing but what they may learn from their husbands\nat home,--then our whole system of civilized education with regard to\nwomen is out of place; we had better borrow a leaf from the Turks or\nChinese. Girls here are sent to school, and encouraged to exert their\nmental energies to the utmost in acquiring knowledge. Both mothers and\ndaughters are taken to church, and if they have tuneful voices they are\nexpected to sing; all of which is manifestly improper and unchristian,\nif women are to receive all religious instruction from their \"husbands\nat home\" only, and in silence. The taking of women to church, or indeed\nout of the house, therefore, is exposing them to the temptation of\nhearing and receiving instruction from unauthorized lips; for--fearfully\ndepraved though it may be in the sight of some--women are quite as prone\nas men to listen to what is told them and to remember what they hear,\nand--worse still--to reason out difficult problems for themselves.\n\nAnd what is to be done for widows, or poor women who have never been\nblessed with husbands? Are they to go down to death in heathenish\ndarkness, because the genial light of a husband's countenance has ceased\nto shine upon them, or, perhaps, has never done so? Must unmarried\nwomen forever continue in ignorance of the glorious Gospel of Christ,\nbecause they have no husbands to teach them? As girls, according to such\na rendering, they ought not to have learned any thing; for a father's\nteaching--if it were proper for him to give it--and a husband's might\ndiffer widely. Besides, what is to be done for those women who are\nblessed with husbands incapable of teaching them; or, as is notoriously\nso frequently the case, who choose rather to spend their time in places\nof disreputable character than at their homes with their families!\n\nSuch a rendering of these texts as is frequently given, and the homilies\nderived therefrom, are an outrage upon common sense. They are at\nvariance with the direct teachings of St. Paul, and contrary to what the\nScriptures prove to have been his practice. Surely, none will dare to\naccuse the apostle of inconsistency; and yet we have his own testimony\nthat Phoebe was a \"servant of the Church at Cenchrea;\" that is, she was\na deaconess, having a charge at Cenchrea. Priscilla, quite as much as\nAquila, was Paul's helper in \"Christ Jesus,\" acknowledged by him as\nsuch. Priscilla was associated with Aquila in \"expounding the way of God\nmore perfectly to Apollos.\" (Acts xvii, 62.) Strange that the great\nApollos should receive religious instruction from a woman; stranger\nstill, if it were contrary to the will of God, that she was permitted to\ngive it! Why was she not severely rebuked for her presumption, and put\nin her place, and taught to keep silence, as becometh a woman? On the\ncontrary, creditable mention is made of the fact that she did instruct\nhim, and that through that instruction he was made useful to the world;\nand all this upon the authority of inspiration, without one word of\ncensure as to her unwomanliness. Over and over again, Paul names her in\nhis salutations.\n\nIn Philippians iv, 3, he entreats help for certain women, counting them\nas fellow-laborers. \"Help,\" says he, \"those women which labored with me\nin the Gospel.\" Honorable mention, too, is made by name of Tryphena,\nTryphosa, and of the beloved Persis, who \"labored much in the Lord.\"\nPhilip had four daughters which \"did prophesy\" (Acts xxi, 19); and we\nnowhere hear of their being forbidden to do so. If Paul, influenced as\nhe was by the Holy Spirit, had designed to prevent women from attending\nreligious meetings, or taking a public part therein, when there would he\nhave allowed all this laboring and prophesying and instructing to go on?\nInstead of stopping it, however, he at different times commends Phoebe\nand her sister-laborers to the kind regards of other Churches. Let the\nutterances of Paul be properly and fairly interpreted, and it will be\nmanifest that men and women are one in Christ Jesus. Decidedly, it is\nwrong for a woman to usurp authority over the man; and just as decidedly\nwrong is it for a man to usurp authority over the woman. According to\nhistory, the office of deaconess continued until between the eleventh\nand twelfth centuries, when, the midnight of the Dark-Ages having come,\nit was abolished in both the Greek and Latin Churches. Which sex usurped\nauthority in that case?\n\nThe next point coming under consideration is Paul's direction to the\nEphesian Church: \"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as\nunto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ\nis the head of the Church: and he is the Savior of the body. Therefore\nas the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own\nhusbands in every thing.\" (Eph. v, 22-24.)\n\nFrom the verses preceding this quotation, and those following, it is\nevident the apostle had reference to the marriage covenant, and not to\nthe inferiority of woman or superiority of man. Fidelity of wives to\ntheir husbands was the thing being enjoined; hence the comparison\nbetween the marriage state and the Church of Christ. As the Church was\nto be pure from idolatry, acknowledging but one God, even the Father,\nand Jesus Christ his Son, so the wife was to be pure, submitting herself\nonly to her husband. It is not surprising that, in planting the\nChristian Church, such directions should be given to its members,\ngathered in as they were from a dark, immoral pagan world, where the\nmarriage tie was so lightly regarded. The husband should be to his wife\nthe earthly \"munition of rocks.\" It is in this sense that the man is the\nhead of the woman and the Savior of her body. The apostle continues: \"So\nought men to love their wives as their own bodies.\" \"Let every one of\nyou in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see\nthat she reverence her husband.\" Not worship him; but treat him with\nmarked and becoming respect, making his interest her own, loving him\nabove every earthly object, and seeking his happiness in every possible\nmanner. It is in this mutual sense that a wife is to be subject to her\nhusband in every thing. Even the greatest sticklers for the absolute\nsubjection of women explain the latter clause of the text by adding the\nword _lawful_. If a woman's husband is to be her irresponsible lord, to\nwhom she is to go for instruction, who is the qualified judge of what is\nlawful? But the reasoning of the entire question as given in the\nchapter, portions of which have been quoted, does not bear out the\nassertion that the wife is mentally inferior to her husband, or that he\nhas any right to treat her as such. She is neither his servant nor his\nslave, so far as God's law is concerned. The wife has the same right to\nexpect fidelity from her husband that he has to expect it from her. The\ncovenant of marriage is a mutual one, equally binding on both.\n\nThe injunction to the Ephesians concerning the relations in the married\nstate is also given to the Colossians, very evidently relating to the\nsame thing: love and unwavering fidelity between man and wife. Peter\nalso enjoins the subjection of wives in his First Epistle, third\nchapter, first and second verses; but he also explains that this\nsubjection is chastity, mild and gentle conversation, that their\nhusbands, if not Christians, might be won over by them. In this very\ninjunction there is a supposition by the apostle that the husband and\nwife might be of different faith, that she might have learned something\nnot taught by him, and have been in a position to instruct him; and by\nher chastity, her love and gentleness, and her instructions--coupled\nwith fear for his state out of Christ--might succeed in winning him to\nthe truth.\n\nThough Christianity greatly purified the moral atmosphere of the world,\nand caused those embracing it to renounce polygamy, yet even those who\nhad become Christian clung to the false assumptions and arbitrary\nprerogatives claimed by men while yet in heathen darkness. To reconcile\nwomen to the injustice done them, or to overawe them into submission, it\nwas sought to make them believe that the disabilities of their condition\nwere by Divine appointment, though this doctrine the apostles took pains\nto correct.\n\nA lamentable amount of infidelity has been engendered by the manner in\nwhich the Scriptures have been distorted to make them seem to sanction\nalmost every social and civil wrong. They have been quoted as authority\nfor the absolute subjection of woman; and, with equal fairness, for\nservile submission to despotic monarchs, for the use of intoxicating\ndrinks, for the burning of heretics, and for the justification of\nslavery. Within a very few years past, these very Epistles have been\nbrought forward to prove the \"sum of all villainies\" a God-given boon to\nman, the slave included--Colossians iii, 22, being deemed unanswerable.\n\nThose who advocated the cause of human freedom, who desired the\nprivilege of worshiping God according to the dictates of their own\nconsciences, who strove to drive intemperance from the land, or who\npleaded for the liberty of the slave, were alike denounced as advocating\nwhat was contrary to the revealed will of God; and in like manner, now,\nare those denounced who advocate the perfect equality of woman with man.\nWith regard to political and religious freedom, the cause of temperance,\nand the slavery question, time has proved that the Lord of Hosts, so far\nfrom being against, was on the side of, those who advocated these great\nreforms, and led them on to victory; and there is no reason to doubt\nthat this last reform will, by the same hand, be led to similar triumph.\n\nIt is continually objected, that infidels, immoral men, and women of\nill-repute, array themselves upon the side of equal rights to women: so\ndo infidels, libertines, and women lost to shame, array themselves\nagainst it; therefore, the one counterbalances the other.\n\nBut suppose this were not so, to what would the objection amount? The\ncause of human freedom has more than once been advocated by rank\ninfidels; but did God therefore curse a cause good in itself, because\nwicked men and women for once saw clearly, and said they thought that\ncause right and reasonable? History answers, No. The children of this\ngeneration were simply wiser than many of the children of light. The\nsame may be said of each of the other reforms. The abolition of slavery\nhad its infidel advocates; so had the temperance movement, etc.; and\nthese advocates have to a certain extent damaged their respective causes\nby their advocacy of them; yet the tide of human progress has been\nonward. A claim which is based upon justice may be injured by an\nextravagant, irreverent, or profane advocacy; but it is still a just\nclaim, and as such, without respect to its advocates, entitled to\nrecognition.\n\nPolygamy, slavery, drunkenness, and the doctrine of the inferiority of\nwoman to man, are all alike the offspring of sin--all alike relics of\nbarbarism--alike the enemies of God and human freedom.\n\nLong-established prejudices and old usages, no matter how false and\noppressive, are, like the everlasting hills, hard to be removed. But, as\nthe mountains themselves have been overcome by skill and hard work, and\nthe valleys are being filled by persevering toil; as the crooked is\nbeing made straight and the rough places plain, so that the people of\nthis mighty continent may travel with ease in palace-cars from sea to\nsea; so must the strong barriers of prejudice, ignorance,\nmisrepresentation, and indifference, be removed by the force of truth\nand sound reason, and women be admitted to their legitimate position in\nsociety, with equal prerogatives accorded to them, that they may thereby\nmore perfectly exert their natural influence in improving the world.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\n\nWoman Before the Law.\n\nThe fact that men and women are held amenable to the same Divine law,\nand held equally accountable for any infraction of it, and that human\nlaw, with regard to criminal actions, is based upon the same principle,\nclearly proves that God has created men and women, as a race, with equal\nmental and moral capacity, and that, so far as it suited them to do so,\nmen have acknowledged the equality in framing the laws, especially those\nrelating to the punishment for crimes committed. It was only where\nmasculine arrogance and selfishness were concerned, that the privileges\nof equality were denied to women; and they are still denied for the\nsame reason. Such is man's consistency. If women, because of their\nsex--indeed, in consequence of it--are inferior to men in mental and\nmoral capacity, then it is unjust to judge them by the same law; for\nwhere little is given little should be required. Imbecile men are not\njudged by the same code as men of sound mind. If men and women are\nmentally and morally equal--and we hold they are--then they are justly\nheld to be equally accountable by the laws, provided they have been\nequally represented in the making of those laws; and if held equally\naccountable with men to the laws, they ought, in common justice, to be\nentitled to the enjoyment of equal immunities with men, and an equal\nvoice in the making of the laws that are to govern them.\n\nTo urge that, because the house is the legitimate place for a woman, she\nis therefore inferior to man, and in consequence ought not to enjoy the\nsame rights, is no more logical than to contend that, because the farm\nis the legitimate place for the farmer, he is therefore inferior to the\nlawyer, who is somewhat better skilled in legal lore, and that\nconsequently the farmer is not entitled to equal political and religious\nrights and privileges with the lawyer; or that, because neither of these\nclasses understands the minutiae of housekeeping, therefore they are\ninferior to women, and in consequence not entitled to equal rights and\nprivileges with them. Good housekeeping is quite as essential to the\nworld's good, and to the healthful development of humanity, as good\nfarming or the proper construing of well-made laws, neither of which is\nto be undervalued. Where, then, is the inferiority?\n\nIt requires as much good judgment and tact to manage a house properly as\nit does to conduct a farm, make out a legal form, carry on an extensive\ncommercial business, or attend to a banking establishment as it ought\nto be attended to; and quite as much wisdom and prudence are needed to\nrear up successfully and govern a family with discretion, as is needed\nin the government of a province or state. Indeed more practical good\nsense is shown in the government of the majority of those homes where\nthe wife and mother is allowed to govern without interference, than is\nusually exhibited in the exclusively masculine government of states and\nempires.\n\nIt \"is the mind that makes the man,\" sings one of Britain's most honored\npoets; the mind, not the social position he occupies. And so with woman;\nit is the mind, and not her local habitation or employment, that\nentitles her to consideration--that entitles her to equality, to\njustice. With equal advantages, women are no whit behind men in any\nthing except physical strength. Are men deprived of civil rights because\nsome of them are puny?\n\nIt is an established fact that, where girls have had the same\nadvantages, and often when they have had not nearly such good ones, they\nhave maintained equally honorable positions in their classes, frequently\noutstripping their masculine competitors in the literary contest.\n\nShould any doubt that this can be done, all that is necessary, to prove\nthe truth or falsity of the assertion, is to select any given number of\nboys and girls of average intellect, of the same or nearly the same\nages, and afford precisely the same advantages to them all, for a given\nlength of time, and then subject boys and girls to a like critical\nexamination. Even with the disadvantages under which they labor in our\nordinary and even higher schools, girls have surmounted the difficulties\nof their position, and without favor--indeed, in spite of ridicule,\npartiality, and opposition--have come out first in their examinations.\nSend such a class of young women as this to a university that will\nhonestly admit them to all its advantages, and allow them to compete\nwith the most studious young men admitted to the same university; let\nboth enjoy precisely similar facilities throughout the entire course;\nand see if there will not be as many brilliant scholars who will\ngraduate with honors among the women as among the men. It is said there\nare more talented men, more men eminent in science or in history, than\nthere are women. Certainly. The advantage has all been on the side of\nthe man, the disadvantage on the side of the woman; besides which, the\ndoctrine that it is unwomanly to emerge from the retirement befitting\nher sex into public notice has been preached so persistently, that many\nwomen truly great have shrunk from the ribald criticism--to use no\nstronger term--with which insolent men assailed them. Consequently,\nlearned women have frequently given their works to the world\nanonymously, or allowed them to be attributed to their male relatives.\nAn instance in point is Miss Herschel. It is well known, not only that\nshe gave her brother valuable assistance in his astronomical pursuits,\nbut that some of the discoveries attributed to him were actually made by\nher; not because he wished to defraud her of the honor of her\nachievement, but because she shrank from public notice.\n\nBut history has given us the record of learned women enough to show\nthat, with any thing like fair play, there would have been more. As it\nis, the list of them is longer--very much longer--than those given to\ndecry their ability are willing to admit, or are perhaps aware of. The\nnames of women are found who have been famous for the founding of\nempires, the carrying on successfully of civil governments, and the\nleading on to glorious victory of armies which, under the generalship of\nmen, had suffered defeat after defeat, till they were not only\ndisheartened, but almost disorganized; and yet a woman reorganized\nthese shattered bands and roused them once more to determined action.\nThey have been found, in times of trouble, giving to statesmen sound\ncounsel, which, followed, has led to beneficial results; and, alas! they\nhave, equally with men, been found capable of base intrigue. Cleopatra\nwas fully on a par with Marc Antony, Madame de Pompadour with Richelieu\nor Mazarin.\n\nWomen noted for piety and for patriotism are not found lacking on this\nlist. Retired lives as they have led, compared with men, history, both\nsacred and profane, abounds with them. They shine out conspicuously,\nbright lights in a very dark world. Miriam stands side by side with\nMoses, Deborah a little in advance of Barak. They contribute their\njewels to adorn the tabernacle or to save the State; and, in time of\nneed, they cheerfully endure every privation, that the commonwealth may\nprosper. They were found last lingerers about the cross, and the first\nto visit the sepulcher of Christ; and they were the first commissioned\nby him to proclaim his resurrection.\n\nIn philanthropic enterprise, Mrs. Fry is the peer of Howard. Who, among\nmen, have been found to excel the world-honored Florence Nightingale in\nintelligent arrangements and administrative talent, as displayed in her\nmanagement of the important department to which she devoted herself, and\nwhere her courage, promptitude, and sound judgment were as conspicuous\nas her sweet, womanly compassion?\n\nSimilar qualities distinguish in a marked degree both Miss Rye and Miss\nMcPherson, and also the power of influencing and controlling juveniles\nunaccustomed to moral restraints. These, though only a few of the many\nnoble women whose business talents have been used to bless the needy and\nsuffering, may suffice to prove that women have not only the heart to\ndevise philanthropic undertakings, but the ability to carry them out\nsuccessfully.\n\nMothers of great mental power rear sons whose names never die. The\nmother of the Wesleys, and the mother of Washington, are named as\nreverently as are these illustrious men themselves. In fine, how few\ngreat men there are who do not, when they speak upon the subject,\nattribute their greatness or success to their mothers!\n\nSince, then, women have in a measure shown the capabilities of which\nthey are possessed, it remains to be ascertained what rights and\nprivileges are accorded them, and to be shown whether these are in any\nproportion to what they are entitled to; and, as the women of Europe and\nAmerica enjoy more liberty than those of the other portions of the\nglobe, it is their condition that will be inquired into. Whatever may be\namiss in Christianized and civilized lands, the state of woman is\nincomparably worse where the light of the Gospel does not shine.\n\nChristianity and its attendant civilization have done much for the\namelioration of the condition of woman. Except in Turkey and in Utah,\nthe idea that a man is to have more than one wife at the same time is\nnot tolerated. In referring to the continents of Europe and America, it\nwill be understood that Turkey in the one, Utah in the other, are always\nexcepted. In neither Europe nor America are women subject to the\nsurveillance of the East; they are not bought and sold in the markets.\nThey are, if they do not marry before coming of age, mistresses of their\nown personal actions. The halls of science, literature, and the arts,\nhave been partially opened to them. The doors have been set ajar, and\nthey allowed to peep in. They may now attend the house of God without\nbeing railed in behind a lattice; and they may, without censure, move\nabout the streets without veils, if it is not the fashion, or it does\nnot please them to wear them. They are accorded a measure of liberty in\nforming their own religious opinions; that is, the law does not prevent\nthem from doing so. They may, if they can, acquire property in their own\nnames, or they may inherit it. In such cases they, perhaps, if\nunmarried, may be allowed to manage such property. Once married, it is\nmanaged, or mismanaged, as the case may be, by the husband, except in\nvery special cases. They are not compelled by law to marry unless they\nchoose, and are supposed to have a choice with regard to those they do\nmarry, though outside pressure is very frequently brought to bear with\nregard to both. And, finally, they are allowed a share of authority in\nthe joint government of their respective families. This is about the sum\ntotal of the privileges accorded to them.\n\nIn the population of both continents, men and women are about equally\ndivided. It is not estimated that there are any more idiots or imbeciles\namong women than there are among men. Here, then, one-half of this\nmighty population are prohibited by law from having any voice in the\nmaking of the laws by which they are governed, or the carrying of them\nout after they are made. Where is justice in this case? One slight\nexception may be made here: in some of the Western States women are\nallowed to vote and to hold some few positions of profit and trust in\nthe State. It is only a trifling advantage, but still it is an\nadvantage, and is one step gained in the right direction.\n\nThe law allows the mother's holiest feelings to be outraged with\nimpunity. It does not recognize her right to the custody of her own\nchildren, except at the husband's pleasure. She may be intelligent and\neducated, virtuous and pious. Yet, if he so wills, he may remove her\nchildren from her care, deprive her of their society, and even of the\ncomfort of occasionally seeing them; and he may place them under the\ntutelage of the ignorant and vicious; while the deeply wronged mother is\npowerless, according to law, to help either herself or her children.\n\nIt is counted among one of woman's privileges that she may hold property\nin her own right. Upon what tenure is she allowed to hold it? If the\nproperty be acquired or inherited, without entail of any sort; if it be\nreal estate, it is hers in fee-simple till she marries. After that\nevent--unless she has guarded her rights by a legal pre-nuptial\ncontract, properly signed and attested to by him who is to be her\nhusband--she may not dispose of any part of it without his express\nsanction. He may not legally sell it away from her, it is true; but by\nlaw he is her master, and may manage it according to his supreme\npleasure while he lives. Even a will made by her does not take effect,\nexcept her husband pleases, till his death. If the property be in ready\nmoney or in funds--except it be guarded in the contract--the husband\nbecomes possessed of it at once, and may appropriate and apply it to\nany purpose he pleases, without consulting the wishes of his wife. She\nhas no redress. He may, despite her remonstrances, take this her\nsubstance and her money, and spend it in foolish speculation; or, worse\nstill, in gambling, drunkenness, and debauchery. He may maltreat her and\ninsult her by the presence in her own house of his mistress. If, no\nlonger able to endure his brutality, she is obliged to leave him, he\nmay, unless the law grant a divorce and alimony, keep possession of her\nhouses and lands, while she must leave home and children behind, and go\nout upon the world penniless. She can not force him to return one dollar\nof the wealth that was her own; and after the separation, unless legal\npapers warranting it have been executed, he can follow her and collect\nher scanty earnings. Thousands upon the back of thousands of times has\nall this occurred. Does not civilized law give a woman a lien upon her\nhusband's property? and does not this counterbalance his lien upon hers?\nAbout as equally as are all other privileges balanced between the\nsexes; no more.\n\nShe has no legal voice whatever in the management of her husband's\nestate. His real estate is the only thing upon which she has any claim,\nand this is only a life interest--after his death--of the one-third of\nthe estate; and of this she may only draw the interest upon the\nvaluation. She may refuse to bar her dower[K] in a sale of land, but if\nthe bargain goes on, her refusal does not invalidate the title; all she\ncan do is, in the event of her husband's death, to claim her interest on\nher \"thirds.\" This is all she can claim. The furniture of her home, the\nvery beds which she may have brought to the house, are included in the\ninventory of her husband's effects; and, unless she agrees to accept\nthem as part of her thirds, she may be left without, one on which to\nrest her weary limbs; and that, too, though the property may have been\npurchased with money brought by her into the matrimonial firm; or though\nshe may have been the working-bee who in reality acquired it. This is\nnot an overdrawn picture. It is the law in civilized countries; and men\nare found every day who avail themselves of its conditions. That all men\nare not mean enough to take advantage of such laws, is no excuse for\ntheir existence. It is barbarous that, by laws in the enacting of which\nwomen have had no voice, they are left to the mercy of unscrupulous men,\nwithout the possibility of better men coming to their help, except by\nrepealing the iniquitous statutes.\n\nIt is quite true that all women are not made to feel the full force of\nthis bitter oppression, because of the kindness of their husbands, or\nthe prudent forethought of their fathers in providing for unlooked-for\nemergencies which might occasion poverty or distress; but the laws, and\nthe makers of them, deserve little credit for any comfort or degree of\nindependence enjoyed by women. More sorrowful than it is, infinitely\nmore sorrowful, would woman's condition be, if true Christianity had not\nmade many men more just than the laws require them to be. Many of the\nslaves had kind masters; but was slavery any the less an iniquitous\noutrage upon humanity, a curse upon the land, a blot that could only be\nwiped away by a bloody war? The present social condition of women is\nmerely one system of domestic slavery, which is hourly calling out to\nGod for redress; and, though he tarry long, yet his afflicted children's\ncry is never lifted up in vain.\n\nSociety is even yet so constituted, and the minds of those who are\nadministrators of the law so blinded, by the prejudices which long usage\nhas established, that even the very few laws which are on record for her\nso-called protection, are rendered of little avail.\n\nThe sufferings of women and children from the effects of the\nliquor-traffic, is perfectly frightful; and what help is there for it?\nLately, in Canada, the wife may, after she is reduced to poverty, forbid\nthe dram-seller to sell her husband any more liquor. If he pays\nattention to the prohibition, well and good; if not, when in a drunken\nfit the husband has well-nigh killed her, she may have him bound over to\nkeep the peace--if she can find a magistrate who will do it--and she may\ncomplain of the man who sold him the liquor. Perhaps he will be fined a\ndollar, perhaps not. More likely the latter, with a not very gentle hint\nthat she has stepped out of her sphere by presuming to meddle in such\nmatters.\n\nIf women had a voice in the making of the laws, how long would the\ndram-shop and low groggery send out their liquid poison to pollute\ncivilized lands? But all women are not on the side of right. Neither are\nthe very large majority of men. Many women are drunkards themselves, and\nworse. True, alas! too true. Sin has corrupted human nature, and men\nand women have sunk to fearful depths of degradation. Statistics go to\nshow, however, that fallen women happily bear only a very small\nproportion to those upon whose moral character there is no stain. The\nvirtuous and good are in the large majority.\n\nMen are not allowed by law to murder their wives. Indeed, the law\nforbids them to beat them; but for this trifle, husbands frequently\nescape with an \"admonition.\" Yet, though the letter of the law is\nexplicit, they must stop short of killing their victims. There is a case\non record, within a few years back and in a British province, where a\nman beat his wife to death. He was found guilty of the crime. The\njury--composed of men, of course--brought in a verdict of manslaughter,\nand he was sentenced to three months in the common jail. The plea in his\nbehalf was that she was a drunkard. The poor fellow had only gone a\nlittle too far; the court must be merciful. At this same assize, there\nwas a man indicted for theft. He had made good his entrance into a\njeweler's shop, and stolen therefrom a watch. The theft was proved, and\nthe culprit sent to the penitentiary for three years. _Query_: Which was\nthe greater crime, killing a woman or stealing a watch?\n\nThe law professes to punish seduction and rape; but when either or both\nare proved, what are the sentences? In nine cases out of ten, scarcely\nso severe as for damaging an animal belonging to a neighbor.\nOccasionally, when the cases have been atrociously aggravating, a man\nhas been hung for poisoning his wife, or one has been sent to the\npenitentiary for rape; but the instances are more frequent in which the\ncriminal escapes punishment. It is contended that, usually, the women\nwho are murdered, or otherwise maltreated, are ill-tempered, drunken\ncreatures, and therefore not worthy the protection of the law. Would\nthese same parties contend that because a man was ill-tempered,\ndrunken, or dissolute, therefore his wife was scarcely to be punished\nfor foully murdering him? Not at all. The universal testimony would be\nthat she was a shockingly wicked wretch.\n\nWomen, as well as men, have to contend with infirmities of temper; and\nthey quite as well succeed in controlling or keeping them in check.\nThere are both men and women, unfortunately, who let their evil passions\nrun riot till they are torments to all who have any thing to do with\nthem. Some women, naturally gentle and kind, have been so ill-treated,\nso shamefully tyrannized over, that in process of time the \"milk of\nhuman kindness in their breasts has turned to gall;\" and the gall is\nthen bitter enough. Would not men, in similar circumstances, be just as\nbitter?\n\nThere is a certain class of women, however, who as a rule are likely to\nbecome fretful and ill-tempered as they grow in years: girls who are\nallowed to grow up with uninformed judgments, who are taught that the\nchief end and aim of woman is to captivate and please the opposite sex,\nwho are taught to think a pretty face and delicate figure of more\nimportance than good sense or a thorough education. And yet it is a fact\nworthy of notice, that those who most eloquently assert their great\nsuperiority over the entire sex, are the very men most easily led--ay,\nand duped--by dressy, frivolous, brainless women. It would be a\nmisfortune, scarcely to be endured, for such men to have wives who know\ntoo much.\n\nThat there should be a head to every family, is self-evident. A man and\nhis wife, according to Scripture, should be one; and the corporate head\nis best qualified to govern a family, or manage an estate in which both\nhave a common interest, and therefore ought to have an equal voice. What\none lacks, the other may have. The man may be overconfident, the woman\ntoo cautious; by counseling together, a proper and safe medium is\narrived at.\n\nOne-half of the property in the matrimonial firm should always be\nregarded as belonging to the wife. And if a man and his wife fail to\nagree as to the advantage, or even safety, of a proposed scheme, and he\nis still determined to act upon his own judgment, contrary to that of\nhis wife, he should never, in such case, risk more than one-half of the\nproperty.\n\nWhat right has a man, except that \"might makes right,\" to hazard all he\nhas in wild speculations, or by indorsing for some friend or boon\ncompanion, despite his wife's expostulations, or without her knowledge?\nYet it is done every day, and all lost; and if women who see their\nchildren and themselves thus reduced to poverty, complain, they are\nstigmatized as fretful, unwomanly grumblers. Their husbands, says the\nworld, had a right to do as they pleased with the property in their\npossession. What if the wife had earned or inherited half, or even the\nwhole, of it! what should women know about business?\n\nIn indorsing, especially, a man should be restrained by law, under pains\nand penalties, from indorsing to amounts exceeding one-half of his\nproperty; and no indorsement in excess of that amount should be allowed\nto constitute a legal claim.\n\nBut is it really right to indorse for any one, under any circumstances?\nWhy should a third party encumber his estate, and run the risk of\nruining himself and his family, to secure the payment of a debt in which\nhe has no personal interest, simply to make a capitalist secure in the\ninvesting of his funds, or in the profitable disposal of his property on\ncredit? If the lender can not trust the party who deals directly with\nhim, let there be no credit. It is manifestly a departure from the line\nof duty for a man to jeopard the means of maintenance for his family,\nwithout any prospect of advantage to himself or them. It is as much a\ngreat moral wrong for a man to rob his wife and children as it is to rob\nstrangers, although commercial usage and the laws of mankind may declare\nthe reverse. \"He that is surety for a stranger shall smart for it: and\nhe that hateth suretyship is sure.\" (Proverbs xi, 15.)\n\nIt may be said that to refuse to indorse would retard trade. Let it be\nretarded, then; for why should the capitalist have two chances to the\ntrader's one? If the man trusted is unsuccessful, why, to enrich the\ncapitalist who loans his money for his own gain, should an innocent\nfamily be impoverished, who reaped no benefit, and were expected to reap\nno benefit, from the transaction? How many families have thus been\nbrought to ruin, the day of Judgment alone will reveal.\n\nIn many countries the law of primogeniture prevails, though, happily, in\nthe United States and Canada it has been abolished. Whether the\ninterests of the mothers and younger members of families ever were in\nany degree the better provided for by every thing being placed at the\nabsolute disposal of the eldest son, is a doubtful question. It may have\nbeen that, in the old barbaric times, when women and children were a\nprey to every bold marauder who chose to prey upon them, that the law\nwas intended for their protection, the eldest son or brother being the\nperson most likely to be able to protect them; and the property, not\nbeing subdivided and scattered, was more easily defended; and it might\nhave been expected that natural affection would cause the heir to deal\njustly with his mother and the other children.\n\nBut with the passing away of these days of barbarous forays, passed away\nthe need of any such arrangement; if indeed any good ever was\naccomplished by it. Certainly, much mischief has been wrought and foul\ninjustice sanctioned by it, for many centuries.\n\nAn arrangement so well calculated to foster selfishness and arrogance,\nso long established, produced its legitimate fruit. Since at his\nfather's death every thing, or nearly so, would come under his control,\nthe eldest son became the one important member of his family. As his\nmother could have but her interest on the third of the value of the\nestate, unless specially provided for by marriage settlement, she\nnecessarily became dependent upon him who inherited the estate; and\ntherefore the lad, even while a lad, was constantly deferred to, until\nhe deemed himself superior to the rest of his family. The elder members\nof a family might have been girls, and, there being no boys, might have\narrived at the conclusion that the property of their father might be\ntheirs; but a boy born late in the life of their father would sweep away\nthe delusion, and leave them to poverty. Eldest sons have been known to\nsend their brothers and sisters out into the world penniless, and sell\nfrom over their mothers' heads the homes in which they had hoped to\ndie, obliging them to subsist or starve, as they might, upon their\nmeagre \"thirds.\" Whether justice to mother or children was done or not,\ndepended entirely upon this one boy. And this was the brightest side of\nprimogeniture. In cases of entailed property, very often the entail\nspecified that it was to go to the heir male for all time. A father in\nthis case, dying without a son, could do nothing besides willing to\nthese girls such loose property as he might have acquired independently\nof his estate. It might revert to his daughter's most bitter enemy; it\nwas not in his power to help it.\n\nFrom the hour of a woman's birth to her death, there is a continuous\nsystem of belittling her, which, if it does not succeed in destroying\nher self-respect, thus teaching her that she may, as her only means of\nretaliation, allow herself in any little meanness which may occur to\nher, is so galling to that self-respect, that the wonder is that her\nvery nature has not become revolutionized. But women have so long been\ntrained in this school, that they have, to a large extent, adopted the\nlanguage expressive of their own inferiority, if not the sentiment\nitself.\n\nEmma and John, as children, play together; Emma aged five and John three\nyears respectively. Their toys are suited to their sex--Emma's a doll,\nJohn's a toy carriage and ponies. For a time all goes on harmoniously;\nthey use each other's toys indiscriminately; for as yet their minds have\nnot been contaminated by outside influences. By and by, as will come in\nplay, both children wish entire possession of the same toy. There is a\ncontest, and John appeals to mother: \"Emma has my carriage, and won't\ngive it up.\" \"For shame!\" says mother, \"Emma, give John his toy\ndirectly. Don't you know that a carriage with ponies is a toy for little\ngentlemen? Besides, if you are good, when you both grow up perhaps he\nwill give you a ride with real carriage and live ponies.\" Awed by the\ncommand, and charmed by the distant prospect of the actual ride, the\nlittle girl--as indeed she ought--gives up the toy, and peace is\nrestored for the time. But presently a shrill cry is heard: \"Johnnie's\nrubbing all the paint off my dolly's cheeks. He won't give her to me. O,\nhe has broken her arm.\" The mother's reply to this cry is stern and\nsharp. \"Don't be so cross with your little brother.\" Then to John. \"O,\nJohn, you ought not to have broken sister's pretty dolly; it wasn't half\nso nice as your own little carriage and ponies. Why didn't you play with\nthem? Boys should be gentlemen. Emma is only a little girl;\" with a tone\nemphatic of inferiority upon the word girl. \"Little boys should never\nstoop to play with girl's toys.\" Later on, where a girl's enjoyment is\nin a measure provided for in connection with her brother, he is made\nalmost invariably the purse-bearer. What she has is of his generosity.\nGirls must be yielding, submissive, and dependent, as becomes their sex.\nBoys may be overbearing or rough; it is a sign of a manly spirit to be\nso.\n\nThus arrogance and injustice is fostered in the boy, and a sense of\nwrong begotten in the girl; the one is degraded in her own eyes, and in\nthe eyes of her brother; the other is elevated above his just level in\nhis own eyes and his sister's; and heart-burning and jealousies\nengendered that often last through life. A girl may hardly choose her\nown husband. Her father, brother, or some friend will introduce some\neligible party. She is an undutiful girl if--when he honors her by\nasking her hand--she do not thankfully consent. To the credit of\nhumanity be it said, that girls have more liberty of choice in this\nrespect than they had formerly. There is still room for improvement. The\nsooner match-making and match-makers die out, the better for the world.\nIf man or woman make a mistake in marrying unfortunately, and in\nconsequence suffer unhappiness, let those more fortunately situated,\npity and be kind to the sufferer; but let none incur the responsibility\nof having made such a match.\n\nFOOTNOTES:\n\n[Footnote K: By recent legislation in Ontario, she is deprived of her\nright of dower in wild lands.]\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\n\nWoman and Legislation.\n\nWhat rights, it may be asked, ought women to have accorded to them which\nthey do not now enjoy according to law? From what rights does custom\ndebar them? We claim that women, being held equally responsible to the\nlaw with men, are as well entitled to have a voice in making that law.\nIt is a fundamental principle of all governments, not despotic, that\n\"taxation without representation\" is a gross infringement upon the civil\nrights of the subject or citizen. When, in spite of the disadvantages\nunder which women labor, they have, by unflagging industry and prudent\nmanagement, acquired real estate, their property is taxed according to\nthe same rule by which the property of men is taxed; and still the\nelective franchise is denied them. Men in legislating for men know their\nwants and understand their particular needs, because they have\nexperience of them; but in legislating for women they look at things\nfrom their own stand-point; and because of its being impossible for them\nto experience the various annoyances and humiliations to which women are\nsubjected, they do not realize the injustice toward women of the\nexisting state of things, or the nature and extent of the changes which\njustice to them requires. To secure any thing like impartial justice in\ncivil affairs for women, they should have an equal voice in making the\nlaws.\n\nIt is contended that, if women were entitled to the franchise, it would\nmake no difference with a party vote, since as many women would vote on\none ticket as on the other. What of it? The franchise has been extended\nfrom time to time for centuries to various classes of men, and these\nclasses did not, as a class, confine themselves to one particular ticket\nor party. Was it any the less the unalienable right of these men to\nenjoy their liberty to vote as they saw fit, or as they deemed for the\nbest interests of the country? Certainly not. Neither is it just that\nwomen should be denied the right to vote because it would make no\nperceptible difference to a party ticket.\n\nIf women had a right to vote, say some, it would occasion family\ncontention. Why should it? If a woman thinks as her husband, she will\nvote as he does; if not, none but an unreasonable and overbearing man\nwould insist that his wife must think as he does, and vote in accordance\nwith his views, whether they agree with her own or not. It would be\nquite as just and as reasonable to urge that, because the peace of\nfamilies is sometimes disturbed by fathers and sons voting for opposite\nparties, therefore, the sons should not be allowed to exercise the\nfranchise during the life-time of their fathers. There are differences\nof opinion concerning politics in families now; there always have been,\nand always will be, unless some process can be devised whereby women\nwill be deprived of the power of thought. Are these existing differences\nless to be deprecated than those likely to result from extending the\nfranchise to women? How can it be supposed that the peace of families is\nsecured by men only having the liberty to give practical expression to\ntheir views, by recording votes which may tell for the good or ill of\nthe country, while women have not? though very frequently a woman has\nthe outrage put upon her of knowing that her husband is recording a vote\nupon her property, not his, for a party to which she is conscientiously\nopposed. And this in a civilized, not a barbarous, land! Where is either\nthe justice or the moral honesty of such a course of procedure? Surely,\nif a woman did vote for a candidate or for a measure to which her\nhusband is opposed, it is no worse, and ought to produce no more\ndisturbance in the family, than for him to vote for a candidate or\nmeasure to which she is opposed, especially where the property\nqualification is in her own right, or where--as is very frequently the\ncase--she has worked equally hard in earning it; nor would disturbance\nbe produced by it at any time, were men as much disposed to be just as\nwomen are to forgive injury.\n\nThen, there are many intelligent, industrious, and enterprising women\nwho never marry; and many more who do, are left widows early in life,\nand remain so to its end. These women contribute quite as much to the\npublic good as do unmarried men in similar circumstances. Why, then,\nshould the one enjoy the privilege of the ballot-box or the polls, and\nit be denied to the other? There is no just reason whatever. Nothing but\nusage makes such an injustice tolerated; nothing but the love of\narbitrary power causes it to be advocated.\n\nThe assertion that the majority of women care nothing about politics or\nthe exercise of any right not now enjoyed by them, is about as true as\nthe asseverations of those who opposed the passage of the late \"Reform\nBill\" in England, that the majority of the middle and poorer classes\nwere satisfied with the privileges enjoyed, and would scarcely--the\npoorer classes especially--be able to vote intelligently if the\nprivilege were allowed. It was roundly asserted, too, that all this\nreform agitation was the work of demagogues and infidels. Time has\nproved that the common people of England were able to record intelligent\nvotes, and that they did prize the privileges which were so reluctantly\ngranted; neither is infidelity any more rampant since liberty has been\ngiven to the people to express their opinions than it was before.\nIndeed, it has less material upon which to feed and grow than it then\nhad. It is asserted by reverend divines that, to accord women equal\nrights and privileges with men, is to countenance infidelity. Such\nassertions have yet to be proved to be truthful. Logically, the position\nis untenable. There are many thousands more infidels among men than\namong women. How, then, can these divines make it appear that giving to\nwomen equal civil and political privileges with men would countenance\ninfidelity, or tend to its increase? Women being so much more generally\nreligiously disposed than men, the influence of the former, if allowed\nits due weight in public affairs, would be much more likely to\nneutralize the influence of the infidel men now exercising the rights\nand privileges from which women are debarred, and would thus contribute\nto the development of a higher moral and religious tone in community.\nApply these men's theory to themselves, and they would quickly observe\nits absurdity, as well as its shameful injustice. It is said, too, that\nwomen are amply represented by their husbands, brothers, or fathers;\nwhich is not true, since wives do not always think as their husbands do;\ndaughters do not always see matters from the same stand-point that their\nfathers do, any more than sons; and sisters do not agree in opinion with\nbrothers, any more than brothers agree with brothers. It is a well-known\nfact that, in all countries, fathers and sons have entertained different\nviews, both political and religious, and have given public expression of\nthem; so, also, brothers have arrayed themselves against brothers in\ncivil and ecclesiastical contests. It is absurd, therefore, to say that\none member of a family--even though he be the \"head\"--of necessity\nrepresents the views of the entire family. But, supposing it were true\nthat the thing could be done, it would be just as reasonable for women\nto represent their fathers, husbands, sons, and brothers at the polls as\nto be represented there by them.\n\nIt is urged that many women are frivolous, that they seem scarcely to\nhave a serious thought, that the energies of their minds--if they have\nany--are bent upon the acquirement of a thorough knowledge of the latest\nforeign fashion, heedless whether they ruin father or husband or not. So\nthere are--those especially who are taught to think it very \"unfeminine\"\nto be \"strong-minded\" enough to be independent, who deem it a fearful\nthing to bend mind or body to work for their own living, asserting, with\nan unwitting sarcasm, that \"papa\" or \"husband\" is the responsible head\nof the house, and that it is his business to supply their wants. There\nare frivolous young men, too, in this world of ours, whose whole minds\nseem bent on the exquisite parting of their back hair, the peculiar\nshape of their collar and shade of gloves or neck-tie, and the exact\nheight of the heel of their French boots; men who run up bills and ruin\nfathers and wives without any apparent compunctions of conscience, and\nwho feel no shame that their wives or daughters support them while they\nsquander both time and money. Yet these men, frivolous as it is possible\nto be, are not denied equal privileges with the rest of their sex, nor\nis their frivolity pleaded as a reason why sensible men should not be\nallowed the franchise.\n\nWhy, then, should the frivolity of some women be urged against the whole\nsex? Rather, educate them. Let them realize that they are equally with\nman responsible to God for the powers of mind given them. And let them\nknow, too, that they shall have equal opportunities for the development\nand exercise of those powers; that with equality in responsibility there\nis equality in privilege; and the next half-century will number fewer\nfrivolous women--by many hundreds.\n\nThe dread is entertained by some that, if granted the elective\nfranchise, women would be mixed up in election rows and drunken\nsquabbles, as men are now. Such an event does not necessarily follow;\nneither is it at all probable. Men of good principle and well-balanced\njudgment do not make either fools or beasts of themselves now, badly as\nelections are managed; nor would sensible, right-minded women degrade\nthemselves by unseemly conduct while exercising their right to vote.\n\nNo law has ever yet existed which entirely prevented evil-minded men and\nevil-minded women from making public exhibition of their degradation;\nand, as society is now constructed, where wicked men congregate, some\nwicked women will be found. Elevate women to perfect equality with man,\nand fewer wicked ones will prey upon society.\n\nThe great objection, the one which rises above all others, with regard\nto women taking an active part in civil and ecclesiastical matters, is,\nthat they would thereby neglect their houses and families.\n\nThis objection has some weight; it is not altogether so unreasonable as\nmost of the others raised. But even here the event dreaded does not\nnecessarily follow, any more than because men are allowed to vote\ntherefore their business and families must suffer in consequence.\nPrudent men, when they accept offices of public trust, so order their\nbusiness arrangements that they shall be properly attended to without\nallowing the one to interfere with the other. So also would prudent\nwomen. It might with as much propriety be argued that a farmer must not\nbe permitted to accept any public office, not even that of juryman,\nbecause the acceptance of it might call him from home, either in\nSpringtime or harvest; nor a doctor to become a candidate for public\nhonors, lest some one might be sick while he was away,--as to argue that\na woman must not be permitted to take an active part in public affairs\nbecause the house is to be attended to, and the comfort and well-being\nof her husband and children provided for. Are the recognized duties and\nordinary occupations of women necessarily so all-engrossing as to be\ninconsistent with any other demand upon their time or thoughts; or of so\nmuch graver importance than the duties which men owe to their business\nand families, as to require her constant presence and the entire\ndevotion of all her energies; while men, who have families and large\nbusiness transactions on their hands, are justified in devoting a large\nportion of their time and attention to other objects, whether\nliterature, science, or politics?\n\nThere is no more honorable position on earth than that of a wife,\npossessing the undivided affection of a good husband, surrounded by an\norderly and interesting family of children. Neither is there a more\nhonorable position among men than that of a husband, possessing the\nundivided affection of a good wife, who sympathizes with him in his\nevery care, surrounded by a family of well-behaved, intelligent\nchildren. A well-regulated household is a picture upon which the good of\neither sex love to look. The responsibility of regulating and ordering a\nhousehold properly, devolves equally upon both the husband and wife. It\ncan not be a well-regulated house if either fails to share the\nresponsibility equally. Is the careful wife and mother, then, to be cut\noff from the rights of citizenship because she is a wife and mother?\nThere is no valid reason why an intelligent woman should not be\npermitted to carry the weight of her judicious influence beyond the\ncharmed circle of her home, any more than that she should not be\npermitted to exercise it there. Even in the limited sphere now assigned\nto women, many of them have proved that they could be faithful to the\ninterests of their husbands and children, and yet accomplish much for\nthe benefit of the world besides. Admitting, however--and we do admit\nit, heartily--that women are endowed with peculiar talents for the\nmanagement of children, and men are better fitted than women for\ntraining horses or managing swine,--which occupation requires the\ngreater mental culture? Which is likely to do the most for the benefit\nof mankind? The proper care for her children, and attention to them,\ndoes not necessarily prevent a woman from attending to matters of public\nutility outside of her house.\n\nAnd then there are the unmarried women, who were referred to previously,\nthat have not these household claims resting upon them. The objection\nconcerning the neglect of households does not touch their cases at all;\nfor they have neither children nor husbands to be neglected. That\nunmarried women, who step out from the \"private sanctity of their\nhomes,\" often accomplish much good by entering on the so much censured\npublic career, the lives of Florence Nightingale, Miss McPherson, and\nMiss Dix, if there were no others, amply prove.\n\nIt is argued by some that, if women would exercise the privilege of the\nfranchise, she must be prepared to take the field as a soldier, or enter\nthe navy, as circumstances might require, in time of war. History\ninforms us that women have given valuable assistance in time of war,\neven taking the field and fighting nobly for their country when their\nvalor was needed; and, in our own day, there is on record an instance of\na woman commanding a vessel during a long voyage over exceedingly\ndangerous seas, and bringing it successfully into the desired port. But\napart from this, the fact is, the argument is simply used as a bugbear\nto frighten the timid and deter them from claiming their just position,\nboth social and civil. By law, certain classes of men are exempt from\nwar, except in extreme cases, so that by no means all who vote, now, are\nexpected to fight. Then, women render an equivalent to the State, and\nrisk their lives in doing it, quite as much as soldiers or sailors; not,\nhowever, in destroying human life, but in perpetuating it. As recruiting\nagents, therefore, and the first drill-masters or instructors of the\nmembers of future battalions, they serve the Government as effectually\nas any standing army.\n\nIt does not follow, then, that as a consequence of being permitted to\nvote, or being admitted to other privileges, women must load the cannon\nor wield the sword. We wonder if the originator of such an attempt at\nintimidation ever heard of Joan of Arc or Margaret of Anjou.\n\nIt is claimed that women are unfit for public life because--another\nunproved assertion--they are incapable of reasoning logically or\nspeaking fluently. Women have had but little opportunity afforded them\nfor public speaking; yet, even with the slight advantages which they\nhave possessed, they have proved themselves quite as capable of\narriving at a high standard of reasoning or oratory as the majority of\nthe opposite sex. Anna Dickinson will draw a full house in any city in\nthe United States; and disinterested listeners (men) have pronounced her\nlectures unsurpassed, in close reasoning and power of fervid eloquence,\nby any male lecturer in the Union. But, say some, all women are not\nequally gifted; there are few endowed with the talents or voice of Miss\nDickinson. Just so; and but few men are endowed with the talents of\nTheodore Cuyler, or gifted with the versatile wit of J.B. Gough; yet\nother men speak in public, and in their humbler sphere render the State\ngood service.\n\nThe various Churches have not done what they might in drawing out this\ntalent in women, and using it for the good of the world. Indeed, while\nquoting and straining the writings of the apostles to suit their own\nnarrow views, those who have given tone to the various branches of the\nChristian Church, and virtually fixed the position of women therein,\nhave wandered far, very far, from the practice of the Pauline days with\nregard to the employment of women in the public workings of the Church,\nas is shown by a comparison of the present working of the several\nChristian Churches with the sacred records, as given in Acts and the\nEpistles themselves.\n\nThe Society of Friends, upon examination, becoming convinced of the\nfalsity of the reasoning, assumed to be predicated upon the Word of God,\nthat there was inferiority between the sexes, and not believing that the\nassumption was borne out by a careful perusal of the Scriptures, granted\nperfect equality to men and women in the exercise of religious services.\nHaving been the foremost religious body of modern times in granting\nliberty of speech to Christian women, they have been more highly honored\nthan most other denominations in the number of gifted speakers among\ntheir women.\n\nIn the early days of Methodism, too, women were allowed to exercise the\ntalent for public speaking, with which God had endowed them; and Dinah\nEvans and Mrs. Fletcher--the one in the humbler walks of life, the other\na lady of position, education, and refinement--stand forth conspicuously\nupon the pages of history, giving evidence that the ministry of\nChristian women was honored by God in leading the wicked to forsake\ntheir unrighteous ways. As Methodism became older, like the primitive\nChurch, it departed from the first usage, and as a consequence, like it,\nit lost for the time a powerful agency for doing good. Latterly,\nhowever, women, especially in the United States, are breaking through\nthe fetters--ecclesiastical as well as civil--which have so long bound\nthem. In a measure, at least, their day of civil and religious slavery\nis drawing to a close. They now very frequently preside and speak at\npublic religious meetings, and are admitted by candid, well-informed men\nto be quite as competent to discharge the duties of a presiding officer,\nor to present the ideas they wish to convey in a clear and logical\nmanner, as any of the learned clergymen or clear-headed laymen in the\nsame meeting. Some of the most eloquent public advocates of the\nmissionary enterprise in the United States are earnest Christian women.\n\nIn the halcyon days of Queen Victoria, before the sad bereavement came\nupon her which has darkened her latter years and caused her to retire as\nmuch as possible from public view--at the time when she read her own\nspeeches from the throne--she was pronounced, by competent critics, to\nbe unsurpassed, as a reader, by any elocutionist in Europe.\n\nA thoroughly liberal education, and the practice of conversing with\npersons of intelligence, renders material assistance to both men and\nwomen, by enabling them to express their thoughts in the clearest and\nmost forcible language possible; and the same thing may be remarked of\ndeclamation. In social circles, where men and women of average mental\nculture meet together, there is no perceptible difference between the\nconversational powers of the sexes. Let the facilities for the education\nof men and women once be made equal throughout the civilized world, and\nthe hackneyed cry of her mental inferiority will be heard of no more,\nexcepting when mentioned among the other exploded theories of the Dark\nAges and of barbaric times. The cramping of the mental powers of women,\nor the attempting to cramp them, lest they might claim equal advantages\nwith the other half of the race, will be classed--and justly so--with\nthe cramping of women's feet by the Chinese, lest they might claim and\nexercise the liberty of walking the streets at pleasure, as their\nhusbands do. A woman will be no more expected to give credence to every\nthing her husband believes, no matter how absurd the belief may be, at\nhis dictation, because he is her husband, or to yield implicit obedience\nto his commands, no matter how tyrannical, than she will be to follow\nhim to the funeral pyre.\n\nAlready ladies, by dint of untiring industry and perseverance, have\nmounted to honorable positions, and have acquired meritorious fame as\nartists, both in painting and in sculpture. Who, in our times, stands\nhigher on the list of artists than Rosa Bonheur or Miss Hosmer? In the\nstudy of medicine, women have been met by the most scandalous opposition\nand insult by those conservators of good morals, male medical students.\nYet, believing that women were as capable of acquiring skill in the\nhealing art as men, and that, where the peculiar diseases of women were\nconcerned, they were better adapted to it, and that there was less\nimpropriety in their attending their own sex than in men doing so, they\npersevered, and have won for themselves honorable distinction. That\nwomen have, for years, distinguished themselves in connection with\nmedical science, may be seen from the following interesting historical\nfacts presented by Caroline H. Ball:\n\nMadame Francoise, the midwife of Catharine de Medici, lectured ably to\nstudents of both sexes. James Guillemeau was a French surgeon of great\neminence, who died in 1813; but the obstetrical observations which gave\nvalue to his books were contributed by Madame Veronne. It was to the\nCountess of Cinchon, and the influence which she used at every court in\nEurope, and finally at the Court of Rome, that the world owed the use of\nPeruvian bark, and consequently of quinine. Its early name, \"Jesuit's\nBark,\" showed one step of her process. (See \"Anastasis Corticis\nPeruviani, Seu China Defensis.\") Madame Breton patented a system of\nartificial nourishment for infants, in use in France as late as 1830.\n\nAt the age of twenty-four, in the year 1736, Elizabeth Blackwell, of\nLondon, published a work on Medical Botany. It was in three volumes,\nfolio, well illustrated, and was the first of its kind in any country.\nMadame Ducoudray, born in Paris, 1712, was the first lecturer who used a\nmanikin, which she herself invented and perfected. Physicians persist in\nignoring this fact, although it was publicly approved by the French\nAcademy of Surgeons, December 1, 1758.\n\nMorandi, born in Bologna in 1716, and Beheron, born at Paris in 1730,\ninvented and perfected the use of wax preparations to represent\ndiseases. Beheron's collection was purchased by Catharine II, of Russia,\nand went to St. Petersburg. Hunter acknowledged his obligations to her.\nMorandi's collection, at Bologna, was visited and purchased by Joseph\nII. She was Professor of Anatomy at the university. Lady Mary Wortley\nMontague introduced inoculation into Europe; and the intelligent\nobservation of a farmer's wife led Dr. Jenner to his experiments with\nvaccine matter.\n\nThe services of regularly qualified lady physicians are now eagerly\nsought, not only in the United States, where they in later times first\nproved their capability, but also in foreign countries. Medical\nuniversities, the sage faculties of which once frowned with scorn upon\n\"women who would be guilty of the indelicacy of pushing themselves into\nthe medical profession,\" now gladly open their doors to them; the more\ncandid of the professors admitting that the \"indelicacy,\" not to say\nindecency, is upon the side of men who would push themselves into the\nsick-chamber of a woman, and make inquiries of her concerning symptoms\npeculiar to her sex, when there are women who are competent to attend to\nher case.\n\nLittle by little the mists of superstition and error, incident to\nbarbaric times, are being dispelled by the genial light of a brighter\nday. Even now, genteel ignorance is not esteemed the acme of feminine\nperfection, except by those theorists who would degrade woman mentally,\nthat they themselves may thus acquire so much a higher elevation--at\nleast in their own imaginations--as to stand to them in God's stead, or,\nat the very least, to be a semi-deity whose superior wisdom is to be\nworshiped.\n\nThe facilities for acquiring a good common education, of late years\nafforded to the masses, in which there was not so wide a distinction\nmade between the sexes as formerly, have accomplished much in removing\nold-time prejudices; as the searching examinations of these public\nschools have fairly tested the capabilities of both boys and girls, and\nhave established the fact that, with equal opportunities, the girls were\nfully equal to the boys in mental ability and attainments. Grudgingly,\ngirls have been allowed to enter the grammar and higher schools; and\nhere, too, by their proficiency, they have proved their right to enter.\n\nThere was a great outcry raised when the first genuine university which\nadmitted women, allowed them to pursue precisely the same studies as\nyoung men. It was predicted that almost unheard-of evils would ensue.\nWoman, if they succeeded, would be unfitted for her \"sphere,\" and become\nunwilling to soothe, with tender hand, the suffering and the distressed,\netc. The wail was terrific. The experiment, however, succeeded. Women\nnot only commenced a real collegiate course, but pursued it to the end,\ngraduating with honors; and, despite prophecy, college-bred women made\nfaithful wives, judicious mothers, and good housekeepers. A cruel war\nravaged the fair fields of a portion of the United States, bringing with\nit its attendant train of misery. What was the employment of ladies who\nhad graduated in universities in this crisis of their country? Had their\nknowledge of Latin and Greek made them either inefficient or hard? The\nweary, wounded soldier in the hospitals would testify that the kind hand\nof an educated and refined woman bathed his feverish temples, while her\ngentle voice breathed into his ear the glad tidings of a peace to be\nattained by repentance and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Delicacies\nwere needed for the invalid soldiers, and were not to be bought for\nmoney; the educated woman, side by side with her uneducated sister,\nbared her white arms above the elbow, and molded delicate pastry, and\nsealed and pickled and preserved as diligently and as deftly as if she\nhad never demonstrated a problem in Euclid or heard of Sophocles. In\nwhat way had women become unfitted for their sphere by a liberal\neducation? In no way whatever. If some highly educated women are\ninefficient housekeepers, and slatternly in their persons, so also are\nmany who neither know how to read nor write; just as there are many\nimpracticable, inefficient, and slovenly men who are highly educated,\nand ignorant men who are also incompetent and inefficient. Education has\nnothing to do with making either men or women inefficient; the\ninefficient would be inefficient to the end of time, though their minds\nwere never troubled with literature.\n\nNo fearful calamity having ensued as a consequence of the admission of\nladies to one university, others also began slowly, and with great\ncaution, to open their doors to them; and now their admission on the\nsame footing as their brothers to the same universities, and their\ncapability to complete the same curriculum is no longer an experiment,\nbut an established fact. Even in conservative, staid old England, ladies\nare admitted to the examinations at Cambridge. But all are by no means\nopen. No: there are those, and some of them men of sense in other\nrespects, who can not come down from the lofty pedestal on which they\nhave placed themselves, and are not willing to allow their sisters or\ndaughters to mount, lest they should reach their side. These sneer and\nfrown, and prophesy evil just as vehemently as did narrow-minded men of\nthe same class fifty or twenty years ago; and their influence will, for\na time, keep some of the colleges closed to women. But this is a matter\nof little consequence now. There are universities now open to them of as\nhigh a literary grade as those which are closed against them; and\nconsequently they may drink at will at the fountain of knowledge,\ndespite the sneers and frowns of those who would prevent it if they\ncould, but happily can not altogether.\n\nThough there is still much fierce opposition to the movement for\ngranting them equal civil and ecclesiastical rights and privileges, and\nfor allowing them to compete fairly with men in business transactions or\nin the learned professions; and though it may be expected that this\nopposition will be continued for some time to come,--yet women have\ncause for thankful rejoicing, and may take courage. The long night of\ntheir bitter servitude is nearly over, the dawn of better days is\nbeginning to tinge the horizon; and hope may now be entertained that\nerelong they shall occupy the position to which they are entitled, as\nman's compeer--the position of equality with him in all the relations of\nlife--and enjoy the full rights and privileges of civilized and\nChristianized citizenship.\n\nThe morning is breaking.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\n\nFamous Women of Antiquity.\n\nIt has been so often asserted that women are incompetent to form any\nthing like correct opinions on civil or political questions, or to\ngovern with discretion, even when by chance the reins are committed to\ntheir control for a brief season; and that they have always been found\nso; and, also, that they are naturally incapable of a sufficiently great\ndegree of mental effort to entitle them to celebrity,--that the\nstatement has come to be regarded as a fact by the masses, who have\nlacked either the ability or the desire to investigate the matter. With\nthe majority of men, as such assertions fostered their love of power,\nand the idea of their own self-consequence, it was natural for them to\naccept them without question, as undoubted truth. With women, until\nwithin the present century, the facilities for acquiring an education\nhave been so meagre that, except where they were possessed of both a\nlarge fortune and an unlimited amount of perseverance, they had slight\nopportunities for acquiring accurate information on that or any other\nsubject. What their fathers, husbands, or brothers told them, they might\nbelieve if they chose; for the rest, to the very large majority of\nwomen, history was a sealed book; so that, for want of correct\ninformation, they were not in a position to contradict any assertion,\nhowever extravagant, untruthful, or absurd it might be.\n\nIn the foregoing pages of this treatise, it has been maintained that the\nstatements concerning the alleged mental inferiority of women are\nuntruthful; and that history, both ancient and modern, proves them to be\nso. In order, therefore, to establish this proposition more fully, the\nfollowing sketches have been added, giving an account of a few women\neminent for the founding of colonies, for piety, for patriotism, and for\nattainments in science, literature, and arts; and some, alas! for\nwickedness.\n\n\nELISA, OR DIDO, FOUNDER OF CARTHAGE.\n\nCarthage, one of the most noted nations of antiquity, was founded by a\nwoman, and flourished under her rule. A Tyrian princess, Dido--or Elisa,\nas she is indiscriminately named in history--was in jeopardy from the\ntyranny and oppression of an unnatural brother, who, not content with\nwhat he had inherited from his father, had cast covetous eyes upon the\nimmense possessions of his sister's husband, whose death he compassed.\nAll the powers of mind which had hitherto lain dormant within her, being\nroused by the horrid act of her brother, Dido at once set about\nrescuing her treasure from his grasp, and her retainers from his\nunbridled fury. Not choosing to seek protection from any of the princes\nof the surrounding countries, and knowing herself to be unsafe while in\nthe vicinity of her brother, she, as speedily as possible, and with the\nutmost secresy, gathered what she was possessed of together, and, with\nher followers, embarked in search of some country where she might live\nfree from tyranny and oppression. Undaunted by the dangers, real and\nimaginary, which beset the paths of the early navigators of the\nMediterranean, the little band of adventurers pursued their course,\nsteering westward, ever westward; away past Egypt, and past Libya, until\nthey came in sight of a peninsula on the northern coast of Africa\nhitherto unknown to history, but ever afterward to be famous as the\nlanding-place of the heroic woman. At a point only a short distance from\nthe site of the present city of Tunis, Dido, with her followers,\nestablished herself; not taking possession of the territory on which\nshe set her foot, as became the fashion some time later, but purchasing\nit from the natives at a given price. According to the usage of the\ntimes, she at once set about founding a city; and one hundred years\nbefore the founding of Rome--its after rival and destroyer--the work of\nbuilding Carthage, or the New City, as Dido named it, began. The city\nbeing advantageously situated for commerce, and the rule of Dido more\nmild than that of Pygmalion, her brother, hundreds of the Tyrians\nflocked to her standard. These men of Tyre brought with them their old\nhome-love of commercial enterprise and maritime adventure; and, in a\nmarvelously short time, Carthage took high rank among the nations of the\nworld; and it was conceded, by one of the most renowned philosophers of\nGreece, that it enjoyed one of the most perfect governments of\nantiquity.\n\nIt is told of Dido, that she was not only capable and brave, but\nalso--like many of the opposite sex--somewhat sharp in a bargain; and\nthat she tricked the Africans into giving her more territory than they\ndesigned doing. The story is--though it is not generally believed--that\nhaving bargained with the natives for as much land as an ox-hide would\nencompass, she cut it up into the smallest possible strips, and by this\nmeans made it capable of surrounding a large extent of ground; and, as a\nbargain is a bargain, she gained possession of the inclosure by agreeing\nto pay an annual tribute for it. But whether or not this rather\nimprobable story be true, avarice and tyranny on the part of a brother\nseems to have roused the dormant power in Dido's nature; and the\nindomitable perseverance, fortitude, and faculty for government\ndisplayed by the outraged woman, were the forces which brought about the\nfounding of a powerful nation. King Pygmalion is only remembered because\nhe was the brother of the illustrious Queen Dido.\n\n\nCLEOPATRA.\n\nThe character of Cleopatra forms a striking contrast to that of Dido, in\nmany particulars: the one the first princess and founder of a nation\ndestined to live in history ages after it had ceased to exist; the other\nthe last princess of a land equally famed in story, whose kingdom was to\nsuffer extinction, in a great measure in consequence of her vices--not\nbecause she was too weak to sway the scepter, but because she was too\nwicked to rule justly.\n\nThe last representative of the dynasty of the Ptolemies, she seemed to\npossess an undue share of the evil propensities of an evil race; and,\nwith this, the gift of rare beauty, added to very winning manners and\nremarkable powers of fascination. In her constitution was blended a\ndangerous combination of varied charms and varied vices. The learning of\nthe Egyptian schools she had mastered; there were none of the then\nmodern accomplishments of which she had not made herself mistress;\nwealth and regal honors were hers; and yet what a sad picture she\npresents! Evil passions were allowed to rankle in her breast unchecked,\ntill she became one of the vilest creatures, in a country become the\nvilest and basest of nations. The powers of mind with which she was\nendowed, used for the benefit of her country, might have been the means\nof its salvation; but instead of appealing to the patriotism of her\npeople--if, indeed, they then possessed any--she chose rather to court\nthe favor of the rising Roman general, and gain by flattery and crime\nwhat might have been denied to virtue. Though her kingdom was in danger,\nand her own position and the inheritance of her children were at stake,\nshe reveled in sinful pleasure with the enemy. By the power of her\ncharms, she effected a compromise with the first Caesar, which left her\nin possession of Egypt; but not on honorable terms. How could terms,\ndictated on the one side and agreed to on the other by base passion, be\naught but shameful and humiliating?\n\nCaesar in the west, and the Roman legions far away, Cleopatra paid no\nmore regard to the treaty between them than if it had never been made.\nSuch a violation of contract the Romans never forgave; and Mark Antony,\nwho had striven to rise to the supreme power after the assassination of\nJulius Caesar, as soon as he had leisure from his other ambitious\nschemes, bent his steps toward Egypt, to punish the faithless queen.\nAgain she had recourse to her personal charms. The stern but vicious\ngeneral, though in name a conqueror, became an easy victim of her wiles;\nand was himself in fact the conquered one. If Cleopatra had been Mark\nAntony's most bitter foe, she could not more surely have lured him on to\nutter, hopeless ruin.\n\nAt last, the crisis came. Augustus Caesar had arrived upon the shores\nof Egypt to avenge his sister's wrongs. Mark Antony's fate was sealed.\nOnce more the wretched woman tried her powers of fascination; but youth\nand sprightliness were gone. She failed to captivate Augustus by her\nwinning manners, or move him by a display of her distress. Her power,\nshe realized at last, was gone; but grace his triumph in Rome she was\ndetermined she would not. As a crowned queen she had lived; as one she\nwould die. The deadly asp, it is said, became the executioner of her\nwicked will; and when the victor came to stay the act which would rob\nhim of a part of his revenge, he found the work accomplished. Cleopatra\nwould try her wiles no more.\n\nHere was a woman who, by her adroitness and tact and a passionate will,\nwielded an almost incredible power over some of the greatest men of that\nage; whom she brought under her influence, and for years led them\nwhither she would, according to the whim which possessed her. Which was\nthe weaker mentally, Mark Antony or Cleopatra? It is for the historical\nstudent to determine for himself. In licentiousness, they certainly were\non a par.\n\n\nLUCRETIA.\n\nContrast the depravity of the wretched Cleopatra with the virtue of\nLucretia, wife of Collatinus, a distinguished Roman. Beautiful and, for\nthe time in which she lived, highly accomplished, she was the idol of\nher husband. Loving and faithful to him, and attentive to the ordering\nof her household, she was pronounced a model Roman dame. Virtue was\npre-eminently a characteristic of the Roman matron. A heartless\nlibertine, annoyed that Lucretia should stand so high, and fired by wine\nand evil passion, determined to accomplish her downfall; and, while she\nwas helplessly in his power, effected his vile purpose. The outraged\nwoman waited till her husband and father could be summoned; and, having\ntold her dreadful tale, and entreated them to avenge her dishonor, she\nplunged a dagger to her heart. A heathen, she knew not there was sin in\nsuicide, and preferred death to a tarnished reputation.\n\n\nPORTIA.\n\nLike Lucretia, Portia was a Roman matron of noble lineage, and still\nnobler powers of mind. The daughter of Cato and wife of Brutus, it was\nher ambition to prove herself worthy of such a sire and such a husband;\nand, after the pagan fashion of the time, she subjected herself to an\nexceedingly painful physical ordeal, in order to test her powers of\nendurance. Having established the fact beyond a doubt that she was fully\nequal to her husband in fortitude and strength of character, she became\nhis confidant and counselor, sharing his trials and misfortunes as\nreadily as she had shared his prosperity. The ambition of Brutus,\ntogether with the jealous rivalries of the time, effected his ruin; and,\nfinding his case hopelessly desperate, he caused himself to be mortally\nwounded, and expired shortly after. Portia had been so fondly attached\nto her husband that her friends feared she would determine not to\nsurvive him, and in consequence took measures to prevent her from taking\nher own life; but she foiled all their prudent forethought by swallowing\na handful of live coals. Faithful to her husband to the last, according\nto her idea of fidelity, one can but lament that she had not the\nknowledge of a purer faith than that of paganism. She was worthy of a\nbetter fate and brighter age.\n\n\nZENOBIA.\n\nLucretia and Portia adorned private life, and--except in the manner of\ntheir respective deaths--were model matrons, the equals of their\nhusbands in integrity and understanding. Zenobia takes a somewhat\nhigher rank; though no more virtuous--that being impossible--she was\ncalled to exercise her talents in a different sphere. Though born in\nAsia, she claimed descent from the Macedonian kings of Egypt. In her\nyouth, notwithstanding the restraints put upon her sex, she acquired a\nliberal education, and made herself mistress of the Latin, Greek,\nEgyptian, and Syriac literature.\n\nShe took an active part in the promotion of learning, and even compiled\nan epitome of Oriental history for her own use. Palmyra, \"the gem of the\ndesert,\" was favored in possessing such a princess. As beautiful as she\nwas accomplished, she might in these respects be compared to her famous\nancestress, Cleopatra; but here the resemblance ended. She was as famous\nfor her virtues as was Cleopatra for her vices.\n\nArrived at maturity, she united her destiny with that of Odenathus, a\nman who had risen from an obscure position to the highest rank in the\nland. An intrepid general, he had not only subdued the neighboring\ntribes of the desert, but had, in a measure, humbled the haughty Persian\nking, and avenged the cruelty practiced upon the unfortunate Valerian,\nwhich the dissensions among the Romans prevented them from doing\nthemselves, and had made himself master of the dominion of the East. In\nZenobia he found a true helpmeet. She inured herself to hardships in\norder that she might accompany her husband in his hazardous\nundertakings, and assist him by her counsels or cheer him by her\npresence. To her prudence and fortitude Odenathus owed much of his\nsuccess, both as a general and a monarch; so that in a few years, from\nthe small possessions adjoining Palmyra, he had extended his territory\nfrom the Euphrates to the frontiers of Bithynia. During the intervals\nbetween the wars in which he engaged from time to time, he spent much of\nhis leisure in hunting or other wild sports; and in these active\namusements his wife also accompanied him. She even marched, when the\noccasion required it, at the head of their troops. For years every thing\nwent prosperously; then Odenathus was snatched away by death, and the\nentire responsibility of the Government devolved upon Zenobia alone. The\nRomans, now grown stronger than they had been for some time after the\ndefeat of Valerian, disputed the right of the widow of Odenathus to\nassume the reins of government, and sent out generals to compel her to\nsubmit to the dictum of the Senate. One of these she met, and obliged to\nretreat with the loss of his army, his mortification at defeat being\nincreased by the fact that he had been beaten by a woman.\n\nBy judicious tact, she attached both her subjects and her soldiers to\nher cause, and enlarged the borders of her dominion very considerably.\nEven Egypt yielded to her prowess, and haughty Persia solicited an\nalliance with her. She was, in fact, as powerful as any of the Eastern\npotentates, if not the most powerful. No petty passion or malice was\nallowed to mark her conduct in the treatment of her subjects. The good\nof her country was her principal object in government, and for the good\nof the State she would forgive, or at least not punish, a personal\ninjury. And, though surrounding herself with all the splendors of\nroyalty, she yet managed the financial affairs of her realm with\neconomy.\n\nBut the prosperity of her kingdom, and her own success as a sovereign,\nonly increased the envy and resentment of the Romans. Aurelian had\ngained the supreme power in Rome, and, once established in his\nauthority, he determined to make good the old boast--once so true--that\nRome was mistress of the world. Zenobia was a powerful rival, and her he\ndetermined to humble. Finding her kingdom menaced by so powerful a foe,\nshe set herself to defend it, and met the approaching enemy a hundred\nmiles from her capital. Here the tide of fortune turned against the\nhitherto prosperous queen. In two successive battles she suffered\ndefeat, and then she shut herself up in Palmyra, hoping to starve\nAurelian into leaving her in peace; but his star was yet in the\nascendant, the last obstacle was overcome, and Palmyra fell.\n\nZenobia, with some of her attendants, fled; but was overtaken and\nbrought back a prisoner, destined to grace the triumph of her conqueror.\nShe who had for more than five years ruled a powerful nation so nobly\nand so well, was henceforth to be subjected to the indignities of a\ncaptive.\n\nWith Zenobia, fell the dominion of the East, and its once beautiful\ncapital dwindled into insignificance.\n\n\nHYPATIA.\n\nRather more than a century had passed since the subjugation of Zenobia\nand her Empire by pagan Rome, when Hypatia, the philosopher of\nAlexandria, attracted the attention of the then civilized world by her\nmarvelous talents and varied accomplishments. The daughter of Theon, the\ncelebrated mathematician of Alexandria, she possessed unusual\nfacilities--for a woman--for acquiring knowledge; and especially for\nbecoming acquainted with the abstruse sciences. Of these facilities she\navailed herself with commendable earnestness; and at an early age she\nhad made herself mistress of both Geometry and Astronomy, as far as\neither science was then understood or taught in any of the schools. As\nis the case with less profound natures, the mind grew on what it fed\nupon; reasoning, and the elucidation of knotty mathematical problems,\nbecame her delight; and, by general consent, she ranked as one of the\nfirst philosophers of her time, if not indeed the very first.\n\nIt has often been asserted that the possession of great mental power\nunfits the woman possessing it for the common amenities of life. That\nit does not necessarily do any thing of the kind, is sufficiently\nevidenced in the life of Hypatia. Though elevated to the very pinnacle\nof fame, in consequence of her mental attainments, she was nevertheless\ngentle and courteous in her manners, toward those by whom she was\nsurrounded. She was very beautiful, yet without vanity; indeed, true\nstrength of mind precludes the idea of vanity, for few but the mentally\nweak are vain; and she was as chaste as she was mentally strong and\nphysically beautiful.\n\nConvinced of her superior merits, the authorities of the School of\nPhilosophy in which Plotinus and his successors had expounded their\ntheories, importuned her to become preceptress therein; and, overcoming\nher natural diffidence, she consented. Thenceforth, instead of the\nfrivolous adornments, considered too foolish to be worn by men, but\nquite fitting and becoming for women, she was arrayed in the cloak of\nthe philosopher, and took her proper position as head of the most noted\nschool in a city distinguished as the chief seat of learning of that\nage. As a public speaker--for her lectures were not altogether confined\nto her school--she was fluent. Her elocution may be said to have been\nfaultless, and her manner of address pleasing; and these, combined with\nthe very remarkable amount of information which she was capable of\nconveying in her lectures, drew crowds of warm admirers and\nenthusiastically devoted students to listen to her.\n\nWas it possible that one so gifted, so beautiful and pure, could arouse\nmalicious envy, or make an enemy by the exercise of talents God had\ngiven her?\n\nAh, yes! She knew more than Cyril--a professedly Christian bishop, who\nthen filled the patriarchal chair. Thenceforth she was marked as his\nprey.\n\nAllied to the State, the Church had lost its purity, and become the\nbitterest of persecutors; and Cyril was one of the bitterest of these.\nThe Jews had enjoyed a degree of liberty in Alexandria, which latterly\nhad been denied them elsewhere; and this the haughty spirit of the\narrogant bishop could not brook; and, assuming that his power as an\necclesiastic was in consequence superior to the civil authority, he,\nafter treating the Jews with most outrageous cruelty, banished them from\nthe city. The Jews had been allowed to inhabit Alexandria from the time\nof its foundation, and had materially contributed to its prosperity;\ntherefore, the civil authorities were not willing to see them suffer\nsuch indignities without raising their voice against the oppressive act.\nOrestes, Prefect of the city, appealed to the emperor on their behalf.\nHe, trammeled with his Church connections, and yet not wishing to break\nwith the prefect, declined to interfere in the matter, thus leaving them\nto settle the dispute by themselves; and soon the ecclesiastics and the\ncitizens joined issue. Orestes, being attacked by a party of monks as he\nwas peaceably pursuing his way through the streets in his carriage, was\nsuccored by the citizens, who came to his relief; and in the affray a\nmonk was taken prisoner, whom the justly exasperated Orestes ordered to\nbe executed. The sentence was carried into effect, and Cyril caused the\nname of the would-be murderer to be enrolled among the martyrs.\n\nHypatia was neither Jew nor Christian; but her love of truth and justice\ncaused her to espouse the side of the persecuted victims of\necclesiastical tyranny. She had previously been the object of Cyril's\nbitter hatred, because her mental attainments were superior to his own.\nNow, that hatred was intensified to the highest degree of malignity. She\nhad openly and boldly censured the conduct of the bishop, and was deemed\nthe friend of Orestes; therefore she must die. Having committed no\ncrime, she could not be brought before the civil tribunal for\ncondemnation; therefore, as her death had been determined upon, _murder_\nwas the next resort.\n\nShe was surrounded and seized by a mob in the interest of Cyril, as she\nwas one day returning from her school, and hurried into the Caesarian\nchurch, where she was brutally murdered, every barbarity being practiced\nupon her which monks were capable of inventing, even to tearing her limb\nfrom limb, and afterward burning her; and Cyril, if indeed he did not\nsanction the murder by his actual presence while it was being committed,\nsanctioned the horrid deed by his protection of the perpetrators when\nthe infuriated populace would have avenged her death.\n\nThus tragic was the end of one of the most highly gifted women the world\nhas ever produced. She flourished in the reign of the Emperor Theodosius\nII, in the early part of the fifth century.\n\nThe record of the Famous Women of Antiquity might be lengthened out\nindefinitely: Cornelia, the mother of the Gracchi, so famous in Roman\nhistory; Octavia, the deeply injured wife of Mark Antony; Eudosia, the\nwife of Theodosius, with her equally famous sister-in-law, Pulcheria;\nthe Aspasia of Pericles, who is represented by some writers as having\ncomposed many of the orations given to the world as those of her\nhusband; the Aspasia of Cyrus, so famous for her gentle modesty and wise\ncounsels; and Marianne, the last and most unfortunate princess of the\nillustrious line of the Maccabees, and wife of the monster, Herod the\nGreat. Each of these, to do justice to their merits, or to the\ntransactions which rendered them famous, would require a biography. The\nmere mention of their names must suffice just here. Who has not read or\nheard of Sappho, the Greek poetess, concerning whose life and moral\ncharacter there has been so much controversy--one class of writers\ncondemning in unstinted measure, as all and utterly vile; the other\nclass applauding her as being possessed of every virtue? Says one of the\nlatter: \"In Sappho, a warm and profound sensibility, virgin purity,\nfeminine softness, and delicacy of sentiment and feeling, were combined\nwith the native probity and simplicity of the Eolian character; and,\nalthough endued with a fine perception of the beautiful and brilliant,\nshe preferred genuine conscious rectitude to every other source of human\nenjoyment.\" It is probable a medium between these two extremes would\ngive the true character of this remarkable woman.\n\nMany scores of names, besides those given, might be added to the list of\neminent women; but the examples cited suffice to prove the assertion\nmade--so far as the women of antiquity are concerned--that they were\ncapable of an equal amount of mental effort with the men with whom they\nwere contemporary; and that, where they arose to the supreme power, they\ngoverned as wisely and as well as the kings of the same period.\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\n\nEminent Women of Modern Times.\n\nIt now remains to be seen whether the women of modern times have been\nworthy of note, or what they have in any way accomplished.\n\n\nCOUNTESS OF MONTFORT.\n\nIn the troublous times about the middle of the fourteenth century, when\nevery petty prince in Europe was trying to overreach his immediate\nneighbor and grasp his lands, and when ties of blood seemed only to\nintensify feuds, there arose two claimants for the principality of\nBrittany. The Count of Montfort, half-brother of the last duke, and\nCharles of Blois, were the rivals; and each prosecuted his claim with\nvigor. The army of Charles laid siege to Nantz, in which Montfort\nhappened to be, and from which he found it impossible to escape.\n\nHere was a dilemma. The partisans of Montfort were without an efficient\nleader; and his chances of gaining what he claimed were exceedingly\ndoubtful. In this crisis of his affairs, however, an unexpected\ndiversion was made, which changed the current of fortune. His wife, Jane\nof Flanders, now Countess of Montfort, had hitherto limited her\nadministrative abilities to the careful management of her domestic\nconcerns; and, it is to be supposed, was not deemed capable of a thought\nbeyond. The tidings of the virtual captivity of her husband roused in\nher a determination to defend what she considered to be his rights,\nsince he was unable to defend them himself.\n\nShe was at the time residing at Rennes, the inhabitants of which she\ncaused to be assembled, and made known the disaster which had befallen\ntheir sovereign. Her infant son she presented before them as the last of\nan illustrious line, which must become extinct unless his father's\nfortunes were retrieved; and she besought them to prove now, by actions,\nthe attachment they had formerly professed for the count. Nor was her\naddress in vain. The citizens, inspired by courage and eloquence, vowed\nthey would fight under her standard alone, and live or die with her. The\ngarrisons throughout Brittany followed the example of Rennes, and she\nfound herself at the head of a respectable army; but, fearing that she\nwas not sufficiently strong to cope with Charles, who was backed by the\nstrength of France, she applied to Edward III, of England, for help.\nThen, having put the affairs of the province in the best possible\nposition, she established herself at Hennebonne, where she awaited the\nissue of events; having first sent her son to England, that he might be\nout of danger.\n\nIn the mean time, Charles of Blois was not inactive. Hennebonne was, of\nitself, too important a fortress to be overlooked; and, besides that,\nthe heroic countess was there. If he could take the city and make\nprisoner its defender, his cause would be gained. With both the count\nand his wife in his power, he would be sure of the succession.\nAccordingly, before the supplies which Edward was sending could reach\nHennebonne, he laid siege to it; but did not find its capture so easy a\nmatter as he had expected.\n\nThe besieged made frequent sallies, in which the enemy lost both men and\nreputation, though they were not compelled to raise the siege. On one of\nthese occasions the return of the countess was intercepted, and she\nfound it impossible to regain the fortress. Nothing daunted she\ncommanded her men to disperse themselves over the country, while she\nmade her own escape to Brest. As soon as was possible, she collected\nanother and larger force, and, forcing her way through the enemy's camp,\nmade good her entrance into the city, to the great joy of her almost\ndiscouraged partisans.\n\nSubsequently, the re-enforcements expected from Edward not having yet\narrived, it was thought the garrison would be obliged to capitulate, and\nnegotiations were actually commenced. The countess, deeply mortified at\nthe turn her affairs were taking, had mounted a high turret, and there\nremained, looking sadly out over the sea in the direction whence the\nlong-expected, but now despaired of, supplies should have come. Perhaps\nthere was still a slight hope in her heart that, even yet, the desired\naid might be afforded. If so, that hope was destined to be realized. As\nshe kept her position, gazing sorrowfully over the wide expanse of\nwaters, she descried dark objects on the very verge of the horizon. The\ndespairing look gave place to one of eager, hopeful watching. The\nobjects increased in size as she strained the eye to determine what they\nreally were. A favorable breeze was wafting them nearer, and presently\nthey took a tangible form. \"Sails! sails!\" cried the delighted countess.\n\"Behold the succors--the English succors. No capitulation!\" The\nopportune arrival of the re-enforcements sent by Edward had saved the\ngarrison. Charles was obliged to raise the siege. He had neither taken\nthe city nor captured the countess.\n\nEdward's six thousand gallant troops did the cause of the countess and\nher still besieged husband good service. They had not appeared upon the\nfield at an earlier period in the struggle in consequence of contrary\nwinds. But the delay itself had accomplished very much in bringing out\nthe strong points in the character of the countess. She had proved to\nthe world that she could not only collect an army, but do even\nmore--efficiently command it.\n\nSubsequently, the cause of Charles of Blois seemed to gain fresh\nstrength, and his party greatly outnumbered that of Montfort, whose\nfriends decreased as those of Charles increased. Edward again sent\nre-enforcements. The English fleet, having with them the countess, were\nmet on the passage to Brittany by the enemy, and an action ensued, in\nwhich the countess behaved with the utmost courage, charging the foe as\nvalorously as any other officer among them. A storm put an end to the\nbloody conflict, and the fleet, without further adventure, reached the\nshores of Brittany. Thenceforth the dispute of the succession became\ninextricably mixed up in the quarrel between England and France,\nbecoming indeed a part of it; and we trace the career of the heroic\nCountess of Montfort no further.\n\n\nANNE ASKEW.\n\nIn the preceding sketch, it has been shown what a woman could--did, in\nfact--do and dare, as an ardent patriot and loving wife. The fortitude\nof Anne Askew was of a different stamp. She proved what she could endure\nfor conscience' sake. The Reformation produced many women such as she;\nbut her simple story must suffice, here, for all.\n\nShe was a young lady of high family, and exercised a remarkable\ninfluence, for one so young, over the ladies at the Court of Henry VIII;\nand even stood in the relation of a friend to the queen--no great\npassport to the favor of the monster Henry. Being possessed of\nconsiderable mental ability, she gave much of her attention to the study\nof the theological questions which were disturbing the peace of Europe\nat the time; and being also of an independent turn, and withal deeply\npious, she dared to question Henry's dogma concerning the \"real\npresence\" of the body of Christ in the Sacrament. Henry was furious that\na woman should dare to hold any tenet other than he allowed, or dispute\none which he had decreed must be believed. The infamous Bonner was\ncommissioned to confer with her respecting her religious views; and,\nfinding her firm in her determination not to yield to either his\ndictates or those of the king, he pronounced her a heretic. His conduct\nin representing her as such was the more reprehensible, as, while\nrefusing to give entire credence to the doctrine they wished to impose\nupon her, she told the bishop and wrote to the king that, \"As to the\nLord's-supper, she believed as much as Christ himself had said of it,\n... and as much as the Catholic Church required.\"\n\nBut the king, though professing to be a reformer, would brook nothing\nwhich did not accord precisely with his own dogmatic utterances. Her\npresuming to write to him, when she did not submit to his dictation, he\nchose to construe as a fresh insult to himself.\n\nHer youth (she was but seventeen), her beauty, and her innocence were no\nprotection. The rack, and then the stake, were all that remained, unless\nshe could be prevailed on to recant. This she gently but firmly refused\nto do.\n\nThe king was determined to root out the heresy--if it existed\nthere--from the court; and those who knew him, knew that there was no\ncruelty of which he would not be guilty to accomplish his end.\nWriothesley, the chancellor, waited on the unfortunate Miss Askew to\nexamine her concerning the religious sentiments of the other ladies of\nthe court; but, though bold in professing her own religious views, she\nwas just as firm in refusing to implicate any of her former associates.\nThreatenings and promises were alike found useless. Then she was\nsubjected to the most excruciating torture; but, though every limb was\ndislocated, the noble girl remained true to her friends and to her God.\nSo enraged was the chancellor at her fortitude, that when the lieutenant\nof the tower refused to obey his order to screw the rack still more\ntightly, he seized the instrument himself, and wrenched it so violently\nas almost to tear the \"body asunder.\" But her constancy was unshaken.\nTorture having failed, the poor, mangled body was thrust into a chair,\nand carried to the stake. A Catholic priest and two other persons were\nconducted with her to execution, all condemned in like manner for the\nviolation of the king's mandates. Bound to their respective stakes,\nthese victims of intolerant bigotry and unlimited tyranny awaited with\npatience the kindling of the fagots which were piled around. But they\nwere to be still further tempted ere they were released from suffering.\nWhile they were thus publicly exposed in the most painful of positions,\nsuffering all the physical agony it was possible to endure and live, a\nmessage was sent to them that, if they would even at that late period\nrecant, their lives would be spared. But they refused to purchase life\nat such a price, and calmly met their doom, Miss Askew with as much\nfortitude as either of the others.\n\nThus, amid smoke and flame, the pure spirit of Anne Askew was wafted, by\nattendant angels, to the paradise of God, whom she was not ashamed to\nhonor before men. In all the struggle of the Reformation, what man\nexhibited more courage or greater strength of character or fortitude\nthan this beautiful girl of but seventeen Summers? In what respect did\nshe exhibit inferiority to those men associated with her in the trying\nyear (1546) in which she earned her crown of martyrdom? There were many\nmartyrs, but not one more steadfast.\n\n\nESTHER INGLIS.\n\nThe reign of Elizabeth has been styled the Augustine age of England.\nUnder this queen's sanction, literature flourished more than ever\nbefore in that kingdom; and as a consequence her people became less\nbarbarous, and men learned to look with less admiration upon the sword,\nand more respect on books. The influence of the encouragement given to\nmen of letters by Elizabeth tells for good upon our literature, even\nafter this lapse of time.\n\nAmong the personages eminent in this reign was Esther Inglis, who was\nexceedingly zealous, and industrious withal, in translating and\ntranscribing the Scriptures into various languages, particularly French\nand Latin. Copies of these she presented to persons of distinction, one\nof which--a copy of the Psalms, and a rare specimen of calligraphy--she\npresented to the queen, who graciously accepted it, and subsequently had\nit deposited in the library of Christ's Church, Oxford.\n\nShe was pronounced by the most exacting critics to be the most accurate\nchirographist that had been known up to that period; nor has her peer\nbeen found since. She excelled even the celebrated Ascham and Davies,\nboth in the number and variety of styles. Her copy of the Book of\nProverbs is perhaps her most elaborate work of art, and is a marvel for\nthe ingenious combination of writing, of which there are forty\nspecimens, and fine pen-and-ink drawings. Every chapter, which is\nembellished both at the beginning and end with beautiful decorations, is\nwritten in a different hand, and there are variations of hand in some of\nthe chapters. The book is entitled \"Les Proverbes de Solomon, escrites\nin diverses sortes des lettres, par Esther Anglois, Francoise: A\nLislebourge en Escosse, 1599,\" and is dedicated to the Earl of Essex. It\nis further ornamented by an exquisitely neat representation of the arms\nof the unfortunate nobleman, with all their quarterings, and by a\npen-and-ink likeness of herself.\n\nSeveral others of her works are carefully preserved in both England and\nScotland; and some, as late 1711, were in the possession of her own\ndescendants.\n\nAt the age of forty, she married a Scottish gentleman, named Kello, or,\nas we would spell it in these modern times, Kelly. The issue of this\nmarriage was one son, named Samuel; and it was her grandson, Samuel\nKelly, who was in possession of various portions of her works in the\nlast century.\n\n\nLADY PAKINGTON.\n\nThis celebrated lady, who flourished in the latter part of the\nseventeenth century, was the daughter of Lord Coventry, Keeper of the\nGreat Seal, and the wife of Sir John Pakington. She was justly\nconsidered one of the celebrities of her day, and her society sought by\nthe learned divines with whom she was contemporary. She was the\nwell-known author of several works of merit, and the reputed author of\nothers.\n\nBallard, who has given the world so many sketches of worthy and eminent\nwomen, with several other writers of note, claims that it was she who\nwrote the treatise entitled \"The Whole Duty of Man;\" and his reasoning\nis so much to the point, though quaint, that we simply append what he\nsays of her, with his apt quotations from her writings, as a\nsufficiently clear delineation of the character and talents of this\nworthy woman. He writes:\n\n\"Yet hardly my pen will be thought capable of adding to the reputation\nher own has procured to her, if it shall appear that she was the author\nof a work which is not more an honor to the writer than a universal\nbenefit to mankind. The work I mean is 'The Whole Duty of Man;' her\ntitle to which has been so well ascertained, that the general\nconcealment it has lain under will only reflect a luster upon all her\nother excellencies by showing that she had no honor in view but that of\nher Creator, which, I suppose, she might think best promoted by this\nconcealment. (The claims of other authors are not difficult to be\ndisposed of.) If I were a Roman Catholic, I would summon tradition as an\nevidence for me on this occasion, which has constantly attributed this\nperformance to a lady. And a late celebrated writer observes, that\n'there are many probable arguments in \"The Whole Duty of Man,\" to back a\ncurrent report that it was written by a lady,' And any one who reads\n'The Lady's Calling,' may observe a great number of passages which\nclearly indicate a female hand.\n\n\"That vulgar prejudice of the supposed incapacity of the female sex is\nwhat these memoirs in general may possibly remove; and as I have had\nfrequent occasion to take notice of it, I should not now enter again\nupon that subject, had not this been made use of as an argument to\ninvalidate Lady Pakington's title to those performances. It may not be\namiss, therefore, to transcribe two or three passages from the treatise\nI have just now mentioned. 'But, waiving these reflections, I shall fix\nonly on the personal accomplishments of the sex, and peculiarly that\nwhich is the most principal endowment of the rational nature--I mean the\nunderstanding--where it will be a little hard to pronounce that they are\nnaturally inferior to men, when it is considered how much of intrinsic\nweight is put in the balance to turn it to the men's side. Men have\ntheir parts cultivated and improved by education; refined and subtilized\nby learning and arts; are like a piece of common which, by industry and\nhusbandry, becomes a different thing from the rest, though the natural\nturf owned no such inequality. We may, therefore, conclude that whatever\nvicious impotence women are under, it is acquired, not natural; nor\nderived from any illiberality of God's, but from the ill-managery of his\nbounty. Let them not charge God foolishly, or think that by making them\nwomen, he necessitated them to be proud or wanton, vain or peevish;\nsince it is manifest he made them to better purpose; was not partial to\nthe other sex; but that having, as the prophet speaks, \"abundance of\nspirit,\" he equally dispensed it, and gave the feeblest woman as large\nand capacious a soul as that of the greatest hero. Nay, give me leave to\nsay further, that as to an eternal well-being, he seems to have placed\nthem in more advantageous circumstances than he has done men. He has\nimplanted in them some native propensions which do much facilitate the\noperations of grace upon them,'\n\n\"And having made good this assertion, she interrogates thus: 'How many\nwomen do we read of in the Gospel who, in all the duties of assiduous\nattendance on Christ, liberalities of love and respect, nay, even in\nzeal and courage, surpassed even the apostles themselves? We find his\ncross surrounded, his passion celebrated, by the avowed tears and\nlamentations of devout women, when the most sanguine of his disciples\nhad denied, yea, foresworn; and all had forsaken him. Nay, even death\nitself could not extinguish their love. We find the devout Maries\ndesigning a laborious, chargeable, and perhaps hazardous respect, to his\ncorpse; and accordingly it is a memorable attestation Christ gives to\ntheir piety by making them the first witnesses of his resurrection, the\nprime evangelists to proclaim those glad tidings, and, as a learned man\nspeaks, apostles to the apostles.'\n\n\"There are many works of this lady besides 'The Whole Duty of Man,'\nenumerated in her biographies.\"\n\n\nMRS. MARY WASHINGTON.\n\nThe material at hand is too meagre to admit of giving such a sketch of\nthis lady as would afford any adequate idea of her character; and yet it\nis due to her memory, and to her nation, that there should be some\ntribute to her worth.\n\nThe mother of General Washington is as much the mother of the Great\nRepublic as was Mrs. Susannah Wesley the mother of Methodism; for\nWashington owed the distinction to which he rose, and the high niche he\noccupies in the history of the world's heroes, to the early and careful\ntraining of his mother. Left a widow in a comparatively new and wild\ncountry, when her son George was but ten years old, she fully realized\nthe very great responsibility resting upon her as sole remaining\nguardian of her children, and set herself to watch the bent of their\ninclinations, and to direct their energies into a proper channel.\nRespecting the influence she exerted upon them, her daughter-in-law, the\nwife of the President, many years afterward remarked: \"You speak of the\ngreatness of my husband. His dear mother ever looked well to the ways of\nher household. She taught him to be industrious by her example.\"\n\nBy her mild but firm management of her boy, she established a hold upon\nhis affections, which strengthened instead of decreasing with years;\nand when, in the later part of his life, honors and distinctions were\nheaped upon him, he considered them rather as tributes to the worth of\nhis mother than to his own. As was natural to so adventurous a spirit,\nGeorge early manifested a predilection for the sea, and his elder\nbrother encouraged him in thinking he might attain distinction as a\ngallant mariner. A midshipman's berth was procured for him, at the age\nof fifteen, on board of one of his majesty's ships, then off the coast\nof Virginia; and it seemed as if the ardent desire of his boyhood was\nabout to be realized. But when all was ready, his mother gave expression\nto her disapproval of the expedition. Though sorely disappointed, he at\nonce acquiesced, and yielded to the representations made by her. Nor did\nshe expect him to give a ready acquiescence to her views without giving\nhim valid reasons. She deemed him quite too young to be removed from the\nsalutary restraints of home, and from the influences of its dearer\nties. Years after, the colonists of Virginia and the North-west blessed\nthe day upon which Mrs. Washington refused her consent to her son's\nentering the navy, and thus kept him to do them invaluable service in\ndriving back from their territories the hostile Indians, or more hostile\nFrench. Though a genuine F.F.V., she was never arrogant in her demeanor.\nIn her intercourse with those by whom she was surrounded, or with whom\nshe came in contact, she was simple and unaffected, the model of a true\nlady and a Christian.\n\nEven in old age, she still watched carefully over the interests of her\nson. During the Winter of 1777-1778, when the American soldiers were in\nsuch extremity at Valley Forge, she, as well as the wife of Washington,\nspent her time in preparing comfortable clothing for them. Her\nspinning-wheel and knitting-needles were rarely idle in those times of\ntrial. A woman of proper discernment and good judgment, it is scarcely\nnecessary to say that she disapproved of extravagance of every kind; and\nwhen the necessities of her country demanded the sacrifice of every\nthing not an absolute necessity, she was found foremost in setting an\nexample of plainness of dress.\n\nLafayette, with his aids-de-camp, paid her a visit of congratulation on\nthe occasion of Washington's successful passage of the Delaware, and\nfound her dressed for their reception in a plain printed gown, with her\nknitting--probably a stocking for some needy soldier--lying on a table\nnear her. Did the noble Frenchman and his companions deem their\nreception to have been less cordial than they would have thought it had\nshe arrayed herself in costly satin and lace, and received them in idle\nstate? Lafayette's own testimony of his appreciation of her remarkable\nworth answers for itself.\n\nAt a good old age she died, and her country still reveres her memory.\n\n\nMRS. WESLEY.\n\nTaylor, the historian, gives Mrs. Wesley quite a prominent position in\nhis account of the work accomplished by her sons, and gives the\nfollowing reason for doing so: \"The mother of the Wesleys was the mother\nof Methodism.\" One who was so intimately connected with the leaders of\nthe Reformation of the eighteenth century deserves a prominent position\namong the eminent women of modern history.\n\nMrs. Wesley was distinguished, from childhood, for rare mental ability;\nand, even at so early an age as thirteen, had made theology a favorite\nstudy. Arrived at mature years, she made practical use of the knowledge\nso carefully acquired in youth, and manifested unusual judgment and\nskill in the early training and general management of her very large\nfamily. She did not confine herself to the management of her domestic\nconcerns alone, as many good mothers would have done, though she\ncarefully superintended them, but also overlooked the studies of her\nchildren; and it was really her thorough training, and her subsequent\ncounsels to John and Charles while at Oxford, which produced in them the\nbent of mind that finally resulted in the great Methodist movement.\n\nAccustomed all her life to read with care the productions of the most\neminent writers of her own and preceding times, and to reflect upon what\nshe read, she was able to arrive at correct conclusions concerning\nquestions of importance, whether they related to private matters or to\nthe public well-being. She had no more dread of Mrs. Grundy than her\nsons had. Once she knew she was right, \"Society\" might either blame or\npraise, as it saw fit; she remained firm in the carrying out of the\nmeasure--true to her principles.\n\nWhen her sons, John and Charles, collected the common and poorer people\nabout them, and began preaching to them in the open fields, there was a\nfearful outcry. Old-time customs had been innovated. Clergymen of the\nChurch of England had departed from accustomed usage, and from field or\nhorseblock had proclaimed a full and free salvation through Christ to\nthe very vilest of the land, if they would but comply with the\nconditions laid down by him. The Profession were aggrieved at such\nirregular proceedings. \"Society\" was scandalized that outcasts were\nbidden to the same feast upon the same conditions with those reputed\ndecent. Even Samuel Wesley felt called upon to rebuke his brothers\nsharply for the reproach he considered they had brought upon the Church\nby their \"intemperate zeal,\" But where was their mother meanwhile--she\nwhose counsels experience had proved it best to follow? Examining the\nScriptures, and the history of the primitive Church, to see wherein her\nsons had gone astray, that she might be in a position to convince them\nof their error, if she found them to be in it. Careful study, however,\nconvinced her that they were only practicing the course followed by\nChrist and his apostles; and her determination was taken. She would not\nonly encourage them by her letters, but sustain them and sanction their\ncourse by her presence. Accordingly, she went with her son John to\nKensington Common, and stood by him while he preached to a congregation\nof about \"twenty thousand people.\"\n\nIt was Mrs. Wesley who counseled John to ponder well what he did before\nhe forbade laymen to address congregations; and her arguments on this\npoint were so conclusive that they led him to alter his mind and make\nuse of them as an agency for good in the Church, though previously he\nhad considered such a proceeding a dangerous innovation.\n\nDuring the life-time of her husband, it was her custom, in his absence,\nto allow those who chose to come to assemble in a room of the old\nrectory at Epworth, on Sunday, and either read them a sermon herself or\nhave one of the elder children do it. Frequently, the office of reader\ndevolved upon her daughter Emily.\n\nNo matter into what department of her life you inquire, she is still\nfound the same active, energetic, and strong-minded woman. Nothing weak\nor puerile is found in her character. From girlhood to maturity, from\nmaturity to gray hairs, she pursues the same steady, uniform course. Her\nlife is consistent with the principles which she had laid down for her\nown self-government, and which she believed were deduced from the Word\nof God.\n\nAt seventy-two years of age, she closed a long career of usefulness,\ndying, as the Christian might be expected to die, in the triumphs of\nfaith. Five of her daughters, and her son John, were permitted to stand\nat her bedside and witness her peaceful end, and to comply with a\nrequest made shortly before she died, that, as soon as the last struggle\nwas ended, they should unite in singing a psalm of praise for her\nrelease.\n\nVery appropriate were the lines of her son Charles on this occasion:\n\n    \"In sure and steadfast hope to rise,\n    And claim her mansion in the skies,\n    A Christian here her flesh laid down--\n    The cross exchanging for a crown.\"\n\n\nMRS. FLETCHER.\n\n\nMiss Mary Bosanquet, afterward Mrs. Fletcher, may also be numbered among\nthe great women of the eighteenth century. While yet unmarried, she\nidentified herself with the Methodists; and as a consequence was\nsubjected to bitter persecution, even to being excluded from her\nfather's house, and forbidden to have any intercourse with the younger\nmembers of the family.\n\nCircumstances led her to believe that it was her duty to exercise the\ntalents given to her, in addressing public audiences, and she\naccordingly began speaking to such congregations as she chanced to have.\nSuch a departure from established usage brought down upon her a storm of\ninvective and abuse. Her family and friends felt aggrieved that she\nshould have allowed her enthusiasm--as they termed it--to lead her into\nwhat they deemed such an indecorous proceeding; and for a time she found\nit exceedingly difficult to stem the tide of opposition raised against\nher. But her natural good sense and independence of character were\ngreatly in her favor. Ultimately, without her having yielded to the\npressure brought to bear upon her, she overcame all opposition, and her\nfamily became reconciled to her.\n\nShe preached in various parts of England with acceptance, as she had\nopportunity, from shortly after her conversion till her marriage; and\nthen, as it would have been a violation of a canon of the Church of\nEngland--of which Mr. Fletcher was a minister--for a woman to occupy the\npulpit of the church at Madeley, her husband had a large building\nerected, in close proximity to the rectory, for her especial use. Here,\nfor the few years that he was spared to his wife, it was Mr. Fletcher's\npleasure--though he had few equals in erudition--to listen to the gentle\nteachings of this amiable woman. Her eloquence was so very remarkable,\nthat more than twenty years of public speaking had not in the least\ndiminished the interest with which she was listened to. Crowds attended\non her ministry, not from idle curiosity, but for edification.\n\nSo beneficial had Mrs. Fletcher's ministrations at Madeley been found to\nbe, that on the death of her husband, and the appointment of a\nsuccessor, the new rector, not wishing to retard the progress of true\nChristianity in his parish, requested her to continue to use the\nbuilding erected for her convenience just as she had formerly done. Mrs.\nFletcher accepted the invitation so cordially given, and for many years\nwas an efficient co-laborer with the rector.\n\nNor did the public career of Mrs. Fletcher mar her efficiency in the\nmanagement of her domestic concerns. Both at Laytonstone and at Madeley,\nshe attended carefully to her household, overseeing every thing\nconnected with what is technically termed the women's department, with\nparticular scrupulousness. At last her long and active life was nearing\nits close. For thirty years she had mourned the loss of her venerated\nhusband, of whom, in her seventy-sixth year, she thus makes mention in\nher journal:\n\n\"_August_ 13, 1815.--Thirty years, this day, I drank the bitter cup and\nclosed the eyes of my beloved husband, and now I am myself in a dying\nstate.\" Then, in view of her own approaching end, she continues: \"Lord,\nprepare me. I feel death very near. My soul doth wait and long to the\nbosom of my God.\" A little earlier in this year she had written: \"O, I\nlong that the year fifteen [1815] may be the best year of my life.\" With\nthe great apostle she could say, \"Having a desire to depart, and be with\nChrist.\" And now she was realizing the fulfillment of that longing\ndesire. Her labors were about ended. Soon she was to enter into the\nChristian's promised rest. On the 9th of December, 1815, she closed her\neyes to sublunary objects to open them in the paradise above. Rev. Mr.\nDodson, who attended her funeral, said of her: \"Her congregations were\nfully as large, after thirty years' labors, as when she first opened her\ncommission among them.\"\n\nWhere is the clergyman of whom more can be said?\n\n\nMISS CROSBY.\n\nWhile Miss Bosanquet was still living at Laytonstone, she had associated\nwith her two other ladies equally eminent for their earnest piety, and\nfor the diligence with which they prosecuted every good work. It was\ntheir delight, among other things, to assist Miss Bosanquet in\ndispensing her munificent charities, which were so managed as to be\ngiven without ostentation. These two intimate friends of Miss Bosanquet\nwere Miss Crosby and Miss Tripp. From the very commencement of a\nregularly organized movement among the Methodists, class and band\nmeetings had been found very useful as a means of instructing the people\nwho had united with these societies, and, in the capacity of\nclass-leaders and band-leaders, these three ladies were perhaps\nunsurpassed in England.\n\nBy what some would perhaps call a mere accidental circumstance, Miss\nCrosby found herself, upon an occasion, in a position where she must\nspeak to a congregation or send them home disappointed, and be guilty of\nwhat she deemed an omission of a duty clearly pointed out to her by\nProvidence. She had given no intimation of any intention, on her part,\nof doing more than she usually did at this place--simply leading her\nordinary class--and had designed doing nothing more, when, on her\narrival there, she found nearly two hundred persons present anxious for\ninstruction. To lead the class in the customary manner was impossible.\nShe, therefore, after conducting the preliminary services, delivered a\ngeneral address, dwelling particularly on the necessity of repentance,\nand presenting Christ as a compassionate Redeemer. This extempore\naddress was attended with such beneficial results, that her friends\ninsisted upon her exercising her very evident talent in this direction,\nand, though averse to any thing like forwardness, she did not feel that\nshe was justified in refusing to comply with the wishes of those on\nwhose judgment she relied. Wherever she went, success attended her\nefforts, and she traveled extensively throughout the kingdom, speaking\nsometimes to very large audiences.\n\nDr. Stevens, the celebrated American Methodist historian, thus sums up\nthe work of a single year. \"In that time,\" says he, \"she traveled nine\nhundred and sixty miles to hold two hundred and twenty public meetings,\nand about six hundred select meetings, besides writing one hundred and\nsixteen letters, many of them long ones, and holding many conversations\nin private with individuals who wished to consult her on religious\nsubjects.\" In this latter department of the Christian ministry she\nparticularly excelled.\n\nLike her friend, Mrs. Fletcher, she lived to a very old age; and at\nseventy-five, or nearly that, calmly composed herself for death, by a\nvigorous effort of the will closing her own eyes and mouth. Her demise\noccurred October 24, 1804.\n\n\nANN HASSELTINE.\n\nThe first wife of the Rev. Adoniram Judson was a brilliant\nexemplification of the truth of the position we have advanced--namely,\nthat a woman may be endowed with intellectual powers of a high order;\nthat she may assiduously cultivate those powers and employ them in\nadvancing objects that commend themselves to her judgment outside of her\nown family circle; that she may become an active and efficient\nparticipator in affairs of a public nature, requiring of her wisdom,\neloquence, and courage; and all this without her deteriorating in the\nslightest degree in any of the valuable qualities or attractive graces\nthat characterize a truly womanly woman.\n\nMrs. Judson's history, as connected with the Burmese Mission, which her\nhusband and herself were instruments in the hand of God in\nestablishing, is too well known to require extended notice here. A few\npoints, however, may be glanced at. Throughout the difficulties which\nbeset them during the first year after their arrival at Calcutta, when\nthere seemed to be no open door through which they might enter upon\ntheir destined work, and all their hopes of usefulness seemed doomed to\ndisappointment, Mrs. Judson was as little disposed to succumb to these\nadverse circumstances as her husband.\n\nThe British East India Company did not favor Christian missions, and\nwere at that time (1812) particularly unfriendly to American\nmissionaries. They had spent but a few days in the congenial society of\nthe venerable Dr. Carey's hospitable home, when they were ordered, by\nthe Government, to leave the country and return to America. Hoping to be\nallowed to prosecute their work in some country not under the Company's\njurisdiction, they solicited and obtained permission to go to the Isle\nof France. But before Mr. and Mrs. Judson were able to secure a passage\nthere, they received a new order from the Government commanding them to\nembark on a vessel bound for England.\n\nJust then they heard of a vessel about to sail for the Isle of France,\nand applied for a passport to go on her, but were refused. The captain,\nhowever, though knowing of the refusal, allowed them to embark. The\nvessel was overtaken by a Government dispatch, forbidding the pilot to\nconduct it further seaward, because there were persons on board who had\nbeen ordered to England. They were obliged to land; but finally the\ncaptain was induced to disregard orders so far as to allow Mrs. Judson\nto return to the vessel, and to convey her and their baggage to a point\nopposite a tavern, a number of miles down the river, Mr. Judson being\nleft to make his way as best he could.\n\nLet us imagine that refined and tenderly reared lady, landing from the\npilot's boat, which he had kindly sent to take her ashore, alone, a\nstranger in a foreign land, uncertain of the character of the place in\nwhich she was obliged to seek shelter, and not knowing what might occur\nto prevent her husband rejoining her. Instead of weakly yielding to\ndespondency, she promptly engaged a boat to go out after the vessel, to\nbring their effects ashore. Then, though impenetrable darkness so\nshrouded their future that she could not see how the next step was to be\ntaken, she looked for light upon their pathway, and deliverance from\ntheir perplexities, to Him whom they served, and calmly trusted the\nissue to Him. Before night, Mr. Judson arrived at the place where his\nwife waited, in safety, as did also their baggage.\n\nFor three days they could see no way out of their difficulty. Then they\nreceived, from an unknown friend, the necessary pass. Hastening down the\nriver at a point seventy miles distant, they found the vessel they had\nleft, were received on board, and allowed to continue their voyage.\n\nWhen they dropped anchor at the Isle of France, the dangers of the\nvoyage, and the trials that had preceded it over, they were looking\nforward to a season of enjoyment in the society of their associate\nmissionaries, Mr. and Mrs. Newell, who had accompanied them on the\nvoyage from America, and had preceded them from Calcutta to the Isle of\nFrance. But disappointment deeper, sadder than any that had gone before,\nawaited them. Mrs. Judson says: \"Have at last arrived in port; but O,\nwhat news--what distressing news! Harriet (Mrs. Newell) is dead.\nHarriet, my dear friend, my earliest associate in the mission, is no\nmore. O death, could not this wide world afford thee victims enough, but\nthou must enter the family of a solitary few, whose comfort and\nhappiness depended so much on the society of each other? Could not this\ninfant mission be shielded from thy shafts?\" \"But be still, my heart,\nand know that God has done it. Just and true are thy ways, O thou King\nof saints!\"\n\nTo her sorrow for her friend and her anxiety at the uncertainties of\ntheir situation, was added, while on the island, a severe attack of\nillness. But when a field supposed to be accessible to missionaries was\ndetermined upon, though only partially recovered, she cheerfully\nprepared to brave new dangers and the repetition of former trials. They\nsailed for Madras; and, on their arrival there, found but one ship in\nthe harbor ready for sea, and that not bound for their desired port, but\nfor Burma. They had intended going to Burma when they first arrived in\nIndia, but had been dissuaded from so doing by the representations of\ntheir friends that the country was altogether inaccessible to\nmissionaries. They dared not remain long in Madras, lest the officials\nof the East India Company should send them back to America. Thus, every\nother way being closed up against them, they were obliged to turn their\nfaces toward that country in which they became so eminently useful.\n\nThe voyage was one of discomfort and peril. When they arrived at\nRangoon, then the capital of Burma, Mrs. Judson was so weak that she had\nto be carried in an arm-chair from the landing. Thankful to have at last\nfound a resting-place, they as quickly as possible established\nthemselves in the house they were to occupy.\n\nAs soon as Mrs. Judson's health was sufficiently restored, they gave\ntheir attention to the study of the Burmese language. It is worthy of\nremark, that although Mrs. Judson charged herself with the entire\nmanagement of family affairs, in order that Mr. Judson might not be\ninterrupted in prosecuting the study of the language, yet she made more\nrapid progress in acquiring it than he did. Subsequently, she studied\nthe Siamese language also, and translated a Catechism and one of the\nGospels into that tongue. As soon as she was able to make herself\nunderstood, she diligently endeavored to impart the knowledge of the\ntruth, as it is in Jesus, to those who would listen to her instructions.\nThough they were attentive and inquisitive, it was long before fruit\nappeared; but undiscouraged, she, with prayer and faith, continued to\nsow beside all waters.\n\nMrs. Judson was surprised at the native intelligence and reflecting\nminds possessed by some of the Burmese women. The case of a woman named\nMay-Meulah is given as an instance of this:\n\n\"Previous to the arrival of the missionaries in her country, her active\nmind was led to inquire the origin of all things. Who created all that\nher eyes beheld? she inquired of all she met, and visited priests and\nteachers in vain; and such was her anxiety, that her friends feared for\nher reason. She resolved to learn to read, that she might consult the\nsacred books. Her husband, willing to gratify her curiosity, taught her\nto read, himself. In their sacred literature she found nothing\nsatisfactory. For ten years she prosecuted her inquiries, when God in\nhis providence brought to her notice a tract written by Mr. Judson in\nthe Burmese language, which so far solved her difficulties, that she was\nled to seek out its author. From him she learned the truths of the\nGospel, and, by the Holy Spirit, those truths were made the means of her\nconversion.\"\n\nMrs. Judson's politic mind seeing the probable importance to the mission\nof making friends in high places, she procured an introduction to the\nwife of the viceroy, and, while visiting her, met the viceroy also.\nAfter giving an interesting account of the visit, she adds: \"My object\nin visiting her was, that if we should get into any difficulty with the\nBurmans, I could have access to her, when perhaps it would not be\npossible for Mr. Judson to have an audience with the viceroy.\"\n\nThus studying, teaching, and planning; laboring with her hands, and\nenduring pain, sickness, and sorrow; unsolaced by Christian society,\nexcept her husband's,--three anxious years passed.\n\nIn their course, her first-born had come to warm her heart with a new\nlove, and, for a few brief months, to delight them with the unfolding of\nhis baby graces. Then death entered, and bore away their darling, and\nleft hearts and home more lonely than before.\n\nThe arrival of additional missionaries from America--Mr. and Mrs.\nHough--in the Autumn of 1816, for a time greatly cheered and encouraged\nthem. But fresh trials were in store for them. Mr. Judson had embarked\nfor the province of Arracan; and when they were daily looking for his\nreturn, a vessel arrived from the port to which he had sailed, bringing\nthe disheartening tidings that neither he nor the vessel in which he had\nsailed had been heard of there. While, tortured by suspense on Mr.\nJudson's account, new terrors alarmed the mission family. Mr. Hough was\nordered to the court-house, and detained there for days under a threat\nthat \"if he did not tell all the truth in relation to the foreigners,\nthey would write with his heart's blood.\" Not understanding the language\nof his accusers, he was unable to plead his own cause, and he had no\nmale friend to do it for him. Had Mrs. Judson, in this extremity,\nallowed herself to be absorbed in her own sorrow, or yielded to\ntimidity, Mr. Hough would probably have suffered a long and rigorous\nconfinement, if indeed he had escaped with his life. But undaunted by\nthe odium, or even danger, that might accrue to herself, she, in\nviolation of court etiquette, presented herself at the palace with a\npetition in Mr. Hough's behalf. The viceroy, without manifesting any\ndispleasure at the breach of etiquette, ordered Mr. Hough to be set at\nliberty.\n\nSix months of painful suspense passed, and yet no tidings of Mr.\nJudson. That dreadful scourge, the cholera, was raging, and they were\nalarmed by rumors of war. Mr. Hough resolved to remove his family to\nBengal, and urged Mrs. Judson to accompany them. She says: \"I have ever\nfelt resolved not to make any movement till I hear from Mr. Judson.\nWithin a few days, however, some circumstances have occurred which have\ninduced me to make preparations for a voyage. There is but one remaining\nship in the river; and if an embargo is laid on English ships, it will\nbe impossible for Mr. Judson--if he is yet alive--to return to this\nplace.\" Therefore she yielded to the solicitations of Mr. and Mrs.\nHough, and embarked with them. But, reviewing all the conditions of the\ncase as the vessel slowly made its way down the river, it became clear\nto her mind that whatever were the dangers of her position at Rangoon,\nyet there was her post of duty. Once convinced of what was duty, this\nheroic woman was not to be deterred from it by dangers, however\nformidable. Her resolution was taken; and, having prevailed upon the\ncaptain to send a boat up the river with her, she returned alone to the\nmission-house. The wisdom of her decision was proved in a short time by\nthe safe return of Mr. Judson. Later, when failing health necessitated a\nchange of climate, Mrs. Judson showed herself as well adapted to moving\ngracefully in cultivated and refined society as she was to contending\nwith adversity and danger in a heathen land.\n\nHer eloquent appeals, both in England and America, in behalf of the\nperishing millions of the East, and her history of the Burmese Mission,\nprepared during her visit to the United States, stirred up missionary\nzeal in the heart of Protestant Christendom, and gave an impetus to the\ncause of missions that has gone on accelerating to the present time.\n\nIn the mean time, other missionaries had arrived in Burma, among whom\nwas Dr. Price, the fame of whose skill in medicine reached the ears of\nthe king; and Dr. Price was ordered to Ava, then the capital. Dr. Price\nobeyed the summons; and Mr. Judson, anxious to make another effort to\nprocure toleration for the Christians, accompanied him. The king\nreceived them kindly, determined to retain Dr. Price at Ava, and\nurgently insisted upon Mr. Judson's remaining also. Rejoiced to find the\nking so favorably disposed toward the Christians, Mr. Judson resolved to\naccept the invitation, but represented that he must return to Rangoon\nfor his wife.\n\nA few days after Mrs. Judson arrived from America, they therefore left\nRangoon, and commenced a mission at Ava; which soon became to them the\ntheater of such martyr-like sufferings and exalted heroism as to do\njustice to which would require a volume. Erelong, the war so long feared\nbetween the British and the Burmese actually broke out. The Englishmen\nat Ava were all seized and imprisoned, and with them Mr. Judson and Dr.\nPrice. In vain the missionaries protested that they were not Englishmen.\nIdentical with the latter in language, religion, manners, dress, etc.,\nand receiving their funds through an English house, the Burmese could\nnot, or would not, understand that they belonged to another nation.\n\nMrs. Judson was not allowed to leave her own house till the third day; a\nguard having been placed around it, and no one allowed to enter or leave\nit but at the penalty of life. She obtained egress at last, by causing\nthe governor to be informed that she wished to visit him with a present.\nThe guard were then ordered to allow her to pass. Her plea for their\nrelease was without effect; but she was directed to an officer with whom\nshe might arrange with regard to making them more comfortable. By paying\na considerable sum of money to this man, she obtained a promise that\ntheir sufferings should be mitigated.\n\nThe Governor gave her an order for her admittance to the prison, but she\nwas not allowed to enter. She saw Mr. Judson at the door, whither he\ncrawled to speak with her. But even this sad communing was cut short by\na rude order to Mrs. Judson to \"depart, or they would pull her out.\" She\nwas, however, allowed to supply the prisoners with food, and mats to lie\nupon.\n\nThis was the beginning of a long series of such visits to the prison--of\nefforts for the comfort of the prisoners, and appeals in their behalf to\njailers, petty officers, magistrates, governors, or members of the royal\nfamily.\n\nShe was subjected to all manner of extortion and annoyance, being\nrepeatedly brought before the authorities on the most absurd charges.\nThe fear that her husband would be put to death so haunted her, that she\nwas willing to meet the most exorbitant demands, hoping thereby to\nconciliate his persecutors.\n\nAfter she had succeeded in effecting some slight improvement in their\ncondition, all was reversed by a disastrous battle; the success of the\nBritish being visited upon the prisoners, by the withdrawal of all the\nlittle comforts Mrs. Judson had at so much cost and trouble obtained for\nthem. When they were dragged from one city to another, she followed,\nrenewing the same wearing round of toiling, pleading, paying, to procure\nsome alleviation of their misery.\n\nThe estimation in which she was held by those acquainted with the facts,\nmay be seen by the following, written by one of Mr. Judson's\nfellow-prisoners:\n\n\"Mrs. Judson was the author of those eloquent and forcible appeals to\nthe Government which prepared them by degrees for submission to terms of\npeace, never expected by any who knew the haughtiness and inflexible\npride of the Burmese Court.\n\n\"And while on this subject, the overflowings of grateful feelings, on\nbehalf of myself and fellow-prisoners, compel me to add a tribute of\npublic thanks to that amiable and humane female, who, though living at a\ndistance of two miles from our prison, without any means of conveyance,\nand very feeble in health, forgot her own comfort and infirmity, and\nalmost every day visited us, sought out and administered to our wants,\nand contributed in every way to alleviate our misery.\n\n\"When we were all left by the Government destitute of food, she, with\nunwearied perseverance, by some means or other, obtained for us a\nconstant supply.\n\n\" ... When the unfeeling avarice of our keepers confined us inside, or\nmade our feet fast in the stocks, she, like a ministering angel, never\nceased her applications to the Government until she was authorized to\ncommunicate to us the grateful news of our enlargement, or of a respite\nfrom our galling oppressions.\n\n\"Besides all this, it was unquestionably owing in a chief degree to the\nrepeated eloquence and forcible appeals of Mrs. Judson, that the\nuntutored Burman was finally made willing to secure the welfare of his\ncountry by a sincere peace.\"\n\nThe war being over, Mr. Judson determined to remove into one of the\nprovinces ceded to the British; and the new town of Amherst was selected\nas their place of residence.\n\nThe natives converted to Christianity through the instrumentality of the\nmissionaries, had been dispersed during the war; and many of them now\ngathered to Amherst, to enjoy again the instructions of their beloved\nteachers. Their prospects now seemed highly encouraging; and Mr. Judson\ndeparted on a journey by which he hoped to advance the interests of the\nmission, leaving Mrs. Judson engaged with her characteristic energy in\ncarrying forward arrangements to facilitate their work.\n\nBut never more were that clear head, ready hand, and sympathetic heart\nto aid or encourage him in his labors, or succor him in the hour of\ncalamity. Her work was done.\n\nA fever seized her, and her constitution, undermined by the exhausting\nsufferings, mental and physical, through which she had passed during the\nwar, was not able to withstand the violence of the disease. There,\nwithout husband or kindred to receive her frail infant from her\nparalyzing arms, or to speak words of love or comfort in her dying ears,\nshe battled with the last enemy, and terminated her singularly eventful\nand useful life.\n\nIn 1848, more than twenty years after her death, a writer in the\n_Calcutta Review_ thus speaks of her:\n\n\"Of Mrs. Judson, little is known in the noisy world. Few,\ncomparatively, are acquainted with her name--few with her actions; but\nif any woman, since the first arrival of the white strangers on the\nshores of India, has, on that great theater of war stretching between\nthe mouth of the Irrawaddy and the borders of Hindoo Koosh, rightly\nearned for herself the title of a heroine, Mrs. Judson has, by her\ndoings and sufferings, fairly earned the distinction--a distinction, be\nit said, which her true woman's nature would have very little\nappreciated. Still, it is right that she should be honored by the world.\nHer sufferings were far more unendurable, her heroism far more noble,\nthan any which in more recent times have been so much pitied and so much\napplauded.... She was the real heroine. The annals in the East present\nus with no parallel.\"\n\n\nSARAH HALL BOARDMAN JUDSON.\n\nWho so worthily followed in the footsteps of the first Mrs. Judson,\narrived in India with her first husband, the Rev. George D. Boardman,\nwhile Mr. Judson and his fellow-sufferers were still prisoners in Ava.\nThey remained in Calcutta till the close of the war, and some time\nafter, preparing themselves by the study of the Burmese language, etc.,\nfor their subsequent career of usefulness in Burma.\n\nAfter they had joined the other missionaries at Amherst, Maulmain was\ndetermined upon as the scene of their future labors, and thither they\nrepaired. The dangers that encompassed their new residence were such as\nin the presence of which even stout hearts might have been excused for\nquailing. The mission-house was a slight structure of bamboos,\nconstituting scarcely any obstruction to assailants disposed to effect\nan entrance, and in such close proximity to the jungle that the\nslumbers of the missionaries were frequently disturbed by the howling of\nthe wild beasts, whose lairs had so recently given place to human\nhabitations. Maulmain was then a new city that had suddenly sprung into\nexistence within the territory ceded to the British.\n\nThey had been settled in their new abode but a few weeks, when it was\nentered in the night by robbers, who overhauled all their effects, and\ncarried away most of their valuables while they slept.\n\nMrs. Boardman, speaking of the event, says: \"After the first amazement\nhad a little subsided, I raised my eyes to the curtains surrounding our\nbed, and, to my indescribable emotion, saw two large holes cut, the one\nat the head and the other at the foot of the place where my dear husband\nhad been sleeping. From that moment I quite forgot the stolen goods, and\nthought only of the treasure that was spared. In imagination I saw the\nassassins, with their horrid weapons, standing by our bedside, ready to\ndo their worst had we been permitted to wake. O, how merciful was that\nwatchful Providence which prolonged those powerful slumbers of that\nnight, not allowing even the infant at my bosom to open its eyes at so\ncritical a moment!\"\n\nAfter the robbery, a guard was sent from the English barracks to protect\nthe missionaries in case of another visit from the marauders. One of the\nguard narrowly escaped death from a wild beast, which, rushing out of\nthe jungle, leaped upon him while he was seated upon the veranda of the\nmission-house. Happily there was help at hand, and the animal was\nfrightened away before the man had sustained serious injury.\n\nDo we find Mrs. Boardman, while thus continually exposed to attacks of\nravenous beasts and fierce banditti, deploring her situation, or\nexpressing a desire to relinquish their work and return to the security\nand comfort of civilized life? On the contrary, she characterizes the\nmonths in which these events were transpiring as among the happiest of\nher life, because she felt that they were in the path of duty.\n\nAfterward, in order to the further extension of missionary operations in\nthe country, it was judged advisable for Mr. and Mrs. Boardman to leave\nthe infant Church and the schools they had so successfully established\nat Maulmain, to the care of the other missionaries, and to proceed\nthemselves to Tavoy. Accordingly, they sundered the ties that bound them\nto their first Indian home, and to the natives in whose conversion they\nhad been instrumental, and again devoted their energies to breaking up\nnew ground.\n\nAt Tavoy, after overcoming various obstacles and discouragements, they\nsucceeded in establishing schools, and were cheered by indications of\nprosperity and some conversions among the natives.\n\nThe conversion of a Karen having attracted Mr. Boardman's attention to\nthat interesting tribe, he, though scarcely recovered from a dangerous\nillness, made a tour among them with very gratifying results. It\nrequired no small amount of courage and of exalted devotion to the cause\nin which they were engaged to make Mrs. Boardman willing to be left,\nwith her two little ones, among the natives in such a place, and with no\nbetter protection from outside dangers than a bamboo hut, her mind, at\nthe same time, distressed by sad forebodings as to the probable\nconsequence to her husband's feeble health of the exposures, toils, and\ndangers inseparable from his journey. But she was equal to this and to\nsorer trials which yet awaited them at Tavoy. Some of these were\nconsequences of the rebellion of the Tavoyans against the British.\n\nIt was fortunate for Mr. and Mrs. Boardman that they, at that time,\nresided in a place occupied by a British force; small though the force\nwas, yet to its presence they were probably indebted for their\nexemption from aggravated sufferings, if not from death itself.\n\nFrom a letter of Mr. Boardman's we take some extracts. He says: \"On\nLord's-day morning, the 9th instant, at four o'clock, we were aroused\nfrom our quiet slumbers by the cry of 'Teacher, master, Tavoy rebels!'\nand ringing at all our doors and windows. We were soon awake to our\nextreme danger, as we heard not only a continual report of musketry\nwithin the town, but the balls were frequently passing over our heads\nand through our house; and, in a few moments, a large company of\nTavoyans collected near our gate, and gave us reason to suspect they\nwere consulting what to do with us. We lifted our hearts to God for\nprotection, and Mrs. Boardman and little George were hurried away\nthrough a back door to a retired building in the rear. I lay down in the\nhouse (to escape the bullets), with a single Burman boy to watch and\ncommunicate the first intelligence.\"\n\nOn the kind invitation of Mrs. Burney, the wife of the English\nresident, who happened to be absent, they sought shelter from the storm\nof bullets in the Government-house. Mr. Boardman continues: \"We had been\nat the Government-house but a short time, when it was agreed to evacuate\nthe town and retire to the warf--a large wooden building of six rooms.\nOur greatest danger at this time arose from having, in one of the rooms\nwhere many were to sleep, and all of us were continually passing,\nseveral hundred barrels of gunpowder, to which, if fire should be\ncommunicated accidentally by ourselves, or mischievously by others, we\nshould all perish at once. But, through the kind care of our Heavenly\nFather, we were preserved alive, and nothing of importance occurred\nuntil the morning of Thursday, a little before daybreak, when a party of\nfive hundred advanced upon us from the town, and set fire to several\nhouses and vessels near the warf. But God interposed in our behalf, and\nsent a heavy shower of rain, which extinguished the fire, while the\nSepoys repelled the assailants.\"\n\nMrs. Boardman's biographer says: \"What could be more appalling to the\nstoutest heart than the situation of Mrs. Boardman and her helpless\nfamily? Forced to flee from her frail hut, by bullets actually whizzing\nthrough it, and to pass through the town amid the yells of an infuriated\nrabble, her path sometimes impeded by the dead bodies of men who had\nfallen in the conflict; driven from the shelter of the Government-house,\nagain to fly through the streets to the warf-house, and there, with\nthree or four hundred fugitives crowded together, to await death, which\nthreatened them in every form; hearing over their heads the rush of\ncannon balls, and seeing from burning buildings showers of sparks\nfalling, one of which, if it reached the magazines under their roof, was\nsufficient to tear the building from its foundations, and whelm them all\nin one common ruin; or, if they escaped this danger, to know that\nhundreds of merciless barbarians, with knives and cutlasses, might, at\nany moment, rush into the building and destroy them,--can the female\nheart, we are ready to ask, endure such fearful trial? Yes: her mind was\nstayed by a 'courage not her own;' ... its calmness was that of a child\nwho, in its utter helplessness, clings to its father's arm.\"\n\nHer distress was aggravated by the alarming illness of her little boy,\ncaused by the foul air of the warf-house and the absence of accustomed\ncomforts; but, by the blessing of God upon her watchful care, it was\nspared to her.\n\n\"With what transports of joy did that suffering company hail the sight\nof the thin blue smoke that heralded the arrival of a steamer from\nMaulmain! Amid what distracting fears for her husband, left in the\nrevolted city, her infant and herself, did Mrs. Boardman decide to go on\nboard the steamer returning to Maulmain! And with what gratitude and\njoy did she, after several days of painful suspense, welcome to the same\ncity her husband, and hear the tidings of the triumph of British power\nand the restoration of tranquillity!\"\n\nThe rebellion being suppressed, Mr. Boardman set about repairing the\nmischief it had wrought. Their house had been cut to pieces, and their\nbooks, clothing, furniture, etc., carried off, mutilated, or destroyed.\nHe gathered up such fragments as remained, and made the best\narrangements in his power for future comfort and usefulness. Illness and\nother causes detained Mrs. Boardman for some time at Maulmain; but,\nbefore Winter, she had returned, and they were again engaged in their\n\"loved employ,\" and were greatly strengthened and encouraged by seeing\nthe good seed they had so faithfully sown amid opposition and\ndiscouragement, bringing forth fruit in the conversion of the heathen.\nBut, even while rejoicing in these triumphs of the truth, Mrs. Boardman\ncould not conceal from herself the conviction that a greater sorrow than\nany she had yet known was coming upon her. She had already twice\nexperienced the agony that wrings the hearts of bereaved parents. Of\ntheir three children, two had been taken from them by death,--their\nfirst-born, a lovely and promising little girl of two years and eight\nmonths; and, afterward, their second son, a beautiful babe of eight\nmonths. But all the suffering and sorrow that she had yet endured seemed\nas nothing in comparison with that which now threatened to overwhelm\nher. Her beloved husband, who had been her comfort and solace under\nprevious bereavements, was now himself too evidently passing away.\n\nArdently affectionate in her nature, she suffered intense anguish of\nspirit; but instead of giving way to rebellious repinings, the poor\nbruised heart carried its sorrows to the Great Healer, and in his\nstrength she girded herself with fresh courage to do all that might yet\nbe done.\n\nWhen her dying husband could not be dissuaded from employing the last\nremnant of his ebbing life in another visit to his beloved Karens, we\nfind her taking her place beside his portable couch, that his sufferings\nmight receive every possible alleviation; that he might lack no tender\nattention that the most devoted love could give.\n\nThey arrived at their destination on the third day, and found awaiting\nthem nearly a hundred natives, more than half of whom were applicants\nfor baptism. The place prepared for the accommodation of Mr. and Mrs.\nBoardman and their little boy, was a room five feet wide and ten feet\nlong, so low that Mrs. Boardman could not stand upright in it, and so\ninsufficiently inclosed as not to shelter the sufferer from the cold and\ndamp of the night air, or the scorching rays of the sun by day. Those\nwho have known what it is to watch beside dying loved ones, witnessing\nsuffering that they were powerless to relieve, can imagine the anguish\nthat Mrs. Boardman endured in seeing her husband so near his end in that\nmiserable place, destitute of the little comforts so needful in\nsickness. But with heroic determination she repressed her own sorrow,\nlest it might incapacitate her for assisting him while rallying his\nexpiring energies for one more effort in his Master's cause. The poor\nworn body, though, was found unequal to the task assigned it by the\nzealous spirit, and he was forced to admit that his work was done.\n\nMrs. Boardman, speaking of their return journey, in which they were\naccompanied by large numbers of the sorrowing native converts, says:\n\"But at four o'clock in the afternoon, we were overtaken by a violent\nshower of rain, accompanied by lightning and thunder. There was no house\nin sight, and we were obliged to remain in the open air, exposed to the\nmerciless storm. We covered him with mats and blankets, and held our\numbrellas over him, all to no purpose. I was obliged to stand and see\nthe storm beating upon him till his mattress and pillows were drenched\nwith rain. We hastened on, and soon came to a Tavoy house. The\ninhabitants at first refused us admittance.... After some persuasion,\nthey admitted us into the house, or rather veranda; for they would not\nallow us to sleep inside, though I begged the privilege for my sick\nhusband with tears.... The rain still continued, and his cot was wet, so\nthat he was obliged to lie on the bamboo floor. Having found a place\nwhere our little boy could sleep without danger of falling through\nopenings in the floor, I threw myself down, without undressing, beside\nmy beloved husband.\"\n\nThus they passed the last night of his life; and, before another night,\nit was but a lifeless corpse that the attendants were bearing back to\nher now desolate home.\n\nIn her grief and loneliness, her heart doubtless yearned for the\nsoothing sympathy of her kindred and friends in her native land. Who\nwould have censured her, if in view of what had been achieved among the\nnatives since their coming to Tavoy, and of all the trials and toils and\ndangers of her Indian life, it had seemed to her that her work was\naccomplished; and that it would then be no desertion of duty for her,\nwith her little boy to educate, to return to America? If, during the\nfirst sad days of her bereavement, such thoughts flitted through her\nmind, they did not long find lodgment there. Soon the native converts\nbegan to come to her, as of old, with their difficulties and\nperplexities, and inquiries for instruction. The duty of responding to\nthese appeals forbade the indulgence of engrossing sorrow, and caused\nher to realize that, when work for the Master was pressing on every\nhand, and one of the laborers had fallen in the field, his\nfellow-laborers, instead of relaxing their efforts, should feel it\nimperative on them, if possible, to redouble their diligence.\n\nThenceforward her labors became more onerous than they had been during\nMr. Boardman's life; and they continued so, even after the arrival of\nthe new missionaries, Mr. Mason and his wife, who of necessity were\nchiefly occupied with the study of the language. In one of her letters\nof this period she says:\n\n\"Every moment of my time is occupied, from sunrise till ten in the\nevening. It is late bed-time, and I am surrounded by five Karen\nwomen.... The Karens are beginning to come to us in companies; and with\nthem, and our scholars in the town, and the care of my darling boy, you\nwill scarce think I have much leisure for letter-writing.\"\n\nLater, she writes: \"The superintendence of the food and clothing of both\nthe boarding-schools, together with the care of five day-schools under\nnative teachers, devolves wholly on me.\"\n\nShe also made difficult journeys through the wild jungles to the Karen\nvillages, to strengthen, encourage, and instruct the poor natives; thus\nperforming efficiently, though informally, the work of an evangelist.\n\nAfter her marriage with Dr. Judson, and her consequent return to\nMaulmain, she was still busily engaged in conducting schools,\nBible-class, etc., besides attending to her family. She also learned the\nPeguan language, into which she translated the New Testament, a Life of\nChrist, and several tracts. In Burmese she had previously become\nproficient, and she translated \"Bunyan's Pilgrim's Progress\" into that\nlanguage. A number of the hymns prepared for the use of the mission were\nalso from her pen.\n\nAt Maulmain she was exposed to fewer vicissitudes and dangers than at\nTavoy, so that the intrepid aspect of her character became less\nconspicuous; but her life was filled up with increased maternal\nresponsibilities and domestic cares, added to other arduous labors of\nthe same class with those which she had previously discharged with so\nmuch sound judgment, and in which she exhibited so happily the ability\nto influence and govern those under her control, and at the same time to\nwin their love and reverence for herself. One of her biographers says of\nher:\n\n\"Sweetness and strength, gentleness and firmness, were in her character\nmost happily blended. Her mind was both poetical and practical. She had\na refined taste, and a love for the beautiful as well as the excellent.\"\n\nIn early life she wooed the Muses with respectable success; and though\nthe stern labors of mature years left her little leisure for the\nindulgence of poetic fancies, yet the last expression of her love\ncommitted to writing flowed from her pen in numbers of touching grace\nand tenderness.\n\nHer constitution having been broken down by her incessant toils, a\nvoyage to America was recommended in order to recuperate it. On the\nvoyage thither, when between the Isle of France and St. Helena, she\ndied, and was buried on the latter island.\n\nWe have selected these two gifted Christian women as representative\nmissionary women, who, though brilliant examples, did not excel many\nothers in the host of devoted women who have gone out from Great Britain\nand America into the dark places of the earth, on the same godlike\nerrand.\n\nWe have already mentioned the honored names of several philanthropic\nladies, whose works praise them throughout Europe and America. The list\nmight be extended indefinitely, but we have space for but a few.\n\n\nTHE MISSES CHANDLER.\n\nThe National Hospital erected for the Paralyzed and Epileptic (England)\nowes its origin to the humane efforts of two sisters, Joanna and Louisa\nChandler. These ladies, finding that among all the charitable\ninstitutions existing in London there was not one into which a poor\nparalyzed man would be admitted, conceived the idea of establishing a\nhospital for that particular class of sufferers. Though only in moderate\ncircumstances, they devoted two hundred pounds of their own means to the\nobject. For five years, they received no assistance; but their continued\nappeals at length attracted public attention. Various philanthropic\ngentlemen and ladies became interested in the enterprise. The necessary\nfunds were collected mainly by the exertions of Miss J. Chandler and the\nladies who had associated themselves with her, and the hospital became\nan accomplished fact.\n\nThe same persevering energy, directed by sound judgment and practical\nbusiness talent, was conspicuously displayed by Miss Adaline Cooper, in\nher efforts for the improvement of the condition and morals of the\ncostermongers of Tothill Fields, Westminster. Among the degraded, they\nas a class were regarded as the most degraded. But, strong in her faith\nin the power of kindness, she went in among them, and commenced day and\nnight schools, a Sunday-school, a mothers' meeting, and a temperance\nsociety. Through these appliances she influenced the women and children,\nbut the men stood aloof. The more desperate even threatened to drive her\nand her assistants away; but she was not to be intimidated. She erected\na handsome building for a Costermongers' Club; and constructed a\ndwelling-house large enough to accommodate fifty or sixty families. The\nentire expenditure for these purposes amounted to nearly nine thousand\npounds.\n\nSoon after the Club was formed, a large number of the members,\nperceiving the benefit of abstinence, signed the pledge. She formed a\nBible-class for their improvement, and established a penny-bank for the\nBand of Hope.\n\nIn reward of her labors, she had the satisfaction of seeing a marked\nreformation in both their morals and circumstances. Very many of these\npoor people, the very name of whose calling had been a synonym for\ndishonesty and kindred vices, became sober, industrious, and honest men\nand women.\n\nSketches innumerable of other women of very great merit, particularly of\nthose who have enriched our literature during the present century, might\nbe added, did the limits of so small a volume permit; which it does not.\nIt must suffice, therefore, to mention the names of a few of these,\nwhile the names of many others equally meritorious must necessarily be\nomitted.\n\nFirst, we write Mrs. Browning, a name surrounded by a halo of glory from\nthe scintillations of her own genius.\n\nCharlotte Bront\u00c3\u00a9, Miss Mulock, Mrs. Wood, and Mrs. Oliphant form a\nbrilliant galaxy, but scarcely outshine others in the same department.\n\nMrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe has made her mark upon her age, and is not\nlikely to be forgotten while the War of Secession is remembered.\n\nThe sweet strains of the sisters Cary will linger long in the ears and\nhearts of the lovers of song.\n\nThe name of the gentle Swede, Fredrika Bremer, will live as long as the\nlanguage in which she writes shall be spoken or read; while Mary Howitt,\nher translator, is, through these beautiful translations, and her own\ninimitably chaste and home-like stones, endeared to both English and\nAmerican hearts.\n\nMrs. Willard will bear a favorable comparison with any other American\nhistorian, let him be ever so famous.\n\nMrs. Moodie and her gifted sisters, Mrs. Trail and Miss Strickland,\nhave acquired a world-wide reputation by their pens.\n\nWhich of our living authors possesses a more terse or vigorous style\nthan Gail Hamilton? And where are more self-sacrificing spirits to be\nfound than in those bands of lady missionaries, worthy successors of\nHarriet Newell and Ann Hasseltine Judson, who every year leave our\ncoasts to carry the Gospel to heathen lands?\n\nLarge numbers of clever women are attracting the attention of the\nthinking people of both England and America, not only as public speakers\nand leaders of much-needed reforms, but for the honorable position to\nwhich they have attained in literary and scientific circles and in the\narts. The scenes, however, in which they are the active participants are\nstill transpiring; and therefore these women, some of them both\nhonorable and great, in the best and highest acceptation of the terms,\ncan not just at the present be classed among the women of history. But\nthough they are not far enough back in the past to be placed in this\ncategory, they are furnishing the materials for both an instructive and\nan interesting one in the future; and that future, too, not very far\ndistant. All honor to the brave, the good, and true among them.\n\n\nTHE END","title":"Woman: Man's Equal","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":47382}