WANTED--HOMES
We see advertisements, occasionally, of "Homes for Aged7 Women," and more rarely "Homes for Aged Men." The question sometimes suggests itself, whether it would not be better to begin the provision earlier, and see that homes are also provided, in some form, for the middle-aged8 and even the young. The trouble is, I suppose, that as it takes two to make a bargain, so it takes at least two to make a home; and unluckily it takes only one to spoil it.
Madame Roland once defined marriage as an institution where one person undertakes to provide happiness for two; and many failures are accounted for, no doubt, by this false basis. Sometimes it is the man, more often the woman, of whom this extravagant9 demand is made. There are marriages which have proved a wreck10 almost wholly through the fault of the wife. Nor is this confined to wedded11 homes alone. I have known a son who lived alone, patiently and uncomplainingly, with that saddest of all conceivable companions, a drunken mother. I have known another young man who supported in his own home a mother and sister, both habitual12 drunkards. All these were American-born, and all of respectable social position. A house shadowed by such misery13 is not a home, though it might have proved such but for the sins of women. Such instances are, however, rare and occasional compared with the cases where the same offence in the husband makes ruin of the home.
Then there are the cases where indolence, or selfishness, or vanity, or the love of social excitement, in the woman, unfits her for home life. Here we come upon ground where perhaps woman is the greater sinner. It must be remembered, however, that against this must be balanced the neglect produced by club-life, or by the life of society-membership, in a man. A brilliant young married belle15 in London once told me that she was glad her husband was so fond of his club, for it amused him every night while she went to balls. "Married men do not go much into society here," she said, "unless they are regular flirts,--which I do not think my husband would ever be, for he is very fond of me,--so he goes every night to his club, and gets home about the same time that I do. It is a very nice arrangement." It is perhaps needless to add that they are long since divorced.
It is common to denounce club-life in our large cities as destructive of the home. The modern club is simply a more refined substitute for the old-fashioned tavern16, and is on the whole an advance in morals as well as manners. In our large cities a man in a certain social coterie17 belongs to a club, if he can afford it, as a means of contact with his fellows, and to have various conveniences which he cannot so economically obtain at home. A few haunt clubs constantly; the many use them occasionally. More absorbing than these, perhaps, are the secret societies which have so revived among us since the war, and which consume time so fearfully. There was a case mentioned in the newspapers lately of a man who belonged to some twenty of these associations; and when he died, and each wished to conduct his funeral, great was the strife19! In the small city where I write there are seventeen secret societies down in the directory, and I suppose as many more not so conspicuous21. I meet men who assure me that they habitually22 attend a society meeting every evening of the week except Sunday, when they go to church meeting. These are rarely men of leisure; they are usually mechanics or business men of some kind, who are hard at work all day, and never see their families except at meal-times. Their case is far worse, so far as absence from home is concerned, than that of the "club-men" of large cities; for these are often men of leisure, who, if married, at least make home one of their lounging-places, which such secret-society men do not.
I honestly believe that this melancholy23 desertion of the home is largely due to the traditional separation between the alleged24 spheres of the sexes. The theory still prevails largely, that home is the peculiar25 province of the woman, that she has almost no duties out of it; and hence, naturally enough, that the husband has almost no duties in it. If he is amused there, let him stay there; but, as it is not his recognized sphere of duty, he is not actually violating any duty by absenting himself. This theory even pervades26 our manuals of morals, of metaphysics, and of popular science; and it is not every public teacher who has the manliness27, having once stated it, to modify his statement, as did the venerable President Hopkins of Williams College, when lecturing the other day to the young ladies of Vassar.
"I would," he said, "at this point correct my teaching in 'The Law of Love' to the effect that home is peculiarly the sphere of woman, and civil government that of man. I now regard the home as the joint28 sphere of man and woman, and the sphere of civil government more of an open question as between the two. It is, however, to be lamented29 that the present agitation30 concerning the rights of woman is so much a matter of 'rights' rather than of 'duties,' as the reform of the latter would involve the former."
If our instructors31 in moral philosophy will only base their theory of ethics32 as broadly as this, we shall no longer need to advertise "Homes Wanted;" for the joint efforts of men and women will soon provide them.
THE ORIGIN OF CIVILIZATION
Nothing throws more light on the whole history of woman than the first illustration in Sir John Lubbock's "Origin of Civilization." A young girl, almost naked, is being dragged furiously along the ground by a party of naked savages33, armed literally35 to the teeth, while those of another band grasp her by the arm, and almost tear her asunder36 in the effort to hold her back. These last are her brothers and her friends; the others are--her enemies? As you please to call them. They are her future husband and his kinsmen37, who have come to aid him in his wooing.
This was the primitive38 rite20 of marriage. Vestiges39 of it still remain among savage34 nations. And all the romance and grace of the most refined modern marriage--the orange-blossoms, the bridal veil, the church service, the wedding feast--these are only the "bright consummate40 flower" reared by civilization from that rough seed. All the brutal41 encounter is softened43 into this. Nothing remains44 of the barbarism except the one word "obey," and even that is going.
Now, to say that a thing is going, is to say that it will presently be gone. To say that anything is changed, is to say that it is to change further. If it never has been altered, perhaps it will not be; but a proved alteration45 of an inch in a year opens the way to an indefinite modification46. The study of the glaciers47, for instance, began with the discovery that they had moved; and from that moment no one doubted that they were moving all the time.
It is the same with the position of woman. Once open your eyes to the fact that it has changed, and who is to predict where the matter shall end? It is sheer folly49 to say, "Her relative position will always be what it has been," when one glance at Sir John Lubbock's picture shows that there is no fixed50 "has been," but that her original position was long since altered and revised. Those who still use this argument are like those who laughed at the lines of stakes which Agassiz planted across the Aar glacier48 in 1840. But the stakes settled the question, and proved the motion. Però sim muove: "But it moves."
The motion once proved, the whole range of possible progress is before us. The amazement51 of that Chinese visitor in Boston, the other day, when he saw a woman addressing a missionary52 meeting; the astonishment53 of all English visitors when young ladies teach classes in geometry and Latin, in our high schools; the surprise of foreigners at seeing the rough throng54 in the Cooper Institute reading-room submit to the sway of one young woman with a crochet-needle--all these simply testify to the fact that the stakes have moved. That they have yet been carried halfway55 to the end, who knows?
What a step from the horrible nuptials56 of those savage days to the poetic57 marriage of Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett--the "Sonnets58 from the Portuguese59" on one side, the "One Word More" on the other! But who can say that the whole relation between man and woman reached its climax60 there, and that where the past has brought changes so vast the future is to add nothing? Who knows that, when "the world's great bridals come," people may not look back with pity, even on this era of the Brownings? Perhaps even Elizabeth Barrett promised to obey!
At any rate, it is safe to say that each step concedes the probability of another. Even from the naked barbarian61 to the veiled Oriental, from the savage hut to the carefully enshrined harem, there is a step forward. One more step in the spiral line of progress has brought us to the unveiled face and comparatively free movements of the English or American woman. From the kitchen to the public lecture-room, from that to the lecture-platform, and from that again to the ballot-box,--these are far slighter steps than those which gradually lifted the savage girl of Sir John Lubbock's picture into the possession of the alphabet and the dignity of a home. So easy are these future changes beside those of the past, that to doubt their possibility is as if Agassiz, after tracing year by year the motion of his Alpine63 glacier, should deny its power to move one inch farther into the sunny valley, and there to melt harmlessly away.
THE LOW-WATER MARK
We constantly see it assumed, in arguments against any step in the elevation64 of woman, that her position is a thing fixed permanently65 by nature, so that there can be in it no great or essential change. Every successive modification is resisted as "a reform against nature;" and this argument from permanence is always that which appears most convincing to conservative minds. Let us see how the facts confirm it.
A story is going the rounds of the newspapers in regard to a Russian peasant and his wife. For some act of disobedience the peasant took the law into his own hands; and his mode of discipline was to tie the poor creature naked to a post in the street, and to call on every passer-by to strike her a blow. Not satisfied with this, he placed her on the ground, and tied heavy weights on her limbs until one arm was broken. When finally released, she made a complaint against him in court. The court discharged him on the ground that he had not exceeded the legal authority of a husband. Encouraged by this, he caused her to be arrested in return; and the same court sentenced her to another public whipping for disobedience.
No authority was given for this story in the newspaper where I saw it; but it certainly did not first appear in a woman-suffrage67 newspaper, and cannot therefore be a manufactured "outrage68." I use it simply to illustrate69 the low-water mark at which the position of woman may rest, in the largest Christian70 nation of the world. All the refinements71, all the education, all the comparative justice, of modern society, have been gradually upheaved from some such depth as this. When the gypsies described by Leland treat even the ground trodden upon by a woman as impure72, they simply illustrate the low plane from which all the elevation of woman has begun. All these things show that the position of that sex in society, so far from being a thing in itself permanent, has been in reality the most changing of all factors in the social problem. And this inevitably73 suggests the question, Are we any more sure that her present position is finally and absolutely fixed than were those who observed it at any previous time in the world's history? Granting that her condition was once at low-water mark, who is authorized74 to say that it has yet reached high tide?
It is very possible that this Russian wife, once scourged75 back to submission76, ended her days in the conviction, and taught it to her daughters, that such was a woman's rightful place. When an American woman of to-day says, "I have all the rights I want," is she on any surer ground? Grant that the difference is vast between the two. How do we know that even the later condition is final, or that anything is final but entire equality before the laws? It is not many years since William Story--in a legal work inspired and revised by his father, the greatest of American jurists--wrote this indignant protest against the injustice77 of the old common law:--
"In respect to the powers and rights of married women, the law is by no means abreast of the spirit of the age. Here are seen the old fossil footprints of feudalism. The law relating to woman tends to make every family a barony or a monarchy, or a despotism, of which the husband is the baron, king, or despot, and the wife the dependent, serf, or slave. That this is not always the fact is not due to the law, but to the enlarged humanity which spurns the narrow limits of its rules. The progress of civilization has changed the family from a barony to a republic; but the law has not kept pace with the advance of ideas, manners, and customs. And, although public opinion is a check to legal rules on the subject, the rules are feudal2 and stern. Yet the position of woman throughout history serves as the criterion of the freedom of the people or an age. When man shall despise that right which is founded only on might, woman will be free and stand on an equal level with him,--a friend and not a dependent."[1]
We know that the law is greatly changed and ameliorated in many places since Story wrote this statement; but we also know how almost every one of these changes was resisted: and who is authorized to say that the final and equitable78 fulfilment is yet reached?
[Footnote 1: Story's Treatise on the Law of Contracts not under Seal, § 84, p. 89.]
OBEY
After witnessing the marriage ceremony of the Episcopal Church, the other day, I walked down the aisle79 with the young rector who had officiated. It was natural to speak of the beauty of the Church service on an occasion like that; but, after doing this, I felt compelled to protest against the unrighteous pledge to obey. "I hope," I said, "to live to see that word expunged80 from the Episcopal service, as it has been from that of the Methodists. The Roman Catholics, you know, have never had it."
"Why do you object?" he asked. "Is it because you know that they will not obey?"
"Because they ought not," I said.
"Well," said he, after a few moments' reflection, and looking up frankly81, "I do not think they ought!"
Here was a young clergyman of great earnestness and self-devotion, who included it among the sacred duties of his life to impose upon ignorant young girls a solemn obligation, which he yet thought they ought not to incur82, and did not believe that they would keep. There could hardly be a better illustration of the confusion in the public mind, or the manner in which "the subjection of woman" is being outgrown83, or the subtile way in which this subjection has been interwoven with sacred ties, and baptized "duty."
The advocates of woman suffrage are constantly reproved for using the terms "subjection," "oppression," and "slavery," as applied84 to woman. They simply commit the same sin as that committed by the original abolitionists. They are "as harsh as truth, as uncompromising as justice." Of course they talk about oppression and emancipation85. It is the word obey that constitutes the one, and shows the need of the other. Whoever is pledged to obey is technically86 and literally a slave, no matter how many roses surround the chains. All the more so if the slavery is self-imposed, and surrounded by all the prescriptions87 of religion. Make the marriage tie as close as church or state can make it; but let it be equal, impartial88. That it may be so, the word obey must be abandoned or made reciprocal. Where invariable obedience66 is promised, equality is gone.
That there may be no doubt about the meaning of this word in the marriage covenant89, the usages of nations often add symbolic90 explanations. These are generally simple, and brutal enough to be understood. The Hebrew ceremony, when the bridegroom took off his slipper91 and struck the bride on the neck as she crossed his threshold, was unmistakable. As my black sergeant92 said, when a white prisoner questioned his authority, and he pointed93 to the chevrons94 on his sleeve, "Dat mean guv'ment." All these forms mean simply government also. The ceremony of the slipper has now no recognition, except when people fling an old shoe after the bride, which is held by antiquarians to be the same observance. But it is all preserved and concentrated into a single word, when the bride promises to obey.
The deepest wretchedness that has ever been put into human language, or that has exceeded it, has grown out of that pledge. There is no misery on earth like that of a pure and refined woman who finds herself owned, body and soul, by a drunken, licentious95, brutal man. The very fact that she is held to obedience by a spiritual tie makes it worse. Chattel96 slavery was not so bad; for, though the master might pervert97 religion for his own satisfaction, he could not impose upon the slave. Never yet did I see a negro slave who thought it a duty to obey his master; and therefore there was always some dream of release. But who has not heard of some delicate and refined woman, one day of whose torture was equivalent to years of that possible to an obtuse98 frame,--who had the door of escape ready at hand for years, and yet died a lingering death rather than pass through it; and this because she had promised to obey!
It is said of one of the most gifted women who ever trod American soil,-- she being of English birth,--that, before she obtained the divorce which separated her from her profligate99 husband, she once went for counsel to the wife of her pastor100. She unrolled before her the long catalogue of merciless outrages101 to which she had been subject, endangering finally her health, her life, and that of her children born and to be born. When she turned at last for advice to her confessor, with the agonized102 inquiry103, "What is it my duty to do?"--"Do?" said the stern adviser104: "Lie down on the floor, and let your husband trample105 on you if he will. That is a woman's duty."
The woman who gave this advice was not naturally inhuman106 nor heartless: she had simply been trained in the school of obedience. The Jesuit doctrine107, that a priest should be as a corpse108, perinde ac cadaver109, in the hands of a superior priest, is not worse. Woman has no right to delegate, nor man to assume, a responsibility so awful. Just in proportion as it is consistently carried out, it trains men from boyhood into self-indulgent tyrants110; and, while some women are transformed by it to saints, others are crushed into deceitful slaves. That this was the result of chattel slavery, this nation has at length learned. We learn more slowly the profounder and more subtile moral evil that follows from the unrighteous promise to obey.
WOMAN IN THE CHRYSALIS
When the bride receives the ring upon her finger, and utters--if she utters it--the promise to obey, she sees a poetic beauty in the rite. Turning of her own free will from her maiden111 liberty, she voluntarily takes the yoke112 of service upon her. This is her view; but is this the historic fact in regard to marriage? Not at all. The pledge of obedience--the whole theory of inequality in marriage--is simply what is left to us of a former state of society, in which every woman, old or young, must obey somebody. The state of tutelage, implied in such a marriage, is merely what is left of the old theory of the "Perpetual Tutelage of Women," under the Roman law.
Roman law, from which our civil law is derived114, has its foundation evidently in patriarchal tradition. It recognized at first the family only, and that family was held together by paternal115 power (patria potestas). If the father died, his powers passed to the son or grandson, as the possible head of a new family; but these powers could never pass to a woman, and every woman, of whatever age, must be under somebody's legal control. Her father dying, she was still subject through life to her nearest male relations, or to her father's nominees116, as her guardians117. She was under perpetual guardianship119, both as to person and property. No years, no experience, could make her anything but a child before the law.
In Oriental countries the system was still more complete. "A man," says the Gentoo Code of Laws, "must keep his wife so much in subjection that she by no means be mistress of her own action. If the wife have her own free will, notwithstanding she be of a superior caste, she will behave amiss." But this authority, which still exists in India, is not merely conjugal120. The husband exerts it simply as being the wife's legal guardian118. If the woman be unmarried or a widow, she must be as rigorously held under some other guardianship. It is no uncommon121 thing for a woman in India to be the ward62 of her own son. Lucretia Mott or Florence Nightingale would there be in personal subjection to somebody. Any man of legal age would be recognized as a fit custodian122 for them, but there must be a man.
With some variation of details at different periods, the same system prevailed essentially123 at Rome, down to the time when Rome became Christian. Those who wish for particulars will find them in an admirable chapter (the fifth) of Maine's "Ancient Law." At one time the husband was held to possess the patria potestas, or paternal power, in its full force. By law "the woman passed in manum viri, that is, she became the daughter of her husband." All she had became his, and after his death she was retained in the same strict tutelage by any guardians his will might appoint. Afterwards, to soften42 this rigid124 bond, the woman was regarded in law as being temporarily deposited by her family with her husband; the family appointed guardians over her; and thus, between the two tyrannies, she won a sort of independence. Then came Christianity, and swept away the merely parental125 authority for married women, concentrating all upon the husband. Hence our legislation bears the mark of a double origin, and woman is half recognized as an equal and half as a slave.
It is necessary to remember, therefore, that all the relation of subjection in marriage is merely the residue126 of an unnatural127 system, of which all else is long since outgrown. It would have seemed to an ancient Roman a matter of course that a woman should, all her life long, obey the guardians set over her person. It still seems to many people a matter of course that she should obey her husband. To others among us, on the contrary, both these theories of obedience seem barbarous, and the one is merely a relic128 of the other.
We cannot disregard the history of the Theory of Tutelage. If we could believe that a chrysalis is always a chrysalis, and a butterfly always a butterfly, we could easily leave each to its appropriate sphere; but when we see the chrysalis open, and the butterfly come half out of it, we know that sooner or later it must spread wings, and fly. The theory of tutelage implies the chrysalis. Woman is the butterfly. Sooner or later she will be wholly out.
TWO AND TWO
A young man of very good brains was telling me, the other day, his dreams of his future wife. Rattling129 on, more in joke than in earnest, he said, "She must be perfectly130 ignorant, and a bigot: she must know nothing, and believe everything. I should wish to have her from the adjoining room call to me, 'My dear, what do two and two make?'"
It did not seem to me that his demand would be so very hard to fill, since bigotry131 and ignorance are to be had almost anywhere for the asking; and, as for two and two, I should say that it had always been the habit of women to ask that question of some man, and to rest easily satisfied with the answer. They have generally called, as my friend wished, from some other room, saying, "My dear, what do two and two make?" and the husband or father or brother has answered and said, "My dear, they make four for a man, and three for a woman."
At any given period in the history of woman, she has adopted man's whim132 as the measure of her rights; has claimed nothing; has sweetly accepted anything; the law of two-and-two itself should be at his discretion133. At any given moment, so well was his interpretation134 received, that it stood for absolute right. In Rome a woman, married or single, could not testify in court; in the middle ages, and down to quite modern times, she could not hold real estate; thirty years ago she could not, in New England, obtain a collegiate education; even now she can only vote for school officers.
The first principles of republican government are so rehearsed and re-rehearsed, that one would think they must become "as plain as that two and two make four." But we find throughout, that, as Emerson said of another class of reasoners, "Their two is not the real two; their four is not the real four." We find different numerals and diverse arithmetical rules for the two sexes; as, in some Oriental countries, men and women speak different dialects of the same language.
In novels the hero often begins by dreaming, like my friend, of an ideal wife, who shall be ignorant of everything, and have only brains enough to be bigoted135. Instead of sighing, like Falstaff, "Oh for a fine young thief, of the age of two and twenty or thereabouts!" the hero sighs for a fine young idiot of similar age. When the hero is successful in his search and wooing, the novelist sometimes mercifully removes the young woman early, like David Copperfield's Dora, she bequeathing the bereaved136 husband, on her deathbed, to a woman of sense. In real life these convenient interruptions do not commonly occur, and the foolish youth regrets through many years that he did not select an Agnes instead.
The acute observer Stendhal says,--
"In Paris, the highest praise for a marriageable girl is to say, 'She has great sweetness of character and the disposition137 of a lamb.' Nothing produces more impression on fools who are looking out for wives. I think I see the interesting couple, two years after, breakfasting together on a dull day, with three tall lackeys138 waiting upon them!"
And he adds, still speaking in the interest of men:--
"Most men have a period in their career when they might do something great, a period when nothing seems impossible. The ignorance of women spoils for the human race this magnificent opportunity: and love, at the utmost, in these days, only inspires a young man to learn to ride well, or to make a judicious139 selection of a tailor."[1]
Society, however, discovers by degrees that there are conveniences in every woman's knowing the four rules of arithmetic for herself. Two and two come to the same amount on a butcher's bill, whether the order be given by a man or a woman; and it is the same in all affairs or investments, financial or moral. We shall one day learn that with laws, customs, and public affairs it is the same. Once get it rooted in a woman's mind, that for her, two and two make three only, and sooner or later the accounts of the whole human race fail to balance.
[Footnote 1: De L'Amour, par14 de Stendhal (Henri Beyle). Paris, 1868 [written in 1822], pp. 182, 198.]
A MODEL HOUSEHOLD
There is an African bird called the hornbill, whose habits are in some respects a model. The female builds her nest in a hollow tree, lays her eggs, and broods on them. So far, so good. Then the male feels that he must also contribute some service; so he walls up the hole closely, giving only room for the point of the female's bill to protrude140. Until the eggs are hatched, she is thenceforth confined to her nest, and is in the mean time fed assiduously by her mate, who devotes himself entirely142 to this object. Dr. Livingstone has seen these nests in Africa, Layard and others in Asia, and Wallace in Sumatra.
Personally I have never seen a hornbill's nest. The nearest approach I ever made to it was when in Fayal I used to pass near a gloomy mansion143, of which the front windows were walled up, and only one high window was visible in the rear, beyond the reach of eyes from any neighboring house. In this cheerful abode144, I was assured, a Portuguese lady had been for many years confined by her jealous husband. It was long since any neighbor had caught a glimpse of her, but it was supposed that she was alive. There is no reason to doubt that her husband fed her well. It was simply a case of human hornbill, with the imprisonment145 made perpetual.
I have more than once asked lawyers whether, in communities where the old common law prevailed, there was anything to prevent such an imprisonment of a married woman; and they have always answered, "Nothing but public opinion." Where the husband has the legal custody146 of the wife's person, no habeas corpus can avail against him. The hornbill household is based on a strict application of the old common law. A Hindoo household was a hornbill household: "a woman, of whatsoever147 age, should never be mistress of her own actions," said the code of Menu. An Athenian household was a hornbill's nest, and great was the outcry when some Aspasia broke out of it. When the remonstrant petitions legislatures against the emancipation of woman, we seem to hear the twittering of the hornbill mother, imploring148 to be left inside.
Under some forms, the hornbill theory becomes respectable. There are many peaceful families, innocent though torpid149, where the only dream of existence is to have plenty of quiet, plenty of food, and plenty of well-fed children. For them this African household is a sufficient model. The wife is "a home body." The husband is "a good provider." These are honest people, and have a right to speak. The hornbill theory is only dishonest when it comes--as it often comes--from women who lead the life, not of good stay-at-home fowls150, but of paroquets and hummingbirds,--who sorrowfully bemoan151 the active habits of enlightened women, while they themselves
To midnight dances and the public show."
It is from these women, in Washington, New York, and elsewhere, that the loudest appeal for the hornbill standard of domesticity proceeds. Put them to the test, and give them their chicken-salad and champagne153 through a hole in the wall only, and see how they like it.
But even the most honest and peaceful conservatives will one day admit that the hornbill is not the highest model. Plato thought that "the soul of our grandame might haply inhabit the body of a bird;" but Nature has kindly154 provided various types of bird-households to suit all varieties of taste. The bright orioles, filling the summer boughs155 with color and with song, are as truly domestic in the freedom of their airy nest as the poor hornbills who ignorantly make home into a dungeon156. And certainly each new generation of orioles, spreading free wings from that pendent cradle, affords a happier illustration of judicious nurture157 than is to be found in the uncouth158 little offspring of the hornbills, which Wallace describes as "so flabby and semi-transparent as to resemble a bladder of jelly, furnished with head, legs, and rudimentary wings, but with not a sign of a feather, except a few lines of points indicating where they would come."
A SAFEGUARD FOR THE FAMILY
Many German-Americans are warm friends of woman suffrage; but the editors of "Puck," it seems, are not. In a certain number of that comic journal, there was an unfavorable cartoon on this reform; and in a following number,--the number, by the way, which contains that amusing illustration of the vast seaside hotels of the future, with the cheering announcement, "Only one mile to the barber's shop," and "Take the cars to the dining-room,"--a lady came to the rescue, and bravely defended woman suffrage. It seems that the original cartoon depicted159 in the corner a pretty family scene, representing father, mother, and children seated happily together, with the melancholy motto, "Nevermore, nevermore!" And when the correspondent, Mrs. Blake, very naturally asks what this touching160 picture has to do with woman suffrage, Puck says, "If the husband in our 'pretty family scene' should propose to vote for the candidate who was obnoxious161 to his wife, would this 'pretty family scene' continue to be a domestic paradise, or would it remind the spectator of the region in which Dante spent his 'fortnight off'?"
It is beautiful to see how much anxiety there is to preserve the family. Every step in the modification of the old common law, whereby the wife was, in Baron Alderson's phrase, "the servant of her husband," was resisted as tending to endanger the family. The proposal that the wife should control her own earnings162, so that her husband should not have the right to collect them in order to pay his gambling163 debts, was declared by English advocates, in the celebrated164 case of the Hon. Mrs. Norton, the poetess, to imperil all the future peace of British households.
Even the liberal-minded "Punch," about the time Girton College was founded in England, expressed grave doubts whether the harmony of wedded unions would not receive a blow, from the time when wives should be liable to know more Greek than their husbands. Yet the marriage relation has withstood these innovations. It has not been impaired166, either by separate rights, private earnings, or independent Greek: can it be possible that a little voting will overthrow168 it?
The very ground on which woman suffrage is opposed by its enemies might assuage169 these fears. If, as we are told, women will not take the pains to vote except upon the strongest inducements, who has so good an opportunity as the husband to bring those inducements to bear? and, if so, what is the separation? Or if, as we are told, women will merely reflect their husbands' political opinions, why should they dispute about them? The mere113 suggestion of a difference deep enough to quarrel for, implies a real difference of convictions or interests, and indicates that there ought to be an independent representation of each; unless we fall back, once for all, on the common-law tradition that man and wife are one, and that one is the husband. Either the antagonisms171 which occur in politics are comparatively superficial, in which case they would do no harm; or else they touch matters of real interest and principle, in which case every human being has a right to independent expression, even at a good deal of risk. In either case, the objection falls to the ground.
We have fortunately a means of testing, with some fairness of estimate, the probable amount of this peril165. It is generally admitted--and certainly no German-American will deny--that the most fruitful sources of hostility172 and war in all times have been religious, not political. All merely political antagonism170, certainly all which is possible in a republic, fades into insignificance173 before this more powerful dividing influence. Yet we leave all this great explosive force in unimpeded operation,--at any moment it may be set in action, in any one of those "pretty family scenes" which "Puck" depicts,--while we are solemnly warned against admitting the comparatively mild peril of a political difference! It is like cautioning a manufacturer of dynamite174 against the danger of meddling175 with mere edge-tools. Even with all the intensity176 of feeling on religious matters, few families are seriously divided by them; and the influence of political differences would be still more insignificant177.
The simple fact is that there is no better basis for union than mutual178 respect for each other's opinions; and this can never be obtained without an intelligent independence, "I would rather have a thorn in my side than an echo," said Emerson of friendship; and the same is true of married life. It is the echoes, the nonentities179, of whom men grow tired; it is the women with some flavor of individuality who keep the hearts of their husbands. This is only applying in a higher sense what Shakespeare's Cleopatra saw. When her handmaidens are questioning how to hold a lover, and one says,--
"Give way to him in all: cross him in nothing,"--
Cleopatra, from the depth of an unequalled experience, retorts,--
"Thou speakest like a fool: the way to lose him!"
And what "the serpent of old Nile" said, the wives of the future, who are to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves, may well ponder. It takes two things different to make a union; and part of that difference may as well lie in matters political as anywhere else.
WOMEN AS ECONOMISTS180
An able lawyer of Boston, arguing the other day before a legislative181 committee in favor of giving to the city council a check upon the expenditures183 of the school committee, gave as one reason that this body would probably include more women henceforward, and that women were ordinarily more lavish184 than men in their use of money. The truth of this assumption was questioned at the time; and, the more I think of it, the more contrary it is to my whole experience. I should say that women, from the very habit of their lives, are led to be more particular about details, and more careful as to small economies. The very fact that they handle less money tends to this. When they are told to spend money, as they often are by loving or ambitious husbands, they no doubt do it freely: they have naturally more taste than men, and quite as much love of luxury. In some instances in this country they spend money recklessly and wickedly, like the heroines of French novels; but as, even in brilliant Paris, the women of the middle classes are notoriously better managers than the men, so we often see, in our scheming America, the same relative superiority. Often have I heard young men say, "I never knew how to economize185 until after my marriage;" and who has not seen multitudes of instances where women accustomed to luxury have accepted poverty without a murmur186 for the sake of those whom they loved?
I remember a young girl, accustomed to the gayest society of New York, who engaged herself to a young naval187 officer, against the advice of the friends of both. One of her near relatives said to me, "Of all the young girls I have ever known, she is the least fitted for a poor man's wife." Yet from the very moment of her marriage she brought their joint expenses within his scanty188 pay, and even saved a little money from it. Everybody knows such instances. We hear men denounce the extravagance of women, while those very men spend on wine and cigars, on clubs and horses, twice what their wives spend on their toilet. If the wives are economical, the husbands perhaps urge them on to greater lavishness189. "Why do you not dress like Mrs. So-and-so?"--"I can't afford it."--"But I can afford it;" and then, when the bills come in, the talk of extravagance recommences. At one time in Newport, that lady among the summer visitors who was reported to be Worth's best customer was also well known to be quite indifferent to society, and to go into it mainly to please her husband, whose social ambition was notorious.
It has often happened to me to serve in organizations where both sexes were represented, and where expenditures were to be made for business or pleasure. In these I have found, as a rule, that the women were more careful, or perhaps I should say more timid, than the men, less willing to risk anything: the bolder financial experiments came from the men, as one might expect. In talking the other day with the secretary of an important educational enterprise, conducted by women, I was surprised to find that it was cramped190 for money, though large subscriptions191 were said to have been made to it. On inquiry it appeared that these ladies, having pledged themselves for four years, had divided the amount received into four parts, and were resolutely192 limiting themselves, for the first year, to one quarter part of what had been subscribed193. No board of men would have done so. Any board of men would have allowed far more than a quarter of the sum for the first year's expenditures, justly reasoning that if the enterprise began well it would command public confidence, and bring in additional subscriptions as time went on. I would appeal to any one whose experience has been in joint associations of men and women, whether this is not a fair statement of the difference between their ways of working. It does not prove that women are more honest than men, but that their education or their nature makes them more cautious in expenditure182.
The habits of society make the dress of a fashionable woman far more expensive than that of a man of fashion. Formerly194 it was not so; and, so long as it was not so, the extravagance of men in this respect quite equalled that of women. It now takes other forms, but the habit is the same. The waiters at any fashionable restaurant will tell you that what is a cheap dinner for a man would be a dear dinner for a woman. Yet after all, the test is not in any particular class of expenditures, but in the business-like habit. Men are of course more business-like in large combinations, for they are more used to them; but for the small details of daily economy women are more watchful195. The cases where women ruin their husbands by extravagance are exceptional. As a rule, the men are the bread-winners; but the careful saving and managing and contriving196 come from the women.
GREATER INCLUDES LESS
I was once at a little musical party in New York, where several accomplished197 amateur singers were present, and with them the eminent198 professional, Miss Adelaide Phillipps. The amateurs were first called on. Each chose some difficult operatic passage, and sang her best. When it came to the great opera-singer's turn, instead of exhibiting her ability to eclipse those rivals on her own ground, she simply seated herself at the piano, and sang "Kathleen Mavourneen" with such thrilling sweetness that the young Irish girl who was setting the supper-table in the next room forgot all her plates and teaspoons199, threw herself into a chair, put her apron200 over her face, and sobbed201 as if her heart would break. All the training of Adelaide Phillipps--her magnificent voice, her stage experience, her skill in effects, her power of expression--went into the performance of that simple song. The greater included the less. And thus all the intellectual and practical training that any woman can have, all her public action and her active career, will make her, if she be a true woman, more admirable as a wife, a mother, and a friend. The greater includes the less for her also.
Of course this is a statement of general facts and tendencies. There must be among women, as among men, an endless variety of individual temperaments202. There will always be plenty whose career will illustrate the infirmities of genius, and whom no training can convince that two and two make four. But the general fact is sure. As no sensible man would seriously prefer for a wife a Hindoo or Tahitian woman rather than one bred in England or America, so every further advantage of education or opportunity will only improve, not impair167, the true womanly type.
Lucy Stone once said, "Woman's nature was stamped and sealed by the Almighty203, and there is no danger of her unsexing herself while his eye watches her." Margaret Fuller said, "One hour of love will teach a woman more of her true relations than all your philosophizing." These were the testimony204 of women who had studied Greek, and were only the more womanly for the study. They are worth the opinions of a million half-developed beings like the Duchess de Fontanges, who was described as being "as beautiful as an angel and as silly as a goose." The greater includes the less. Your view from the mountain-side may be very pretty, but she who has taken one step higher commands your view and her own also. It was no dreamy recluse205, but the accomplished and experienced Stendhal, who wrote, "The joys of the gay world do not count for much with happy women."[1]
If a highly educated man is incapable206 and unpractical, we do not say that he is educated too well, but not well enough. He ought to know what he knows, and other things also. Never yet did I see a woman too well educated to be a wife and a mother; but I know multitudes who deplore207, or have reason to deplore, every day of their lives, the untrained and unfurnished minds that are so ill-prepared for these sacred duties. Every step towards equalizing the opportunities of men and women meets with resistance, of course; but every step, as it is accomplished, leaves men still men, and women still women. And as we who heard Adelaide Phillipps felt that she had never had a better tribute to her musical genius than this young Irish girl's tears, so the true woman will feel that all her college training for instance, if she has it, may have been well invested, even for the sake of the baby on her knee. And it is to be remembered, after all, that each human being lives to unfold his or her own powers, and do his or her own duties first, and that neither woman nor man has the right to accept a merely secondary and subordinate life. A noble woman must be a noble human being; and the most sacred special duties, as of wife or mother, are all included in this, as the greater includes the less.
[Footnote 1: De l'Amour, par de Stendhal (Henri Beyle): "Les plaisirs du grand monde n'en sont pas pour les femmes heureuses," p. 189.]
A COPARTNERSHIP
Marriage, considered merely in its financial and business relations, may be regarded as a permanent copartnership.
Now, in an ordinary copartnership there is very often a complete division of labor209 among the partners. If they manufacture locomotive-engines, for instance, one partner perhaps superintends the works, another attends to mechanical inventions and improvements, another travels for orders, another conducts the correspondence, another receives and pays out the money. The latter is not necessarily the head of the firm. Perhaps his place could be more easily filled than some of the other posts. Nevertheless, more money passes through his hands than through those of all the others put together. Now, should he, at the year's end, call together the inventor and the superintendent210 and the traveller and the correspondent, and say to them, "I have earned all this money this year, but I will generously give you some of it,"--he would be considered simply impertinent, and would hardly have a chance to repeat the offence the year after.
Yet precisely211 what would be called folly in this business partnership208 is constantly done by men in the copartnership of marriage, and is there called "common sense" and "social science" and "political economy."
For instance, a farmer works himself half to death in the hayfield, and his wife meanwhile is working herself wholly to death in the dairy. The neighbors come in to sympathize after her demise212; and during the few months' interval213 before his second marriage they say approvingly, "He was always a generous man to his folks! He was a good provider!" But where was the room for generosity214, any more than the member of any other firm is to be called generous, when he keeps the books, receipts the bills, and divides the money?
In case of the farming business, the share of the wife is so direct and unmistakable that it can hardly be evaded215. If anything is earned by the farm, she does her distinct and important share of the earning. But it is not necessary that she should do even that, to make her, by all the rules of justice, an equal partner, entitled to her full share of the financial proceeds.
Let us suppose an ordinary case. Two young people are married, and begin life together. Let us suppose them equally poor, equally capable, equally conscientious216, equally healthy. They have children. Those children must be supported by the earning of money abroad, by attendance and care at home. If it requires patience and labor to do the outside work, no less is required inside. The duties of the household are as hard as the duties of the shop or office. If the wife took her husband's work for a day, she would probably be glad to return to her own. So would the husband if he undertook hers. Their duties are ordinarily as distinct and as equal as those of two partners in any other copartnership. It so happens that the outdoor partner has the handling of the money; but does that give him a right to claim it as his exclusive earnings? No more than in any other business operation.
He earned the money for the children and the household. She disbursed217 it for the children and the household. The very laws of nature, by giving her the children to bear and rear, absolve218 her from the duty of their support, so long as he is alive who was left free by nature for that purpose. Her task on the average is as hard as his: nay219, a portion of it is so especially hard that it is distinguished220 from all others by the name "labor." If it does not earn money, it is because it is not to be measured in money, while it exists,--nor to be replaced by money, if lost. If a business man loses his partner, he can obtain another: and a man, no doubt, may take a second wife; but he cannot procure221 for his children a second mother. Indeed, it is a palpable insult to the whole relation of husband and wife when one compares it, even in a financial light, to that of business partners. It is only because a constant effort is made to degrade the practical position of woman below even this standard of comparison, that it becomes her duty to claim for herself at least as much as this.
There was a tradition in a town where I once lived, that a certain Quaker, who had married a fortune, was once heard to repel222 his wife, who had asked him for money in a public place, with the response, "Rachel, where is that ninepence I gave thee yesterday?" When I read in "Scribner's Monthly" an article deriding223 the right to representation of the Massachusetts women who pay two millions of tax on one hundred and thirty-two million dollars of property,--asserting that they produced nothing of it; that it was only "men who produced this wealth, and bestowed224 it upon these women;" that it was "all drawn225 from land and sea by the hands of men whose largess testifies alike of their love and their munificence,"--I must say that I am reminded of Rachel's ninepence.
ONE RESPONSIBLE HEAD
When we look through any business directory, there seem to be almost as many copartnerships as single dealers226; and three quarters of these copartnerships appear to consist of precisely two persons, no more, no less. These partners are, in the eye of the law, equal. It is not found necessary, under the law, to make a general provision that in each case one partner should be supreme227 and the other subordinate. In many cases, by the terms of the copartnership there are limitations on one side and special privileges on the other,--marriage settlements, as it were; but the general law of copartnership is based on the presumption228 of equality. It would be considered infinitely229 absurd to require that, as the general rule, one party or the other should be in a state of coverture, during which the very being and existence of the one should be suspended, or entirely merged230 and incorporated into that of the other.
And yet this requirement, which would be an admitted absurdity232 in the case of two business partners, is precisely that which the English common law still lays down in case of husband and wife. The words which I employed to describe it, in the preceding sentence, are the very phrases in which Blackstone describes the legal position of women. And though the English common law has been, in this respect, greatly modified and superseded233 by statute234 law; yet, when it comes to an argument on woman suffrage, it is constantly this same tradition to which men and even women habitually appeal,--the necessity of a single head to the domestic partnership, and the necessity that the husband should be that head. This is especially true of English men and women; but it is true of Americans as well. Nobody has stated it more tersely235 than Fitzjames Stephen, in his "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity" (p. 216), when arguing against Mr. Mill's view of the equality of the sexes.
"Marriage is a contract, one of the principal objects in which is the government of a family.
"This government must be vested, either by law or by contract, in the hands of one of the two married persons."
[Then follow some collateral236 points, not bearing on the present question.]
"Therefore if marriage is to be permanent, the government of the family must be put by law and by morals into the hands of the husband, for no one proposes to give it to the wife."
This argument he calls "as clear as that of a proposition in Euclid." He thinks that the business of life can be carried on by no other method. How is it, then, that when we come to what is called technically and especially the "business" of every day, this whole fine-spun theory is disregarded, and men come together in partnership on the basis of equality?
Nobody is farther than I from regarding marriage as a mere business partnership. But it is to be observed that the points wherein it differs from a merely mercantile connection are points that should make equality more easy, not more difficult. The tie between two ordinary business partners is merely one of interest: it is based on no sentiments, sealed by no solemn pledge, enriched by no home associations, cemented by no new generation of young life. If a relation like this is found to work well on terms of equality,--so well that a large part of the business of the world is done by it,--is it not absurd to suppose that the same equal relation cannot exist in the married partnership of husband and wife? And if law, custom, society, all recognize this fact of equality in the one case, why, in the name of common-sense, should they not equally recognize it in the other?
And, again, it may often be far easier to assign a sphere to each partner in marriage than in business; and therefore the double headship of a family will involve less need of collision. In nine cases out of ten, the external support of the family will devolve upon the husband, unquestioned by the wife; and its internal economy upon the wife, unquestioned by the husband. No voluntary distribution of powers and duties between business partners can work so naturally, on the whole, as this simple and easy demarcation, with which the claim of suffrage makes no necessary interference. It may require angry discussion to decide which of two business partners shall buy, and which shall sell; which shall keep the books, and which do the active work, and so on; but all this is usually settled in married life by the natural order of things. Even in regard to the management of children, where collision is likely to come, if anywhere, it can commonly be settled by that happy formula of Jean Paul's, that the mother usually supplies the commas and the semicolons in the child's book of life, and the father the colons238 and periods. And as to matters in general, the simple and practical rule, that each question that arises should be decided239 by that partner who has personally most at stake in it, will, in ninety-nine times out of a hundred, carry the domestic partnership through without shipwreck240. Those who cannot meet the hundredth case by mutual forbearance are in a condition of shipwreck already.
ASKING FOR MONEY
One of the very best wives and mothers I have ever known once said to me, that, whenever her daughters should be married, she should stipulate241 in their behalf with their husbands for a regular sum of money to be paid them, at certain intervals242, for their personal expenditures. Whether this sum was to be larger or smaller, was a matter of secondary importance,-- that must depend on the income, and the style of living; but the essential thing was, that it should come to the wife regularly, so that she should no more have to make a special request for it than her husband would have to ask her for a dinner. This lady's own husband was, as I happened to know, of a most generous disposition, was devotedly243 attached to her, and denied her nothing. She herself was a most accurate and careful manager. There was everything in the household to make the financial arrangements flow smoothly245. Yet she said to me, "I suppose no man can possibly understand how a sensitive woman shrinks from asking for money. If I can prevent it, my daughters shall never have to ask for it. If they do their duty as wives and mothers they have a right to their share of the joint income, within reasonable limits; for certainly no money could buy the services they render. Moreover, they have a right to a share in determining what those reasonable limits are."
Now, it so happened that I had myself gone through an experience which enabled me perfectly to comprehend this feeling. In early life I was for a time in the employ of one of my relatives, who paid me a fair salary but at no definite periods: I was at liberty to ask him for money up to a certain amount whenever I needed it. This seemed to me, in advance, a most agreeable arrangement; but I found it quite otherwise. It proved to be very disagreeable to apply for money: it made every dollar seem a special favor; it brought up all kinds of misgivings246, as to whether he could spare it without inconvenience, whether he really thought my services worth it, and so on. My employer was a thoroughly247 upright and noble man, and I was much attached to him. I do not know that he ever refused or demurred248 when I made my request. The annoyance249 was simply in the process of asking; and this became so great, that I often underwent serious inconvenience rather than do it. Finally, at the year's end, I surprised my relative very much by saying that I would accept, if necessary, a lower salary, on condition that it should be paid on regular days, and as a matter of business. The wish was at once granted, without the reduction; and he probably never knew what a relief it was to me.
Now, if a young man is liable to feel this pride and reluctance250 toward an employer, even when a kinsman251, it is easy to understand how many women may feel the same, even in regard to a husband. And I fancy that those who feel it most are often the most conscientious and high-minded women. It is unreasonable252 to say of such persons, "Too sensitive! Too fastidious!" For it is just this quality of finer sensitiveness which men affect to prize in a woman, and wish to protect at all hazards. The very fact that a husband is generous; the very fact that his income is limited,--these may bring in conscience and gratitude253 to increase the restraining influence of pride, and make the wife less willing to ask money of such a husband than if he were a rich man or a mean one. The only dignified254 position in which a man can place his wife is to treat her at least as well as he would treat a housekeeper255, and give her the comfort of a perfectly clear and definite arrangement as to money matters. She will not then be under the necessity of nerving herself to solicit256 from him as a favor what she really needs and has a right to spend. Nor will she be torturing herself, on the other side, with the secret fear lest she has asked too much and more than they can really spare. She will, in short, be in the position of a woman and a wife, not of a child or a toy.
I have carefully avoided using the word "allowance" in what has been said, because that word seems to imply the untrue and mean assumption that the money is all the husband's to give or withhold257 as he will. Yet I have heard this sort of phrase from men who were living on a wife's property or a wife's earnings; from men who nominally258 kept boarding-houses, working a little, while their wives worked hard,--or from farmers, who worked hard, and made their wives work harder. Even in cases where the wife has no direct part in the money-making, the indirect part she performs, if she takes faithful charge of her household, is so essential, so beyond all compensation in money, that it is an utter shame and impertinence in the husband when he speaks of "giving" money to his wife as if it were an act of favor. It is no more an act of favor than when the business manager of a firm pays out money to the unseen partner who directs the indoor business or runs the machinery259. Be the joint income more or less, the wife has a claim to her honorable share, and that as a matter of right, without the daily ignominy of sending in a petition for it.
WOMANHOOD AND MOTHERHOOD
I always groan260 in spirit when any advocate of woman suffrage, carried away by zeal261, says anything disrespectful about the nursery. It is contrary to the general tone of feeling among reformers, I am sure, to speak of this priceless institution as a trivial or degrading sphere, unworthy the emancipated263 woman. It is rarely that anybody speaks in this way; but a single such utterance264 hinders progress more than any arguments of the enemy. For every thoughtful person sees that the cares of motherhood, though not the whole duty of woman, are an essential part of that duty, wherever they occur; and that no theory of womanly life is good for anything which undertakes to leave out the cradle. Even her school education is based on this fact, were it only on Stendhal's theory that the sons of a woman who reads Gibbon and Schiller will be more likely to show talent than those of one who only tells her beads265 and reads Mme. de Genlis. And so clearly is this understood among us, that, when we ask for suffrage for woman, it is almost always claimed that she needs it for the sake of her children. To secure her in her right to them; to give her a voice in their education; to give her a vote in the government beneath which they are to live,--these points are seldom omitted in our statement of her claims. Anything else would be an error.
But there is an error at the other extreme, which is still greater. A woman should no more merge231 herself in her child than in her husband. Yet we often hear that she should do just this. What is all the public sphere of woman, it is said,--what good can she do by all her speaking and writing and action,--compared with that she does by properly training the soul of one child? It is not easy to see the logic266 of this claim.
For what service is that child to render in the universe, except that he, too, may write and speak and act for that which is good and true? And if the mother foregoes all this that the child, in growing up, may simply do what the mother has left undone267, the world gains nothing. In sacrificing her own work to her child's, moreover, she exchanges a present good for a prospective268 and merely possible one. If she does this through overwhelming love, we can hardly blame her; but she cannot justify269 it before reason and truth. Her child may die, and the service to mankind be done by neither. Her child may grow up with talents unlike hers, or with none at all; as the son of Howard was selfish, the son of Chesterfield a boor270, and the son of Wordsworth in the last degree prosaic271.
Or the special occasion when she might have done great good may have passed before her boy or girl grows up to do it. If Mrs. Child had refused to write "An Appeal for that Class of Americans called Africans," or Mrs. Stowe had laid aside "Uncle Tom's Cabin," or Florence Nightingale had declined to go to the Crimea, on the ground that a woman's true work was through the nursery, and they must all wait for that, the consequence would be that these things would have remained undone. The brave acts of the world must be performed when occasion offers, by the first brave soul who feels moved to do them, man or woman.
If all the children in all the nurseries are thereby272 helped to do other brave deeds when their turn comes, so much the better. But when a great opportunity offers for direct aid to the world, we have no right to transfer that work to other hands--not even to the hands of our own children. We must do the work, and train the children besides.
I am willing to admit, therefore, that the work of education, in any form, is as great as any other work; but I fail to see why it should be greater. Usefulness is usefulness: there is no reason why it should be postponed273 from generation to generation, or why it is better to rear a serviceable human being than to be one in person. Carry the theory consistently out: if each mother must simply rear her daughter that she in turn may rear somebody else, then from each generation the work will devolve upon a succeeding generation, so that it will be only the last woman who will personally do any service, except that of motherhood; and when her time comes it will be too late for any service at all.
If it be said, "But some of these children will be men, who are necessarily of more use than women," I deny the necessity. If it be said, "The children may be many, and the mother, who is but one, may well be sacrificed," it might be replied that, as one great act may be worth many smaller ones, so all the numerous children and grandchildren of a woman like Lucretia Mott may not collectively equal the usefulness of herself alone. If she, like many women, had held it her duty to renounce274 all other duties and interests from the time her motherhood began, I think that the world, and even her children, would have lost more than could ever have been gained by her more complete absorption in the nursery.
The true theory seems a very simple one. The very fact that during one half the years of a woman's average life she is made incapable of child-bearing shows that there are, even for the most prolific275 and devoted244 mothers, duties other than the maternal276. Even during the most absorbing years of motherhood, the wisest women still try to keep up their interest in society, in literature, in the world's affairs--were it only for their children's sake. Multitudes of women will never be mothers; and those more fortunate may find even the usefulness of their motherhood surpassed by what they do in other ways. If maternal duties interfere237 in some degree with all other functions, the same is true, though in a far less degree, of those of a father. But there are those who combine both spheres. The German poet Wieland claimed to be the parent of fourteen children and forty books; and who knows by which parentage he served the world the best?
A GERMAN POINT OF VIEW
Many Americans will remember the favorable impression made by Professor Christlieb of Germany, when he attended the meeting of the Evangelical Alliance in New York some years ago. His writings, like his presence, show a most liberal spirit; and perhaps no man has ever presented the more advanced evangelical theology of Germany in so attractive a light. Yet I heard a story of him the other day, which either showed him in an aspect quite undesirable277, or else gave an unpleasant view of the social position of women in Germany.
The story was to the effect that a young American student recently called on Professor Christlieb with a letter of introduction. The professor received him cordially, and soon entered into conversation about the United States. He praised the natural features of the country, and the enterprising spirit of our citizens, but expressed much solicitude278 about the future of the nation. On being asked his reasons, he frankly expressed his opinion that "the Spirit of Christ" was not here. Being still further pressed to illustrate his meaning, he gave, as instances of this deficiency, not the Crédit Mobilier or the Tweed scandal, but such alarming facts as the following. He seriously declared that, on more than one occasion, he had heard an American married woman say to her husband, "Dear, will you bring me my shawl?" and the husband had brought it. He further had seen a husband return home at evening, and enter the parlor279 where his wife was sitting,--perhaps in the very best chair in the room,--and the wife not only did not go and get his dressing-gown and slippers280, but she even remained seated, and left him to find a chair as he could. These things, as Professor Christlieb pointed out, suggested a serious deficiency of the spirit of Christ in the community.
With our American habits and interpretations281, it is hard to see this matter just as the professor sees it. One would suppose that, if there is any meaning in the command, "Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ," a little of such fulfilling might sometimes be good for the husband, as for the wife. And though it would undoubtedly282 be more pleasing to see every wife so eager to receive her husband that she would naturally spring from her chair and run to kiss him in the doorway283, yet, where such devotion was wanting, it would be but fair to inquire which of the two had done the more fatiguing284 day's work, and to whom the easy-chair justly belonged. The truth is, I suppose, that the good professor's remark indicated simply a "survival" in his mind, or in his social circle, of a barbarous tradition, under which the wife of a Mexican herdsman cannot eat at the table with her "lord and master," and the wife of a German professor must vacate the best armchair at his approach.
If so, it is not to be regretted that we in this country have outgrown a relation so unequal. Nor am I at all afraid that the great Teacher, who, pointing to the multitude for whom he was soon to die, said of them, "Whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother and my sister and my mother," would have objected to any mutual and equal service between man and woman. If we assume that two human beings have immortal285 souls, there can be no want of dignity to either in serving the other. The greater equality of woman in America seems to be, on this reasoning, a proof of the presence not the absence, of the spirit of Christ; nor does Dr. Christlieb seem quite worthy262 of the beautiful name he bears, if he feels otherwise.
But if it is really true that a German professor has to cross the Atlantic to witness a phenomenon so very simple as that of a lover-like husband bringing a shawl for his wife, I should say, Let the immigration from Germany be encouraged as much as possible, in order that even the most learned immigrants may discover something new.
CHILDLESS WOMEN
It has not always been regarded as a thing creditable to woman that she was the mother of the human race. On the contrary, the fact was often mentioned, in the Middle Ages, as a distinct proof of inferiority. The question was discussed in the mediaeval Council of Ma?on, and the position taken that woman was no more entitled to rank as human, because she brought forth141 men, than the garden-earth could take rank with the fruit and flowers it bore. The same view was revived by a Latin writer of 1595, on the thesis "Mulieres non homines esse," a French translation of which essay was printed under the title of "Paradoxe sur les femmes," in 1766. Napoleon Bonaparte used the same image, carrying it almost as far:--
"Woman is given to man that she may bear children. Woman is our property; we are not hers: because she produces children for us; we do not yield any to her: she is therefore our possession, as the fruit-tree is that of the gardener."
Even the fact of parentage, therefore, has been adroitly286 converted into a ground of inferiority for women; and this is ostensibly the reason why lineage has been reckoned, almost everywhere, through the male line only, ignoring the female; just as, in tracing the seed of some rare fruit, the gardener takes no genealogical account of the garden where it grew. This view is now seldom expressed in full force: but one remnant of it is to be found in the lingering impression, that, at any rate, a woman who is not a mother is of no account; as worthless as a fruitless garden or a barren fruit-tree. Created only for a certain object, she is of course valueless unless that object be fulfilled.
But the race must have fathers as well as mothers; and if we look for evidence of public service in great men, it certainly does not always lie in leaving children to the republic. On the contrary, the rule has rather seemed to be, that the most eminent men have left their bequest287 of service in any form rather than in that of a great family. Recent inquiries288 into the matter have brought out some remarkable289 facts in this regard.
As a rule, there exist no living descendants in the male line from the great authors, artists, statesmen, soldiers, of England. It is stated that there is not one such descendant of Chaucer, Shakespeare, Spenser, Butler, Dryden, Pope, Cowper, Goldsmith, Scott, Byron, or Moore; not one of Drake, Cromwell, Monk290, Marlborough, Peterborough, or Nelson; not one of Strafford, Ormond, or Clarendon; not one of Addison, Swift, or Johnson; not one of Walpole, Bolingbroke, Chatham, Pitt, Fox, Burke, Grattan, or Canning; not one of Bacon, Locke, Newton, or Davy; not one of Hume, Gibbon, or Macaulay; not one of Hogarth or Reynolds; not one of Garrick, John Kemble, or Edmund Kean. It would be easy to make a similar American list, beginning with Washington, of whom it was said that "Providence291 made him childless that his country might call him Father."
Now, however we may regret that these great men have left little or no posterity292, it does not occur to any one as affording any serious drawback upon their service to their nation. Certainly it does not occur to us that they would have been more useful had they left children to the world, but rendered it no other service. Lord Bacon says that "he that hath wife and children hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue293 or mischief294. Certainly the best works, and of greatest merit for the public, have proceeded from the unmarried or childless men; which, both in affection and means, have married and endowed the public." And this is the view generally accepted,--that the public is in such cases rather the gainer than the loser, and has no right to complain.
Since, therefore, every child must have a father and a mother both, and neither will alone suffice, why should we thus heap gratitude on men who from preference or from necessity have remained childless, and yet habitually treat women as if they could render no service to their country except by giving it children? If it be folly and shame, as I think, to belittle295 and decry296 the dignity and worth of motherhood, as some are said to do, it is no less folly, and shame quite as great, to deny the grand and patriotic297 service of many women who have died and left no children among their mourners. Plato puts into the mouth of a woman,--the eloquent298 Diotima, in the "Banquet,"--that, after all, we are more grateful to Homer and Hesiod for the children of their brain than if they had left human offspring.
THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO MOTHERS
From the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals we have now advanced to a similar society for the benefit of children. When shall we have a movement for the prevention of cruelty to mothers?
A Rhode Island lady, who had never taken any interest in the woman-suffrage movement, came to me in great indignation the other day, asking if it was true that under Rhode Island laws a husband might, by his last will, bequeath his child away from its mother, so that she might, if the guardian chose, never see it again. I said that it was undoubtedly true, and that such were still the laws in many States of the union.
"But," she said, "it is an outrage. The husband may have been one of the weakest or worst men in the world; he may have persecuted299 his wife and children; he may have made the will in a moment of anger, and have neglected to alter it. At any rate, he is dead, and the mother is living. The guardian whom he appoints may turn out a very malicious300 man, and may take pleasure in torturing the mother; or he may bring up the children in a way their mother thinks ruinous for them. Why do not all the mothers cry out against such a law?"
"I wish they would," I said. "I have been trying a good many years to make them understand what the law is; but they do not. People who do not vote pay no attention to the laws until they suffer from them."
She went away protesting that she, at least, would not hold her tongue on the subject, and I hope she will not. The actual text of the law to which she objected is as follows:--
"Every person authorized by law to make a will, except married women, shall have a right to appoint by his will a guardian or guardians for his children during their minority."[1]
There is not associated with this, in the statute, the slightest clause in favor of the mother; nor anything which could limit the power of the guardian by requiring deference302 to her wishes, although he could, in case of gross neglect or abuse, be removed by the court, and another guardian appointed. There is not a line of positive law to protect the mother. Now, in a case of absolute wrong, a single sentence of law is worth all the chivalrous303 courtesy this side of the Middle Ages.
It is idle to say that such laws are not executed. They are executed. I have had letters, too agonizing304 to print, expressing the sufferings of mothers under laws like these. There lies before me a letter,--not from Rhode Island,--written by a widowed mother who suffers daily tortures, even while in possession of her child, at the knowledge that it is not legally hers, but held only by the temporary permission of the guardian appointed under her husband's will.
"I beg you," she says, "to take this will to the hilltop, and urge law-makers in our next legislature to free the State record from the shameful305 story that no mother can control her child unless it is born out of wedlock306."
"From the moment," she says, "when the will was read to me, I have made no effort to set it aside. I wait till God reveals his plans, so far as my own condition is concerned. But out of my keen comprehension of this great wrong, notwithstanding my submission for myself, my whole soul is stirred,--for my child, who is a little woman; for all women, that the laws may be changed which subject a true woman, a devoted wife, a faithful mother, to such mental agonies as I have endured, and shall endure till I die."
In a later letter she says, "I now have his [the guardian's] solemn promise that he will not remove her from my control. To some extent my sufferings are allayed307; and yet never, till she arrives at the age of twenty-one, shall I fully18 trust." I wish that mothers who dwell in sheltered and happy homes would try to bring to their minds the condition of a mother whose possession of her only child rests upon the "promise" of a comparative stranger. We should get beyond the meaningless cry, "I have all the rights I want," if mothers could only remember that among these rights, in most States of the union, the right of a widowed mother to her child is not included.
By strenuous308 effort, the law on this point has in Massachusetts been gradually amended309, till it now stands thus: The father is authorized to appoint a guardian by will; but the powers of this guardian do not entitle him to take the child from the mother.
"The guardian of a minor301 ... shall have the custody and tuition of his ward; and the care and management of all his estate, except that the father of the minor, if living, and in case of his death the mother, they being respectively competent to transact310 their own business, shall be entitled to the custody of the person of the minor and the care of his education."[2]
Down to 1870 the cruel words "while she remains unmarried" followed the word "mother" in the above law. Until that time, the mother if remarried had no claim to the custody of her child, in case the guardian wished otherwise; and a very painful scene once took place in a Boston court-room, where children were forced away from their mother by the officers, under this statute, in spite of her tears and theirs; and this when no sort of personal charge had been made against her. This could not now happen in Massachusetts, but it might still happen in some other States. It is true that men are almost always better than their laws; but while a bad law remains on the statute-book it gives to any unscrupulous man the power to be as bad as the law.
点击收听单词发音
1 abreast | |
adv.并排地;跟上(时代)的步伐,与…并进地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 feudal | |
adj.封建的,封地的,领地的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 baron | |
n.男爵;(商业界等)巨头,大王 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 monarchy | |
n.君主,最高统治者;君主政体,君主国 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 spurns | |
v.一脚踢开,拒绝接受( spurn的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 treatise | |
n.专著;(专题)论文 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 aged | |
adj.年老的,陈年的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 middle-aged | |
adj.中年的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 extravagant | |
adj.奢侈的;过分的;(言行等)放肆的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 wreck | |
n.失事,遇难;沉船;vt.(船等)失事,遇难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 wedded | |
adj.正式结婚的;渴望…的,执著于…的v.嫁,娶,(与…)结婚( wed的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 habitual | |
adj.习惯性的;通常的,惯常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 misery | |
n.痛苦,苦恼,苦难;悲惨的境遇,贫苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 par | |
n.标准,票面价值,平均数量;adj.票面的,平常的,标准的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 belle | |
n.靓女 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 tavern | |
n.小旅馆,客栈;小酒店 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 coterie | |
n.(有共同兴趣的)小团体,小圈子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 fully | |
adv.完全地,全部地,彻底地;充分地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 strife | |
n.争吵,冲突,倾轧,竞争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 rite | |
n.典礼,惯例,习俗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 conspicuous | |
adj.明眼的,惹人注目的;炫耀的,摆阔气的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 habitually | |
ad.习惯地,通常地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
23 melancholy | |
n.忧郁,愁思;adj.令人感伤(沮丧)的,忧郁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
24 alleged | |
a.被指控的,嫌疑的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
25 peculiar | |
adj.古怪的,异常的;特殊的,特有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
26 pervades | |
v.遍及,弥漫( pervade的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
27 manliness | |
刚毅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
28 joint | |
adj.联合的,共同的;n.关节,接合处;v.连接,贴合 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
29 lamented | |
adj.被哀悼的,令人遗憾的v.(为…)哀悼,痛哭,悲伤( lament的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
30 agitation | |
n.搅动;搅拌;鼓动,煽动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
31 instructors | |
指导者,教师( instructor的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
32 ethics | |
n.伦理学;伦理观,道德标准 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
33 savages | |
未开化的人,野蛮人( savage的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
34 savage | |
adj.野蛮的;凶恶的,残暴的;n.未开化的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
35 literally | |
adv.照字面意义,逐字地;确实 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
36 asunder | |
adj.分离的,化为碎片 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
37 kinsmen | |
n.家属,亲属( kinsman的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
38 primitive | |
adj.原始的;简单的;n.原(始)人,原始事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
39 vestiges | |
残余部分( vestige的名词复数 ); 遗迹; 痕迹; 毫不 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
40 consummate | |
adj.完美的;v.成婚;使完美 [反]baffle | |
参考例句: |
|
|
41 brutal | |
adj.残忍的,野蛮的,不讲理的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
42 soften | |
v.(使)变柔软;(使)变柔和 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
43 softened | |
(使)变软( soften的过去式和过去分词 ); 缓解打击; 缓和; 安慰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
44 remains | |
n.剩余物,残留物;遗体,遗迹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
45 alteration | |
n.变更,改变;蚀变 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
46 modification | |
n.修改,改进,缓和,减轻 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
47 glaciers | |
冰河,冰川( glacier的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
48 glacier | |
n.冰川,冰河 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
49 folly | |
n.愚笨,愚蠢,蠢事,蠢行,傻话 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
50 fixed | |
adj.固定的,不变的,准备好的;(计算机)固定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
51 amazement | |
n.惊奇,惊讶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
52 missionary | |
adj.教会的,传教(士)的;n.传教士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
53 astonishment | |
n.惊奇,惊异 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
54 throng | |
n.人群,群众;v.拥挤,群集 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
55 halfway | |
adj.中途的,不彻底的,部分的;adv.半路地,在中途,在半途 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
56 nuptials | |
n.婚礼;婚礼( nuptial的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
57 poetic | |
adj.富有诗意的,有诗人气质的,善于抒情的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
58 sonnets | |
n.十四行诗( sonnet的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
59 Portuguese | |
n.葡萄牙人;葡萄牙语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
60 climax | |
n.顶点;高潮;v.(使)达到顶点 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
61 barbarian | |
n.野蛮人;adj.野蛮(人)的;未开化的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
62 ward | |
n.守卫,监护,病房,行政区,由监护人或法院保护的人(尤指儿童);vt.守护,躲开 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
63 alpine | |
adj.高山的;n.高山植物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
64 elevation | |
n.高度;海拔;高地;上升;提高 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
65 permanently | |
adv.永恒地,永久地,固定不变地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
66 obedience | |
n.服从,顺从 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
67 suffrage | |
n.投票,选举权,参政权 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
68 outrage | |
n.暴行,侮辱,愤怒;vt.凌辱,激怒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
69 illustrate | |
v.举例说明,阐明;图解,加插图 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
70 Christian | |
adj.基督教徒的;n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
71 refinements | |
n.(生活)风雅;精炼( refinement的名词复数 );改良品;细微的改良;优雅或高贵的动作 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
72 impure | |
adj.不纯净的,不洁的;不道德的,下流的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
73 inevitably | |
adv.不可避免地;必然发生地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
74 authorized | |
a.委任的,许可的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
75 scourged | |
鞭打( scourge的过去式和过去分词 ); 惩罚,压迫 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
76 submission | |
n.服从,投降;温顺,谦虚;提出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
77 injustice | |
n.非正义,不公正,不公平,侵犯(别人的)权利 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
78 equitable | |
adj.公平的;公正的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
79 aisle | |
n.(教堂、教室、戏院等里的)过道,通道 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
80 expunged | |
v.擦掉( expunge的过去式和过去分词 );除去;删去;消除 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
81 frankly | |
adv.坦白地,直率地;坦率地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
82 incur | |
vt.招致,蒙受,遭遇 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
83 outgrown | |
长[发展] 得超过(某物)的范围( outgrow的过去分词 ); 长[发展]得不能再要(某物); 长得比…快; 生长速度超过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
84 applied | |
adj.应用的;v.应用,适用 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
85 emancipation | |
n.(从束缚、支配下)解放 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
86 technically | |
adv.专门地,技术上地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
87 prescriptions | |
药( prescription的名词复数 ); 处方; 开处方; 计划 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
88 impartial | |
adj.(in,to)公正的,无偏见的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
89 covenant | |
n.盟约,契约;v.订盟约 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
90 symbolic | |
adj.象征性的,符号的,象征主义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
91 slipper | |
n.拖鞋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
92 sergeant | |
n.警官,中士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
93 pointed | |
adj.尖的,直截了当的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
94 chevrons | |
n.(警察或士兵所佩带以示衔级的)∧形或∨形标志( chevron的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
95 licentious | |
adj.放纵的,淫乱的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
96 chattel | |
n.动产;奴隶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
97 pervert | |
n.堕落者,反常者;vt.误用,滥用;使人堕落,使入邪路 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
98 obtuse | |
adj.钝的;愚钝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
99 profligate | |
adj.行为不检的;n.放荡的人,浪子,肆意挥霍者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
100 pastor | |
n.牧师,牧人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
101 outrages | |
引起…的义愤,激怒( outrage的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
102 agonized | |
v.使(极度)痛苦,折磨( agonize的过去式和过去分词 );苦斗;苦苦思索;感到极度痛苦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
103 inquiry | |
n.打听,询问,调查,查问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
104 adviser | |
n.劝告者,顾问 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
105 trample | |
vt.踩,践踏;无视,伤害,侵犯 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
106 inhuman | |
adj.残忍的,不人道的,无人性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
107 doctrine | |
n.教义;主义;学说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
108 corpse | |
n.尸体,死尸 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
109 cadaver | |
n.尸体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
110 tyrants | |
专制统治者( tyrant的名词复数 ); 暴君似的人; (古希腊的)僭主; 严酷的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
111 maiden | |
n.少女,处女;adj.未婚的,纯洁的,无经验的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
112 yoke | |
n.轭;支配;v.给...上轭,连接,使成配偶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
113 mere | |
adj.纯粹的;仅仅,只不过 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
114 derived | |
vi.起源;由来;衍生;导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 );(从…中)得到获得;源于;(从…中)提取 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
115 paternal | |
adj.父亲的,像父亲的,父系的,父方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
116 nominees | |
n.被提名者,被任命者( nominee的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
117 guardians | |
监护人( guardian的名词复数 ); 保护者,维护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
118 guardian | |
n.监护人;守卫者,保护者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
119 guardianship | |
n. 监护, 保护, 守护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
120 conjugal | |
adj.婚姻的,婚姻性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
121 uncommon | |
adj.罕见的,非凡的,不平常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
122 custodian | |
n.保管人,监护人;公共建筑看守 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
123 essentially | |
adv.本质上,实质上,基本上 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
124 rigid | |
adj.严格的,死板的;刚硬的,僵硬的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
125 parental | |
adj.父母的;父的;母的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
126 residue | |
n.残余,剩余,残渣 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
127 unnatural | |
adj.不自然的;反常的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
128 relic | |
n.神圣的遗物,遗迹,纪念物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
129 rattling | |
adj. 格格作响的, 活泼的, 很好的 adv. 极其, 很, 非常 动词rattle的现在分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
130 perfectly | |
adv.完美地,无可非议地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
131 bigotry | |
n.偏见,偏执,持偏见的行为[态度]等 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
132 whim | |
n.一时的兴致,突然的念头;奇想,幻想 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
133 discretion | |
n.谨慎;随意处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
134 interpretation | |
n.解释,说明,描述;艺术处理 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
135 bigoted | |
adj.固执己见的,心胸狭窄的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
136 bereaved | |
adj.刚刚丧失亲人的v.使失去(希望、生命等)( bereave的过去式和过去分词);(尤指死亡)使丧失(亲人、朋友等);使孤寂;抢走(财物) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
137 disposition | |
n.性情,性格;意向,倾向;排列,部署 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
138 lackeys | |
n.听差( lackey的名词复数 );男仆(通常穿制服);卑躬屈膝的人;被待为奴仆的人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
139 judicious | |
adj.明智的,明断的,能作出明智决定的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
140 protrude | |
v.使突出,伸出,突出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
141 forth | |
adv.向前;向外,往外 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
142 entirely | |
ad.全部地,完整地;完全地,彻底地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
143 mansion | |
n.大厦,大楼;宅第 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
144 abode | |
n.住处,住所 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
145 imprisonment | |
n.关押,监禁,坐牢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
146 custody | |
n.监护,照看,羁押,拘留 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
147 whatsoever | |
adv.(用于否定句中以加强语气)任何;pron.无论什么 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
148 imploring | |
恳求的,哀求的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
149 torpid | |
adj.麻痹的,麻木的,迟钝的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
150 fowls | |
鸟( fowl的名词复数 ); 禽肉; 既不是这; 非驴非马 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
151 bemoan | |
v.悲叹,哀泣,痛哭;惋惜,不满于 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
152 woe | |
n.悲哀,苦痛,不幸,困难;int.用来表达悲伤或惊慌 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
153 champagne | |
n.香槟酒;微黄色 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
154 kindly | |
adj.和蔼的,温和的,爽快的;adv.温和地,亲切地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
155 boughs | |
大树枝( bough的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
156 dungeon | |
n.地牢,土牢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
157 nurture | |
n.养育,照顾,教育;滋养,营养品;vt.养育,给与营养物,教养,扶持 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
158 uncouth | |
adj.无教养的,粗鲁的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
159 depicted | |
描绘,描画( depict的过去式和过去分词 ); 描述 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
160 touching | |
adj.动人的,使人感伤的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
161 obnoxious | |
adj.极恼人的,讨人厌的,可憎的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
162 earnings | |
n.工资收人;利润,利益,所得 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
163 gambling | |
n.赌博;投机 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
164 celebrated | |
adj.有名的,声誉卓著的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
165 peril | |
n.(严重的)危险;危险的事物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
166 impaired | |
adj.受损的;出毛病的;有(身体或智力)缺陷的v.损害,削弱( impair的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
167 impair | |
v.损害,损伤;削弱,减少 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
168 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
169 assuage | |
v.缓和,减轻,镇定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
170 antagonism | |
n.对抗,敌对,对立 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
171 antagonisms | |
对抗,敌对( antagonism的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
172 hostility | |
n.敌对,敌意;抵制[pl.]交战,战争 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
173 insignificance | |
n.不重要;无价值;无意义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
174 dynamite | |
n./vt.(用)炸药(爆破) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
175 meddling | |
v.干涉,干预(他人事务)( meddle的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
176 intensity | |
n.强烈,剧烈;强度;烈度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
177 insignificant | |
adj.无关紧要的,可忽略的,无意义的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
178 mutual | |
adj.相互的,彼此的;共同的,共有的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
179 nonentities | |
n.无足轻重的人( nonentity的名词复数 );蝼蚁 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
180 economists | |
n.经济学家,经济专家( economist的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
181 legislative | |
n.立法机构,立法权;adj.立法的,有立法权的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
182 expenditure | |
n.(时间、劳力、金钱等)支出;使用,消耗 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
183 expenditures | |
n.花费( expenditure的名词复数 );使用;(尤指金钱的)支出额;(精力、时间、材料等的)耗费 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
184 lavish | |
adj.无节制的;浪费的;vt.慷慨地给予,挥霍 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
185 economize | |
v.节约,节省 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
186 murmur | |
n.低语,低声的怨言;v.低语,低声而言 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
187 naval | |
adj.海军的,军舰的,船的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
188 scanty | |
adj.缺乏的,仅有的,节省的,狭小的,不够的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
189 lavishness | |
n.浪费,过度 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
190 cramped | |
a.狭窄的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
191 subscriptions | |
n.(报刊等的)订阅费( subscription的名词复数 );捐款;(俱乐部的)会员费;捐助 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
192 resolutely | |
adj.坚决地,果断地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
193 subscribed | |
v.捐助( subscribe的过去式和过去分词 );签署,题词;订阅;同意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
194 formerly | |
adv.从前,以前 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
195 watchful | |
adj.注意的,警惕的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
196 contriving | |
(不顾困难地)促成某事( contrive的现在分词 ); 巧妙地策划,精巧地制造(如机器); 设法做到 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
197 accomplished | |
adj.有才艺的;有造诣的;达到了的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
198 eminent | |
adj.显赫的,杰出的,有名的,优良的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
199 teaspoons | |
n.茶匙( teaspoon的名词复数 );一茶匙的量 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
200 apron | |
n.围裙;工作裙 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
201 sobbed | |
哭泣,啜泣( sob的过去式和过去分词 ); 哭诉,呜咽地说 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
202 temperaments | |
性格( temperament的名词复数 ); (人或动物的)气质; 易冲动; (性情)暴躁 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
203 almighty | |
adj.全能的,万能的;很大的,很强的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
204 testimony | |
n.证词;见证,证明 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
205 recluse | |
n.隐居者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
206 incapable | |
adj.无能力的,不能做某事的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
207 deplore | |
vt.哀叹,对...深感遗憾 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
208 partnership | |
n.合作关系,伙伴关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
209 labor | |
n.劳动,努力,工作,劳工;分娩;vi.劳动,努力,苦干;vt.详细分析;麻烦 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
210 superintendent | |
n.监督人,主管,总监;(英国)警务长 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
211 precisely | |
adv.恰好,正好,精确地,细致地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
212 demise | |
n.死亡;v.让渡,遗赠,转让 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
213 interval | |
n.间隔,间距;幕间休息,中场休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
214 generosity | |
n.大度,慷慨,慷慨的行为 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
215 evaded | |
逃避( evade的过去式和过去分词 ); 避开; 回避; 想不出 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
216 conscientious | |
adj.审慎正直的,认真的,本着良心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
217 disbursed | |
v.支出,付出( disburse的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
218 absolve | |
v.赦免,解除(责任等) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
219 nay | |
adv.不;n.反对票,投反对票者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
220 distinguished | |
adj.卓越的,杰出的,著名的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
221 procure | |
vt.获得,取得,促成;vi.拉皮条 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
222 repel | |
v.击退,抵制,拒绝,排斥 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
223 deriding | |
v.取笑,嘲笑( deride的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
224 bestowed | |
赠给,授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
225 drawn | |
v.拖,拉,拔出;adj.憔悴的,紧张的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
226 dealers | |
n.商人( dealer的名词复数 );贩毒者;毒品贩子;发牌者 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
227 supreme | |
adj.极度的,最重要的;至高的,最高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
228 presumption | |
n.推测,可能性,冒昧,放肆,[法律]推定 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
229 infinitely | |
adv.无限地,无穷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
230 merged | |
(使)混合( merge的过去式和过去分词 ); 相融; 融入; 渐渐消失在某物中 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
231 merge | |
v.(使)结合,(使)合并,(使)合为一体 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
232 absurdity | |
n.荒谬,愚蠢;谬论 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
233 superseded | |
[医]被代替的,废弃的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
234 statute | |
n.成文法,法令,法规;章程,规则,条例 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
235 tersely | |
adv. 简捷地, 简要地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
236 collateral | |
adj.平行的;旁系的;n.担保品 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
237 interfere | |
v.(in)干涉,干预;(with)妨碍,打扰 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
238 colons | |
n.冒号( colon的名词复数 );结肠 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
239 decided | |
adj.决定了的,坚决的;明显的,明确的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
240 shipwreck | |
n.船舶失事,海难 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
241 stipulate | |
vt.规定,(作为条件)讲定,保证 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
242 intervals | |
n.[军事]间隔( interval的名词复数 );间隔时间;[数学]区间;(戏剧、电影或音乐会的)幕间休息 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
243 devotedly | |
专心地; 恩爱地; 忠实地; 一心一意地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
244 devoted | |
adj.忠诚的,忠实的,热心的,献身于...的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
245 smoothly | |
adv.平滑地,顺利地,流利地,流畅地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
246 misgivings | |
n.疑虑,担忧,害怕;疑虑,担心,恐惧( misgiving的名词复数 );疑惧 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
247 thoroughly | |
adv.完全地,彻底地,十足地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
248 demurred | |
v.表示异议,反对( demur的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
249 annoyance | |
n.恼怒,生气,烦恼 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
250 reluctance | |
n.厌恶,讨厌,勉强,不情愿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
251 kinsman | |
n.男亲属 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
252 unreasonable | |
adj.不讲道理的,不合情理的,过度的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
253 gratitude | |
adj.感激,感谢 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
254 dignified | |
a.可敬的,高贵的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
255 housekeeper | |
n.管理家务的主妇,女管家 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
256 solicit | |
vi.勾引;乞求;vt.请求,乞求;招揽(生意) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
257 withhold | |
v.拒绝,不给;使停止,阻挡 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
258 nominally | |
在名义上,表面地; 应名儿 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
259 machinery | |
n.(总称)机械,机器;机构 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
260 groan | |
vi./n.呻吟,抱怨;(发出)呻吟般的声音 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
261 zeal | |
n.热心,热情,热忱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
262 worthy | |
adj.(of)值得的,配得上的;有价值的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
263 emancipated | |
adj.被解放的,不受约束的v.解放某人(尤指摆脱政治、法律或社会的束缚)( emancipate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
264 utterance | |
n.用言语表达,话语,言语 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
265 beads | |
n.(空心)小珠子( bead的名词复数 );水珠;珠子项链 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
266 logic | |
n.逻辑(学);逻辑性 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
267 undone | |
a.未做完的,未完成的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
268 prospective | |
adj.预期的,未来的,前瞻性的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
269 justify | |
vt.证明…正当(或有理),为…辩护 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
270 boor | |
n.举止粗野的人;乡下佬 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
271 prosaic | |
adj.单调的,无趣的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
272 thereby | |
adv.因此,从而 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
273 postponed | |
vt.& vi.延期,缓办,(使)延迟vt.把…放在次要地位;[语]把…放在后面(或句尾)vi.(疟疾等)延缓发作(或复发) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
274 renounce | |
v.放弃;拒绝承认,宣布与…断绝关系 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
275 prolific | |
adj.丰富的,大量的;多产的,富有创造力的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
276 maternal | |
adj.母亲的,母亲般的,母系的,母方的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
277 undesirable | |
adj.不受欢迎的,不良的,不合意的,讨厌的;n.不受欢迎的人,不良分子 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
278 solicitude | |
n.焦虑 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
279 parlor | |
n.店铺,营业室;会客室,客厅 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
280 slippers | |
n. 拖鞋 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
281 interpretations | |
n.解释( interpretation的名词复数 );表演;演绎;理解 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
282 undoubtedly | |
adv.确实地,无疑地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
283 doorway | |
n.门口,(喻)入门;门路,途径 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
284 fatiguing | |
a.使人劳累的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
285 immortal | |
adj.不朽的;永生的,不死的;神的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
286 adroitly | |
adv.熟练地,敏捷地 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
287 bequest | |
n.遗赠;遗产,遗物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
288 inquiries | |
n.调查( inquiry的名词复数 );疑问;探究;打听 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
289 remarkable | |
adj.显著的,异常的,非凡的,值得注意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
290 monk | |
n.和尚,僧侣,修道士 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
291 providence | |
n.深谋远虑,天道,天意;远见;节约;上帝 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
292 posterity | |
n.后裔,子孙,后代 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
293 virtue | |
n.德行,美德;贞操;优点;功效,效力 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
294 mischief | |
n.损害,伤害,危害;恶作剧,捣蛋,胡闹 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
295 belittle | |
v.轻视,小看,贬低 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
296 decry | |
v.危难,谴责 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
297 patriotic | |
adj.爱国的,有爱国心的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
298 eloquent | |
adj.雄辩的,口才流利的;明白显示出的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
299 persecuted | |
(尤指宗教或政治信仰的)迫害(~sb. for sth.)( persecute的过去式和过去分词 ); 烦扰,困扰或骚扰某人 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
300 malicious | |
adj.有恶意的,心怀恶意的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
301 minor | |
adj.较小(少)的,较次要的;n.辅修学科;vi.辅修 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
302 deference | |
n.尊重,顺从;敬意 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
303 chivalrous | |
adj.武士精神的;对女人彬彬有礼的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
304 agonizing | |
adj.痛苦难忍的;使人苦恼的v.使极度痛苦;折磨(agonize的ing形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
305 shameful | |
adj.可耻的,不道德的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
306 wedlock | |
n.婚姻,已婚状态 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
307 allayed | |
v.减轻,缓和( allay的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
308 strenuous | |
adj.奋发的,使劲的;紧张的;热烈的,狂热的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
309 Amended | |
adj. 修正的 动词amend的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
310 transact | |
v.处理;做交易;谈判 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
欢迎访问英文小说网 |