Woman, Church & State

510

Translated into English under title of “Nora,” by Miss Frances Lord.

511

So profound was its effect that visiting invitations were coupled with the request not to speak of the work.

512

Marian Brown Shipley, an American lady, long a resident of Sweden and thoroughly conversant with its literature and tone of thought, said of it, “A more glorious thing has not been done in Sweden for centuries, Strindberg has defied church and state, striking both to their foundations with his merciless satire, and rallied the Swedish people at a single stroke.”

513

Bjornsen said, “The confiscating of August Strindberg’s book Giftas, is the greatest literary scandal in the North in my time. It is worse than when one wished to put me in the house of correction on account of the King; or thrust out Ibsen from the society of honorable people for gjengungerd (Ghosts).”

514

March 30, 1882.

515

Russian Revolt.

516

A Russian writer of the 17th century said: “As Eve did wrong, so the whole race of women become sinful and the cause of evil.”

517

She was spoken of as a “Vanity itself,” “A storm in the home,” “A flood that swells everything,” “A serpent nourished in the bosom,” “A spear penetrating the heart,” “A constantly flying arrow.”

518

Rural Life in Russia. – The Nineteenth Century.

519

See Chap. 4. p. 161.

520

I myself am the happy possessor of a little rude wooden bas-relief, framed and glazed, of two saints, whose names I have ungratefully forgotten, to whom if you pray as you go out to commit a crime, however heinous, you take your pardon with you. —Rural Life in Russia.

521

See Chap. 4. p. 182.

522

Reported by Mrs. Livermore.

523

Leavenworth Standard, Dec. 21, 1886.

524

Under common law a woman is classified with lunatics, idiots, infants and minors.

525

Milton’s oriental views of the function of women led him not only to neglect but to prevent the education of his daughters. They were sent to no school at all, but were handed over to a school mistress in the house. He would not allow them to learn any language, saying with a sneer that “for a woman one tongue is enough.” The miseries however that follow the selfish sacrifice of others is so sure to strike, that there needs no future world of punishment to adjust the balance. The time came when Milton would have given worlds that his daughters had learned the tongues. He was blind and could only get at his precious book – could only give expression to his precious verses through the eyes and hands of others. Whose hands and whose eyes so proper for this as his daughters? He proceeded to train them to read to him, parrot-like, in five or six languages which he (the schoolmaster) could at one time have easily taught them; but of which they now could not understand a word. He turned his daughters into reading machines. It is appalling to think of such a task. That Mary should revolt and at last after repeated contests with her taskmaster, learn to hate her father – that she should, when some one spoke in her presence of her father’s approaching marriage, make the dreadful speech that it was no news to hear of his wedding, but if she could hear of his death, that was something – is unutterably painful, but not surprising. —The Athenaeum.

526

The Church as It Is.– Parker Pillsbury, pp. 32-3-4-5-6.

527

Report of the Proceedings of the Missionary Conference. – Mr. Perkins’ speech.

528

The same hymns are sung, the same doctrine preached, the same necessity for salvation emphasized, and justification by faith is made the corner stone of redemption.

529

Historians have declared that “Nowhere did the spirit of Puritanism in its evil as well as its good, more thoroughly express itself than in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.” Boston, for its atrocities was known as “The Bloody Town.” “The Emancipation of Massachusetts” by Brooks Adams, gives a very correct account of the retarding influence of Puritan bigotry in the development of intellectual truth in the New England States.

530

The true character of Presbyterian Pastors in Scotland in Time of Charles II.

531

When her father’s name was mentioned, Dora said, “Don’t speak to me of my father, Mr. Morris, you and the whole church know that my father, prophet though you call him, broke many a woman’s heart. If it is required of me to break as many hearts and ruin as many women as my father did, I should go to perdition before I would go back into the church again, and – ” “Oh, sister Dora!” exclaimed the teacher in consternation at her clearness of vision. “It is a fact and you know it,” she continued, “you know that many of his wives died of broken hearts and how did he leave the rest? Look at my mother and look at all the rest of them! A religion that breaks women’s hearts and ruins them is of the devil. That’s what Mormonism does. Don’t talk to me of my father.” —Reported in the Chicago Inter Ocean.

532

A correspondent writing for an eastern paper from Salt Lake City, a few years since, said: “Of all the ill-conditioned, God-forsaken, hopeless looking people I ever saw, the women here beat them all. Yesterday was supply day for the Mormons living outside the city. They bring their wives into town in dead-axle wagons, and fill the vacant room with children who look fully as bad as their mothers, if not worse. Many of them are lean and hump-backed and all look sickly and ill-clad. Two out of three women on the streets yesterday, had nursing infants in their arms. One of the saints had thirteen wives and ninety-four children; another had nine wives and five nursling babies, which he exhibited with all the pride I should take in a lot of fine horses. I never realized the infernal nature of the institution nor its effect upon society as I do now.”

533

Key to Theology, by Parley Pratt.

534

Ibid.

535

The following conversation took place between a mistress and an Irish servant girl: “Bridget, why are not women ever priests?” “Oh! they couldn’t be; they’re too wicked.” “You don’t believe such nonsense, do you – you don’t believe women are more wicked than men?” “Yes, ma’am,” replied Bridget with emphasis; “they’re a dale more wicked; they can’t iver be prastes, for they brought sin into the world. Eve was the very first sinner; I learned it all in the catechism.”

536

In a recent Catholic Allocution, emanating from the dignitaries of that church on the Pacific Coast, it was said: “The church, like Christ, is the same yesterday, today and forever; it is the same here as in other parts of the world; its sacred laws, enacted under the guidance of the divine spirit, are as binding here as in any other place.”

537

We do not, indeed, prize as highly as some of our countrymen appear to do the ability to read, write and cipher. Some men are born to be leaders, and the rest are born to be led. The best ordered and administered state is that in which the few are well educated and lead, and the many are trained to obedience. – “Catholic Review.”

538

The Mormon faith belts Idaho, Montana, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah and Wyoming, a portion of the country that is wealthier than any other portion in its natural products. It is not simply in Utah that this power of Mormonism is found, but it is spreading in every territory. Every railroad in that section is partially built by Mormon laborers. They are spreading all over that country. They control, in three or four states there, the balance of power. They control every election that is held in Utah, and every man is dictated to in relation to his vote. They also control the ballot-box in Idaho and Wyoming, and are thus liable in time to come, should the two Mormon territories become states, to throw sixteen Senators into our Congress. They openly boast of their intention to take their plural system to your watering places here in the east, Saratoga, Newport and other resorts. I realize the struggle of the past when the manhood of our nation was put to the test, and I know there is another contest approaching. The leaders say they intend to fight this contest until Mormonism prevails —Mormonism and treason to the United States Government.

539

See Decision of New York Court of Appeals 1892, page 463-4.

540

During the Parliament Commission inquiry, a witness, Peter Garkel, collier, said that he preferred women to boys as drawers; they were better to manage and kept time better; they would fight and shriek and everything but let anybody pass them. The London National Reformer states that “The first woman member (Mrs. Jane Pyne), of the London Society of Compositors was admitted by the executive on August 30 (1892). Two years ago Miss Clementine Black applied for permission to join the society but the request had to be refused on the ground that “it was not proposed that woman should be paid on the same scale as men.”

541

Lecture by Felix Adler, 1892, The Position of Woman in the Present.

542

“The New York Court of Appeals has rendered an opinion which shows that married women in that state are still in bondage. A woman fell down a coal-hole and sued for damages, recovering $500. The defendant asked for a new trial on the ground that the woman was working for her husband and the court had taken into account her loss of wages. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision and sent the case back for a new trial. It held that the services of a wife belonged to her husband, and she can not recover any wages even if she holds his written promise to pay.” —Chicago Inter Ocean. Jan. 1892.

543

Generally these conventicles produced very many bastards, and the excuse they (the ministers) made for that, was, “where sin abounds the Grace of God super abounds; there is no condemnation in those that are in Christ.” Sometimes this: “The lambs of God may sport together; to the pure all things are pure.” Nay, generally they are of opinion that a man is never a true saint till he have a fall like that of David with Bathsheba, The true character of the Presbyterian Pastors and People of Scotland. Reign of King Charles II – and since the Revolution, p. 12.

544

Mr. Mott a member of the Salvation army in Syracuse, having led astray another member, a young girl of seventeen and being requested to do her the justice of marrying her, replies that he has a great mission converting the world and has no time for marrying. He took an active part in the salvation meeting the other night. He says he was doing as Jesus did, and was free from sin. He carried the flag in the streets and prayed three times. There was great disorder and indignation at Mott’s impudence in praying and speaking. —Syracuse Daily Standard. 1883.

545

The Book of Pitris.

546

Light on the Path.

547

Mrs. Gage, Chairman of the Resolution Committee.

548

Both Marie Weston Chapman, and Whittier, immortalized this letter in verse, Mrs. Chapman by a spirited poem entitled: “The Times that try Men’s souls,” and Whittier in one called “A Pastoral Letter.” This “Clerical Bull” was fulminated with special reference to those two noble South Carolina women, Sarah M. and Angelina E. Grimke, who were at that time publicly pleading for those in bonds as bound with them, while on a visit to Massachusetts. It was written by the Rev. Dr. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, author of “A South-side View of Slavery.”

549

No man who remembers 1837 and its lowering clouds will deny that there was hardly any contribution to the anti-slavery movement greater or more impressive than the crusade of these Grimke sisters from South Carolina through the New England States. —Wendell Phillips.

550

Who afterwards married Stephen Foster, one of the apostles of the anti-slavery cause.

551

Decomposed eggs, the contents of stables, and even of outhouses, were hurled at the speaker and those assembled to listen.

552

Rev. Samuel J. May first had his attention called to the wrongs of women under Church and State by a striking comparison of the two from the lips of a woman. Priestly opposition to new ideas, and to woman’s taking part in reform work, still continues to be manifest, as shown by the tour of General Weaver and Mrs. Lease, through the Southern States in the fall of 1892. “The notorious Mrs. Lease,” as she was termed, was met by hooting, howling, egg-throwing mobs, and in Atlanta “an eminent minister of the strongest religious denomination (Baptist) in the South” preached against the third party, September 18th, five days before that on which General Weaver and Mrs. Lease were to speak in that city. This sermon, reported by the Constitution, as a “red-hot roasting” declared against the political party that would employ women as speakers, “unsex American women,” as an evidence of the skepticism of the age. Nor is this the only recent instance of pulpit opposition to woman. After the formation of the woman’s National Liberal League, Washington, February 1890, clergymen in different portions of the country – Washington, Iowa, Massachusetts, etc., hurled their anathemas against this association, as inimical to Bible morality, and especially against the women leading in this step. In addition to these sermons, a Catholic Orphanage of seven hundred children, was instructed to pray against such demoralizing ideas; and beyond this, letters passing between influential women fell under United States supervision, and were opened in transit.

553

Lucretia Mott foremost among these delegates, after this rejection decided upon holding a Woman’s Rights Convention, upon her return to America, which should present the wrongs under which women suffered. This was done, 1848, at Seneca Falls, N.Y.

554

Through Senator Joseph E. Brown.

555

Several ladies well known for their work in the enfranchisement of their sex, attended this trial, the New York Sun facetiously referring to the presence of “those eminent Presbyterians, Lillie Devereux Blake, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Susan A. King.”

556

Report of the Washington D.C. “Republican.”

557

Ably reviewed each week as they appeared, by Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake.

558

Lenten Lectures, p. 56-7-114.

559

WOMEN AND THEIR SPHERE! Rev. Dr. Dix, some weeks since, came to the front with a series of sermons in which, by unsupported assertion, he managed to demonstrate that women in the United States are no longer ornamental. The trouble in the mind of the reverend D.D. seems to be that women, having grown in the knowledge of the truth and of that liberty wherewith Christ maketh free, have concluded that their sphere is not to be man’s slave – his plaything, a human gewgaw, to be fondled, caressed, or kicked as the masculine mind may elect. If it is important for man to “know himself,” brave women have concluded that it is quite as essential for a woman to know herself, and with a heroism born of rights conferred by God Himself, women have in these latter days resolved to map out their own sphere independent of man’s dictation. They have made commendable headway. They have succeeded in shaking down a number of antiquated citadels where ignorance, superstition, prejudice, despotism and cruelty found refuge, and, as they tumbled, the breath of popular indignation has blown the fragments away like chaff in the grasp of a tornado. These brave women, finding out that —

CHORUS

“Life is real, life is earnest,”

set themselves about solving its problems for themselves and for their sex. Some of them asked for the ballot. Why? Because they wanted to obliterate from the statute books such laws as restricted their liberties and circumscribed their sphere. As wives they wanted to be the equals of their husbands before the law. Why not? As mothers they wanted to be the equal of their sons before the law. Why not? A thousand reasons have been assigned why not, but they do not answer the demand. What is wanted as prudent guarantees that the ballot will be wisely wielded by those upon whom the great right has been conferred? The answer is ready – intellect, education, a fair comprehension of the obligations of citizenship, loyalty to the Government, to republican institutions and the welfare of society. It is not contended that women do not possess these qualifications, but the right is withheld from them nevertheless, and by withholding this right a hundred others are included, every one of which when justice bears sway will be granted. This done woman’s sphere will regulate itself as does man’s sphere. The Boston Herald in a recent issue takes Dr. Dix to task for narrowness of vision and weakness of grasp in discussing “the calling of a Christian woman,” and then proceeds to outline its own views on the “sphere of capable women,” in which it is less robust than the reverend D.D. To intimate that the Infinite Disposer of Events favors the narrow, vulgar prejudices of Rev. Dr. Dix and his organ, the Boston Herald, is to dwarf the Almighty to human proportions and bring discredit upon His attributes in the midst of which justice shines with resplendent glory, but the demand is that women themselves shall determine for themselves the boundaries of their sphere. It is not a question of mere sentiment, it is not a matter of fancy or caprice. It is rugged question. It involves food, clothing, shelter. It means self-reliance. Women are not appealing to man’s gallantry, not to any quality of less importance than his sense of justice for their rights. Man is not likely to regard his mother with less affection and reverence because she is his father’s equal, and in the past, when women were more degraded than at present, the best men have found in women inspiration for their best work, good men will not find less inspiration for good work when women are emancipated from the thraldom of vicious laws, and crowned man’s equal in all matters relating to “sphere,” shall, by laws relating to physical and mental organism, take their chances in the world’s broad field of battle, demanding and receiving for work done in any of the departments of human activities men’s pay when they perform men’s work. – Indianapolis Sentinel, May 13, 1883.

560

It is not a physiological cause which produced our present family with the father as ruler and owner of all property. —Kemptsky.

561

By a singular lack of oversight in making up the title-page and lettering the cover, the words “Husband and Wife” have been printed as though they referred to objects of equal importance. Even the carefully trained eye of a former editor of the “Christian Register,” the Rt. Rev. F. D. Huntington, D.D., Bishop of Central New York, who furnishes a brief and cautious introduction to the volume, did not detect this error. It has been left to us to call attention to the incongruity of the title-page, and to give the sentiment of the book proper typographical expression. The conventional sobriety and ecclesiasticism of the title-page do not prepare one for the novelty of the contents. It is only by reading the book that we become aware of them. The sensation of the reader is somewhat the same as one would have on going into a building which from the facade appeared to be a plain, dignified Episcopal church, but which on entering he found to be a mediaeval circus. Not that there is any anything intentionally hilarious in the arena of this book or that it displays any athletic vigor of thought but that it is essentially novel and revolutionary. Dr. Gray is not unconscious of the novelty of his doctrine. “It is believed,” he says, “that the position of this essay is new to the discussion. It has not been urged or stated in print in England or America;” and, later on, he expresses a well-grounded belief that “some will smile” at his views as “antiquated and fanciful.” All of these claims may be readily granted. First, the doctrine is new. It is new at least in its present dress – as new as Adam would seem to be, if he put on a modern costume, dyed his gray hairs, and appeared in Boston as a social lecturer. —The Christian Register, Boston.

562

Who has forgotten the sublime magnanimity of Artemus Ward, when he proposed on a certain occasion to sacrifice all his wife’s relatives? This is exactly what Dean Gray theoretically achieves. He not only abolishes his own wife’s relatives, but those of other men who have entered into the marriage relationship. He makes thorough work of it. Not only does he extinguish the wife’s sister as a relative, but also her cousins and her aunts. In fact, he even abolishes the mother-in-law. The luxury of a mother-in-law is granted to the wife, who by virtue of marriage becomes related to her husband’s mother, but is not granted to the husband, who has no relation whatever to the mother of his wife. As to the sisters, the cousins and the aunts, there may be a reason why Sir Joseph Porter, K.C.B., would view with dismay an equal addition to their number through the offices of matrimony; but the majority of men not blessed with a similar superfluity would hardly wish to forego this delightful form of conjugal perquisite. —Ibid.

563

“One of the most learned colored men in the country is Alexander Crummell, Rector of St. Luke’s Protestant Episcopal Church, Washington, D.C. When he desired to study for holy orders he applied at Kenyon College, Gambier, O., but was refused admission. He made applications elsewhere, which were equally unsuccessful. He finally went to Oxford, England, and there took a full course. He is an eloquent preacher, and his congregation embraces a large number of prominent colored citizens.”

564

I. Corinthians, v: 1.

565

And one of the most bitter opponents to the admission of the women lay delegates to the Methodist General Conference.

566

As reported in Syracuse, New York “Sunday Morning Courier”, March 4th, 1877.

567

Rev. F. B. Neely, of Philadelphia, said that he was in favor of submitting the question to the annual conferences. He offered the following amendment to the report of the committee: But since there is great interest in this question, and since the church generally should be consulted in regard to such an important matter, therefore Resolved: That we submit to the annual conferences the proposition to amend the second restrictive rule by amending the words “and said delegates may be men or women” after the words “two lay delegates” for an annual conference so that it would read, “Nor of more than two lay delegates for an annual conference, and the said delegates may be men or women.” The amendment was seconded by Dr. Paxton. —Telegram. New York, May 12. – The debate on the admission of women delegates was one of the most lengthy in the history of the church. It occupied the time of the conference during the larger part of six sessions. It is the common remark, too, that never before was a subject contested in this body with such obstinacy, not to say bitterness. The struggle to obtain recognition from the chair was a revelation to those who did not know previously how fond Methodists are of speaking in meeting. The instant the chairman’s gavel fell, announcing the termination of one speech, fifty delegates or more were on their feet, and from fifty stentorian voices rang out the pitiful appeal, “Mr. Chairman!” This was the order of affairs from the beginning of the debate to the close. One delegate who was finally recognized proved to be so hoarse from his protracted efforts to get the floor that it was with difficulty he could be heard when he did get it. – Correspondence, Syracuse, N.Y. Sunday Herald, May 13.