Eighty Years and More; Reminiscences 1815-1897
and nearer until she touched the lady's neck to see whether or not it
was covered with some peculiar shade of dress, but finding the bare skin
she said: "Why, you are not dressed, are you? I see your skin!" The
scene suggested to me the amusing description in Holmes' "Elsie Venner,"
of the efforts of a young lady, seated between two old gentlemen, to
show off her white shoulders. The vicar would not look, but steadily
prayed that he might not be led into temptation; but the physician, with
greater moral hardihood, deliberately surveyed the offered charms, with
spectacles on his nose.
In December Hattie and I finished Dowden's "Life of Shelley," which we
had been reading together. Here we find a sensitive, refined nature,
full of noble purposes, thrown out when too young to meet all life's
emergencies, with no loving Mentor to guard him from blunders or to help
to retrieve the consequences of his false positions. Had he been
surrounded with a few true friends, who could appreciate what was great
in him and pity what was weak, his life would have been different. His
father was hard, exacting, and unreasonable; hence he had no influence.
His mother had neither the wisdom to influence him, nor the courage to
rebuke her husband; and alas! poor woman, she was in such thraldom
herself to conventionalisms, that she could not understand a youth who
set them all at defiance.
We also read Cotton Morrison's "Service of Man," which I hope will be a
new inspiration to fresh labors by all for the elevation of humanity,
and Carnegie's "Triumphant Democracy," showing the power our country is
destined to wield and the vastness of our domain. This book must give
every American citizen a feeling of deeper responsibility than ever
before to act well his part. We read, too, Harriet Martineau's
translation of the works of Auguste Comte, and found the part on woman
most unsatisfactory. He criticises Aristotle's belief that slavery is a
necessary element of social life, yet seems to think the subjection of
woman in modern civilization a matter of no importance.
All through that winter Hattie and I occupied our time studying the
Bible and reading the commentaries of Clark, Scott, and Wordsworth
(Bishop of Lincoln). We found nothing grand in the history of the Jews
nor in the morals inculcated in the Pentateuch. Surely the writers had a
very low idea of the nature of their God. They make Him not only
anthropomorphic, but of the very lowest type, jealous and revengeful,
loving violence rather than mercy. I know no other books that so fully
teach the subjection and degradation of woman. Miriam, the eldest sister
of Moses and Aaron, a genius, a prophetess, with the family aptitude for
diplomacy and government, is continually set aside because of her
sex--permitted to lead the women in singing and dancing, nothing more.
No woman could offer sacrifices nor eat the holy meats because,
according to the Jews, she was too unclean and unholy.
But what is the use, say some, of attaching any importance to the
customs and teachings of a barbarous people? None whatever. But when our
bishops, archbishops, and ordained clergymen stand up in their pulpits
and read selections from the Pentateuch with reverential voice, they
make the women of their congregation believe that there really is some
divine authority for their subjection. In the Thirty-First Chapter of
Numbers, in speaking of the spoils taken from the Midianites, the live
stock is thus summarized: "Five thousand sheep, threescore and twelve
thousand beeves, threescore and one thousand asses, and thirty-two
thousand women and women-children," which Moses said the warriors might
keep for themselves. What a pity a Stead had not been there, to protect
the child-women of the Midianites and rebuke the Lord's chosen people as
they deserved! In placing the women after the sheep, the beeves, and the
asses, we have a fair idea of their comparative importance in the scale
of being, among the Jewish warriors. No wonder the right reverend
bishops and clergy of the Methodist Church, who believe in the divine
origin and authority of the Pentateuch, exclude women from their great
convocations in the American Republic in the nineteenth century. In view
of the fact that our children are taught to reverence the book as of
divine origin, I think we have a right to ask that, in the next
revision, all such passages be expurgated, and to that end learned,
competent women must have an equal place on the revising committee.
Mrs. Margaret Bright Lucas came, in February, to spend a few days with
us. She was greatly shocked with many texts in the Old Testament, to
which we called her attention, and said: "Here is an insidious influence
against the elevation of women, which but few of us have ever taken into
consideration." She had just returned from a flying visit to America;
having made two voyages across the Atlantic and traveled three thousand
miles across the continent in two months, and this at the age of
sixty-eight years. She was enthusiastic in her praises of the women she
met in the United States. As her name was already on the committee to
prepare "The Woman's Bible," we had her hearty approval of the
undertaking.
In October Hattie went to London, to attend a meeting to form a Woman's
Liberal Federation. Mrs. Gladstone presided. The speeches made were
simply absurd, asking women to organize themselves to help the Liberal
party, which had steadily denied to them the political rights they had
demanded for twenty years. Professor Stuart capped the climax of insult
when he urged as "one great advantage in getting women to canvass for
the Liberal party was that they would give their services free." The
Liberals saw what enthusiasm the Primrose Dames had roused for the Tory
party, really carrying the election, and they determined to utilize a
similar force in their ranks. But the whole movement was an insult to
women.
The one absorbing interest, then, was the Queen's Jubilee. Ladies formed
societies to collect funds to place at the disposal of the Queen. Every
little village was divided into districts, and different ladies took the
rounds, begging pennies at every door of servants and the laboring
masses, and pounds of the wealthy people. One of them paid us a visit.
She asked the maid who opened the door to see the rest of the servants,
and she begged a penny of each of them. She then asked to see the
mistress. My daughter descended; but, instead of a pound, she gave her a
lecture on the Queen's avarice. When the fund was started the people
supposed the Queen was to return it all to the people in liberal
endowments of charitable institutions, but her Majesty proposed to build
a monument to Prince Albert, although he already had one in London. "The
Queen," said my daughter, "should celebrate her Jubilee by giving good
gifts to her subjects, and not by filching from the poor their pennies.
To give half her worldly possessions to her impoverished people, to give
Home Rule to Ireland, or to make her public schools free, would be deeds
worthy her Jubilee; but to take another cent from those who are
hopelessly poor is a sin against suffering humanity." The young woman
realized the situation and said: "I shall go no farther. I wish I could
return every penny I have taken from the needy."
The most fitting monuments this nation can build are schoolhouses and
homes for those who do the work of the world. It is no answer to say
that they are accustomed to rags and hunger. In this world of plenty
every human being has a right to food, clothes, decent shelter, and the
rudiments of education. "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark"
when one-tenth of the human family, booted and spurred, ride the masses
to destruction. I detest the words "royalty" and "nobility," and all the
ideas and institutions based on their recognition. In April the great
meeting in Hyde Park occurred--a meeting of protest against the Irish
Coercion Bill. It was encouraging to see that there is a democratic as
well as an aristocratic England. The London journals gave very different
accounts of the meeting. The Tories said it was a mob of inconsequential
cranks. Reason teaches us, however, that you cannot get up a large,
enthusiastic meeting unless there is some question pending that touches
the heart of the people. Those who say that Ireland has no grievances
are ignorant alike of human nature and the facts of history.
On April 14 I went to Paris, my daughter escorting me to Dover, and my
son meeting me at Calais. It was a bright, pleasant day, and I sat on
deck and enjoyed the trip, though many of my fellow passengers were pale
and limp. Whirling to Paris in an easy car, through the beautiful
wheatfields and vineyards, I thought of the old lumbering diligence, in
which we went up to Paris at a snail's pace forty years before. I
remained in Paris until October, and never enjoyed six months more
thoroughly. One of my chief pleasures was making the acquaintance of my
fourth son, Theodore. I had seen but little of him since he was sixteen
years old, as he then spent five years at Cornell University, and as
many more in Germany and France. He had already published two works,
"The Life of Thiers," and "The Woman Question in Europe." To have a son
interested in the question to which I have devoted my life, is a source
of intense satisfaction. To say that I have realized in him all I could
desire, is the highest praise a fond mother can give.
My first experience in an apartment, living on an even plane, no running
up and down stairs, was as pleasant as it was surprising. I had no idea
of the comfort and convenience of this method of keeping house. Our
apartment in Paris consisted of drawing room, dining room, library, a
good-sized hall, in which stood a large American stove, five bedrooms,
bathroom, and kitchen, and a balcony fifty-two feet long and four feet
wide. The first few days it made me dizzy to look down from this balcony
to the street below. I was afraid the whole structure would give way, it
appeared so light and airy, hanging midway between earth and heaven. But
my confidence in its steadfastness and integrity grew day by day, and it
became my favorite resort, commanding, as it did, a magnificent view of
the whole city and distant surroundings.
There were so many Americans in town, and French reformers to be seen,
that I gave Wednesday afternoon receptions during my whole visit. To one
of our "at homes" came Mlle. Maria Deraismes, the only female Free Mason
in France, and the best woman orator in the country; her sister, Mme.
Féresse-Deraismes, who takes part in all woman movements; M. Léon
Richer, then actively advocating the civil and political rights of women
through the columns of his vigorous journal; Mme. Griess Traut, who
makes a specialty of Peace work; Mme. Isabelle Bogelot, who afterward
attended the Washington Council of 1888, and who is a leader in charity
work; the late Mme. Emilie de Morsier, who afterward was the soul of the
International Congress of 1889, at Paris; Mme. Pauline Kergomard, the
first woman to be made a member of the Superior Council of public
Instruction in France, and Mme. Henri Gréville, the novelist.
Among the American guests at our various Wednesday receptions were Mr.
and Mrs. John Bigelow, Mr. and Mrs. James G. Blaine, Mr. Daniel C.
French, the Concord sculptor; Mrs. J.C. Ayer, Mr. L. White Busbey, one
of the editors of the Chicago _Inter-Ocean_; Rev. Dr. Henry M. Field,
Charles Gifford Dyer, the painter and father of the gifted young
violinist, Miss Hella Dyer; the late Rev. Mr. Moffett, then United
States Consul at Athens, Mrs. Governor Bagley and daughter of Michigan;