the earliest periods, in which we find them mentioned, no less than in their whole mythology a peculiar regard for the female, which, together with the humanizing influence of the church in general, and its direct efforts, in many instances, to improve the position of woman, had a salutary effect on the European population. When chivalry sprung up, in which religious ardor, desire of adventure and devotion to woman were romantically blended, the exaltation of woman became, in one class at least, an absorbing agent of life. Though this adoration of woman led to many fantastic, and even immoral aberrations, (6) and had far less effect upon the essential position of woman in general, or the morals of the age, than many persons, satisfied with insulated and poetic accounts, rashly believe, still every one acquainted with the history of civilisation, will admit the romantic devotion of the middle ages to have been one of the agents in producing a better state of things, and in somewhat tempering even the miseries of part of the worst periods. The cities, with their industry and wealth rose in power and number, governments became more general institutions, the feudal lords more subdued; peace was more and more established, and the rights of the commons, of the people in general, and also those of the women in particular, became gradually more clearly defined, extended and valued. Woman was more and more acknowledged in her own moral capacity. Laws became juster toward her. When that period of re-discussion of all human rights began, during the last century, inquiry naturally was extended to the position and rights of woman, which, the more they attracted attention, became in many instances very limited, indeed, as to extent, though acute as to the single object which happened to be under discussion; and finally a series of writers appeared, beginning perhaps with Mary Wolstonecraft's Vindication of the Rights of Women, published toward the end of the last century, who, in determining the proper sphere of action in society and the state, for man and woman, altogether lost sight of the different organization of the two sexes, and the pervading divine order of things founded upon it. One step led to another, and, finally, writers appeared, both male and female, who endeavored to break up that institution, which was already considered by the ancient philosophers, poets and priests, as forming together with the institution of property the only firm foundation of all civilisation-the institution of matrimony. Two late writers in particular, a man and a woman, have written upon this subject and the intercourse between the two sexes, with so disgusting a temerity, that I seriously doubt whether any previous period has been disgraced by compositions of equally loathsome immorality, pitiful and superficial reasoning and gross ignorance. (1) There have been several collections of the biography of distinguished women. Alexander, History of Women, 2 vols. 4to, 1779; Ségur, Les Femmes, 3 vols. 1802; Communications from the Lives of distinguished Women (in German) Stuttgard, 1828; with many other works. Meiner wrote a History of the Female Sex, (in German) Hanover, 1788-1800, 4 vols. For any one who desires to inquire thoroughly into what has been written on this subject as well, as on the influence of christianity on the position of woman, and other points connected with the general subject, it would be well to examine the list of works appended to the article Woman (Frau) in Krug's Dictionary of Philosophical Sciences, though it is far from being complete. (2) King Magnus Erichson of Sweden was able to decree, in 1335, that 'the woman shall suffer for her crimes like the man, especially crimes touching life." Geijer, History of Sweden, Hamb. 1832, vol. i, p. 273. The words "was able" is very significant. (3) Niebuhr, the elder, Burkhardt, and all the other travelers in the East. So do we find instances of the buying of wives in Odyss. xi, 281. Iliad, xi, 244. Herod. i, 196. Strabo p. 745, &c. (1) Michaelis, Mosaic Law, ii, 85. De Wette, Manual of Hebrew-Judaic Archælogy, Leipz. 1830, page 159. (5) Michaelis ii, 95. Jahn, Arch. i, 2, and De Wette, as before, p. 160. (6) The morals of the 12th, 13th and 14th centuries were of the most licentious character. Chateaubriand, in the 3d volume of his Etudes Historiques, gives instances, such as establishments, in imitation of nunneries, with vows of immorality. Whoever is in the least acquainted with the morals of those ages, the peculiar government and corporate privileges of the prostitutes in the various cities during former periods and the courts and monasteries of those times, will consider the advance of morality in our race during the last two centuries, despite of all existing irregularities, as one of the most signal traits in modern history. The change which has taken place is far beyond what any one, who has not perused the histories and chronicles of the times, can imagine. XIV. Neither the literary progress of women and their distinction in the province of letters, on the one hand, nor the question, why females should be allowed to sit upon a throne, when they are excluded from all other public business, are subjects to be discussed here. The one belongs to the history of literature or female civilisation, the other to politics proper. It is nothing more than a mere question of high political expediency. Yet although the subject of voting of females does not belong any more, strictly speaking, to our province, but to natural law and politics proper, as defined in the first part, I may be allowed to give here a very few additional remarks on the subject. Either we acknowledge the difference of sexes, and consequent different spheres of action, as necessary and founded in the great order of things, or not. If the former, then there is no more denial of right in excluding woman from public business, than there is in not calling on her to take up arms or work, by way of taxation, in repairing high roads. If the latter be the case we ought not only to allow them to vote, for that is a very specific and limited political act indeed, but they ought to be in every respect admitted and consequently called upon to all that men do. It is erroneously supposed by some that voting is a natural and absolute right, inherent in each individual. This is a very great mistake; for though every one's interest ought to have its due weight in the devising of public measures, whose degree of justice depends upon the average benefit they bestow upon the whole, it is not necessary that this be effected by his voting. Universal suffrage is a term too vast, for what is meant to be expressed. There are always persons excluded from voting. Soldiers do not vote, and ought not to vote for instance in their barracks; the French constitution of Herault de Sèchelles excluded domestics from voting, because too dependent in their situation; many constitutions exclude the clergy from voting, because their influence, always great, is feared if they interfere with politics. Nor is the question of universal suffrage to be otherwise decided upon abstract ground. Universal suffrage in Illyria or any semi-barbarous tribe, yet in contact with civilisation, would be a very melancholy thing. So no civilised nation, in which, from whatever cause it may result, there are vast ignorant, rude and poor classes, excluded from the common stream of civilisation, can endure universal suffrage. Those who insist on the natural birthright of man to vote, cannot in my opinion demonstrate the legality of a representative government, nor of any other government, except that of a tribe who daily decides by a simple numeric majority of all its members, upon every subject. Yet we are told, that, allowing all these positions, the woman is not even represented. This too rests upon an error. Is not the whole life of the husband daily, hourly and most thoroughly influenced by her, and his position toward her; and if he takes, as he necessarily must do, this whole frame of mind with him into legislative proceedings, is his wife unrepresented? The agriculturist is far less sure that a merchant of his district will represent his interest, than the wife is that her husband represents her. (1) How are the sick or the old represented who cannot go to the poll? If indeed by true representation be meant that each one have a direct spokesman, and not that political organism through which we arrive at the public opinion and public will of the whole, after those of the parts of society have modified one another, I do not see how indeed the minority is represented in any representative government, or how a law of the majority in an absolute democracy, can have any binding power upon the minority. For it is certain that in the former case the representative does not directly represent the minority, since he says and does things totally at variance with their opinion; nor is the law in the latter case the direct law, that is the public will of the minority. |