« ZurückWeiter »
a wife and a mother, and this practically meant to be an upper servant of her husband and the nurse and governess of his children. The only education that was counted as proper for a woman was that which fitted her either to be a good housekeeper, on whom the care of the younger children devolved, or a parlor ornament creditable to her lord and master. She was to know how to cook, to do chamberwork, and to nurse the children, and she was to learn to do needlework, to play the piano, perhaps to draw and paint a little, and to be a good conversationalist. Charlotte Brontë gives an account of the kind of education which woman received in the early part of the nineteenth century. It is thus illustrated in the prospectus of the school to which she was sent in her girlhood :
The terms for clothing, lodging, boarding, and educating are £14 a year, half to be paid in advance when the pupils are sent; and also £1 entrance money for the use of books, etc. The system of education comprehends history, geography, the use of globes, grammar, writing, and arithmetic, all kinds of needlework, and the nicer kinds of household work, such as getting up fine linen, etc. If accomplishments are required, an additional charge of £3 a year is made for music or drawing, each.1 I have thus stated the questions which America is asking to-day respecting marriage and the family, and have stated, though very briefly, the answer which paganism gives to those questions. How far the answers which some of our modern reformers give are really derived from this ancient paganism I shall consider in the next chapter, which will be devoted to presenting, in contrast with the pagan ideal, that which we have derived from the Hebrew Scriptures.
1 E. C. Gaskell, Life of Charlotte Brontë, chap. 4.
THE HEBREW IDEAL OF THE FAMILY
THE Hebrew ideal of the relationship between man and woman, and of marriage and the family, growing out of that relationship, is found chiefly in three passages : the first chapter of Genesis, the second chapter of Genesis, and the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs.
In the first chapter of Genesis the writer declares that “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them”; and that to them jointly he gave supremacy over the earth : “God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the foul of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.” He is not represented as giving authority to one over the other, of making the one for the other, of creating the one in his image more than the other is created in his image.
The image of God, the supremacy over nature, is not in any man: it is not in any woman; it is in humanity, the man and woman, neither of whom completes the image of God, neither of whom is sovereign on the earth.
Both the American and the English poet have truly interpreted this Hebraic conception of the relationship of the sexes :
Nor equal, nor unequal; each fulfills
As unto the bow the cord is,
This is not the relationship of husband and wife. It is the relationship of man and woman. The two together make humanity. Man is not complete without the woman; woman is not complete without the man. Woman is no more made for man than man is made for woman. Woman is no more to be educated for man than man is to be educated for woman.
Nor do they duplicate each other. Their characteristics are not the same. Their function in society is not the same. Their education ought not to be the same. Man is not a woman in trousers; woman is not a man in petticoats. Neither is a model to be imitated by the other, neither is the standard by which the other is to be measured. A masculine woman and a feminine man are equally abhorrent to nature; they are abnormal specimens of the race. This truth, that man and woman do not duplicate but do complement each other, which Tennyson and Longfellow have put in poetry, Mr. Frederic Harrison has put in almost equally beautiful prose :-
1 Alfred Tennyson, The Princess. · Henry W. Longfellow, Hiawatha.
Who now wishes to propound the idle, silly question - which of the two is the superior type ? For our part, we refuse to answer a question so utterly unmeaning. Is the brain superior to the heart, is a great poet superior to a great philosopher, is air superior to water, or any other childish conundrum of the kind ? Affection is a stronger force in women's nature than in men's. Productive energy is a stronger force in men's nature than in women's. The one sex tends rather to compel, the other to influence; the one acts more directly, the other more indirectly; the mind of the one works in a more massive way, of the other in a more subtle and electric way. But to us it is the height of unreason and of presumption to say anything whatever as to superiority on one side or on the other. All that we can say is that where we need especially purity, unselfishness, versatility, and refinement, we look