On this page

• Departments (1)
  • 
• Text (5)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    ., , JLttf£fiIttrF.

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    ., , Jlttf£Fiittrf.

    Kikmtmt .

    Untitled Article

    The Laws concerning women , like all other laws , were made l > y men , and it is not surprising that the men should have made them with special reference to themselves . Justice to themselves , as a first principle , lias been their object ; justice to women coining only second . This is so obvious that it has rarely been denied . It is denied , however , and plausibly , by a veiy able and temperate writer in Blackwood this month , who says : — "We have small faith , for oar own part , in what is called class legislation , and smallest faith of all in that species of class legislation which could make the man an intentional and voluntary oppressor of the woman . Tiis idea , that tlie two portions of humankind are natural antagonists to each other , is , to our thinking ,

    at the very outset , a monstrous and unnatural idea . The very man wlio made the laws which send . " women sobbing out of sight , " had not only a wifo , whom we may cbaritably suppose lie was glad of a legal argument for tyrannising over , but doubtless such fching 3 as sisters and daughters , whom he could have no desire to subject to the tyranny of other men . There is no man in existence so utterly separated from one-half of his fellow-creatures as to be able to legisl ate against them in the interests of his own sex . No official character whatever can make so absurd and artificial a distinction . Let us vindicate , iu the first instance , the law and the law-maker- It is possible that the poor may legislate against the rich , or the rich against the poor , but to make such an antagonism between men and . women is against all reason and all nature .

    The point is certainly well put ; but considering that the writer lias little faith iu tlie palpable fact of the rich making laws in favour of themselves against the poor , our readers will not , perhaps , have much confidence in his argument . He appears to us to confound two very different things , namely , a predominance of the tendency to do justice to themselves , on the part of lawmakers , with a conscious and deliberate perpetration of injustice to others . The Irishman ' s reciprocity , which was " all on one side , " is a reciprocity very discernible in law-making . We need not suppose the injustice to be deiberate . We have only to consider the natural tendency of egoism actuating all human , beings , and we shall tlien explain the discrepancies of justice . This writer is more cogent when he comes to details . He sees clearly and states forcibly the difficulties of the case : —

    The justice whicli means an equal division of rights has no place between those two persons -whom natural policy as well as Divine institution teach us to consider as one . It seems a harsh saying , but it is a true one—Justice cannot be done between them ; their rights are not to be divided ; they are beyond the reach of all ordiuary principles of equity . In the event of a disjunction between the father . and the . mother , the wife and the husband , you must choose which of them you shall he just to ; for it is impossible to do justice to both . For it is not the question of the wife ' s earnings or the wife ' s property which lies nearest the hearfe of this controversy : there are the children—living witnesses of the "undi yidableness of the parents . You give their custody to the husband . It is a grievous and sore injustice to the mother who bore them .. But let us alter the case . Let the wife ha . ve the little ones , and how does the question stand ? The ground is changed , bub the principle is the same . Still injustice , hard ,

    unof the woman represented . Of course , men write in less highflovvn strain wlien they write elsewhere than in the three-volume pages ; but , for the most part , the fiction is still kept up , they shirk the reality , and put forward mi " ideal" ( and such an'ideal ! ) . Now we know few things more piquant than the contrast between the private talk of these novelists and their " official opinion ; " the one is as false as the other , but the one is , at any rale believed in . We must not however , be seduced into an essay , especially as this very agreeabl-e paper in Fraser , to which we allude , does not touch on the subioct

    at all , but merely sketches the general style of treatment Love receives in ' the novels of Charlotte Smith , Ann of Swansea , Regina Roche , Fielding , the Minerva Press , and the novels of our own day . It , happily ' indicates the " conventional * nature of the expression . Man , indeed , is a rigid conventionalist in hats , shirt-collars , beard , and morals . Fie hates nonconformity . The despotism of what is ' established' vexes all independent minds by the absurdity with which it insists on conformity . As an agreeable writer in Tail says this month in . his " Tangled Talk , " tlie world ever exclaims : —

    ' Do what yo-u please , only call it by the same name that we do—then , we will let you alone , but not till then . " The . world will pardon a thousand irregularities , even gross vices , much sooner than it will forgive a life the key note of which is pitched a . little too high for its own tastes . Live as grovelling a life as you please , and stick to les lienseanccs , and you will pass muster . Live the life of an angel with the least bit of a protestiny air , or anything that ean be construed into it , and the very first deflection from the beaten track , though it should "be made in the fea . r of highest heaven and with , bleeding feet , will be treated worse than

    a - . The most correct and thoughtful liver I ever knew told me that ever since lie could r « nieruber , he had had his inferiors in character , and occasionally bis inferiors in capacity , preaching virtue to him . I believe the case is common . The same writer says : — A book might be written upon the curiosities of criticism . In a review of Mi-Longfellow ' s " Hiawatha , " in a serial of character and long-standing , it is made a fatal objection against the poem that the Supreme is represented as smoking a ! recent number of the Leisure

    pipeIn a " Horn- / ' Juliet's suggestion about cutting up Romeo into little stars (" Romeo and Juliet , " act iii . scene 2 ) , ' whicli is referred to by Emerson , is quoted as one of that great American ' s unintelligible vagaries ! In . another magazine , Gerald Massey was charged the other day with stealing froml , B . 'Browning the worda , " The Lord had need of her . " ( 6 ea Luke , six . 34 . ) In tlie same article , the obvious expression—" . Strength . and Beauty aand-in-hand , " must needs be traced to Shelley , as if it could not be found in . a thousand other place , ? , and as if it were not a perfectly natural phrase whicli anybody is at liberty to use . m * v v

    Even more amusing than such specimens of ignorance are the abundant specimens of lofty assumption which -many periodical critics display . At the very moment they are betraying to every knowing reader the extremely imperfect knowledge they have of the subject , their language is that of men who have nothing to learn . Here is a sample , from .-the New Quarterly Review , taken from a notice of a chapter on German Literature in Alison ' s History of Europe : — Goethe of course occupies a prominent place on the list . This is not the place to enter on a disquisition of Goethe ' s merits as an author . No one w 7 io has not read Jiis works could benefit by the few remarks that our spaco allows us to inako , and they would be needless to othera . We agree with the opinion given of the character of his writings , which in spite of bis great powers , aiFord unequivocal proofs that he -was both selfish and sensual . Pray observe the high hand with which the writer carries his ignorance , tlie compassionate allusion to those who have not read Goethe ' s works , coming from one who cannot even spell Goethe ' s name , and who docs not know that the two dots he has placed over the e make that e a superfluity . Gothe , is the same as Goethe ; but Goethe is a word to which the German language cannot accommodate itself . After betraying himself thus , the unconscious writer , with the same unhesitating confidence , pronounces Goethe to have been " both selfish and sensual . " Qui trompe-t-on ici ?

    natural , and pitiless ; still -wrong , grievous and inexcusable . The native right of father and of mother is as equal as it is inseparable , and -we see no mode of deciding between them , save that expedient of King Solomon ' s , which i t would be hard to put in practice . The law is unjust in tliis particular . What else caw the law be ? True , it might choose tte wife , the weaker of the two , as the object of its favour , but that would not be less unjust ; and while we are totally at a loss to comprehend how a husband could separate his children from their mother , it is quite as difficult , by all the principles of natural justice , to understand how these same children could be talcen from their father by means of the wife . Where is the justice ? -which is the arrangement of equity ? If we admit the principle of selecting one of the parties for special consideration , there is no more to be said upon the subject , for the husband ' rights are quite as valid as those of the wife ; but a-bstract justice in Hub matter , which Ls the most important of all , is a clear impossibility . * * *

    The law can secure to the separated woman an unquestionable right to her own earnings ; but tho law cannot secure to her her children . Nature has not made her their sole possessor . Clod haa not given to the mother a special and peculiar claim . It is hard , but ib is true . The law might confer upon her the right to bereave her husband of this dearest possession , aa it now gives him the right to bereave her ; but the law can only , by bo doing , favour one unfair claim to the disadvantage of another ; for in tliis matter right and justice are impossible . But every one has felt this grand difficulty of the children , a difficulty which no legislation can remove . There are , however , numerous cases where it does not intervene . If no affection , if » o interest , if none of the old links of habit are strong enough to make a continuance of the marriage endurable , Legislation ought to permit its being discontinued without the frightful inj ustice which at present falls on the woman . We are by no means disposed , to join in the cry against the tyranny" of men , in this matter . We believe tlie injustice of tho laws and the reluctance of men to alter them , arise , mainly , from the profound ignorance of women which is unhappily prevalent among nxen , and which is betrayed whenever they open their lips on tho subject . And this ignorance is the more obstructive because it is traditional , consequently gains no enlightenment from experience . Men , who have lived long and seen much of women , talk , for the most parr , lilie schoolboys , nnd what they talk they think . Nor is what ia written about women much wiser , although diametrically opposite in tone . A delightful article in Fraser , on the « Treatment of Love m Novels , " suggests this reflection . JEvcry one knows tlio impossible nonsense , which paBscs for the language of love , and for accurate representation ot temale character ia Novela , with rare exceptions : how high-flown , unreal , umbclieved m xa the sentiment they express , how utterly factitious the nature

    Untitled Article

    HOURS WITH THE MYSTICS . HourirwUh the Mystics . A Contrilndion to the History of Religions Opinion . Bv Kobort Alfred Vaughan , D . A . 2 volumes . J . W . Parker ami Son . Rmiely is deep and extensive erudition clothed in elegant literature . Your learned writers are apt to be writers whom it is laborious to read . But the two qualities of learning nnd style are united in these volumes . Mr . Vaut-liun lias obviously great sympathy with Mysticism , or he would not have " lived laborious days" studying anil reproducing the opinions of the Mystics ; but tho olscurity , the caprice , the odd jostling of arguments with fhticii's , the tangential mode of reasoning , and the fervour of enthusiasm , which clmnioterise mystical writings , nvo not even traceable in these volumes . The style is singularly lucid , and quite remarkable for the novelty and variety of its illustrations , drawn from books and from nature .

    Wliy did ho writo about the Mystics , unless impelled thereto by some secret affinity ? The affinity wo suspect to have been moral rnthrr than intellectual . lie does not share the mystical errors ; he does not even accept tho naysticnl method . The whole intellectual prooess seems to him ft mistaken and inarticulate effort ; but tlio thought which it tried to articulate , the impulse which made men Mystics , that indeed seems to him of vital importance : — In the roligiouH hhtory of uhnont ovory ago and country , wo moot with n « ertain olatsB of mindu , impatient of uioro uoromon la 1 forum and toohnioul < Jinl iiiutinnn , who huvo ploadod tho oauso of tho heart nguiimt jirofloription , and yiolclod Un'inboIvoh to tho most ; voltomnnt impulHori of tho noul , in it « longing to o » on , pt . i from tho » lgn to tho thine signified—from tho human to tho divino . Tho wtory ol" riuuh an ambition , with its dinn . storH and itn gloried , will not bo doumtxi , by uny thoughtful rnind , loe » worthy of record than tho caroor of a oouquoror . Through

    Untitled Article

    Critics are not the legislators , but the judges and police of literature They do not tntke laws-they interpret and try fb enforce ttxem .-Iulmburgh ltei-tw .

    Untitled Article

    328 THE LEADER . [ No . 315 , Saturday ,

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), April 5, 1856, page 328, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse-os.kdl.kcl.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2135/page/16/