Table Talk [pp. 377-378]

1869.] LITERA TURE, SACIENCE, AND ART
frame of mind, in reference to the subject, is obviously very
different from that of his American coadjutors. Recognizing
its difficulties, he puts its claims on broad grounds of reason,
and asks for its thorough and deliberate consideration. So far
from being settled, he sees that it is hardly yet opened, and, before judgment is rendered and action taken, he demands that
discussion shall go to the roots of the matter. He says:
"The least that can be demanded is, that the question should not be
considered as prejudged by existing fact and existing opinion, but
open to discussion on its merits, as a question of justice and expediency: the decision on this, as on any of the other social arrangements of mankind, depending on what an enlightened estimate of tendencies and consequences may show to be most advantageous to humanity in general, without distinction of sex. And the discussion must be
a real discussion, descending to foundations, and not resting satisfied
with vague and general assertions."
Nothing can be more just than this demand, and it should
bind inflexibly all parties to the discussion. This is exactly
the subject that is not to be slurred over with commonplace
assumptions. The factors upon which its solution depends are
undetermined questions of the highest order. The true objects
of education, and how much can be accomplished by it; the
grounds and proper restrictions of suffrage; the interpretation
of marriage, the social evil, the rights of children, the scope of
legislation, and the mental and moral constitution of the sexes
-these subjects are all unsettled, and all these are wound into
the very core of the woman-question. To the complexity which
pertains to all the higher social problems, an element of delicacy is here added which greatly increases the embarrassment
of its treatment. No subject involves such intensities of feeling, or is so enveloped in traditional prejudices which blind the
judgment and baffle the reason. There are, besides, great practical evils in the circumstances of woman which cry loudly for
rectification-sufferings which move the profoundest sympathies
and prompt to action, whether action be wise or not. If ever
a subject required to be approached with caution, and treated
with deliberation; if ever a discussion should appeal to the
largest knowledge and the widest experience; if ever circumspection was demanded in the use of the coarse expedients of
overt reform, and the deepest faith in the slow-working, indirect
agencies of social amelioration-certainly these conditions require to be fulfilled now, with all fidelity, in treating the question of the capacities, duties, rights, and social destiny of
woman.
Well, therefore, may Mr. Mill demand a deliberate and searching analysis of the grounds of the subject. But this, we submit, is
very far from the temper or the tactics of the managers of the
movement on this side of the Atlantic. The indications that
the subject is to be coolly investigated, with the view of getting
down to the stable basis of Nature's truth, do not abound.
There is an endless iteration of grievances and a wearisome
obtrusion of political commonplaces; but, from what we can
gather, one would never suspect that, beneath all this foam of
passion and rhetoric, there are certain laws and principles of the
human constitution and human character which it belongs to
science to explain, and upon which the whole subject finally
hinges. We ask for the data upon which to form a judgment of
the question, and are coolly told that there is really no question
about it; that it is a one-sided subject, and, its postulates being
self-evident, is settled in the very terms of its enunciation. Nor
is the inquirer left to draw the ungracious inference, but is
plumply told that none but stupid old fogies and ignoramuses
will oppose the movement. Our most widely-circulated organ
of progressive opinion declares, editorially, that "wisdom, eloquence, zeal, courage, practical talent, and social respectability,
are all on one side, and only ignorance on the other." Nor is
this all. Not only is the question settled, but we are informed
that the settlement is divinely ratified. It has gone forth from
our most influential pulpit that "God has called woman into a
new sphere, and she must obey." And so it is agreed that, the
subject having passed the stage of inquiry, and being duly understood in all its multiplex bearings and blessed with heavenly
approbation, we may now proceed to recentre the social mechanism-to abolish old spheres and create new-may now pass
to the second stage, in which theoretical conclusions are to be
reduced to practice. This phase of the movement has accordingly been inaugurated in true American style, with all the
clatter and clap-trap of a popular agitation. The question of
reconstructing the family and putting home relations upon a
new basis is to be slavered through the dirty puddles of American politics. Radical claims are put forth; the watchword is
"revolution;" half a race is to be emancipated; all sorts of
good things per day are promised when woman shall vote, and
the whole is to be carried by the excitement of rub-a-dub conventions and all the vulgar arts of election campaigning.
Here we interpose an emphatic protest. This is the one supreme question which is not to be sprung by a snap-judgment.
The first stage has been "jumped." There has not been "a
real discussion, descending to foundations, and not resting satisn
fled with vague and general assertions." The literature of the
subject in this country is in the last degree superficial and
chaotic. As for the divine sanction, we doubt the report.
Who operates the celestial telegraph? The divine indorsement is not to be obtained for any thing but the truth; and
truth, on such a subject as this, is only to be arrived at by calm,
unprejudiced, and long-protracted investigation. We protest
not against opening this important inquiry concerning woman's
position and how it may be best improved-such an inquiry,
conscientiously and ably conducted, will be productive of great
good; but we protest against the complacent assumption that
the case is already closed and ready for the verdict.
Mr. Mill made the wise observation years ago, that "on
all great questions much yet remains to be said." Subjects
of thought come down to us through centuries of sifting, and
mole-eyed observers say that they are "exhausted," but clearsighted inquirers know better. Even in the lower spheres of
research, there seems no finality. The animal body has been
dissected with infinite assiduity, down to its last filaments, and
hunted through and through with microscopes, yet its ultimate
interpretations are still before us. But, if this be true of comparatively simple subjects, how much more must it be true of
those involving higher complications? If it be true of subjects
with which the mightiest intellects have wrestled for ages, how
much more must it be true of those which challenged scrutiny
but yesterday? Let our fervid reformers, therefore, intermit a
little of their impetuosity, and, recognizing as they do that this
is a "great question," remember that there is much more to be
thought and said about it. There is plenty of time. The
Power which instituted the existing order waited through
countless ages before men and women were introduced into the
scheme at all; and, when introduced, long periods again elapsed
before they were brought up to their present state of improvement. The policy according to which things are ruled is infinitely deliberate; and the policy by which they are to be
amended must, at all events, have sufficient deliberation about
it to bring out the conditions upon which all real and perma
nent improvement depends.
TABLE-TALK.
THE great social and political romance of Victor Hugo, now pub lishing in the columns of this JOURNAL, promises to be the masterpiece of this author's remarkable genius. In depth of intuition, in
power of delineation, in its terrible invective, in the audacity with
which masks are stripped off and the inner realities of human life laid
bare, in its bold originality of plot and breadth of philosophic purpose, nothing that Victor Hugo has before done can be compared with
the present performance. In his few words of preface, the author
states that this is the first of three works which might be termed
"The Aristocracy," "The Monarchy," and "Ninety-Three," and which