« EelmineJätka »
proper places ; but if Joan of Arc or Bishop Odo comes pressing against him in the battle, the most chivalrous of knights need not scruple to use his sword."*
Madame Audouard follows up her assertion that it is a common thing in the streets of Constantinople to see a woman who has discovered her husband loitering about, or in a café, driving him homewards amid a shower of blows from her pantouffles, by the statement that “from his tenderest infancy the Turk has been taught that woman is a being whom her weakness renders sacred.”+ Surely, it has been shrewdly suggested, the acute Turk cannot help suspecting that there must have been some mistake in the lessons of his tenderest infancy, as he cowers under the sacred being's pantouffle.
Mr. Herbert Spencer, indeed, in his systematic deadset against conventionalism and fashion, insists that, from the days of chivalry downwards, these marks of supreme consideration paid to the sex have been but a hypocritical counterpart to the actual subjection in which men have held them-a pretended submission to compensate for a real domination; and that when the true dignity of women is recognised, the mock dignities given to them will be abolished. For this abolition womankind, of the average making, may perhaps prefer to wait awhile.
Mr. Anthony Trollope's argument is, that women are entitled to much observance from men, but are entitled to no observance which is incompatible with truth ; that, by the conventional laws of society, they are allowed to exact much from men, but are allowed to exact nothing for which they should not make some adequate return.
It is well, he says, that a man should kneel in spirit before the grace and weakness of a woman, but it is not well that he should kneel either in spirit or body if there be neither grace nor weakness. “A man should yield everything to a woman for a word, for a smile,—to one look of entreaty. But if there be no look of entreaty, no word, no smile, I do not see that he is called upon to yield much.
“ The happy privileges with which women are at present blessed, have come to them from the spirit of chivalry. That spirit has taught men to endure in order that women may be at their ease; and has generally taught women to accept the ease bestowed on them with
and thankfulness. But in America the spirit of chivalry has sunk deeper among men than it has among women. They (the women] have acquired a sufficient perception of the privileges which chivalry gives them, but no perception of that return which chivalry demands from them. ... They have no scruple at demanding from men everything that a man can be called on to relinquish in a woman's behalf, but they do so without any of that grace which turns the demand made into a favour conferred.'
An unpleasant picture Mr. Trollope presently draws—an unpleasantly realistic photograph it might be called--of a woman in fine clothes walking down Broadway, and by her airs and gait assuming the world to owe
* Article on “ Church and State,” in the Saturday Review, vol. xix. p. 252. † Les Mystères du Sérail et des Harems Turcs. Par Mdme. Olympe Audouard. I See Essays Political, Scientific, and Speculative, by H. Spencer. First Series,
June-VOL. CXXXIV, NO. DXXXIV.
her everything because of her silken train,-even room enough in a crowded thoroughfare to drag it along unmolested. But, according to her theory, she owes the world nothing in return. She is a woman with perhaps a hundred dollars on her back, and having done the world the honour of wearing them in the world's presence, expects to be repaid by the world's homage and chivalry. But, contends her censor, “chivalry owes her nothing. ---nothing, though she walk about beneath a hundred times a hundred dollars,-nothing even though she be a woman. Let every woman learn this,—that chivalry owes her nothing unless she also ackdowledge her debt to chivalry. She must acknowledge it and pay it ; and then chivalry will not be backward in making good her claims upon
Compare, or contrast, with the above, Herr Kohl's homage to the waiting-women and servant-girls of all England--some twenty years since, however, and before servant-galism was quite what it is now :bearing witness to the good example that Englishmen set him of kind ness and serviceableness to the female sex, to prove that “even in the lower ranks women in England are treated with a peculiar delicacy and attention,” the travelled Teuton right gallantly adds : “ I can certify, too, that there are in London, and indeed in all England, cooks, housemaids, ladies’-maids, and chamber-maids, who, by their manner and appearance, compel the respect and kindness of every man.”+
To recur to America. All young societies, it has been remarked, are fond of what is called gallantry-that is, of making a great fuss about women, and ostentatiously deferring to them, and paying them endless compliments : many young societies, indeed, being proud of this sign of their youth. In America, for example, as we are reminded in an anonymous essay on Toasting the Ladies, they appear to think it highly creditable to them that they obtrude in public their devotion to the comfort of their females ; whereas, by the essayist's argument, this gallantry is really a sign of backwardness—a sign of a certain amount of progress in education and refinement, but of only a limited amount. He shows that in barbarous nations and in rude states of society woman is treated as a slave, as a pretty doll, and as a puppet with temporary charms; but that as a better state of things springs up, men see how unjust this is, how much the happiness and progress of society depends on women, and how many subtle pleasures arise from treating women well. So then “ the age of gallantry begins. Men are anxious to preserve themselves from the habits and tastes of barbarous life, and so go into the opposite extreme. They are afraid of treating women like slaves, and so they call them angels. They are afraid of seeming indifferent to the graces of women, and so they not only tolerate but provoke women's caprices. They are afraid of using harsh and imperious language to women, and so they learn to pretend that women walk on flowers, and breathe odours, and gleam like pearls. They know their own strong tendency to push women on one side, and so they combine to jog each other's memory and to insist on rules of etiquette. Accordingly, the fuss made in America about the comfort of women, is taken by this writer to show not only the laudable anxiety of the men to attain refinement, but a deep consciousness of their natural tendency to make women uncomfortable. He asserts the art of treating women with unaffected and truthful courtesy and consideration to be attained just as the art of walking easily and uprightly is attained. “The child is perhaps observed to slouch, to protrude its head or back, or turn in its toes, and to thump on the ground with its feet. A violent change is needed, and the child is taught to dance. It is made to turn out its toes and to rest on one foot, and to balance and swing the body and the head in a hundred attitudes, and the end is, that the slouch is corrected, and the body is held straight." Working out which simile, the writer's conclusion is, that gallant men are in the dancing stage ; that they attitudinise in order not to walk like bumpkins; and that by-and-by, perhaps, they will learn to walk easily and well.
* North America, by Anthony Trollope, vol i. pp. 296-7, 300 89. † Travels in England and Wales, by J. G. Kohl. 1844.
A NEW RESTORATION.*
M. CHARLES DUNOYER, of the Institute of France, was one of the most able and distinguished publicists of his country, and he became also one of its most illustrious exiles. If, according to his own view of the matter, with many others, and by an error which he participated in, in common with many of the most honourable men of his day-an error which probably originated in his not having sufficiently seen if the transmutation of power effected in August, 1830, presented the same character of incontestable legitimacy as the resistance offered by the nation to the “ ordonnances” of July—a resistance in which he is said to have taken personally the initiative, and by which action he associated himself with the revolution that followed upon this resistance still he not the less expressed himself as ready to accept the consequences of this error, and never for a moment did he dream of separating his lot from that of the royalty which he had once served, and which had been since overthrown.
But, however faithful he may have been to the royalty that fell in July, the unalterable attachment which he bore to it could not prevent his regretting that it should have been necessary to determine the exclusion of the elder branch of the Bourbons; and after having argued in a previous work, “ La Révolution du 24 Février," as he also does in the present posthumous publication, that the irregular substitution of the Orleans dynasty to that of which it took the place could only have been considered necessary as a sequence of the letting loose the same detestable passions whose triumph had twice before brought about the overthrow of the monarchy, he set about, as a final labour of love, to place before the public all those reasons, so peremptory to his mind, which ought to inspire
* Le Second Empire et une Nouvelle Restauration. Par Charles Dunoyer, de l'Institut de France. Two Vols. 8vo. W. Jeffs, Libraire Etrangère de la Famille Royale.
France with the determination of seeking its safety in a new restoration of the antique royalty.
The present work, edited by Anatole Dunoyer, the son of the author of " La Liberté du Travail” (his father, who died in 1862, having devoted the last ten years of his life to its composition), comprises not only an inquiry into those political necessities which are said to render a new restoration probable, but also the discussion brought about in 1851 by the question of “ revision,” the “coup d'état” of the 2nd of December, the reestablishment of the Empire, and the analysis of, and commentary upon, the acts which have characterised the new Napoleonic government in its relations with foreign powers and with France.” It is almost needless to remark that such discussions do not emanate from Paris; they come from Brussels or London, or some other city of refuge where freedom of opinion is tolerated.
It seems, however, in the present day, a labour more provocative of amusement than of serious consideration to detail at length, as we here find them, the debates that followed upon the review at Satory; whether “Vive le Président” or “ Vive l’Empereur" had been shouted; whether one man or two, a company, a regiment, or a whole brigade, shouted; whether officers set the example ; whether meat and wine were distributed, and money disbursed. All these things are now matters of history, and further, that the most unsatisfactory of all wines to a wearied soldier-champagne-was uncorked at that historical review, the details of which were being made the objects of a prolonged inquiry whilst others were acting! As to the “coup d'état,” none have ever condemned it in language more eloquent than that used by Victor Hugo, and as to the war in the Crimea, M. Dunoyer sees in it a pressure exercised by the emperor to drag England into an alliance for his own aggrandisement, prepared as he was to leave his allies in the lurch when his object-the establishment of the supremacy of the Latin over the Syro-Greek Church in the Holy Land- had been obtained.
Discussing under the head of the Empire the labours of the court of Rome to re-establish its supremacy throughout Europe, M. Dunoyer makes some remarks which we cannot but deem of pregnant import to the future welfare of these realms. Not the least remarkable
these innovations has most assuredly been the successful re-establishment of the Roman hierarchy in Protestant states, the ecclesiastical organisation of which had long ceased to belong to him, and that whilst conferring upon it all the appearances of an official character. “He preluded these measures," says M. Dunoyer, “ towards the end of 1850, the urgency of which was in no way apparent, by dividing by his private authority the territory of England into archbishoprics, bishoprics, and parishes, undertaking thus to restore to Catholicism, in the very bosom of a country subjected for three centuries to the Anglican Church, the character of a hierarchal body constituted as it existed in Great Britain when the Roman worship was dominant.” “The Holy Father,” he adds, in a note, "exposed the motives which had determined him to re-establish the Catholic hierarchy in England in an apostolic letter of the 24th of September, 1850.” And what are the consequences? That while the Empire and the Church are at variance in France, and the people and the Pope are at bay in Italy, in England every public measure that is Protestant in its tendency is scouted, whilst every measure which favours the progress
of the domination of Rome meets with a triumphant success !
It is, however, with the prospects of a Restoration that we have at present to do. M. Dunoyer, after propounding one of those generalisations which Frenchmen take so much delight in, to the effect " that in France as well as in England the present state of society proceeds from its ancient state," goes on to show at length, guided a good deal in his inquiries by the works of Guizot, that the sentiments which animated the greater part of the French in their struggle at the end of the last century differed very much from the spirit which animated the English people in their different struggles for liberty. To a certain extent in France, as in England, a guarantee was sought for private and public rights, but in France “ rivalities of classes and ideas of domination obtained the ascendancy, and such is from the very beginning the energy of jealous and ambitious passions which precipitate the march of revolution, that it acted from the onset as if the destruction of the upper classes by violence had been its true mission. People were not satisfied with abolishing privileges, they suppressed, they obliterated the entire order of families who possessed such, and took possession of their position without a scruple.”
The result was that classes, as they were more and more revolutionary, succeeded in hoisting out those in power. To Necker succeeded Calonne, to the Feuillants the Girondins, and to the Girondins the Terrorists. Under the successive governments of the Directory, the Consulate, and the Empire, and still more especially of the Restoration, a movement in an opposite direction took place, and the dispossessed classes gradually came once more into power. But this was intolerable to the revolutionary party, which proceeded from conspiracy to conspiracy under the pretext of liberal and honourable reforms, till an error on the part of those in power enabled them to take their revenge in the days of July, 1830. The same thing was re-enacted in February, 1848. Then, as in 1792, royalty was succeeded by a Directory, a President or Consul, and an Empire. But what reasons are there, M. Dunoyer asks, to believe that the revolutionary party, which did not stay at the Empire in the first portion of its course, will be content to remain quiescent with a second ? Whether usurpation proceeds from below, upwards, or from above, downwards, it tends just the same to produce a series of catastrophes. Are those who have now usurped the power in a better position than their predecessors? Were their precedents happier ? Were their principles purer ? Were the means they employed more praiseworthy ? Are the results of their enterprise more entitled to approbation ? Nothing is manifest in the fact of their existence beyond one of those numerous changes to which France has been subjected ever since 1792, and with which it becomes disgusted as soon as they have become established. According to M. Dunoyer, the last usurpation which has taken place, by the motives that determined it, the manner in which it was accomplished, the unexampled system of corruption which it has brought with it, and the wounds that it has inflicted upon the security, the liberty, and the dignity of all, is calculated to provoke a last change which will be more violent than
any that has preceded it! There can, indeed, according to our author, be no permanent stay to the progress of revolution until things have returned to what they were