XVIII.

8.—“To compass power unknown in body and in mind.”

“We need a new ethic of the sexes, and this not merely, or even mainly, as an intellectual construction, but as a discipline of life, and we need more. We need an increasing education and civism of women.”—P. Geddes and J. A. Thomson (“The Evolution of Sex,” p. 297).

Newnham and Girton, Vassar and Zurich, are already rendering account of woman’s scope of mental power; while the circus, the gymnasium, swimming and mountaineering are showing what she might do corporeally, apart from her hideous and literally impeding style of clothing. As for some other forms of utilitarian occupation, read the following concerning certain of the Lancashire women:—

“Mr. Edgar L. Wakeman, an observant American author, is at present on a visit to this country, and is giving his countrymen the benefit of his impressions of English life and social conditions.

“The ‘pit-brow’ lasses of the Wigan district will not need to complain, for he writes of them not only in a kindly spirit, but even with enthusiasm for their healthy looks, graceful figures, and good conduct. We need not follow his description of the processes in which the women of the colliery are employed, but we may say in passing that Mr. Wakeman was astonished by the ‘wonderful quickness of eye and movement’ shown by the ‘screeners,’ and by the ‘superb physical development’ and agility of the ‘fillers.’ He had expected to find them ‘the most forlorn creatures bearing the image of women,’ and he found them strong, healthy, good-natured, and thoroughly respectable. ‘English roses glow from English cheeks. You cannot find plumper figures, prettier forms, more shapely necks, or daintier feet, despite the ugly clogs, in all of dreamful Andalusia. The “broo gear” is laid aside on the return home from work, and then the “pit-brow” lass is arrayed as becomingly as any of her class in England, and in the village street, or at church of a Sunday, you could not pick her out from among her companions, unless for her fine colour, form, and a positively classic poise and grace of carriage possessed by no other working women of England. Altogether,’ he says, ‘I should seriously regard the pit-brow lasses as the handsomest, healthiest, happiest, and most respectable working women in England.’—(Manchester Guardian, Aug. 28, 1891.)

Id.... Concerning the question of male and female dress, evidence as to how far woman has been hindered and “handicapped” by her conventional attire, and not by her want of physical strength or courage, is reported from time to time in the public prints, as witness the following, published generally in the English newspapers of 14th Oct., 1891:—

“Not long since a well-known European courier, having grown grey in his occupation, fell ill, and like others similarly afflicted, was compelled to call in a doctor. This gentleman was completely taken by surprise on discovering that his patient was a female. Then the sick woman—who had piloted numerous English and American families through the land of the Latin, the Turk, and others, and led timid tourists safely through many imaginary dangers—confessed that she had worn men’s clothes for forty years. She stated that her reasons for this masquerade were that having, at the age of thirteen, been left a friendless orphan, she had become convinced, after futile struggling for employment, that many of the obstacles in her path could be swept away by discarding her proper garments and assuming the rôle and attire of masculine youth. This she did. She closely cut her hair, bought boy’s clothes, put them on, and sallied forth in the world to seek her fortune. With the change of dress seems to have come a change of luck, for she quickly found employment, and being an apt scholar, and facile at learning languages, was enabled after a time to obtain a position as courier, and, but for her unfortunate illness, it is tolerably certain that the truth would never have been revealed during her lifetime.”

In the early days of April, 1892, the Vienna correspondent of the Standard reported that—

“On the 30th ult., there died in Hungary, at about the same hour, two ladies who served in 1848 in the Revolutionary Army, and fought in several of the fiercest battles, dressed in military uniform. One of them was several times promoted, and, under the name of Karl, attained the rank of First Lieutenant of Hussars. At this point, however, an artillery major stopped her military career by marrying her. The other fought under the name of Josef, and was decorated for valour in the field. She married long after the campaign. A Hungarian paper, referring to the two cases, says that about a dozen women fought in 1848 in the insurrectionary ranks.”

Somewhat more detailed particulars concerning “Lieutenant Karl” were afterwards given by the Manchester Guardian (June 6, 1892), as follows:—

“The Austrian Volkszeitung announces the death of Frau Marie Hoche, who has had a most singular and romantic career. Her maiden name was Lepstuk. In the momentous year of 1848 Marie Lepstuk, who was then eighteen years of age, joined the German legion at Vienna; then, returning home, she adopted the name of Karl and joined the Tyroler Jager Regiment of the revolutionary army. She showed great bravery in the battlefield, received the medallion, and was raised to the rank of lieutenant. A wound compelled her to go into hospital, but after her recovery she joined the Hussars. As a reward for exceeding bravery she was next made oberlieutenant on the field. Soon after this her sex was discovered, but a major fell in love with her, and they were married. At Vilagos both were taken prisoners, and while in the fortress she gave birth to her first child. After the major’s death she was remarried to Oberlieutenant Hoche. For the past few years Frau Hoche has been in needy circumstances, but an appeal from Jokai brought relief.”

All of which goes far to discredit M. Michelet’s theory that women are “born invalids,” an assertion which Dr. Julia Mitchell “stigmatises naturally enough as ‘all nonsense,’” and is thus approved—with a strange magnanimity—by the British Medical Journal.—(See Pall Mall Gazette, April 29, 1892.)

The “incapacity of women for military service” has been of late days continually quoted as a bar to their right of citizenship, as far as the Parliamentary Franchise is concerned. In the face of the foregoing cases, and of the fact that every mother risks her life in becoming a mother, while very few men, indeed, risk theirs on the battlefield, it might be thought that the fallacious argument would have perished from shame and inanition long ago. But the inconsistencies of partly-cultivated, masculine, one-sexed intellect are as stubborn as blind.