Women's Work

by A. A. Brooke; Margaret Whitley

(4) Art, including such handicrafts as are practised by women; music, and the drama.

Various occupations not coming precisely under any of these heads are followed by a few scattered individuals, but these will receive merely a passing notice. They are interesting in themselves, but are so largely experimental that it would be useless to consider them at any length, since they may disappear at any moment.

Literature.—It is only recently that women have entered the field of literature in any numbers. Until the last thirty years or so it may almost be said that only a few exceptional women, able to make their mark as poets or novelists, were occupied to any serious extent in literary work. Nor when we remember that the pursuit of literature was considered to “unsex” a woman, and that Mrs. Somerville had to keep a supply of plain sewing ready to cover her books and papers if a visitor should call, is the deficiency very difficult to account for. Only natures in which genius is a compelling force can burst such iron bonds. Fanny Burney, Jane Austen, Miss Mitford, Mrs. Somerville, Charlotte Bronté, and Mrs. Browning—to name a few of the pioneers—first broke down the barriers. Then other quiet workers crept in, magazines became more numerous, and offered a ready outlet for literary work; biography, history, and science began to be handled by women. Harriet Martineau perhaps more than any other woman typified the modern phase of literary activity, fulfilling in her single person functions any one of which would content most literary women, being novelist, essay writer, historian, and journalist in one. She was the first of her sex to enter upon the routine every-day work of literature, which has been freely trodden since, and her writings embody much of the tone of thought and feeling which is characteristic of the “women’s movement” of to-day.

Fiction.—The branch of literature in which women are most successful at present is undoubtedly fiction. Besides the few novelists whose names are widely known, there are a multitude of scribblers of lesser fame who yet make a good living by their profession. There are grades in these things, and writers whose works are seldom found on the shelves of the fastidious are yet in good demand at the libraries, and have a circulation and a public of their own. An immense amount of second class fiction is written by women, who seem to have a special gift for producing tales that are readable and brightly written without ever rising above the level of mediocrity. There is a still lower literary grade, in which poverty of invention keeps company with a wretched literary style. Yet books of this class are not always unsuccessful.

The writing of fiction is usually supposed to be a highly remunerative occupation, and so indeed it often is. But it does not follow that the writing of three volume novels pays. The phenomenal success, pecuniary and literary, of one or two recent novels must not be taken as a sample of what a writer may expect.[1] Though a good price is generally paid for a novel if the author has once hit the public taste, only moderate terms can be secured by less known writers, and beginners must be content to part with their works for a very small sum. A well-known novelist may receive £400, £500, or even more for a novel, but a writer of fair reputation does not as a rule receive more than £100 for a novel that may have taken many months to write. If the novelist is wise, however, she will make a varied use of her material. Good prices, say from £100 to £250, are given for serial stories by publishing syndicates, who issue the tale simultaneously in half-a-dozen newspapers; and the regular publishers do not as a rule give any less for novels which have already appeared in the serial form. Probably they regard the earlier issue as a good advertisement. Short tales also pay well to those who can write them, and by the contribution of occasional miscellaneous papers to magazines and reviews the strain of prolonged composition may be avoided and the income proportionately improved. A lady novelist and miscellaneous writer in London has been making from £600 to £700 a year for some time, and has lately made as much as £900. Just at present the acknowledged author has an advantage even in journalism, for there is a great demand for articles in newspapers signed by writers of repute. As much as £10 a column is sometimes received for articles not in themselves of an important character by writers whose names are well known in other fields. It is an expensive fancy, and whether it will last cannot yet be predicted; but if one paper indulges in it, the rest are obliged to follow suit. Outside fiction, a good deal of miscellaneous literary work is done by women, of which it is impossible to give any detailed account. Each writer works in her own fashion, and for lack of meeting-places there has hitherto been little interchange of thought or experience among literary women. The foundation of the Writers’ Club in London may perhaps be taken as a sign of change in these matters. The formation of this institution is instructive, since it was due to the limitation of the projected “Authors’ Club” to men, on the express ground (endorsed by Mr. Walter Besant) that women writers could not afford to pay the subscription. In support of this opinion a lady engaged in literary work in London estimates that few of the rank and file among her colleagues are earning more than £200 a year. On the other hand, some writers have made a competency for old age, and not a few married women, hard pressed by fate, have contrived to bring up a family upon their literary earnings. Miss Annie S. Swan recently owned to an income of about £1,000 a year, and Miss Yonge made a handsome fortune by her novels. Successful playwrights also make a good deal of money; but it is doubtful whether any woman comes under this category as yet.

[1] George Eliot received £8,000 for Middlemarch, but Mrs. Humphry Ward is said to have received £18,000 for David Grieve.

Journalism.—At the present moment journalism appears to be the fashionable literary pursuit for women, and their contributions to the daily and weekly papers have increased enormously during the last few years. The general lightening of the cargo which has taken place throughout the periodical press has greatly contributed to this result; for women writers have usually a light touch, and an apparently inexhaustible power of turning out bright and readable, though often flimsy, articles upon social subjects. In the department of dress they of course reign supreme, and few newspapers can now afford to despise this erstwhile frivolous subject. The writers who discourse upon fashion, however, have, as a rule, had little literary training; and through their efforts a kind of press jargon has been evolved, wonderful alike in grammar, in phraseology, in similes. But this is the least creditable form of feminine journalism, and we will not linger over it. In many of the papers written for women (and to which, of course, women largely contribute) there is very fair writing upon a great variety of subjects. Women have occasionally been successful in the main walks of journalism, but the position of the lady who represents the Daily News in Paris is probably unique. As a rule women keep to their special department, chronicling the doings of London society, and taking charge of the lighter topics generally, while their confrères are dealing with politics and diplomacy.[2] This new development of journalism affords an example of the results which may be expected to follow when women are allowed free play to their activities in other directions. They will not always simply duplicate the work of their male predecessors, but will enlarge the field of operations by striking out a line of their own.

It is impossible to name with any accuracy the income attainable in the profession. Few of the women whose names are known in connection with the press are journalists pure and simple, though some of the younger generation are adopting the profession in all frankness, to sink or swim as their luck allows. Some few who entered the field before there were many competitors have achieved a good position, but their number could easily be counted on the fingers. A woman, however, who has a fair variety of subjects at command, and can combine purely literary work with the day-to-day business of a journalist, may make a very reasonable income from her profession—say £400 a year. But a journalist beginning at the bottom of the ladder would take long to mount so high, and would probably be well content, after some years’ work, to be earning £200 a year. It should be noted that journalism among women is almost confined to London; for though there are women so engaged in the provinces, it seldom forms their regular means of livelihood.

[2] Miss Flora Shaw, who writes upon Colonial subjects in the Times may be mentioned as an exception.

Teaching.—The profession most commonly followed by educated women is of course that of teaching. Until recently it was almost the only occupation open to the class above shop assistants, and even in becoming a teacher a lady was held to have lost caste. The opening of university education to women has given the death blow to such false sentiment, and women are now free to adopt what calling they like without loss of social position.[3] The foundation of public day-schools for girls and the working of the Education Act of 1870 have diverted the channel of women’s activities from private teaching to public schools. Instead of the governess we have the High School mistress; instead of the “Dame” in a cottage the Elementary School teacher. Not that the private governess is in any way abolished, for many parents prefer, or are obliged by reason of residence in the country to have their children taught at home. Both the governess’s status and salary are, however, considerably improved, owing to the rise in the general level of education. Greater acquirements are demanded, and payment is higher in return. A resident governess may earn anything from £20 to £200 a year with board. If not resident she hardly obtains the full equivalent in money, since her board costs her employer but little if she lives in the house, and is generally left out of consideration. But for many reasons resident posts are unattractive to the majority of teachers, and a bribe in the way of higher salary has to be offered if a really competent teacher is desired in a boarding school or a private family. Young women entering the profession generally prefer posts in High Schools, where the work, though fatiguing, is kept within fixed hours, and where time out of school is (nominally at any rate) at the teacher’s own disposal. There is something stimulating in teaching large classes, and those who have grown accustomed to it are seldom content afterwards to devote themselves to one or two children. Payment too is regular, and employment tolerably certain, whereas in private families either means or honesty or both may be defective, and in any case the growth of the children deprives the governess sooner or later of her employment. For these reasons therefore High Schools as a rule attract the ablest teachers, unless delicate health or personal predilection happens to weigh in the other direction. A similar state of things prevails with regard to private schools, which are obliged either to pay high salaries in order to attract good teachers, or to put up with the inefficient ones who cannot easily obtain work in a High School.