Text: C. F. Briggs (?), Literary, Broadway Journal (New York), March 22, 1845, vol. 1, no. 12, p. ??

[page 182, column 2, continued:]

WOMAN IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY.

WE have encountered, during the past week, some half a dozen notices of our review of Miss Fuller's hook, which strangely misrepresent the opinions we expressed of that lady. A writer in the Charleston Mercury, says that we snub Miss Fuller because she is neither a wife nor a mother, and has, therefore, no right to say what a woman should be, “forgetting that nature has so arranged it, that many women cannot be mothers, and that others prefer a single life.” We have the best reasons in the world fur not forgetting either of these facts. But we spoke of woman, not women. Man, in the same way, is nothing, but as a husband and a father. But there may be good citizens who are neither; who yet, as Lord Bacon says, “in affection and means have married and endowed the public.” Miss Fuller's theme is “woman,” not any particular classes of women, and she argues that woman may, and should fill any of the duties which properly belong to man, and which are wholly incompatible with the duties of a wife and mother. Miss Fuller suggests nothing, proposes nothing, hints at nothing, for bettering the condition of those of her own sex, who by accident may be placed in the unnatural condition of laborers for their own, or even their husband's bread. There are thousands of women in this city, manted and unmarried, mothers and childless, who are compelled to assume the duties of man, and who do. with feminine patience, manfolly contend with their destiny, and rule, where they should serve; and protect those who should protect them. But these are unfortunate, not privileged women, who would, like Zenobia, resign the sceptre of power, and gladly become matrons, rather than remain monarchs. The true position of woman is nut a disputable point; the universal sentiment of mankind has determined it; God himself has said “her desire shall be unto her husband, and he shall rule over her.” Miss Fuller says “no,” in very plain terms, “let the desire and rule be the other way,” and she instances the case of the woman, who contentedly resided on a mountain with her husband, because be found it for his interest to do so, — and with sufficient distinctness, declares, “I would not have it so.” We did not snub Miss Fuller for this, as the writer in the Charleston Mercury asserts, but we are sorry for not doing so, and we repair our neglect, by telling [page 183:] Miss Fuller that no unmarried woman has any right to say any thing on the subject. Let any wife, if one can be found to say it, declare that she would not have it so. But Miss Fuller is not a competent oracle. The writer in the Charleston Courier is not correct in saying that Mrs. Sigourney has no children. She has a son and a daughter.

There is an immense deal of nonsense afloat on the subject of “femality,” which can never do any harm to society at large, because the instincts of nature and imperative necessity will keep men and women in their true spheres; but it may, and we have no doubt does produce a good deal of harm in particular cases, by creating improper desires, and unsettling the quiet and content of many a well ordered family. It is not denied that there are Abby Kellys and Lucretia Molts, who have preached with seemingly good effect, to quiet audiences, but it is by no means certain that these women could not have done greater good by an unobtrusive observance of their duties in a different manner. We remember hearing one of them speak at a public meeting once, where the greater part of the assembly was composed of rather rude men, and once or twice while she was speaking, her face and neck blushed scarlet red; it was nature that spoke eloquently in her blood, and should have urged her to desist.

Miss Fuller names Mrs. Siddons as an instance of what a Woman may effect in public; but Mrs. Siddons came before the public only as a woman, representing always a woman, either as a wife, a mother, or a betrothed wife.

During the past week, a meeting of young women was held in the Superior Court room of the City Hall, at which a Miss Gray presided, and a Miss Graham acted as Secretary. The object of the meeting appears to have been the consideration of the means by which women may be enabled to etrn their bread. We doubt the propriety of such meetings, but they are certainly excusable, and reflect disgrace upon the society which makes it necessary that woman should have to resort to such means to secure an honest support.

There is one kind of employment, particularly adapted to the habits of women, which we hope to see introduced among them — wood engraving. It has already been done In England and France, and we have now before us some specimens of wood-cutting by a young woman, which would not only compare favorably with the best specimens of this kind of art that we hare seen, but which possesses a peculiar character of freedom, which we have never seen in the work of any man. A class of vonng women should be immediately formed, for instruction in elementary drawing, with a view to their becoming wood engravers. It might easily be done at a trifling expense, and we can hardly fear that the city authorities would hesitate to lend their countenance to such an undertaking. Many women, who now “‘Tort themselves with difficulty by their needle, might earn a handsome competence as wood engravers. It is an art Which is daily growing in importance among us, and would be employed to a much greater extent, if we had a greater number of good artists.