The Degradation of Women by Puritanism – R.B. Kerr, 10/29/1905
Republished from our predecessor publication Lucifer the Light Bearer
It is often alleged that puritanism in matters of sex has improved the position of women. No statement could be
more completely devoid of historical foundation. On the contrary, there is plenty of evidence that puritanism has
been unfavorable to women, and I shall give some of it. According to Sir Henry Maine, Rome had, during her most
glorious days, “a marital tie which was in fact the laxest the Western world has seen.” Puritanism was at its lowest
ebb. “Yet,” says the same writer, “no society which preserves any tincture of Christian institution is likely to restore
to married women the personal liberty conferred on them by the middle Roman law.” About the time when the
Christians became dominant in the Roman Empire, there happened one of the most extraordinary outbreaks of
asceticism that the world has ever seen. Total abstinence from sex became the ideal of virtue, even marriage
being considered degrading and immoral. Men fled by thousands to the desert to live as hermits, in order that
they might never again behold the face of a woman. Sometimes a mother, deprived of her only son, followed
him to the desert to try to speak with him; but these fanatics thought it degrading even to speak to or look at one’s
mother, and she usually had to return without having gained her end. Women, too, were attacked by outbreaks
of holiness and refused all further relations with their husbands. What was the consequence to women of all this?
Lecky has told us in his History of European Morals: “Another injurious consequence, resulting in a great measure
from asceticism, was a tendency to depreciate extremely the character and the position of women. Woman was
represented as the door of hell, as the mother of all human ills. She should be ashamed at the very thought that
she is a woman. She should live in continual penance on account of the curses she has brought upon the world.
She should be ashamed of her dress, for it is the memorial of her fall. She should be especially ashamed of her
beauty, for it is the most potent instrument of the demon.”
This frantic feeling against women soon began to show itself in legislation. Says Lecky: “The pagan laws during
the Empire had been continually repealing the old disabilities of women, and the legislative movement in their favor
continued with unabated force from Constantine to Justinian, and appeared also in some of the early laws of the
barbarians. But in the whole feudal legislation women were placed in a much lower legal position than in the pagan
Empire.” “Women were even forbidden by a provincial council, in the sixth century, on account of their impurity,
to receive the Eucharist into their naked hands.” As the Middle Ages went on, however, the tide began again to
turn. The institution of chivalry arose and blossomed out in its full luxuriance during the Crusades. Of chivalry,
Hallam says: “Courtesy had always been the proper attribute of knighthood; protection of the weak its legitimate
duty; but these were heightened to a pitch of enthusiasm when woman became their object. “But the morals of
chivalry, we cannot deny, were not pure. In the amusing fictions which seem to have been the only popular reading
of the Middle Ages, there reigns a licentious spirit, not of that slighter kind which is usual in such compositions,
but indicating a general dissoluteness in the intercourse of the sexes. This has often been noticed of Boccaccio
and the early Italian novelists; but it equally characterized the tales and romances of France, whether metrical or
in prose, and all the poetry of the troubadours. The violation of marriage vows passes in them for an incontestable
privilege of the brave and the fair.” Here we have a clear case of a rise in the estimation of women going hand in
hand with a breakup of puritan morals. In which modern nation have women achieved most? Undoubtedly in France.
No other country has produced anything like the number of great women that France has done. Héloïse, Joan of
Arc, Agnès Sorel, Margaret of Navarre, Ninon de l’Enclos, Madame de Sévigné, Madame Roland, Madame de
Staël, George Sand, Rosa Bonheur, Louise Michel, and Sarah Bernhardt make a list remarkable in numbers and
in variety of talent, and extending over many centuries. Not only has France produced many distinguished women,
but women have always had very great influence on the public affairs of that country. When France was almost
conquered by the English, she was rescued by two women, Joan of Arc and Agnès Sorel. During the Revolution,
the leader of the Girondists was Madame Roland. These were women of exceptional ability, but in almost every
generation there have been some women of sufficient capacity and influence to write their names deep in the
history of the country. Now, what are the relations of the sexes in France? It is hardly necessary to ask. During her
whole history, France has had an unbroken record for laxity of the marriage tie. Many of the great women I have
named are known to have utterly disregarded the conventional proprieties, and Ninon de l’Enclos, Madame de
Staël, and George Sand are among the most celebrated libertines in history. In his Ancient Regime, Taine gives
us much information about the relations of the sexes in the eighteenth century. From a contemporary he quotes
the following about the Duc de Lauzun: “He was asked what he would say if his wife (whom he had not seen for ten
years) should write to him that she had just discovered that she was enceinte. He reflected a moment and then
replied: ‘I should write and tell her that I was delighted that Heaven had blessed our union; be careful of your health;
I will call and pay my respects this evening.’” “There are countless replies of the same sort,” Taine adds. “Nobody is
jealous, not even when in love.”
As to the influence of women at that time, Taine quotes an English contemporary: “Women were of consequence
even in the eyes of the old and of the clergy; they were thoroughly familiar, to an extraordinary degree, with the
march of events; they knew by heart the characters and habits of the king’s friends and ministers. One of these,
on returning to his château from Versailles, informed his wife about everything with which he had been occupied;
with us, he says, one or two words to her about her watercolor sketches, or remains silent and thoughtful, pondering
over what he has just heard in Parliament.” Let us now contrast French women with those of two of the most
vigorous puritan races, the Jews and the Scots. The Jews are noted for the strictness of their domestic relations,
for their respect for the “sanctity of the home.” The number of able Jewish men has been extraordinary. Yet I can
find no record of any eminent Jewish woman except the actress Rachel. Among the Scottish working class, the
relations of the sexes are rather the reverse of strict; but among the classes from which eminent women usually
come there is as rigid a puritanism as can anywhere be found. Scotland has produced more eminent men, in
proportion to population, than any other modern nation, and it would therefore be reasonable to expect that she
would have a good list of distinguished women. But she has not. I do not know if one could call Mary Stuart an
eminent woman, but in any case she was half French by birth and wholly French by education. Lady Flora
Hastings, the unfortunate young lady who wrote one exquisite song and then died, was also only half Scottish
and held an office at the English court. There is no doubt about Lady Nairne, however. She was almost, if not
quite, the equal of Burns as a writer of songs, and must be ranked second or third among the poetesses of the
world. But she is really the only great woman in the history of Scotland.
Moreover, Scottish women have exceedingly little influence on public affairs of any kind. The Jews and the Scots
agree with the German Emperor that the sole business of women is to attend to church, cooking, and children. It
is worth noting that the great Puritan, Milton, is the one among English poets who has the lowest idea of woman
and most insists that she be kept in her place. He makes Eve say to Adam: “My author and disposer, what thou
bidd’st Unargued I obey. So God ordains: God is thy law, thou mine; to know no more Is woman’s happiest knowledge,
and her praise.” What we know of Asia suggests the same inference as the facts of Europe. China and Japan are
very much alike in many things, but they have always differed profoundly in their standards of sex morality. China
has always believed in strict puritanism for women, but not Japan. “The Japanese,” said Malthus, “are distinguished
from the Chinese in being much more warlike, seditious, dissolute, and ambitious.” W. E. Griffis, speaking of the
Japanese woman in his book The Mikado’s Empire, says: “I shall not dwell upon the prevalent belief of foreigners
that licentiousness is the first and characteristic trait in her character, nor upon the idea that ordinary chastity is next
to unknown in Japan, for I do not believe that such is the case.” But he admits that “the moral status of the Japanese
is low enough, and every friend of Japan knows it.” Yet Griffis adds: “In comparing all other Asiatic nations, I am
inclined to believe that Japan, in respect and honor to women, is the leader of them all. An amount of social
freedom prevails among womankind in Japan that could hardly be expected in a country at once Asiatic,
idolatrous, and despotic.” When we weigh all these facts, it seems to me that, far from regarding puritanism
as an elevator of women, we must come to the conclusion that it has probably done more to degrade women
than any other influence whatever.
