Usable according to the Creative Commons License Attribution Non-commercial Share-alike.
Our editorial method is informed by social-text editing principles. By “text” we mean verbal and visual printed material, including non-referential physical elements such as bindings, page layouts, and ornaments. We view any text as the outcome of collaborative processes that have specific manifestations at precise historical moments. The Yellow Nineties Online publishes facsimile editions of a select collection of fin-de- siècle aesthetic periodicals, together with paratexts of production and reception such as cover designs, advertising materials, and reviews. This historical material is enhanced by two kinds of peer-reviewed scholarly commentary: biographies of the periodicals’ contributors and associates; and critical introductions to each title and volume by experts in the field. All scholarly material on the site is vetted by the editor(s) and peer- reviewed by them and/or an international board of advisors. The site as a whole is peer- reviewed by NINES (Networked Infrastructure for Nineteenth-Century Electronic Scholarship). Contributors to the site retain personal copyright in their material. The site is licensed with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 license. Both primary and secondary materials, including all visual images, are marked up in TEI- (Textual-Encoding Initiative) compliant XML (Extensible Markup Language). To ensure maximum flexibility for users, magazines are available on the site as virtual objects (facsimiles) in FlipBook form; in HTML for online reading; in PDF for downloading and collecting; and in XML for those who wish to review and/or adapt our tag sets. In order to make ornamental devices, such as initial letters, head- and tail- pieces, searchable, we have developed a Database of Ornament in OMEKA, and linked it to the relevant pages of each magazine edition. As a dynamic structure, a scholarly website is always in process; Phase One of The Yellow Nineties Online (2010-2015) is completed and Phase Two (2016-2021) is underway.
"THE Pagan Review" is the alarming title of a new British magazine, which
entered
on its career of devastation in September. It is not very much to
look at, and
offers for the customary shilling but sixty-four smallish pages, with
no cover to
speak of: what engine of reform has not been hampered by mundane
limitations at the
start? Its title is the fiercest part of it: the contents are
rather suggestive
than directly polemic, and the "Foreward" admits that
"the
religion of our forefathers...is still fruitful of vast good"—though
these
their children have gone beyond it. The contributors (it is noticeable that
there
is as yet no lady among them) are united by a strongly romantic and
dramatic
tendency; the renascence whereof they are apostles is poetical and
untheo-
logical. The tone is that of lusty and restless youth, which would fain
kick
over the traces and disport itself in unhampered freedom. As one of them
says, "We ought to have been born gypsies." They remind one a little of
newly
admitted collegians just released from their mammas, anxious to be men
at once and
see Life. Their present object is chivalric; they aim at the
emancipation of Woman,
at her elevation. Let her henceforth be as tall, as
athletic, as ratiocinative as
the male human animal. Let noxious restraints of
tradition and convention be swept
away. Give her her rights and an equal
chance; let all years be leap-years. Let it
be no longer true that
Since the dominant note of Nature is the sexual, let girls and boys be free
to rush
into each other's arms, and let us who are older give the most of our
time and
minds to noting how they do it. The proper study of mankind is
womankind; or, as
the Pagan editor puts it, "The supreme interest of
Man is—Woman," and
irresistably. Was it worth while to devote a whole new magazine, with
much
blowing of horns and waving of banners, especially to the illustration of
these
doctrines? And why "pagan"? Are love-stories, not to say Seventh-Com-
mandment novels, necessarily and distinctively anti-Christian? The eminent
Mr.
Blank, and the thrilling Miss Whatshername, and the delightful Lady
T'Other, have
been at this business for years. We have all read their improving
romances with
more or less sympathy and profit. Are we pagans for doing so?
Are they pagans for
having written them? They would repel the vile impeach-
ment with indignant scorn;
and so say we of all of us—or, at least, the great
majority. We claim to be
merely human in our writing and our reading.
Again, why "Pagan"? Why not rather
"The Human Review," or "The
Human Magazine,"—since it is no more of a review
than we are, or our
esteemed and highly popular contemporaries in New York?
youthfulness, a going on tiptoe as it were, with looks of proud
defiance, and
accompaniment of horns and banners as aforesaid. It is as if, to an
assembly
where low-necked dresses were not unknown, should enter one loudly
announcing, "See how very
and prigs, I mean to maintain this startling innovation, however you
may
cry Shame!"
movement in England (whatever it amounts to) is no more theological than
the
neo-Christian movement in France. The "Pagan Review" cares no more for
the
arguments of Colonel Ingersoll than for those of Paine or Voltaire. Now
Theology
has so long been a house divided against itself that interest in its con-
troversies has greatly dwindled; this generation, rightly or wrongly, cares far
less for abstract theories than for practical results. But the moral teachings of
the Gospel are more revered, more firmly intrenched than ever. In this sense
the
civilized world has an Established Religion. Whether they accept them
with the
heart or not, decent people are generally agreed to regard these ideas
as essential
to human welfare. Hypocrisy is the prudent homage which Vice
pays to Virtue, and
those who secretly break the law still profess that the law is
good. Even those of
superior pretensions—the "emancipated," the agnostics—
would
subscribe to Paley's doctrine, that Religion is an excellent auxiliary to
the
police. Take away its restraints, and what is ahead? So far as we can
judge,
anarchy and chaos, the Parisian commune and the dynamiters.
impressed the general imagination is its power of restraining human
passions
and indulgences—lust, cruelty, rapine, and the like. It led the
Roman em-
perors to give up their harems, and made comparatively chaste men of
Valens
and Theodosius—which Gibbon thought was a mistake: he was one of
your
pagans, and frank in expressing his opinion. It move a multitude of
hermits
to turn their backs on a society which seemed to them hopelessly bad. In
later
days it mastered the love of revenge, the thirst for blood, and drove in its
ob-
vious lesson of humanity—slowly, but effectually. It has taught some to
keep
their hands out of their neighbors' pockets. At least in some individual cses,
it has
checked jealousy, envy, backbiting; the Sewing Society might still talk
scandal,
but less malignantly than did the ladies of Alexandria and Antioch
two
thousand years ago. Christian ethics, by common consent, have had the
chief
hand in making life and property safe, and society decorous and
comparatively
pure.
healthy animal. Don't resist a natural appetite. If you want a thing,
reach
out and take it. Let yourself go."
result is not usually happy. But why confine the application to a single
pas-
sion? Why not say, "Don't check any impulse, be it greed or hate or what-
ever. If you want your neighbor's property, or his life, reach out and take it.
Be
the free, natural man."
logical.
repression, there is no character for yourselves nor the
safety of the community.
Constitutional liberty is not unlimited license. In
conduct and in art there had
best be restraints, moral limitations.
with any movement or argument that looks toward improved conditions or
larger opportunities for the sex. The position of Woman, the estimation in which
she is held, the degree of equality with Man to which she is admitted, are vital
notes of difference between Christendom and Islam, between civilization and
barbarism, between the modern and the ancient world. It may be claimed that
the
battle has already been fought and won; but this is only true in part. It is
true
that many restrictions have been removed, that most occupations have
been already
opened to women, and the barriers which remain are mainly
kept up by
themselves—
less be allowed to. It is also entirely true among intelligent
Anglo-Saxons,
and especially with the well-to-do, women are better off than they
ever were
before, or are anywhere else on earth. They have more freedom, more
honor,
more power—sometimes more than they are fit for, or know how to make
good
use of. Of course this goes further with us than in England. In circles
pre-
tending to, or approximating, wealth, fashion, and culture, the American
woman
is a queen—if she cares to be and has it in her; the American girl is
petted,
flattered, coddled, and indulged to the top of her bent. It is they hat
have the
good times, that get the cream of life. Husbands and fathers toil for
returns
of cash, that daughters and wives may spend freely and beautify themselves
at
ease. Their feminine charm is a unique distinction; in society, sometimes
even
in open-minded literature, they receive a deference, a homage, which are
not
extended to senators and sages.
ask on their behalf? Why, say the serious sisters, to be taken
seriously; to be
something more than ornaments, elegant playthings, or at best mere
house-
keepers and mothers. The surface is not the whole of life, nor Epicureanism
its
only philosophy. We want our identity respected; and that is just what you
have not done yet. We claim to be ourselves, and not merely your hangers-on
and
decorated servitors. Beneath all your courtesies and pamperings lingers the
notion
that we exist not for ourselves, but for you; that we are really your in-
feriors,
your thralls, your puppets, and your creatures.
the young Pagan gentlemen who take up their case--though these latter
do not
put the case very clearly, nor contemplate it from the most desirable point
of
view. Mr. Haggard, in one of his thrilling African romances, makes a native
remark, "We worship our wives, but we have to hot-pot them now and then"—
which meant (if the reader has forgotten his "She") to "remove" them by
violent
means. A belief in this right still lurks, with other remnants of feudal-
ism, in
many masculine minds. The nobleman of a few centuries ago, on
occasion of domestic
mistrust, would calmly wall up to his suspected spouse in
the mansonry; his
successor, who resorts to the simpler method of pistol, knife
or axe, is commonly
found a little lower on the social scale. In these Russian
judgements it is not
necessary for the victim to have done anything amiss, but
only for jealousy to be
roused in the ruling and punishing mind. The
offence may be purely subjective, and
is handled much as Mr. Legree's plan-
tation forty or fifty years ago. Such cases
come to light daily: in one of the
latest, milord prepared his serf for cremation,
and had applied the match before
father's, and rashly declines to return to her lord when he gets out
of jail or
over his debauch; then his vengeance is as summary, and his conscience
as un-
doubting in its exercise, as if he were an Assyrian monarch and she a
revolted
town. The case was put in a nutshell by that intending citizen who
complained
indignantly that this was no free country if a man was restricted in the
lawful
enjoyment of beating his own wife.
men who shoot girls for refusing to marry them. The idea evidently is that
the
weaker vessel has no right to a mind or will of her own: what is she, to say
No
to any chance comer of the superior sex who honors her by wishing to be her
"master"? Such presumption is treason, sacrilige, and blasphemy, justly open
to
condign and capital punishment on the spot.
furnished by recent immigrants. That class indeed supplies more than
its share
to the work of our criminal courts; but a census of nationalities might
leave a
humiliating proportion to the native account. It is more plausible to
assign
the wife-beatings, the woman-shootings, the crude domestic tyrannies
and
tragedies, to the ranks of "labor" and illiteracy
too sweeping. True, "gentlemen" usually adjust
their difficulties with ladies
iin milder fashion; but the polish which education
and society afford does not
always go deep, and your millionaire may be no less an
antique conservative
than your mill-hand. A modern rationalist, scratched by the
sharp point of
some sudden exigency, may appear inwardly hide-bound by antique
conven-
tions. His theology—or lack of it—is brand-new, but his
social and conjugal
ethics are those of the sixteenth century. His wife is better
than his horse or
dog, and his wife is entitled to high respect; but after all, she
is liable
to be bent or broken on the hard angles of his egoism. For men are
egoists,
and women generally yielding: under the conditions which prevail
every-
where to date, they usually have to be, and their tact teaches them to
accept
the inevitable.
true or false, it all goes to confirm an ancient prejudice. Miss Seawell's
argu-
ment against the creative faculty in her sex seems to make for no end but
this:
fogies read it, or the title of it--which is just as good for their
purpose—and
cry, "Ah, you see! One of the most brilliant of the sisterhood
admits the
charge." For one person of either sex who is able and willing to think
the
matter out, twenty—or fifty—have their minds made up already. The
time has
not come for a judgment, for the evidence is not all in; on the contrary,
decades
and generations—to put it most moderately—must pass before we
have facts
enough to base a verdict on. You cannot fairly compare one race, or
class, or
order, or set of people with another unless the two have had similar
oppor-
tunities; and when were women ever on a par with men in position,
education,
privileges, and responsibilities? The inequality is beginning to
disappear in
some respects, and to be mitigated in others; but this is only the
work of our
time, and it is handicapped by the tradition of ages. How are women
them-
selves to throw off at once the inherited notion of their essential
inferiority,
dominant from time immemorial in their minds as well as those of
men?
Such legacies are not only discouraging, they are benumbing. As well (to
be
uncomplimentary, and cite a much darker case) expect the African race to rise
to
anything notable in a year or a century, after being kept in savagery or
slavery
since "Cursed be Caanan."
parison of the sexes is that men are generally bigger and stronger than
women.
This physical fact went for everything at the start, and long after: it will
prob-
ably go for much in the remote future. It made man the head of the
house,
the promoter and carrier-on of business public and private: it put him in
front,
and there he stayed. As he awoke to the consciousness that he had a soul
as
well as a body, he naturally assumed to be also superior in brain and will;
and
his wife, being in his power and (so far as we know) of a gentler nature,
did not contest the point. She had her children, her humble cares and yet
humbler
virtues, with the occasional caresses and qualified approval of her lord.
As the
race progressed toward civilization, she was admitted to be capable of
good looks,
good manners, domestic thrift, taste in dress, the more highly prized
ornament of a
meek and quiet spirit, and the crowning grace of adoring
obedience. When the arts
and sciences were invented, she had no part in them,
with rare exceptions like
Sappho and Hypatia, who doubtless were generally
accounted impertinent hussies and
no better than they should be. During the
Middle Ages, a woman had no chance to do
anything unless she was a queen or
something of the kind. As the free modern spirit
came in, a few ventured to
soil their fingers with pen or brush, amid the frowns of
their brothers and the
whispers of their feminine friends. If they were wise, they
hid behind a male
relative, like Fanny Mendelssohn and Dora Wordsworth, rather than
be "un-
sexed." Others in England, France, and afterwards Germany rashly let
their
work be known as theirs. Some of these, as Mme. de Stael, Mrs.
Somerville,
George Sand, Mrs. Browning, and George Eliot, were thought to have done
very
creditable work—for women—though nothing original, nothing
"creative," of
course; how could they?
with nearly all the professions beyond those of school-marm, seamstress,
and
saleslady, is it not rather too early to determine finally what are their
meagre
abilities and large limitations? Give them a chance to get used to their
new
and partial enfranchisement, to practise their untried powers awhile, to
throw
off the long burden of contempt, disparagement, and repression; and
then—
perhaps within a century or two—they will show us what they can
or cannot
do. I do not know that they will develop powers of ratiocination, or
initiation,
of practicality, of creation (if there be any vouchsafed to
mortals),
equal to those of men. Very likely not; but let us wait and see. What is
the
use of passing snap-judgment on a work not only unfinished but barely
begun?
Why mistake appearances or probabilities for certainties, and pretend to
know
what we don't know?
of the "Pagan Review," though cumbered with dubious if not malodorous
ad-
juncts. It is harder pulling the boat of social reform in England than here,
and
probably the neo-pagans will do as much as may be expected of them if they
can get the terms of punishment extended for bricklayers who jump on their
wives'
heads with heavy hobnailed shoes. It really ought to be more than three
months for
murder of this sort, or ten days when the victim is not quite killed.