Phase One - Ellen Barlee

In the Lilly on Friday, I chose the “Victorian Women on Women” collection, but I only got to read some of Ellen Barlee’s work, Friendless and Helpless. Her book is organized into an introduction, outlining the context and reason for her writing, followed by thirteen chapters that focus on more specific aspects of her purpose. Her previous work, “Our Homeless Poor,” was received very well by the public, raising awareness on the sad realities of poverty, therefore Barlee decided to follow up with another volume of similar content. Friendless and Helpless is a polemic in nature, addressing the issues concerning the extensive poverty in England in the nineteenth century. Barlee feels great compassion for the poor and wishes to offer solutions to relieve their oppression. She hopes that her plans and ideas will help to make society stable and self-sufficient. She mentions that she has several preventative measures (upon which she will go into more detail in the following chapters) that can lift the impoverished out of their misery.

One of the challenges she thinks that she will face is getting some of her readers, namely those among the parish, to understand the significance of relieving poverty. Even though they are deprived and filthy, they are still members of society and deserve respect and help from the community. This is Barlee’s incentive for writing; she wants to serve as a sort of liaison between the rich and the poor, to bring their suffering into reality.

Barlee also addresses one of her criticisms in her introduction. Some have said that she pays too much attention to the “social condition of the poor and their temporal wants than the far higher and more important need of their spiritual advancement.” Barlee acknowledges that she does indeed focus more on the temporal prospects of the poor, but she explains that as one descends in the social scale, the soul is more and more stifled. She says that in order to awaken the spiritual life, they must raise the temporal prospects of the poor, so as to “prepare the soil for the divine seed to take root and expand.” She urges her readers to practice their love of all souls as true Christians, proving their faith and devotion through their good deeds rather than just speaking of it.

I read a couple pages of the first chapter, titled “Pauperism,” which seemed to be a critique of how the current law and church community turn their backs on the poor. She reports of people dying on the streets daily, with no food in their stomachs or clothes on their backs, and the community does little or nothing to help them. This chapter calls for a major cooperation of “legislative measures, philanthropic efforts, and Christian charity,” and most likely includes a plan or suggestion for major governmental reform.

Two questions that I have relating to women’s studies: How might Barlee connect the impoverishment of women and their inadequate education? Would Barlee advocate women relying on men and giving up some of their independence to escape or avoid poverty?

Exploring the Artifacts: Dinah Maria Mulock-Craik

Dinah Maria Mulock-Craik was able to support herself with her writing, and she wrote A Woman’s Thoughts about Women in 1858, six years before she was married. In the Preface to the novel, she says that she is writing only her thoughts and that they do not by themselves solve any problems or answer any questions (iii). She says, “In this book, therefore, many women will find simply the expression of what they have themselves, consciously or unconsciously, oftentimes thought” (iv). This suggests that she does not want to tell women what to think, and that she rather wants to give them the opportunity to compare their thoughts with hers or to help them give words to their thoughts. She believes that her book is “likely to effect some good,” but she cannot predict its specific effects (v). Her novel includes twelve chapters covering a range of women’s experiences, such as professions, families, friendships, happiness, and getting old; in this way, the novel seems to appeal to women in a variety of situations.

The second chapter is titled “Self-Dependence,” and she begins the chapter by noting that boys are taught to be independent from a young age while it is viewed as a negative characteristic for girls (22). She says that most exceptional people have had both feminine and masculine characteristics, and “there must be somewhere a standard of abstract right, including manhood and womanhood, and yet superior to either” (26). She then includes a narrative of two sisters who were able to maintain and run their father’s business after his death (28-29). In addition to showing that women do have the capability to be self-sufficient, she argues that a self-dependent woman will benefit more than just herself; she will benefit the greater society by also helping to take care of other people.

Throughout some of the chapter, Mulock-Craik speaks to women and includes herself, as when she says, “We must help ourselves” (34). She links her argument for self-dependence with the recognition that women’s place in society is changing. In addition to noting that marriage is becoming less common, she says, “The age of chivalry, with all its benefits and harmfulnesses, is gone by, for us women” (34, 37). These changes require women to be more independent, but Mulock-Craik argues that instead of looking for “ill-defined ‘rights,’” women should think about duties (34). The duty of self-dependence will ultimately provide them with the important rights they need (34).

The chapter on self-dependence reinforces what Mulock-Craik proposed in her preface – to bring some good by writing out her thoughts. Through self-dependence, women not only will be more independent themselves, but they will also be able to help others. In addition, self-dependent women will be able to gain greater rights in society. Most of the chapter seems to be directed toward women who are not married and therefore do not have a husband to depend on, but how would Mulock-Craik’s argument for self-dependence be different if she were talking about married women? Would there even be an appreciable difference, or can the ideas of self-dependence and marriage be combined? Mulock-Craik was a self-dependent woman, but would she define her self-dependence in a similar way after she married?

Citation: Mulock-Craik, Dinah Maria. A Woman’s Thoughts about Women. London: Hurst and Blackett, 1858.

Exploring the Artifacts--Gordimer

I took a look at Nadine Gordimer's early works at the Lilly on Friday. I was not able to get through all of the folders, but I got through three of the folders, and all held very different types of writing.

The first was a play, which was set in hell, with characters Dante and Virgil being a main focus.  Dante was visiting hell and asking those present questions.  The people who were present were a scientist, a business man, and a poor woman, and a rich woman.  These characters were the opposite of each other and in my opinion Gordimer used them to show us the problems with the world.  The business man against the scientist and the rich woman telling the poor woman she is taking advantage of the system, and doesn't want her tax dollars to pay for her. It was an interesting way to portray what Gordimer feels is wrong with society.

The second reading I got to was written March 29th 1946 and was written while Gordimer was still a student.  It is an essay titled, "Why it is not satisfactory to say that the function of language is  "to communicate thought"? Gordimer presents the argument that language is used primarily for self-expression. Such as pain, surprise, and protest. She argues that all language always has this one thing in common. This essay received an A.

I only got to read a little bit of the next folder.  It contained an manuscript of an unfinished novel.  The novel was written prior to 1946, with a man in his 60's as the main character who is a polish man named Sam.  

I think because I have three examples that are of very different genres it is hard to say what Gordimer's main themes or topics are.  I would guess that much of her literary work has the same kind of "moral" as the play.  Which is to discuss the problems within society. However, I have not read any of her later work, and this small sample is all that I have to go on. 

I do know that she is a very easy read, and interesting.  I am very happy I picked this over contagious disease!

Blog for Phase 1 on Annie Besant

I only had time to read one of Annie Besant's articles, which was the one on whether the bible can be considered as an obscene book.

Besant wrote this pamphlet because the present Lord Chief Justice ruled that any literary work that evokes excitement in its reader can be persecuted. However, this rule was only used against authors of medical works in order to keep physiological information from reaching the hands of the general public. I think her specific purpose in writing this piece  was to show people that the same law used against medical writers could easily be used against such sacred texts as the bible. By showing how the bible could also be condemned by the current law, Besant aimed to gain the support of the large Christian population. Besant's pamphlet can be divided most easily into two parts. In the first half she sets the stage by explaining the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice and how it is used unfairly against medical writers to keep their work from circulating. In the latter half of her pamphlet, she claims that the bible can be seen as obscene because its sole purpose is to evoke excitement in its reader, and also because many of its passages possess the potential to corrupt a youth's morals. The last pages of her pamphlet are entirely dedicated to backing this claim by providing numerous passages from the bible that could be considered to be obscene. I think this text was meant to be used by medical writers as a means of protecting themselves against unfair persecution.  Besant's argument is particularly strong because it shows that anyone who wishes to condemn a medical work must also by default wish to condemn such beloved texts as Romeo and Juliet and the bible. 

Besant's article reveals that the Lord Chief Justice's ruling that all excitable literature is condemnable could be used against such sacred texts as the bible. This work also addresses unfair social restraints. For example, she demonstrates that an expensive text, even one dealing with the controversial topic of abortion, is not considered obscene because its price allows only the rich to have access. As a result, physiological information is prevented from reaching any poor person in need of instruction, while the wealthy are free to purchase any information they wish to obtain. Besant's main point, however, is that it is illogical to attack medical documents as obscene if the bible contains such excitable content. I think Besant's pamphlet raises a number of questions. First, it is difficult to decipher whether Besant truthfully considers the bible to be obscene, or if she brings the bible into focus only to show how absurd it is to attack literature works on the basis that a reader may be corrupted by its content regardless of the good intentions of the author. There has long been tension between the scientific communtiy and the religious community. I find it curious that this article addresses both science and Christianity. I wonder if Besant aimed to show that the two pursuits conflict with one another, or if she sees them as compatible.

Hey everyone! :)

Hi All!! Im In Now!!

Hello

Hi, I am officially on the blog now. Yay!