Woman

WOMAN

Is spoken of in Scripture as the beloved and honored companion and helpmeet, not the servant, of man, Gen 2:23,24, created as the necessary completion of man, Gen 3:16 1Co 11:3,8,9 14:34,35 1Ti 2:11-14, yet specially qualified for that sphere, and as necessary in it as man in his. Man and woman are indeed essentially one, the natural qualities of each so responding to those of the other as to lay the foundation of the most tender and abiding unity. The Bible thus raised the Jewish woman high above the woman of heathenism; and the Old Testament contains some of the finest portraitures of female character. But still greater is the contrast between the women of heathenism and those of Christianity: the former with mind and soul undeveloped, secluded, degraded, the mere toys and slaves of their husbands; the latter educated, refined, ennobled, cheering and blessing the world. Christianity forbids a man to have more than one wife, or to divorce her for any cause but one, Mat 5:32 19:3-9; declares that bond and free, male and female, are all one in Christ, Gal 3:28 ; and that in heaven they are no more given in marriage, but are as the angels of God, Mat 22:33 . If woman was first in the Fall, she was honored in the exclusive parentage of the Savior of mankind; and women were the truest friends of Christ while on earth. The primal curse falls with heaviest weight on woman; but the larger proportion of women in our churches may indicate that it was the purpose of God to make his grace to man “yet more abound” to her who was the first in sinning and suffering.In the East, women have always lived in comparative seclusion, not appearing in public unless closely veiled, not mingling in general society, nor seen the men who visit their husbands and brothers, nor even taking their meals with the men of their own family. Their seclusion was less in the rural districts than in towns, and among the Jews than among most to her nations. They were chiefly engaged in domestic duties, Pro 31:1-31 ; among which were grinding flour, baking bread, making cloth, needle work, etc. The poor gleaned the remnants of the harvest; the daughters of he patriarchs joined in tending their fathers’ flocks, Gen 29:9 Exo 2:16 ; and females of all classes were accustomed to draw water for family use, bearing it in earthen pitchers on their shoulders often for a considerable distance, Gen 24:15-20 Joh 7:28 .

Fuente: American Tract Society Bible Dictionary

Woman

The position of woman in any section or period of society is a recognized test of the contemporary level of morality and general enlightenment. Apostolic Christianity need not fear this test. In fact, the exaltation of womanhood is justly claimed as one of the best examples of what Christianity has done for the world. Doubtless this feature of its influence has often been exaggerated, either by painting too darkly the vices of paganism or by neglecting the actual Limitations of historical Christianity. We must certainly beware lest we take the sixth Satire of Juvenal as descriptive of the character and conduct of women in general in the 1st cent. of the Roman Empire. At the worst, these vices infected only a comparatively small class, idle, luxurious, enervated by the slave system, depraved by the example of a vicious court. Both the literature and the inscriptions of that age make us acquainted with a very different kind of woman (S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius2, p. 87). Nor must we forget that the just rights of married women were much more fully recognized by Roman law than by the ecclesiastical law which replaced it: it is by the tendency of their doctrines to keep alive and consolidate the former [proprietary disabilities of married females], that the expositors of the Canon Law have deeply injured civilisation (H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, new ed., 1907, p. 163; cf. EBr 11 xxviii. 783). J. Donaldson (one of the editors of the Ante-Nicene Christian Library) indeed went so far as to say that in the first three centuries I have not been able to see that Christianity had any favourable effect on the position of women, but, on the contrary, that it tended to lower their character and contract the range of their activity (CR lvi. [1889] 433). So far as this somewhat questionable judgment is sound, it relates to the asceticism of the Church subsequent to the Apostolic Age. The Pauline asceticism springs from a different source, i.e. the expectation of a rapidly approaching end to all earthly things. This is an important fact to remember, for the attitude of apostolic Christianity to woman is largely due to the interaction of two distinct principles-the fundamental Christian assertion of the intrinsic worth of human personality, and the eschatological foreshortening of the time, which could not fail to hinder the social application of the former principle.

1. The religious equality of woman with man before God is clearly asserted by Paul: as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ. There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:27-28). The mutual dependence of man and woman, and their common origin in God, teach that the male has no exclusive place in the Lord (1Co 11:11-12). This result of the evangelical evaluation of human nature (see art. Man) lifts the Christian idea of woman clearly above that of the contemporary Judaism, which in several noticeable ways differentiated woman religiously from man (cf. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums2, p. 490 f.). The morning service of Judaism still retains the ancient thanksgiving: Blessed art thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who hast not made me a woman (Authorised Daily Prayer Book, p. 6). We naturally think of the Court of the Women in the Temple, beyond which no woman might pass. Her work is to send her children to be taught in the synagogue: to attend to domestic concerns, and leave her husband free to study in the schools: to keep house for him till he returns (C. Taylor, Sayings of the Jewish Fathers2. Cambridge, 1897, p. 15). If such significant limitations as these are found in contemporary Judaism, notwithstanding the general humanity of its relationships and the intensity of the national religion, it need not surprise us to find no effective assertion of the religious equality of woman emanating from Roman patriotism or Greek philosophy. Plato, it is true, had argued that the differentiae of sex ought not to constitute any barrier to the exercise of a womans personal powers: None of the occupations which comprehend the ordering of a state belong to woman as woman, nor yet to man us man; but natural gifts are to be found here and there, in both sexes alike; and, so far as her nature is concerned, the woman is admissible to all pursuits as well as the man; though in all of them the woman is weaker than the man (Republic, 455, Eng. tr. 3 by J. Ll. Davies and D. J. Vaughan, London, 1906, p. 161 f.). But this theoretical judgment relates to social, not religious, equality. Probably the nearest parallel to the welcome given to woman in Christian worship could be found in the cults of Isis and Magna Mater, which became so popular in the early Christian centuries (not to be found in Mithraism; cf. F. Cumont, Les Mystres de Mithra3, Brussels, 1913, p. 183). To the welcome which those cults gave to woman they owed no small measure of their success; by its deeper satisfaction of womans needs Christianity was helped to win its victory over them. That there is much in the gospel of the Cross to appeal to the peculiar nature and temperament of woman needs no argument. There is some measure of truth in the assertion that the change from the heroic to the saintly ideal, from the ideal of Paganism to the ideal of Christianity, was a change from a type which was essentially male to one which was essentially feminine (Lecky, History of European Morals8, vol. ii. p. 362). But the full truth is seen rather in the perfect humanity of Christ; as F. W. Robertson has well said (Sermons, 2nd ser., London, 1875, p. 231): His heart had in it the blended qualities of both sexes. Our humanity is a whole made up of two opposite poles of character-the manly and the feminine.

2. A larger life of social fellowship and service was thrown open to women by apostolic Christianity. The story of the primitive Church significantly begins with the inclusion of women in the apostolic meetings for prayer (Act 1:14). Their presence and activity are clearly illustrated by the references to Tabitha (9:36), Mary the mother of John Mark (12:12), Lydia (16:14), Damaris (17:34), Priscilla (18:2). The story of Sapphira (5:7f.) implies the comparatively independent membership and responsibility of women within the Christian community. Priscilla illustrates their active evangelism (18:26). Attention is expressly called to the multitudes of women converts added to the Church (5:14). The story of Thekla (Acts of Paul and Thekla, in F. C. Conybeares Monuments of Early Christianity2, London, 1896, pp. 61-88) doubtless rests on some historic basis. Thekla became the type of the female Christian teacher, preacher, and baptiser, and her story was quoted as early as the second century as a justification of the right of women to teach and to baptise (W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, London, 1893, p. 375). Clement of Rome, at the end of the century, refers to the sufferings endured by women under the Neronian persecution (Ep. ad Cor. i. 6). The spread of Christianity amongst women of high rank is probably exemplified in Pomponia Graecina (Tacitus, Annals, xiii. 32), the wife of Plautius, the conqueror of Britain. Another probable example is supplied by Domitilla (banished in a.d. 96), the niece of the Emperor Domitian (Dio Cassius, lxvii. 14).

The details of Church life which we gather from the Pauline Epistles, particularly as to the Church at Corinth, amply confirm what has been said (e.g. Php 4:2-3, 1Co 1:11; the numerous salutations to women in Romans 16). Paul speaks of Phbe as a deaconess of the Church at Cenchreae (Rom 16:1), in terms that suggest her ability and will to give generous help to poorer Christians. The deaconesses of whom Pliny speaks, early in the 2nd cent. (Ep. x. 96), were slave girls. It is clear that women equally with men could be regarded as the organs of the prophetic spirit in the Corinthian Church (cf. Priscilla and Maximilla among the Montanists), since Paul desires that every woman praying or prophesying shall have her head veiled (1Co 11:5). This is a corollary from the admission of women into the Church, since Christian fellowship is essentially constituted by the gift of the Spirit (Rom 8:14). To this proof of womans religious equality with man there seems to be no necessary contradiction in the fact that Paul a little later (1Co 14:34) forbids women to speak () in the churches (see, however, the Commentaries on this disputed passage); the contrast simply shows that the Spirit could over-ride ordinary social conventions (cf. the prophesying of the four daughters of Philip the evangelist, Act 21:9; the virginity of these, as of the daughters named in 1Co 7:36, does not yet constitute an order). In the Pastoral Epistles we find a regular roll of widows (see art. Widows), who have provision made for them by the Church (1Ti 5:3 f.; cf. Act 6:1; Act 9:39; Act 9:41). Thus Christianity met the physical needs of a class specially likely to suffer (cf. E. Renan, Les Aptres, Paris, 1866, p. 122), as it met the spiritual needs of women in general.

3. The place of women in marriage gained a higher interpretation. The Greek world is characterized by the practical absence of family life in the best sense; the Greek wife lived in seclusion and ignorance. The courtesan was the one free woman of Athens (Lecky, op. cit., ii. 293). The Roman matron had indeed held a high place in the ancient Roman home, though she passed into the absolute legal power of her husband by the older type of religions marriage. Under the early Roman Empire, the position of married women was often one of social and legal independence (Friedlnder, Roman Life and Manners, Eng. tr. , i. 236), but this was the outcome of the newer type of marriage as a civil contract; its laxity of divorce and the break-up of the older family life show its peculiar perils. Roman morality, in fact, broke down, here as elsewhere, because it had not found its reinforcement and transfiguration in religion (cf. W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People, London, 1911, p. 466). It was in the identification of morality and religion that the strength of Judaism lay. The Jewish wife, it is true, held a legal position decidedly inferior to that of the husband. But the relationship was redeemed by the quality of the humanity which was so typical a product of the OT religion. Consequently, the family life of the Hebrew-Jewish people, in some measure, prepared for the applications of the principle of womans religions equality made by apostolic Christianity (cf. the fine portrait of the virtuous woman in Pro 31:10 f.). What these were may be seen from Pauls statement of the mutual relationship of husband and wife (Eph 5:22-33). Not only is the spirit of that relationship to be the new law of love, but the relationship itself is made sacramental by its comparison with that existing between Christ and the Church. We can hardly exaggerate the gulf that separates this idea of marriage from that in which the relationship is primarily physical. Indeed, the religious disabilities of women seem to rest, at least in part, on primitive sexual tabus (cf. W., Robertson Smith, The Religion of the Semites2, London, 1894, pp. 299 n. , 379 n. ; A. E, Crawley, The Mystic Rose, London, 1902, p. 52). Christianity, in principle, if not always in practice, has lifted woman above the sexual level, at which her chief raison dtre is the gratification of mans passions, and has joined her personality to his, as contributory to a common social life. Marriage is to be held in honour among all (Heb 13:4; cf. 1Ti 4:3). Paul, indeed, prefers celibacy because of the peculiar conditions of the time (i.e. on eschatological grounds). But he recognizes both the innocence of the sexual tie and the equal claims of the man and the woman in regard to it (1Co 7:3 f.)-surely a disproof of any asceticism in the ordinary sense of the word. The emphasis on chastity (6:13f., Eph 5:3), so characteristic of early Christian ethics, is based on the principle that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit (1Co 6:19); the condemnation of extramarital sexual relationships is the natural complement of the attitude to marriage itself (1Th 4:4). The moral tie that unites the Christian even to an unbelieving partner is fully recognized (1Co 7:12 f.); the unbelieving husband may be won by the conduct of the Christian wife (1Pe 3:1), which is a better adornment than that of outward apparel (v. 3f.; cf. 1Ti 2:9). The ideals of Christianity in the 1st cent. in regard to womanly conduct are well summarized in the exhortation of Clement of Rome: Let us guide our women toward that which is good: let them show forth their lovely disposition of purity; let them prove their sincere affection of gentleness; let them make manifest the moderation of their tongue through their silence; let them show their love, not in factious preferences but without partiality towards all them that fear God, in holiness (ad Cor. xxi. 7, The Apostolic Fathers, tr. J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1891; cf. Tit 2:3 f.).

4. The limitations of apostolic Christianity in regard to women were such as were inevitable from its historical origin and eschatological outlook. The Jewish training of Paul, for example, accounts for much in his attitude, such as the argument that women should be veiled because of the angels (1Co 11:10). The expectation of a speedy end largely explains his preference of celibacy to marriage (1Co 7:7; cf. Rev 14:4), which is certainly not due to his Judaism (cf. Bousset, op. cit., p. 493). The asceticism of Paul must be ascribed to a cause different from and more innocent than the dualistic (Greek) asceticism of the later Church. Naturally, some of the premisses in the NT arguments for womans subjection to man no longer appeal to us, even if the conclusion does (e.g. 1Ti 2:12 f.). Westermarcks criticism of this ultimately Jewish emphasis on womans subjection to man, as being agreeable to the selfishness of men (Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, i. 654), ignores the atmosphere which redeems it, i.e. its moral and religious interpretation in the Christianity of the NT. We should rather recognize, as Dobschtz does (Christian Life in the Primitive Church, p. 377) in regard to Pauls asceticism, that Christ triumphs in him over the spirit of the age.

Literature-L. Friedlnder, Sittengeschichte Roms8, Leipzig, 1910, Roman Life and Manners, Eng. tr. of 7th ed., 3 vols., London, 1908-09, vol. i. ch. v.; W. E. H. Lecky, History of European Morals8, 2 vols., do., 1888, ii. 275-372; C. L. Brace, Gesta Christi, do., 1882, bk. i. chs. iii., iv.; R. S. Storrs, The Divine Origin of Christianity, do., 1885, pp. 146 f., 466f.; C. von Weizscker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen kirche, Freiburg i. B., 1886. Eng. tr. , The Apostolic Age, 2 vols., London, 1895, bk. v. ch. iii. 7; J. Donaldson. The Position of Women among the Early Christians, CR lvi. [1889] 433; J. Gottschick, Ehe, christliche, in PRE 3 v. 182f.; W. F. Adeney, art. Woman, In HDB lv. 933-936; E. von Dobschtz. Die urchristliehe Gemeinde, Leipzig, 1902, Eng. tr. , Christian Life in the Primitive Church, London, 1904; A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums2, Leipzig, 1906, Eng. tr. , The Mission and Expansion of Christianity2, 2 vols., London, 1908, vol. ii. ch. ii. 4 (best survey of the data); S. Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius2, do., 1905; J. McCabe, The Religion of Woman, do., 1905 (attacks the Christian claims); W. Bousset, Die Religion des Judentums im neutest. Zeitalter2, Berlin, 1906; E. Westermarck, The Origin and Development of the Moral Ideas, i. [London, 1906] ch. xxvi., ii. [do., 1908] ch. xl.; T. G. Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and St. Paul, do., 1910, ch. xvi.; A. Robertson and A Plummer, ICC , 1 Corinthians, Edinburgh, 1911, pp. 130-162, 230-236, 324-328; C. Clemen, Primitive Christianity and its Non-Jewish Sources, Edinburgh. 1912, Index, s.v. Woman; W. M. Ramsay, The Teaching of Paul in Terms of the Present Day, London, 1913, sect. xlv., The Family in the Teaching of Paul.

H. Wheeler Robinson.

Fuente: Dictionary of the Apostolic Church

Woman

The life-task of woman is a double one. As an individual woman has the high destiny obligatory upon every human being of acquiring moral perfection. As a member of the human race woman is called in union with man to represent humanity and to develop it on all sides. Both tasks are indissolubly united, so that the one cannot be fully accomplished without the other. The freedom of the woman consists in the possibility of fulfilling unimpeded this double task with its rights and privileges both in public and private life. The limitation of the freedom, whether actual or merely imaginary, necessarily calls forth the effort to do away with the obstructing barriers. In order to judge rightly these efforts known as the “woman movement” the rights and duties of woman in the life of humanity must be correctly stated. For this purpose, however, the first thing necessary is the proper conception of the feminine personality. The sources from which this definition is to be drawn are nature and history.

Nature

The same essentially identical human nature appears in the male and female sex in two-fold personal form; there are, consequently, male and female persons. On the other hand, there is no neutral human person without distinction of sex. Hence follows in the first place, woman’s claim to the possession of full and complete human nature, and thus, to complete equality in moral value and position as compared with man before the Creator. It is, therefore, not permissible to take one sex as the one absolutely perfect and as the standard of value for the other. Aristotle’s designation of woman as an incomplete or mutilated man (“De animal. gennerat.”, II, 3d ed. Berol., 773a) must, therefore, be rejected. The untenable medieval definition, “Femina est mas occasionatus”, also arose under Aristotelian influence. The same view isto be found in the “last Scholastic”, Dionysius Ryckel (“Opera minora”, ed. Tournay, 1907, II, 161a).

The female sex is in some respects inferior to the male sex, both as regards body and soul. On the other hand, woman has qualities which man lacks. With truth does the writer on education, Lorenz Kellner, say: “I call the female sex neither the beautiful nor the weak sex (in the absolute sense). The one designation is the invention equally of sensuality and of flattery; the other owes its currency to masculine arrogance. In its way the female sex is as strong as the male, namely in endurance and patience, in quiet long-suffering, in short, in all that concerns its real sphere, viz., the inner life” (Lose Blätter”, Collected by von Görgen; Freiburg, 1895, 50). On account of the moral equality of the sexes the moral law for man and woman must also be the same. To assume a lax morality for the man and a rigid one for the woman is an oppressive injustice even from the point of view of common sense. Woman’s work is also in itself of equal value with that of a man, as the work performed by both is ennobled by the same human dignity.

The fact that there is no sexually neutral human being has, however, a second consequence. The sexual character can be separated from the human being as something secondary only in thought, not in actuality. The word “person” belongs neither to the soul nor to the body alone; it is rather, that the soul informing the body constitutes the full conception of the human personality only in its union with the body. It is in no way, therefore, permissible to limit differences only to the primary and secondary peculiarities of the body. On the contrary, the indisputable results of anatomical, physiological and psychological research show a difference so far-reaching between man and woman that the following is established as a scientific result: the feminine personality assumes the complete human nature in a different manner from the masculine. According to the intention of the Creator, therefore, the manifestation of human nature in women necessarily differs from its manifestation in man; the social spheres of interests and callings of the sexes are unlike. These distinctions can be diminished or increased by education and custom but cannot be completely annulled. Just as it is not permissible to take one sex as the standard of the other, so from the social point of view it is not allowable to confuse the vocational activities of both. The most manly man and the most feminine woman are the most perfect types of their sexes.

From this far-reaching sexual difference there follows, thirdly, the combination of the sexes for the purpose of an organic social union of the human race. which we call humanity, that is to say humanity cannot be represented by any number, however large, of individuals of like sex but is to be found solely in the social and organic union of man and woman. Thus each man and each woman is, indeed, by nature a complete human being with the high moral vocation already mentioned; on the other hand the entire male sex in itself represents only the half of humanity and the female sex the other half, while one man and one woman together suffice to represent humanity. Consequently each of the two sexes requires the other for its social complement; a complete social equality would nullify this purpose of the Creator. Evidently the intention at the basis of the differences mentioned is to force the complemental union of the two sexes as a necessity of nature. Accordingly, notwithstanding the equal human dignity, the rights and duties of the woman differ from those of the man in the family and the forms of society which naturally develop from it.

If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up. On the other hand, as the result of this, a certain social subordination in respect to man which in no way injures her personal independence is assigned to woman, as soon as she enters into union with him. Consequently nothing is to be urged on this point of equality of position or of equality of rights and privileges. To deduce from this the inferiority of woman or her degredation to a “second-rate human being” contradicts logic just as much as would the attempt to regard the citizen as an inferior being because he is subordinate to the officials of the state.

It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the world of the Apostle: “The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:7). The Apostle in this reference to the creation of the first human pair presupposes the image of God in the woman. As this likeness manifests itself exteriorly in man’s supremacy over creation (Genesis 1:26), and as man as the born leader of the family first exercised this supremacy, he is called directly God’s image in this capacity. Woman takes part in this supremacy only indirectly under the guidance of the man and as his helpmeet. It is impossible to limit the Pauline statement to the single family; and the Apostle himself inferred from this the social position of woman in the Church community. Thus her natural position is assigned to woman in every form of society that springs necessarily from the family. This position is described by St. Thomas Aquinas with classic clearness (Summa theol., I:92:1, ad 2um). This doctrine, which has always been maintained by the Catholic Church, was repeatedly emphasized by Leo XIII. The encyclical “Arcanum”, 10 February, 1880, declares: “The husband is ruler of the family and the head of the wife; the woman as flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone is to be subordinate and obedient to the husband, not, however, as a hand-maid but as a companion of such a kind that the obedience given is as honourable as dignified. As, however, the husband ruling represents the image of Christ and the wife obedient the image of the Church, Divine love should at all times set the standard of duty”.

Thus the germ of human society, which a sound sociology must take as its starting-point, is not the abstract human individual but the living union of man and woman primarily in the home. The different characteristics in the equipment of the sexes point to such a division of labour between the two that man and woman are to watch over the training of the growing generation, not apart from each other, but jointly and in partnership.

Consequently the activities of both in the social domain may perhaps be compared to two concentric circles of unlike circumference. The external, larger circle represents the vocational labours of the man, the inner circle that of the woman. What the Creator prepared by the difference of endowment is realized in the indissoluble marital union of one man and one woman. The man becomes a father with paternal rights and duties which include the support of the family and, when necessary, their protection. On the other hand, the woman receives with motherhood a series of maternal duties. The social duties of the woman may, therefore, be designated as motherhood, just as it is the duty of man to be the representative of paternal authority. The completely developed feminine personality is thus to be found in the mother. Of course this development of motherhood in the woman is not limited to its physiological aspect. It is rather that this motherly sense and its activity can and should, as the highest development of noble womanhood, precede marriage and can exist without it. As a creature compounded of the spiritual and material, the human being has more than the destiny of continuing his race by generation and birth. It is still more incumbent on him to develop the spiritual and intellectual life by the training which is rightly called the second birth. This training, however, prospers as little without the specific motherly influence, as the bringing of a child into the world without the mother. The community, the nation, the state, however, are, as the necessary natural development of the family, the organized totality of the individual families. Consequently the motherly influence must also extend over these and must be kept within the bounds corresponding to thedivision of labour between man and woman. In these forms of social life also man must vigorously represent authority, while woman, called to the dignity of the mother, must supplement and aid the labour of the man by her unwearied collaboration. This truth is stated in homely fashion in the expressions “father of the country”, “mother of the country”. Hence man, as man, and woman, as woman, have to attain the common highest end of moral perfection, which extends beyond time by the fulfillment here below of social duties.

This social vocation, whether in marriage or outside of it, is therefore to be regarded by both as means to an end. (cf. 1 Timothy 2:15). If these two reciprocal spheres of activity are taken in the narrowest sense they exclude each other, as the actual task assigned by nature to woman cannot be performed by man, while the reverse is also true. At the same time there is the mixed domain of the earning of a livelihood in which both sexes work, although in so doing neither can deny his or her characteristic qualities. Here, however, nature forbids competition in the same field, as woman is more engrossed by her peculiar natural duties than man is by his. We may justly speak of “dualism in woman’s life”. But, the perpetuation and development in civilization of mankind always come first as natural duties. Consequently, according to physical law woman should be spared all industrial burdens which impair her most important duty in life. It remains to be seen how the dictates of nature have been carried out in human history.

History

Christ proved himself to be the central point in the history of mankind, and not least by the change his teaching effected in the position of woman. The testimony of history as to the position of woman in all pre-Christian and non-Christian peoples may be summed up as follows: No people has completely misjudged the natural position of woman, so that everywhere woman appears in greater or less subordination to man. No people, however, has done full justice to the personal dignity of woman; on the contrary, most peoples evidence an alarmingly low moral level by their degrading oppression of woman. Before the Gospel came into the world, man had virtually brought about for woman the condition thus described by Mary Wollstonecraft in the introduction to her “Vindication of the Rights of Woman”: “In the government of the physical world it is observable that the female in point of strength is, in general, inferior to the male. This is the law of Nature; and it does not appear to be suspended or abrogated in favor of woman. A degree of physical superiority cannot, therefore, be denied–and it is a noble prerogative! But not is natural preeminence, men endeavor to sink us still lower, merely to render us alluring objects for a moment; and woman, intoxicated by the adoration which men, under the influence of their senses, pay them, do not seek to obtain a durable interest in their hearts, or to become the friends of the fellow-creatures who find amusement in their society.”

Contrary to the fundamental principle of historical research, the Darwinian theory of evolution has also been applied to the original position of the sexes. A primitive hetaerism without any permanent marital relation is claimed to be the basis of the later evolution. The first stage of this development, however, is represented as “the right of the mother” or matriarchy, whereby not the man but the woman, it is claimed, represented, among the peoples, the legal head of the family.

However, the researches of Bachofen, Engels, Lubbock, Post, Lippert, Dargun, and others, who wished to produce proof for this hypothesis by generalizing individual phenomena, have been confuted even by strong Darwinians: “No community has been found where women alone could rule” (Starke, “Die primitive Familie”, Leipzig, 1888, 69) Like the “primitive peoples” themselves, who have been especially quoted as proofs of this theory, such conditions show themselves to be degenerations. The authenticated reports of the conditions among the civilized races before Christ, as well as the assured results of investigation among “primitive peoples”, on the contrary confirm the sentences quoted above. The farther back pre-Christian civilization is traced, the purer and more worthy of mankind are the marriage relations, and consequently the more advantageous the position of woman appears. The position of the sexes to each other among the degraded, so-called savage, races is, in its essential nature, the same as in civilized races. At the same time important although non-essential differences are not excluded, which arise from the differences in the national spirit which has developed in accordance withgeographical conditions. Everywhere is to be found the social subordination of woman, everywhere is seen the division of work between the sexes, whereby the care for the primitive household falls to the woman. But contrary to the natural order, the paternal pre-eminence of the man has developed into unlimited tyranny, and the woman is debased to a slave and drudge without rights who gratifies the lusts of the man. Almost without exception polygamy has displaced monogamous marriage. The proofs of this are given in the reliable work of Wilhelm Schneider, “Die Naturvölker, Missverständnisse, Missdeutungen and Misshandlungen” (Paderborn, 1885).

Among the civilized nations of antiquity the Egyptians are distinguished by unusual respect for the female sex. Herodotus calls them (II, xxv) peculiar among the nations in this respect. On numerous inscriptions may be read as the title of the wife the expression “Nebtper” (ruler of the House). The tradition whereby woman belongs in the home is re-echoed from the hieroglyphics of the Egyptians down through the ages, and among all peoples. The same principle lies at the basis of the code of laws given by Hammurabi, which gives the social conditions in Babylon in the third millennium before Christ. The voluptuous cult, which spread from Babel-Assur and which through Phoenician influence poisoned the ancient world, had a particularly injurious effect upon the position of woman. There was no question of the personal rights of woman apart from man either here or among the Persians who were otherwise different in race and customs, even though at times women such as Parysatis, the wife of Darius II, attained great influence over the government of the country. Up to the present time woman’s position has remained the same in the ancient civilized countries of eastern Asia, as in India, China, and Japan, or it has become even more degraded. A. Zimmermann, who was well acquainted with conditions in India, stated in 1908: “One of the most terrible abuses is the systematical degradation of the female sex which begins even in early youth” (“Historisch-politische Blätter, CXLII, 371). In 1907 99.3 per cent of the women of India could not read or write. Hindu widows, especially, are exposed to contempt and ill-treatment. In China the position of woman, owing to the respect shown to mothers or widows, makes a better impression. But, at the same time, woman is branded as a second-rate human being from birth to death. The horrible custom of destroying new-born girls has consequently persisted up to the present time, as is proved by the reform decree issued in 1907 by the viceroy of that time, Juanschikai. According to this, some 70,000 girls are annually killed in the Province of Kiangsi. The binding of the feet is in reality only a means to keep the women at home. The absolute dependence of the wife upon the husband was also maintained as an unyielding custom in old Japan until the late reorganization, as is proved by the “Onna Daigaku” of Kaibara Ekken (1630).

The so-called classical nations of antiquity, the Greeks and Romans, show, as contrasted with the East, a decided dislike to polygamy, which legally at least was never recognized among them. This fortunate natural disposition affected favourably the position of woman without, however, securing for her the social position which naturally belongs to her. Even in the best period of the Greeks and Romans the woman only existed on account of the man. The Homeric descriptions of marital love and devotion show this in the most ideal form. In the later era of degeneration woman had almost entirely lost her influence upon public life, according to the sentence in the oration against the hetaera, “Neära, ascribed to Demosthenes: “We have hetaera for pleasure, concubines for the daily care of the body and wives for the production of full-blooded children and as reliable guardians in the house”. The worship of the “virgin Athene” shows probably a dim perception on the part of the Greeks of the exalted position of the virgin independent of man, but led to no practical results favourable to woman. Almost the same is to be said as to the worship of Vesta and of the Vestal virgins among the Romans.

When Christianity appeared it found woman in the Roman world, and Rome itself was by no means an exception, in a position of deep moral degradation, and under the hard patria potestas of man. This authority had degenerated into tyranny almost more universally than in China. Originally Roman law, up to the time of the Antonines, limited the power of the father as regards the life and death of his children, and forbade him to murder the boys and the first-born girl. However, the freedom enjoyed by married woman during the empire had as sole result that divorce increased enormously and prostitution was considered a matter of course. After marriage had lost its religious character the women exceeded the men in licence, and thus lost even the influence they had possessed in the early, austerely moral Rome (cf. Donaldson, “Woman, Her Position and Influence in Ancient Greece and Rome and among the Early Christians”, 1907).

Among the Jews woman had not the position belonging to her from the beginning, as Christ said: “Moses by reason of the hardness of your heart permitted you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:8). A complete reform was not to be expected from the preparatory and temporary importance of the Old Testament legislation. Allowance was made for the inclination of Orientals to polygamy by the allowing of additional wives. The one-sided patria potestas was mitigated; the feeling of reverence for the mother was rigidly impressed upon the children. The laws respecting this remind us of the laws of China. Notwithstanding the fame of individual women, as Miriam the sister of Moses, Deborah, and Judith, the Hebrew woman, in general, had no more rights than the women of other nations; marriage was her sole calling in life (cf. Zschokke, “Das Weib im alten Testament”, Vienna, 1883; and “Die biblischen Frauen des Alten Testamentes”, Freiburg, 1882). The Semitic view of woman without the refining influence of Revelation is evidenced among the followers of Islam who trace back their descent to Ismael the son of Abraham. Consequently, the Koran with its many laws respecting women is a code that panders to the uncontrolled passions of Semitic man. Outside of marriage, which in the Mohammedan view is the duty of every woman, woman has neither value nor importance. But the conception of marriage as an intimate union so as to constitute one moral person, has always been foreign to Mohammedanism (cf. Devas, “Studies of Family Life. A Contribution to Social Science”, London, 1886).

The history of the pre-Christian era mentions no far-reaching and successful revolt of women to obtain the improvement of their position. Custom finally became an established habit, and found its strongest defenders among the women themselves. It was the teaching of Christ which first brought freedom to the female sex, wherever this teaching was seriously taken as the guide of life. His words applied as well to women: “Seek ye first the kingdom of God and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Luke 12:31). He restored the original life-long monogamous marriage, raised it to the dignity of a sacrament, and also improved the position for woman in purely earthly matters. The most complete personal duality is expressed in the Apostolic exhortation: “For as many of you as have been baptized in Christ have put on Christ . . . there is neither male nor female. For ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:27-28; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:11). Most decisive, however, for the social position of woman was the teaching of Christ on the nobility of freely chosen virginity as contrasted with marriage, to the embracing of which the chosen of both sexes are invited (Matthew 19:29). According to Paul (1 Corinthians 7:25-40) the virgins and widows do well if they persist in the intention not to marry in order to serve God with undivided mind; they indeed do better than those who must divide their attention between care for the husband and the service of God. By this doctrine the female sex in particular was placed in an independence of man unthought of before. It granted the unmarried woman value and importance without man; and what is more the virgin who renounces marriage from religious motives, acquires precedence above the married woman and enlarges the circle of her motherly influence upon society. Elisabeth Gnauck-Kühne says truly: “The esteem of virginity is the true emancipation of woman in the literal sense”.

This elevation of woman centres in Mary the Mother of Jesus, the purest virginity and motherhood, both tender and strong, united in wonderful sublimity. The history of the Catholic Church bears constant testimony of this position of Mary in the history of civilization. The respect for woman rises and falls with the veneration of the Virgin Mother of God. Consequently for art also the Virgin has become the highest representation of the most noble womanhood. This extraordinary elevation of woman in Mary by Christ is in sharp contrast to the extraordinary degradation of female dignity before Christianity. In the renewing of all things in Christ (Ephesians 1:10) the restoration of order must be most thorough at that point where the most extreme disorder had prevailed.

However, this emancipation of woman rests upon the same principles which Christ used in His great renewal of nature by grace. Nature was not set aside nor destroyed, but was healed and illumined. Consequently the radical natural differences between man and woman and their separate vocations continue to exist. In Christianized society also man was to act as the lawful representative of authority, and the lawful defender of rights, in the family, just as in the civil, national, and religious community. Therefore, the social position of woman remains in Christianity that of subordination to man, wherever the two sexes by necessity find themselves obliged to supplement each other in common activity. The woman develops her authority, founded in human dignity, in connection with, and subordinate to, the man in domestic society as the mistress of the home. At the same time the indispensable motherly influence extends from the home over the development of law and custom. While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is only in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones. In the Church this exception is excluded, so far as it refers to the clerical office. The same Apostle who so energetically maintained the personal independence ofwoman, forbids to women authoritative speech in the religious assemblies and the supremacy over man (1 Timothy 2:11, 12). Nevertheless, personalities like Pulcheria, Hildegarde, Catherine of Siena, and Teresa of Jesus show how great the extraordinary, indirect influence of woman can be in the domain of the Church.

From the days of the Apostles, Christianity has never failed to seek and to defend the emancipation of woman in the meaning of its Founder. It must be acknowledged that human passions have frequently prevented the bringing about of a condition fully corresponding with the ideals. The Christian, indissoluble, sacramental marriage, in which the husband is to copy in respect to the wife the love of Christ for the Church (Ephesians 5:25), was steadily defended for the benefit of the woman against the lawlessness of the ruling class. On this point St. Jerome presents the same conception of morals in contrast to heathen immorality in words that have become classic: “The laws of the emperor are to one effect, those of Christ to another . . . in the former the restraints upon impurity are left loose for men . . . among us Christians, on the contrary, the belief is: What is not permitted to women is also forbidden to men, and the same service (that of God) is also judged by the same standard” (“Ep. lxxvii, ad Ocean.”, P.L., XXII, 691). The admiring exclamation of the heathen: “What women there are among the Christians!” is the most eloquent testimony to the power of Christianity. The great Church Fathers praise not only their mothers and sisters, but speak of Christian women in general in the same terms of respect as the Gospel. On the other hand, the alleged contempt of the Church Fathers for women is a legend that is kept alive by the lack of knowledge of the Fathers (cf. Mausbach,”Altchristliche und moderne Gedanken über Frauenberuf”, 7th ed., München-Gladbach, 1910, 5 sq.).

From the beginning up to the present time, the Christian doctrine of voluntary religious virginity has produced innumerable hosts of virgins dedicated to God who unite their love of God with heroic love of their neighbours, and who perform silent deeds of heroism in the nursing of the sick, in the care of the poor, and in the work of education. The modern era since the French Revolution has far exceeded the earlier centuries in congregations of women for all branches of Christian charity and for the alleviation of all forms of misery. Consequently Christianity has opened to woman the greatest possibilities for development. Mary, the sister of Lazarus, who sat as a disciple at the feet of Jesus, has become a model for the training of woman in Christianity. The study of the Scriptures, which was equally customary both in the East and the West among educated women under the guidance of the Church, remained during the entire Middle Ages the inheritance of the convents. Thus, next to the clergy, the women in the medieval era were more the representatives of learning and education than the men.

The industrial work of women kept pace with the development of civilization. When the guilds arose at the time of the founding of the cities women were not excluded from them. Any idea of the parity of the sexes in this domain was excluded by the consideration of the first natural task of woman. Among indigent women Christianity found that the widows were those most in need of aid. From the days of the Apostles, the Church made special provision for widows (Acts 6:1; 1 Timothy 5:3 sq.), a provision that was one of the chief duties of the bishop. To the Apostolic era also dates back the institution called the viduate, in which widows of proved virtue laboured as Apostolic assistants in the Church along with the virgins. In the course of time female orders assumed this work, which is carried on most successfully in the missions for heathens. As, during the conversion to Christianity of the German tribes, Anglo-Saxon women aided St. Boniface, the Apostle of Germany, so today permanent success in the missionary countries cannot be attained without the help of virgins consecrated to God. At the end of the ninteenth century some 52,000 sisters, among whom were 10,000 native women, worked in the missions (Louvet, “Les missions cath. du XIXe siècle”, 2nd ed., Paris, 1898).

The Modern Woman Question

It follows from what has been said that the social position of woman is, from the Christian point of view, only imperfectly set forth in the expression “Woman belongs at home”. On the contrary, her peculiar influence is to extend from the home over State and Church. This was maintained at the beginning of the modern era by the Spanish Humanist, Louis Vives, in his work “De institutione feminae christianae” (1523); and was brought out still more emphatically, in terms corresponding to the needs of his day, by Bishop Fénelon in his pioneerwork “Education des filles” (1687) This Christian emancipation of woman is, however, necessarily checked as soon as its fundamental principles are attacked. These principles consist, on the one hand, of the sacramental dignity of the indissoluble marriage between one pair, and in religious, voluntarily chosen virginity, both of which spring from the Christian teaching that man’s true home is in a world beyond the grave and that the same sublime aim is appointed for woman as for man. The other fundamental principle consists of the firm adhesion to the natural organic intimate connection of the sexes.

As far back as Christian antiquity the Manichaean attacks on the sacredness of marriage as those of Jovinian and Vigilantius, which sought to undermine the reverence for virginity, were refuted by Augustine and Jerome. Luther’s attack upon religious celibacy and against the sacramental character and indissolubility of marriage, worked permanent injury. The chief result was that woman was again brought into absolute dependence upon man, and the way was made ready for divorce, the results of which press far more heavily upon woman than upon man. After this the natural basis of society and the natural position of woman and the family were shaken to such extent by the French Revolution that the germ of the modern woman’s suffrage movement is to be sought there. The anti-Christian ideas of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries led to a complete break with the medieval Christian conception of society and the state. It was no longer the family or the social principle that was regarded as the basis of the state, but the individual or the ego. Montesquieu, the “father of constitutionalism”, made this theory the basis of his “L’Esprit des lois” (1784), and it was sanctioned in the French “Rights of Man”. It was entirely logical that Olympe de Gouges (d. 1793) and the “citizeness” Fontenay, supported by the Marquis de Condorcet, demanded the unconditional political equality of women with men, or “the rights of women”. According to these claims every human being has, as a human being, the same human rights; women, as human beings, claim like men with absolute right the same participation in parliament and admission to all public offices. As soon as the leading proposition, though it contradicts nature which knows no sexless human being, is conceded, this corollary must be accepted. Father von Holtzendorff says truly: “Whoever wishes to oppose the right of women to vote must place the principle of parliamentary representation upon another basis . . . as soon as the right to vote is connected only with the individual nature of man, the distinction of sex becomes of no consequence” (“Die Stellung der Frauen”, 2nd ed., Hamburg, 1892, 41).

The men of the French Revolution forcibly suppressed the claim of the women to the rights of men, but in so doing condemned their own principle, which was the basis of the demand of the women. The conception of society as composed of individual atoms leads necessarily to the radical emancipation of women, which is sought at the present time by the German Social Democrats and a section of the women of the middle class. In her book, published in 1792, Mary Wollstonecraft advanced this demand with a certain reserve, while John Stuart Mill in his “The Subjection of Women” (1869) championed the unnatural position of women unconditionally. At the present time the English suffragettes have made a practical application of Mill’s views as the standard work of radical emancipation (cf. “A Reply to John Stuart Mill on the Subjection of Women”, Philadelphia, 1870).

The introduction of these ideas into practical life was promoted chiefly by the change in economic conditions, particularly as this change was used to the detriment of the people by the tendency of an egotistical Liberalism. From the beginning of the nineteenth century manufacturing by machinery changed the sphere of woman’s labour and of her industries. In manufacturing countries woman can and must buy many things which were formerly produced as a matter of course by female domestic labour. Thus the traditional household labours of woman became limited, especially in the middle class. The necessity arose for many daughters of families to seek work and profit outside of the home. On the other hand, the unlimited freedom of commerce and trade furnished the opportunity of gaining control of the cheap labour of women to make it serve machinery and the covetousness of the great manufacturers. While this change relieved the woman who still sat at home, it laid upon the homeless working-woman intolerable burdens, injurious alike to soul and body. On account of smaller wages women were used for the work of men and were driven into competition with men. The system of the cheap hand led not only to a certain slavery of woman, but, in union with the religious indifference that concerned itself only with mundane things, it injured the basis of society, the family.

In this way the actual modern woman question, which is connected at the same time with the livelihood, education, and legal position of woman, arose. In most European countries, on account of the emigration arising from the conditions of traffic and occupation, the number of women exceeds that of men to a considerable degree; for instance in Germany in 1911 there were 900,000 more women than men. In addition, the difficulties of existence cause a considerable number of men to marry at all or too late to found a family, while many are kept from marriage by an unchristian morality. The number of unmarried women, or of women who notwithstanding marriage are not cared for and who are double burdened by the cares of the home and of earning a livelihood, is therefore constantly increasing. The last census of occupations in Germany, that of 1907, gave 8,243,498 women who were earning a living in the principal occupations; this number shows an increase of 3,000,000 over 1895. The statistics of the other countries give proportionate results, although there are hardly two countries in which the woman movement has had exactly the same development. The southern countries of Europe are coming only gradually under the influence of the movement. A regulation of this movement was and is one of the positive necessities of the times. The methodical and energetic attempts to accomplish this date from the year 1848, although the beginnings in England and North America go back much farther. The attempts to solve the woman question varied with the point of view. Three main parties may be distinguished in the movement for the emancipation of women in the present day: the radical emancipation which is divided into a middle-class and a Social-Democratic party; the moderate or interconfessional conciliatory party; the Christian party. The radical, middle-class emancipation party regards the Women’s Rights Convention held 14 July, 1848, at Seneca Falls, U.S., as the date of its birth. Complete parity of the sexes in every direction with contempt for former tradition is the aim of this party. Unlimited participation in the administration of the country, or the right to the political vote, therefore, holds the first place in its efforts. The questions of education and livelihood are made to depend upon the right to vote. This effort reached its height in the founding of the “International Council of Women”, from which sprang in 1904 at Berlin the “International Confederation for Woman’s Suffrage”. “The Woman’s Bible”, by Mrs. Stanton, seeks to bring this party into harmony with the Bible. The party has attained its end in the United States in the states of Wyoming (1869), Colorado, Utah (1895), Idaho (1896, South Dakota (1909), and Washington (1910), and also in South Australia, New Zealand (1895), and in Finland. In Norway there has been a limited suffrage for women since 1907. In 1911 Iceland, Denmark, Victoria, California, and Portugal decided to introduce it. In England the suffragists and the suffragettes are battling over it (cf. Mrs. Fawcett, “Women’s Suffrage. A short History of a Great Movement”, London, 1912.)

In Germany in 1847 Luise Otto-Peters (1819-1895) headed the movement, in order at first with generous courage to aid the suffering women of the working classes. Her efforts resulted in the “Allgemeiner deutscher Frauenverein” (General Union of German Women), which was founded in 1865, and from which in 1899 the radical “Fortschrittlicher Frauenverein” (Progressive Women’s Union) separated, while the Luise Otto party remained moderately liberal. In France it was not until the Third Republic that an actual women’s movement arose, a radical section of which, “La Fronde”, took part in the first revolution. From the start the Social-Democratic party incorporated in its programme the “equality of all rights”. Consequently the Social-Democratic women regard themselves as forming one body with the men of their party, while, on the other hand, they keep contemptuously separated from the radical movement among the middle-class women. August Bebel’s book, “Die Frau und der Sozialismus”, went through fifty editions in the period 1879-1910, and was translated into fourteen languages. In this work the position of woman in the Socialistic state of the future is described. In general the radical middle-class emancipation agrees with the Social-Democratic both in the political and in the ethical spheres. A proof of this is furnished by the works of the Swedish writer Ellen Key, especially by herbook “Über Ehe und Liebe”, which enjoy a very large circulation throughout the world.

This tendency is not compatible with the standard of nature and of the Gospel. It is, however, a logical consequence of the one-sided principle of individualism which, without regard for God, came into vogue in what is called the “Rights of Man”. If woman is to submit to the laws, the authoritative determination of which is assigned to man, she has the right to demand a guarantee that man as legislator will not misuse his right. This essential guarantee, however, is only to be found in the unchangeable authoritative rule of Divine justice that binds man’s conscience. This guarantee is given to women in every form of government that is based on Christianity. On the contrary, the proclamation of the “Rights of Man” without regard to God set aside this guarantee and opposed man to woman as the absolute master. Woman’s resistance to this was and is an instinctive impulse of moral self-preservation. The “autonomous morality” of Kant and Hegel’s state has made justice dependent upon men or man alone far more than the French “Rights of Man”. The relativity and mutability of right and morality have been madea fundamental principle in dechristianized society. “The principles of morals, religion, and laware only what they are, so long as they are universally recognized. Should the conscience of the sum total of individuals reject some of these principles and feel itself bound by other principles, then a change has taken place in morals, law, and religion” (Oppenheim, “Das Gewissen”. Basle, 1898, 47).

Woman is defenceless against such teaching when only men are understood under the “totality of individuals”. Up to now as a matter of fact only men have been eligible in legislative bodies. On the basis of the so-called autonomous morality, however, woman cannot be denied the right to claim this autonomy for herself. Christianity, which lays the obligation upon both sexes to observe an unalterable and like morality, is powerless to give protection to woman in a dechristianized and churchless country. Consequently, it is only by the restoration of Christianity in society that the rightful and natural relations of man and woman can be once more restored. This Christian reform of society, however, cannot be expected from the radical woman movement, notwithstanding its valuable services for social reform. Besides what has been said, the “movement for the protection of the mother” promoted by it contradicts completely the Christian conception of marriage. (Cf. Mausbach, “Der christliche Familiengedanke im Gegensatz zur modernen Mutterschutzbewegung”, Munster, 1908).

The moderate liberal woman movement is also incapable of bringing about a thorough improvement of the situation, such as the times demand. It certainly attained great results in its efforts for the economic elevation of woman, for the reform of the education of women, and for the protection of morality in the first half of the nineteenth century, and has attained still more since 1848 in England, North American, and Germany. The names of Jessie Boucherett, Elizabeth Fry, Mary Carpenter, Florence Nightingale, Lady Aberdeen, Mrs. Paterson, Octavia Hill, Elizabeth Blackwell, Josephine Butler, and others in England, and the names of Luise Otto, Luise Büchner, Maria Calm, Jeannette Schwerin, Auguste Schmidt, Helene Lange, Katharina Scheven, etc., in Germany, are always mentioned with grateful respect. At the same time this party is liable to uncertain wavering on account of the lack of fixed principles and clearly discerned aims. While these women’s societies call themselves expressly interdenominational they renounce the motive power of religious conviction and seek exclusively the temporal prosperity of women. Such a setting aside of the highest interests is scarcely compatible with the words of Christ, “Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice, and all these things shall be added unto you” (Matthew 6:33), and is all the more incompatible with the teaching of Christ on marriage and virginity, which is of the highest importance, particularly for the well-being of woman. A successful solution of the woman question is only to be expected from a reorganization of modern conditions in accordance with the principles of Christianity, as Anna Jameson (1797-1860) has set forth in the works, “Sisters of Charity” (London, 1855) and “Communion of Labour” (London, 1856). The effort has also frequently been made by Protestants in England, America, and Germany to meet the difficulty in imitation of Catholic charitable work: thus in 1836 the German “Institute of Deaconnesses” was established.

In Germany the first attempt to attain a solution of the woman question by orthodox Protestants was made by Elizabeth Gnauck-Kühne, who founded the “Evangelisch-sozialer Kongress” (Protestant Social Congress). At the present day this movement has been represented since 1899 by the “Deutsch-evangelisches Frauenbund” and by the women’s society of the “Freie kirchlich-soziale Konferenz”. A profound Christian influence upon the woman movement is not to be looked for, however, from these sources. Protestantism is, it must be said, a mutilated kind of Christianity, in which woman is especially injured by the abrogation of the dedication of virginity to God. Still worse is the effect of the constantly increasing decay of Protestantism, in which the denial of the Divinity of Christ constantly gains strength. For this reason the Protestant Church party in the agitation for women’s right in predominantly Protestant countries is much smaller than the liberal and radical parties.

Catholic women were the last to take up the agitation. The main reason for this is the impregnability of Catholic principles. Owing to this woman’s suffrage did not become a burning question as quickly in the purely Catholic countries as in Protestant and religiously mixed ones. The convents, the indissolubility of sacramental marriage, and the customary charitable works kept in check many difficulties. However, on account of the international character of the movement and the causes which produced it, Catholic women would not finally hold back from co-operation in solving the question, especially as the attack of revolutionary ideas on the Church today is most severe in Catholic countries. For a long time Christian charity has not sufficed for the needs of the present day. Social aid must supplement legal ordinances for the justifiable demands of women. For this purpose the “ligues des femmes chrétiennes” were formed in Belgium in 1893; in France “Le féminisme chrétien” and “L’action sociale des femmes” were founded in 1895, after the international review, “La femme contemporaine”, had been established in 1893. In Germany the “Katholisches Frauenbund” was founded in 1904, and the “Katholische Reichs-Frauenorganisation” was established in Austria in 1907, while a woman’s society was established in Italy in 1909. In 1910 the “Katholisches Frauen-Weltbund” (International Association of Catholic Women) was established at Brussels on the insistent urging of the “Ligue patriotique des Françaises”. Thus an international Catholic women’s association exists today, in opposition to the international liberal women’s association and the international Social-Democratic union. The Catholic society competes with these others in seeking to bring about a social reform for the benefit of women in accordance with the principles of the Church.

Apart from the light thrown by Catholic principles on this subject, the solution of the tasks of this Catholic association is made easier by the experience already acquired in the woman’s movement. As regards the first branch of the woman question, feminine industry, the opinion has constantly gained ground that “notwithstanding all changes in economic and social life the general and foremost vocation of women remains that of the wife and mother, and it is therefore above all necessary to make the female sex capable and efficient for the duties arising from this calling” (Pierstorff). How far the opportunities for woman’s work for a livelihood are to be enlarged should be made to depend upon the question whether the respective work injures or does not injure the physical provision for motherhood. The earnest warnings of physicians agree in this point with the remonstrances of statesmen who are anxious for national prosperity. Thus the speech of the former president, Roosevelt, at the national congress of American mothers at Washington in 1895 met with approval throughout the world. (Cf. Max von Gruber, “Mädchenerziehung und Rassenhygiene”, Munich, 1910). On the other hand, Catholic Christianity in particular, in accordance with its traditions, demands from the woman of the present day the most intense interest in working-women of all classes, especially interest in those who work in factories or carry on industrial work at home. The achievements of the North American “Working Women’s Protective Union” and of the English “National Union for improving the education of all women of all classes” is given to this aim by the “Verband katholischer Vereine erwerbstätiger Frauen und Mädchen” (United Catholic Societies of Working-Women, Married and Unmarried) of Berlin.

The second branch of the woman question, which of necessity follows directly after that of gaining a livelihood, is that of a suitable education. The Catholic Church places here no barriers that have not already been established by nature. Fénelon expresses this necessary limitation thus: “The learning of women like that of men must be limited to the study of those things which belong to their calling; The difference in their activities must also give a different direction to their studies.” The entrance of women as students in the universities, which has of late years spread in all countries, is to be judged according to these principles. Far from obstructing such a course in itself, Catholics encourage it. This has led in Germany to the founding of the “Hildegardisverein” for the aid of Catholic women students of higher branches of learning. Moreover, nature also shows here her undeniable regulating power. There is no need to fear the overcrowding of the academic professions by women.

In the medical calling, which next to teaching is the first to be considered in discussing the professions of women, there are at the present time in Germany about 100 women to 30,000 men. For the studious woman as for others who earn a livelihood the academic calling is only a temporary position. The sexes can never be on an equality as regards studies pursued at a university.

The third branch of the woman question, the social legal position of woman, can, as shown from what has been said, only be decided by Catholics in accordance with the organic conception of society, but not in accordance with disintegrating individualism. Therefore the political activity of man is and remains different from that of woman, as has been shown above. It is difficult to unite the direct participation of woman in the political and parliamentary life of the present time with her predominate duty as a mother. If it should be desired to exclude married women or to grant women only the actual vote, the equality sought for would not be attained. On the other hand, the indirect influence of women, which in a well-ordered state makes for the stability of the moral order, would suffer severe injury by political equality. The compromises in favour of the direct participation of women in political life which have of late been proposed and sought here and there by Catholics can be regarded, therefore, only as half-measures. The opposition expressed by many women to the introduction of woman’s suffrage, as for instance, the New York State Association opposed to Woman “Suffrage”, should be regarded by Catholics as, at least, the voice of common sense. Where the right of women to vote is insisted upon by the majority, the Catholic women will know how to make use of it.

On the other hand modern times demand more than ever the direct participation of woman in public life at those points where she should represent the special interests of women on account of her motherly influence or of her industrial independence. Thus female officials are necessary in the women’s departments of factories, official labour bureaux, hospitals, and prisons. Experience proves that female officials are also required for the protection of female honour. The legal question here becomes a question of morals which under the name of “Mädchenschutz” (protection of girls) has been actively promoted by women. Indeed much more must be done for it. In 1897 there was founded at Fribourg, Switzerland, the “Association catholique internationale des oeuvres de protection de la jeune fille”, the labours of which extend to all parts of the world. Thus considered the woman movement is a gratifying sign of the times which indicates the return to a healthy state of social conditions.

WOMEN IN ENGLISH-SPEAKING COUNTRIES

The movement for what has been called the emancipation of women, which has been so marked a feature of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, has made a deeper impression on the English-speaking countries than on any other. The outcry against the unjust oppression of women by manmade laws has grown ever stronger and stronger, though it must be confessed that every successive improvement in the position of women has also been brought about by manmade laws. The various disabilities imposed by law or custom on women have gradually been removed by legislation, until, at present, in English-speaking countries scarcely anything is needed to woman’s perfect equality to man before the law, except the right of suffrage in its widest extent and the admission of women to all national and municipal magistracies, which later will be the inevitable outcome of the removal of all restriction on suffrage. That the gradual amelioration of the legal status of women during the course of ages has removed many crying injustices can not be doubted. Whether, however, all the changes made in their favour will prove unmixed benefits to themselves and to the race, and especially whether the removal of all restriction on suffrage and the admission of women to legislative, judicial, and executive positions of public trust, will be a desirable change in the body politic is doubted by many of all shades of religious belief or no belief, and probably by the majority of Catholics in official and unofficial positions.

In English the word “woman” is a contraction of “wife-man”. This indicates that from the earliest times the Anglo-Saxons believed that woman’s proper sphere was the domestic one. The earliest English laws treat consequently for the most part of the marriage relation. The so-called “bride-purchase” was not a transaction in barter, but was a contribution on the part of the husband for acquiring part of the family property; while the “morning-gift” was a settlement made on the bride. This custom, though in use among the ancient Teutonic nations, is also found in old Roman laws embodied in Justinian’s redaction. King Ethelbert enacted that if a man seduced a wife from her husband the seducer must pay the expenses of the husband’s second marriage. As to property, King Ina’s code recognizes the wife’s claim to one-third of her husband’s possessions. At a later date King Edmund I decreed that by prenuptial contract the wife could acquire a right to one-half of the family property, and, if after her husband’s decease she remained unmarried, she was entitled to all his possessions, provided children had been born of the union. Monogamy was strictly enforced, and the laws of King Canute decreed as a penalty for adultery that the erring wife’s nose and ears should be cut off. Various laws were enacted for the protection of female slaves. After the Norman conquest, even more than in Anglo-Saxon times, the tendency of legislation was rather to legislate around husband and wife than between them. The consequence was that the husband as predominant partner acquired greater rights over his wife’s property and person. On his death, however, she always reclaimed her dower-rights and some portion of his possessions. At the same period the Scottish laws regulated, according to the woman’s rank, a certain sum to be paid to the lord of a manor on the marriage of a tenant’s daughter. We may remark here that the infamous droit du seigneur (the right of the lord to pass the first night with his tenant’s bride) is a fable of modern date, of which not the slightest trace is found in the laws, histories, or literature of any civilized country of Europe. The statute law of England dispenses women from all civil duties that are proper to men, such as rendering homage, holding military fiefs, making oath of allegiance, accepting sheriff’s service, and the obligations flowing therefrom. They could, however, receive homage and be made constables ofa village or castle if such were not one of the national defences. At fourteen, if an heiress, a woman might have livery of land. If she made a will, it was revoked by her subsequent marriage. A woman could not be a witness in court as to a man’s status, and she could not accuse a man of murder except in the case that the victim was her husband. Benefit of clergy was not allowed to women in pre-Reformation times, as the idea was repugnant to Catholic feeling. Women might work at trades, and King Edward III, when restricting workmen to the use of one handicraft, excepted women from this rule. There were many early regulations as to the dress of women, the general prescription being that they should be garbed according to the rank of their husbands.

The legislation of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries has done much to relieve women from the disabilities imposed upon them by the old statute law. The principle of modern English law is the reverse of that obtaining in ancient times, for now the tendency of all enactments is to legislate between husband and wife rather than around them. The consequence is that difference of sex is practically disregarded in modern English law-making, except in a few instances concerning marriage and children. In other matters the only disabilities of women that remain in English law are that they can not succeed to an intestate when male heirs exist and that they are deprived of parliamentary suffrage. In some respects women are in advance of men: thus, women may validly marry at twelve and they may make a valid property settlement at seventeen with the approval of the Court, the respective ages for a male being fourteen and twenty. As to the custody of children, the law may now allow to the mother the full control of the offspring and the right of appointing the guardian or of acting as guardian herself, at least while the child is under sixteen years of age. In the case of illegitimate children, while the mother is liable for their support, yet she can obtain an affiliation order from the Court and bind the putative father. Adultery is no crime by English law, and a wife can not obtain a divorce from her husband on such sole ground, though he may from her. Neither adultery nor fornication is punished by English law. Judicial separation and maintenance in the case of desertion are remedies for the wife which havebeen greatly extended and favoured by late legislation. Action for breach of promise to marry may be brought by either the man or woman, and the promise need not be in writing. In the United States the acts of Congress deal very sparingly with women. The various departments of the Government employ female clerks and appoint hospital matrons and nurses for the army. Wives of citizens of the United States, who might be lawfully naturalized themselves, have the rights of citizens. The questions of property, franchise, and divorce have been dealt with by the several state legislatures and there is no uniformity, but the main provisions under these heads will be noticed later.

While in ancient times women were occupied in the industries to some extent, yet these industries were generally of a nature that could be exercised within the home. The advent of the changed industrial conditions of the nineteenth century forced women into other employments in order to obtain the necessaries of life. The advance was, however, very slow. In 1840 Harriet Martineau stated that there were only seven occupations for women in the United States: needlework, typesetting, bookbinding, cotton factories, household service, keeping boarders, and teaching. All of these occupations were miserably recompensed, but by degrees the better-paid employments in other fields were opened to women. Of the learned professions, medicine was the first to confer its degrees on female practitioners. The earliest diploma in medicine was conferred in 1849 in New York State, and its recipient was licensed in England in 1859, though the latter country did not bestow a medical diploma on a woman until 1865. At the end of the nineteenth century there were some sixty medical colleges in the United States and Canada that educated women. At present females are admitted freely to medical societies and allowed to join in consultation with male physicians. In 1908 the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons in England admitted women to their diploma and fellowship. In the admission to the profession of law the path of women has been made more difficult. So late as 1903 the British House of Lords decided against the admission of women to the English Bar, though some are employed as solicitors. In the United States, the State of Iowa allowed women to act as legal practitioners in 1869, and many of the states, especially in the Western part of the country, now admit them to practice. In Canada the Ontario Law Society decided to admit women to act as barristers in 1896. As to the third of the learned professions, divinity, it is obvious that the sacred ministry is closed to Catholic women by Divine ordinance. The sects, however, began to admit women ministers as early as 1853 in the United States and, at present, the Unitarians, Congregationalists, United Brethren, Universalists, Methodist Protestants, Free Methodists, Christian (Campbellites), Baptists, and Free Baptists have ordained women to their ministry. In 1910 the Free Christian denomination in England appointed a female minister. Journalism and the arts are also open to women, and they have achieved considerable distinction in those fields.

As to the property, widows and spinsters have equal rights with men according to English law. A married woman may acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property as her own separate property. For her contracts her own separate property is held liable, as also for antenuptial debts and agreements, unless a contrary liability can be proved. The husband can not make any settlement regarding his wife’s property unless she confirms it. If a married woman has separate property she is liable for the support of parents, grandparents, children, and even husband, if they have no other means of subsistence. Laws have also been made to protect a wife’s property from her husband’s influence. In most states of the American Union the proprietary emancipation of women has gone on steadily as in Great Britain. Connecticut, in 1809, was the first state to empower married women to make a will, and New York, in 1848, secured to married women the control of their separate property. These two states have been followed by nearly all the others in granting both privileges. Divorce laws differ in the various states, but the equality of women with men as to grounds for divorce is generally recognized, and alimony is usually accorded to the wife in generous measure. In the practical application of civil and criminal law in the United States, the tendency of late years has been to favour women more than men.

In no field of public endeavour has there raged a fiercer conflict over women’s rights than in that of suffrage. In ancient times, even, women had acted as queens regnant, and abbesses had discharged territorial duties, but the general idea of women mixing in public life was discountenanced. The latter half of the nineteenth century saw the movement for the political enfranchisement of women become a serious factor in the body politic. The idea was not entirely new for Margaret Brent, a Catholic, had claimed the right to sit in the Maryland Assembly in 1647, and in revolutionary times, Mercy Otis Warren, Abigail Adams, and others had demanded direct representation for women taxpayers. In England, Mary Astell in 1697 and Mary Wollstonecraft in 1790 were champions of women’s rights. After the middle of the nineteenth century women’s suffrage societies were formed in Great Britain and the United States, with the result that many men were converted to the idea of women exercising the right of ballot. At the present time women can vote for all officers in Great Britain, except for members of Parliament. They have full suffrage in New Zealand and Australia, and municipal suffrage in most provinces of British North America. In the United States women have equal suffrage with men in six States: Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Idaho, Washington, and California (1912). Several other states have adopted women suffrage amendments for submission to the people. Thirty states have conferred school suffrage on women, and five grant tax-paying women the right to vote on questions of taxation. There is a National American Women Suffrage Association with headquarters in New York City, but it must also be noted that in 1912 a national association of women opposed to female suffrage was also organized in that city.

The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women’s rights in the present meaning of that term. It has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, accordingto the words of St. Paul: “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3:28). The Church has also jealously guarded the sanctity of home life, now so disastrously infringed by the divorce evil, and while upholding the husband’s headship of the family has also vindicated the position of the mother and wife in the household. Where family rights and duties and womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action, the Church opposes no barrier to woman’s progress. As a rule, however, the opinions of the majority of Catholics seem to hold the political activity of women in disfavour. In England some distinguished prelates, among them Cardinal Vaughan, favoured women’s suffrage. His Eminence declared: “I believe that the extension of the parliamentary franchise to women upon the same conditions as it is held by men would be a just and beneficial measure, tending to raise rather than to lower the course of national legislation.” Cardinal Moran in Australia held similar views: “What does voting mean to a woman? As a mother, she has a special interest in the legislation of her country, for upon it depends the welfare of her children . . . . The woman who thinks she is making herself unwomanly by voting is a silly creature” (Quotations from “The Tablet”, London, 16 May, 1912). The bishops of Ireland seem rather to favour women’s abstention from politics, and this is also the attitude of most American bishops, at least as far as public pronouncements are concerned. Several American prelates have, however, expressed themselves in favour of woman suffrage at least in municipal affairs. In Great Britain a Catholic Women’s Suffrage Society was organized in 1912.

Whatever may be the attitude of the prelates of the Church towards the political rights of women, there can be no doubt of their earnest co-operation in all movements for the higher education of women and their social amelioration. In addition to the academies and colleges of the teaching sisterhoods, houses for educating Catholic women in university branches have organized at the Catholic University at Washington and at Cambridge University in England. Women are multiplying in the learned professions in all English-speaking countries. In work along social lines the Church has always had its sisterhoods, whose self-sacrifice and devotion in the cause of the poor and suffering have been beyond all praise. Of late, Catholic women of every station in life have awakened to the great possibilities for good in social work of every kind, and associations such as the Catholic Women’s League in England and The United Irishwomen in Ireland have been formed. In the United States a movement which has the active support of the Archbishop of Milwaukee and the approval of the former papal delegate, Cardinal Falconio, is on foot (1912) to form a national federation of Catholic women’s associations.

WOMEN IN CANON LAW

I. Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.” Public offices are those in which public authority is exercised; civil offices, those connected otherwise with municipal affairs. The reason given by canonists for this prohibition is not the levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman. For the preservation of this same modesty many regulations have been made concerning female apparel. Thus, women may not use male attire, a prohibition already found in the Old Testament (Deuteronomy 22:15). The canons add, however, that the assumption of the dress of men would be excusable in a case of necessity (Can. Quoniam 1, qu. 7), which seems to apply to the well-known case of Bl. Joan of Arc. Women must abstain from all ornament that is unbecoming in a moral sense (Can. Qui viderit, 13, c. 42, qu. 5). Some of the ancient Fathers are very severe on the practice of using pigments for the face. St. Cyprian (De habitu virg.) says: “Not only virgins and widows, but married women also, should, I think, be admonished not to disfigure the work and creature of God by using a yellow colour or black powder or rough, nor corrupt the natural lineaments with any lotion whatsoever.” It is not held, however, to be a grave transgression when women ornament and paint themselves out of levity or vanity (St. Thomas, II-II:169:2), and if it is done with an upright intention and according to the custom of one’s country or one’s station in life, it is entirely unblameworthy (ibid., a. 1). Authors are even so benevolent as to say that if the face is painted to hide some natural defect, it is entirely licit, owing to the words of St. Paul (1 Corinthians 12:12, 14): “And such as we think to be the less honourable members of the body, about these we put more abundant honour; and those that are our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. But our comely parts have no need.” Canonists strictly condemn female clothing that does not cover the person properly (Pignatelli, III, consult. 35), and Innocent XI issued an edict against this abuse in the city of Rome.

II. In religious and moral matters, the common obligations and responsibilities of men and women are the same. There is not one law for a man and another for a woman, and in this, of course, the canons follow the teachings of Christ. Women, however, are not capable of certain functions pertaining to religion. Thus, a woman is not capable of receiving sacred orders (cap. Novae, 10 de poen.). Certain heretics of the early ages admitted females to the sacred ministry, as the Cataphrygians, the Pepuzians, and the Gnostics, and the Fathers of the Church in arguing against them declare that this is entirely contrary to the Apostolic doctrine. Later, the Lollards and, in our own time, some denominations of Protestants have constituted women ministers. Wyclif and Luther, who taught that all Christians are priests, would logically deny that the sacred ministry must be restricted to the male sex. In the early Church, women are sometimes found with the title bishopess, priestess, deaconess, but they were so denominated because their husbands had been called to the ministry of the altar. There was, it is true, an order of deaconesses, but these women were never members of the sacred hierarchy nor considered such. St. Paul (1 Corinthians 14:34) declares: “Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church”. The Apostle also says that in the church “ought the woman to have a covering over head, because of the angels” (1 Corinthians 11:10). It is not allowed to women, however learned and holy, to teach in monasteries (cap. Mulier, 20 de consec.). Ministering at the altar, even in a subordinate capacity, is likewise forbidden. A decree says: “It is prohibited to any woman to presume to approach the altar or minister to the priest” (cap. Inhibendum, 1 de cohab.); for if a woman should keep silence in church, much more should she abstain from the ministry of the altar, conclude the canonists.

III. Although women are not capable of receiving the power of sacred orders, yet they are capable of some power of jurisdiction. If a female, therefore, succeeds to some office or dignity which has some jurisdiction annexed to it, although she cannot undertake the cure of souls, yet she becomes capable of exercising the jurisdiction herself and of committing the care of souls to a cleric who can lawfully undertake it, and she can confer the benefice upon him (cap. Dilecta, de major. et obed.). Abbesses and prioresses, consequently, who have acquired such jurisdiction can exercise the rights of patronage in a parochial church and nominate and install as parish priest the candidate whom the diocesan bishop has approved for the cure of souls (S.C.C., 17 Dec., 1701). Such female patron can also, in virtue of her jurisdiction, deprive clerics subject to her of the benefices she had conferred upon them, by withdrawing the title and possession. In such a case, as the benefice was conferred dependently on the patronage of a female and on the collation of the title and possession, it is concluded that the spiritual right of the clerical incumbent was also dependent on the same, and when they are taken away, his spiritual right in them ceases, as it is presumed that the pope makes the ecclesiastical jurisdiction for the care of souls also dependent on the possession of the benefice in accordance with its rights of patronage. (Cf. Ferraris, below.) The female patron cannot, however, suspend such clerics nor lay them under interdict or excommunication, because a woman cannot inflict censures, as she is incapable of true spiritual jurisdiction (cap. Dilecta, de majorit. et obed.). A woman, even though an abbess or prioress having jurisdiction over her nuns, cannot bless publicly, since the office of benediction comes from the power of the keys, of which a woman is incapable. She can, however, bless her subjects in the same manner as parents are wont to give their blessing to their children, but not with any sacramental power even though she have the right to bear the crosier. (See Abbess.) Another species of apparent spiritual jurisdiction was forbidden to female religious superiors by Leo XIII, when by the Decree “Quemadmodum” (17 December, 1890), he prohibited any enforced manifestation of conscience (q.v.). Pius X in his motu proprio on church music (22 Nov., 1903) is moved by the fact than women are canonically prohibited from taking part ministerially in the Divine worship when he declares: “On the same principle, it follows that singers in the church have a real liturgical office, and that, therefore,women, as being incapable of exercising such office, cannot be admitted to form part of the choir or of the musical chapel.” This does not prevent women, however, from taking part in congregational singing.

IV. Stringent regulations have been made from the earliest ages of the Church concerning the residence of women in the households of priests. It is true that St. Paul vindicated for himself and St. Barnabas the right of receiving the services of women in his missionary labours like the other Apostles (1 Corinthians 9:5), who according to Jewish custom (Luke 8:3) employed them in a domestic capacity, yet he warns St. Timothy: “the younger widows avoid” (1 Timothy 5:11). If the Apostles themselves were so circumspect, it is not surprising that the Church should make severe rules concerning the dwelling of women in the households of men consecrated to God. The first vestiges of a prohibition are found in the two epistles “Ad virgines” ascribed to St. Clement (A.D. 92-101); St. Cyprian in the third century also warns against the abuse. The Council of Elvira (A.D. 300-306) gives the first ecclesiastical law on the subject: “Let a bishop or any other cleric have residing with him either a sister or virgin daughter, but no strangers” (can. 27). The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) permits in a clerical dwelling “the mother, sister, aunt or such proper persons as give no ground for suspicion” (can. 3). This Nicene canon contains the general rule, which has since been retained as to substance in all decrees of councils. According to the present discipline, it is the right of the bishop in diocesan synod, to apply this general rule for his own diocese, more accurately defining it according to circumstances of times, places, and persons. The bishop cannot, however, forbid entirely the employment of women in a domestic capacity in the dwellings of clerics. He can, nevertheless, prohibit the residence of women, even though relatives, in the houses of priests, if they are not of good report. If other priests, such as assistants, live in the parochial house, the bishop can require that the women relatives have the age prescribed by the canons, which is ordinarily forty years. In some dioceses the custom has existed from the Middle Ages, of requiring the permission of the bishop in writing for the employment of female housekeepers, in order that he may be certain that the canonical prescriptions concerning age and reputation are fulfilled. In the Eastern Church, it is entirely forbidden to bishops to have any women residing in their dwellings, and a series of councils from 787 to 1891 have repeated this prohibition under severe penalties. Such rigour of discipline has never been received into the Western Church, though it has been considered proper that bishops should adhere to the common law of the Church in this matter even more rigorously than priests. As the Church is so solicitous to guard the reputation of clerics in the matter, so she has also enacted many laws concerning their interaction with those of the other sex both at home and abroad.

V. An antiphon in the Office of the Blessed Virgin, “Intercede pro devoto femineo sexu”, has given rise to the belief that women are singled out as more devout than men. As a matter of fact, the words usually translated: “Intercede for the devout female sex” means simply “for nuns”. The antiphon is taken from a sermon ascribed to St. Augustine (P.L., Serm. 194) in which the author distinguishes clerics and nuns from the rest of the faithful, and employs the term “devoted (i.e. bound by vow) female sex” for the consecrated virgins, according to the ancient custom of the Church.

———————————–

Besides the books mentioned in the text of the article, the following may be given from the enormous literature on the subject:

I. For the woman question as a whole: Lange and Bäumer, Handbuch der Frauenbewegung, v Pts. (Berlin, 1901-02); Rössler, Die Frauenfrage vom Standpunkt der Natur, der Geschichte und der Offenbarung (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1907); Cathrein, Die Frauenfrage (3d ed., Freiburg, 1909); Mausbach, Die Stellung der Frau im Menscheitsleben: Eine Anwendung katholischer Grundsätze auf die Frauenfrage (München-Gladbach, 1906); Bekker, Die Frauenbewegung: Bedeutung, Probleme, Organisation (Kempten und Munich, 1911); Bettex, Mann und Weib (2nd ed., Leipzig, 1900); Lily Braun, Die Frauenfrage, ihre geschichtliche Entwicklung und ihre wirtschaftliche Seite (Leipzig, 1901); Wychgram, Die Kulturaufgaben der Frau Leipzig, (1910-12); in the following vols.: (1) Krukenberg, Die Frau in der Familie: (2) Freudenberg, Die Frau in die Kultur des öffentlichen Lebens: (3) Wirminghaus, Die Frau und die Kultur des Körpers; (4) Schleker, Die Kultur der Wohnung; (5) Bäumer,Die Frau und das geistige Leben; (6) Schleker, Die Frau u. der Haustralt; Laboulaye, Recherches sur la condition civile et politique de la femme (Paris, 1843); Klamm, Die Frauen (6 vols., Dresden, 1857-59).

II. Historical: Kavanagh, The Women of Christianity (London, 1852); idem, French Women of Letters (1862); Weinhold, Die deutsche Frau im Mittelalter (3d ed., Vienna, 1897); Bücher, Die Frauenfrage im Mittelalter (Tübingen, 1910); Duboc, Fünfzig Jahre Frauenfrage in Deutschland (Leipzig, 1896); Norrenberg, Frauenarbeit und Arbeiterinnenerziehung in deutscher Vorzeit (Cologne, 1880); Stopes, British Freewomen, Their Historical Privilege (London, 1907); Peters, Das erste Vierteljahrhundert des allg. deutschen Frauenvereines (Leipzig, 1908)

III. Modern Woman Question: Bücher, Die Frauen und ihr Beruf (5th ed., Leipzig, 1884); Parkes, Essays of Woman’s Work (1866); von Stein, Die Frau auf dem sozialen Gebiete (Stuttgart, 1880); Idem, Die Frau auf dem Begiete der Nationalökonomie (6th ed., Stuttgart, 1886); Gnauck-Kühne, Die deutsche Frau m die Jahrhundertwende (2nd ed., Berlin, 1907); Poisson, La salaire des femmes (Paris, 1908); Criscuolo, La donna nella storia del diritto italiano (Naples, 1890); Ostrogorski, La femme au point de vue du droit publique (1892); Gnauck-Kühne, Warum organisieren wir die Arbeiterinnen? (Hamm, 1903); Idem, Arbeiterinnenfrage (München-Gladbach, 1905);Pierstorff, Frauenarbeit und Frauenfrage (Jena, 1900); Idem, Die Frau in der Wirtschaft des XX. Jahrhunderts in Handbuch der Politik, II, Par. 56 (Berlin, 1912); Gerhard and Simon, Mutterschaft und geistige Arbeit (Berlin, 1901); Salomon, Soziale Frauenpflichten (Berlin, 1902); Baumstatter, Die Rechtsverhältnisse der deutschen Frau nach der geltenden Gesetzgebung (Cologne, 1900); Dupanloup, La femme studieuse (7th ed., Paris, 1900); von Bischof, Das Studium und die Ausübung der Medizin durch die Frauen (Munich, 1887); von Schkejarewsky, Die Unterschiedsmerkmale der männlichen und weiblichen Typen mit Bezug auf die Frage der höheren Frauenbildung (2nd ed., Würzburg, 1898); Eine Abrechnung mit der Frauenfrage (Hamburg und Leipzig, 1906); Sigismund, Frauenstimmrecht (Leipzig, 1912); Idem, Muttererziehung durch Frauenarbeit (Freiburg, 1910).

AUGUSTINE RÖSSLER WILLIAM H.W. FANNING

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume XVCopyright © 1912 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Woman

(Heb. , ishshih [plur. , a masc. form contracted for , men], fem. of , ish, as vira [in virago] from vir, and from ), like our own term woman, is in the Hebrew (and so the Greek, ‘) used of married and unmarried females. SEE MAN.

I. Original Position of the Sex. The derivation of the word shows that, according to the conception of the ancient Israelites, woman was man in a modified form one of the same race, the same genus, as man, a kind of female man. How slightly modified that form is, how little in essential structure woman differs from man. physiology has made abundantly clear. Variant, however, in make as man and woman are, they differ still more in character; and yet the great features of their hearts and minds so closely resemble each other, that it requires no depth of vision to see that these twain are one! This most important fact is characteristically set forth in the Bible in the account given of the formation of woman out of one of Adam’s ribs: a representation to which currency may have the more easily been given, from the apparent space there is between the lowest rib and the bones on which the trunk is supported. “And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man.” An immediate and natural inference is forthwith made touching the intimacy of the marriage-bond: “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh” (Gen 2:21-24). This narrative is hence effectively appealed to as supplying an argument for enforcing the duties of the husband towards the wife (Eph 5:28-31). Those who have been pleased to make free with this simple narrative may well be required to show how a rude age could more effectually have been taught the essential unity of man and woman a unity of nature which demands, and is perfected only in, a unity of soul. The conception of the Biblical writer goes beyond even this, but does not extend further than science and experience unite to justify. There was solid reason why it was not good for Adam “to be alone.” Without a helpmeet he would have been an imperfect being. The genus homo consists of man and woman. Both are necessary to the idea of man. The one supplements the qualities of the other. They are not two, but one flesh, and as one body so one soul.

The entire aim, then, of the narrative in Genesis was, by setting forth certain great physical facts, to show the essential unity of man and woman, yet the dependence of the latter on the former; and so to encourage and foster the tenderest and most considerate love between the two, founded on the peculiar qualities of each pre-eminence, strength, intellectual power, and wisdom on the one side; reliance, softness, grace, and beauty on the other at the same time that the one set of excellences lose all their worth unless as existing in the possession of the other. Many usages of early times interfered with the preservation of this theoretical equality: we may instance the existence of polygamy, the autocratic powers vested in the head of the family under the patriarchal system, and the treatment of captives. Nevertheless a high tone was maintained generally on this subject by the Mosaic law, and, as far as we have the means of judging, by the force of public opinion.

II. Condition of Ancient Hebrew Females.

1. Liberty. Women appear to have enjoyed considerably more freedom among the Jews than is now allowed them in western Asia, although in other respects their condition and employments seem to have been not dissimilar. At present, women of all ranks are much confined to their own houses, and never see the men who visit their husbands or fathers, and in towns they never go abroad without their persons and facesbeing completely shrouded they also take their meals apart from the males, even of their own family. But in the rural districts they enjoy more freedom, and often go about unveiled Among the Jews, women were somewhat less restrained in their intercourse with men, and did not generally conceal their faces when they went abroad. Only one instance occurs in Scripture of women eating with men (Rth 2:14), but that was at a simple refection, and only illustrates the greater freedom of rural manners. Instead of being immured in a harem, or appearing in public with the face covered, the wives and maidens of ancient times mingled freely and openly with the other sex in the duties and amenities of ordinary life. Rebelah travelled on a camel with her face unveiled, until she came into the presence of her affianced (Gen 24:64-65). Jacob saluted Rachel with a kiss in the presence of the shepherds (Gen 29:11).

Each of these maidens was engaged in active employment, the former in fetching water from the well, the latter in tending her flock. Sarah wore no veil in Egypt, and yet this formed no ground for supposing her to be married (Gen 12:14-19). An outrage on a maiden in the open field was visited with the severest punishment (Deu 22:25-27), proving that it was not deemed improper for her to go about unprotected. Further than this, women played no inconsiderable part in public celebrations: Miriam headed a band of women who commemorated with song and dance the overthrow of the Egyptians (Exo 15:20-21); Jephthah’s daughter gave her father a triumphal reception (Jdg 11:34); the maidens of Shiloh danced publicly in the vineyards at the yearly feast (Jdg 21:21); and the women feted Saul and David, on their return from the defeat of the Philistines, with singing and dancing (1Sa 18:6-7). The odes of Deborah (Judges 5) and of Hannah (1Sa 2:1, etc.) exhibit a degree of intellectual cultivation which is in itself a proof of the, position of the sex in that period. Women also occasionally held public offices, particularly that of prophetess or inspired teacher, as instanced in Miriam (Exo 15:20), Huldah (2Ki 22:14), Noadiah (Neh 6:14), Anna (Luk 2:36), and above all Deborah, who applied her prophetical gift to the administration of public affairs, and so was entitled to be styled a “judge” (Jdg 4:4). The active part taken by Jezebel in the government of Israel (1Ki 18:13; 1Ki 21:25), and the usurpation of the throne of Judah by Athaliah (2Ki 11:3), further attest the latitude allowed to women in public life.

2. The employments of the women were very various, and sufficiently engrossing. In the earlier or patriarchal state of society, the daughters of, men of substance tended their fathers’ flocks (Gen 29:9; Exo 2:16). In ordinary circumstances, the first labor of the day was to grind corn and bake bread. The other cares of the family occupied the rest of the day. The women of the peasantry and of the poor consumed much time in collecting fuel, and in going to the wells for water. The wells were usually outside the towns, and the labor of drawing water from them was by no means confined to poor women. This was usually, but not always, the labor of:the evening; and the water was carried in earthen vessels borne upon the shoulder (Gen 24:15-20; Joh 4:7; Joh 4:28). Working with the needle also occupied much of their time, as it would seem that not only their own clothes but those of the men were made by the women. Such garments, at all events, were either for the use of the family (1Sa 2:19; Pro 31:21), for sale (Pro 31:14; Pro 31:24), or for charity (Act 9:39). Some of the needlework was very fine, and much valued (Exo 26:36; Exo 28:39; Jdg 5:30; Psa 45:14). The women appear to have spun the yarn for all the cloth that was in use (Exo 35:25; Pro 31:19); and much of the weaving seems also to have been executed by them (Jdg 16:13-14; Pro 31:22). The tapestries for bed-coverings, mentioned in the last-cited text, were probably produced in the loom, and appear to have been much valued (Pro 7:16). SEE HANDICRAFT.

The value of a virtuous and active housewife forms a frequent topic in the book of Proverbs (Pro 11:16; Pro 12:4; Pro 14:1; Pro 31:10, etc.). Her influence was, of course, proportionably great; and, where there was no second wife, she controlled the arrangements of the house, to the extent of inviting or receiving guests on her own motion (Jdg 4:18; 1Sa 25:18, etc.; 2Ki 4:8, etc.). The effect of polygamy was to transfer female influence from the wives to the mother, as is incidentally shown in the application of the term gebirah (literally meaning powerful) to the queen mother (1Ki 2:19; 1Ki 15:13; 2Ki 10:13; 2Ki 24:12; Jer 13:18; Jer 29:2). Polygamy also necessitated a separate establishment for the wives collectively, or for each individually. Thus, in the palace of the Persian monarch there was a “house of the women” (Est 2:9), which was guarded by eunuchs (2:3); in Solomon’s palace the harem was connected with, but separate from, the rest of the building (1Ki 7:8); and on journeys each wife had her separate tent (Gen 31:33). In such cases it is probable that the females took their meals apart from the males (Est 1:9); but we have no reason to conclude that the separate system prevailed generally among the Jews. The women were present at festivals, either as attendants on the guests (Joh 12:2), or as themselves guests (Job 1:4; Joh 2:3); and hence there is good ground for concluding that on ordinary occasions also they joined the males at meals, though there is no positive testimony to that effect. SEE EATING.

3. We have no certain information regarding the dress of the women among the poorer classes; but it was probably coarse and simple, and not materially different from that which we now see among the Bedawin women, and the female peasantry of Syria. This consists of drawers, and a long and loose gown of coarse blue linen, with some ornamental bordering wrought with the needle, in another color, about the neck and bosom. The head is covered with a kind of turban, connected with which, behind, is a veil, which covers the neck, back, and bosom. SEE VEIL. We may presume, with still greater certainty, that women of superior condition wore, over their inner dress, a frock or tunic like that of the men, but more closely fitting the person, with a girdle formed by an unfolded kerchief. Their headdress was a kind of turban, with different sorts of veils and wrappers used under various circumstances. The hair was worn long, and, as now, was braided into numerous tresses, with trinkets and ribbons (1Co 11:15; 1Ti 2:9; 1Pe 3:3). With the head-dress the principal ornaments appear to have been connected, such as a jewel for the forehead, and rows of pearls (Son 1:10; Eze 16:12).

Ear-rings were also worn (Isa 3:20; Eze 16:12), as well as a nose-jewel, consisting, no doubt, as now, either of a ring inserted in the cartilage of the nose, or an ornament like a button attached to it. The nose-jewel was of gold or silver, and sometimes set with gems (Gen 24:47; Isa 3:21). Bracelets were also generally worn (Isa 3:19; Eze 16:11), and anklets, which, as now, were probably more like fetters than ornaments (Isa 3:16; Isa 3:20). The Jewish women possessed the art of staining their eyelids black, for effect and expression (2Ki 9:30; Jer 4:30; Eze 23:40); and it is more than probable that they had the present practice of staining the nails, and the palms of their hands and soles of their feet, of an iron-rust color, by means of a paste made from the plant called henna (Lawsonia inermis). This plant appears to be mentioned in Son 1:14, and its present use is probably referred to in Deu 21:12; 2Sa 19:24. SEE DRESS.

4. Family Relations. The customs concerning marriage, and the circumstances which the relation of wife and mother involved, have been described in the article SEE MARRIAGE.

The Israelites eagerly desired children, and especially sons. Hence the messenger who first brought to the father the news that a son was born, was well rewarded (Job 3:3; Jer 20:15). The event was celebrated with music; and the father, when the child was presented to him, pressed it to his bosom, by which act he was understood to acknowledge it as his own (Gen 1:23; Job 3:12; Psa 22:10). On the eighth day from the birth the child was circumcised (Gen 17:10); at which time also a name was given to it (Luk 1:59). The first-born son was highly esteemed, and had many distinguishing privileges. He had a double portion of the estate (Deu 21:17); he exercised a sort of parental authority over his younger brothers (Gen 25:23, etc. 27:29; Exo 12:29; 2Ch 21:3); and before the institution of the Levitical priesthood he acted as the priest of the family (Num 3:12-13; Num 8:18). The patriarchs exercised the power of taking these privileges from the first-born, and giving them to any other son, or of distributing them among different sons; but this practice was overruled by the Mosaic law (Deu 21:15-17).

The child continued about three years at the breast of the mother, and a great festival was given at the weaning (Gen 21:8; 1Sa 1:22-24; 2Ch 31:6; Mat 21:16). He remained two years longer in charge of the women, after which he was taken under the especial care of the father, with a view to his proper training (Deu 6:20-25; Deu 11:19). It appears that those who wished for their sons better instruction than they were themselves able or willing to give, employed a private teacher, or else sent them to a priest or Levite, who had perhaps several others under his care. The principal object was that they should be well acquainted with the law of Moses; and reading and writing were taught in subservience to this leading object.

The authority of a father was very great among the Israelites, and extended not only to his sons, but to his grandsons indeed, to all who were descended from him. His power had no recognized limit, and even if he put his son or grandson to death, there was, at first, no law by which he could be brought to account (Gen 21:14; Gen 38:24). But Moses circumscribed this power, by ordering that when a father judged his son worthy of death, he should bring him before the public tribunals. If, however, he had struck or cursed his father or mother, or was refractory or disobedient, he was still liable to capital punishment (Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deu 21:18-21). SEE CHILD.

III. Description of Modern Oriental Females. It will at once be seen that under the influence of a religion, at the bottom of which lay those ideas concerning the relations of the sexes one to another, slavery, on the part of the woman was impossible. This fact is the more noticeable, and it speaks the more loudly in favor of the divine origin of the religion of the Bible, because the East has in all times, down to the present day, kept women everywhere, save in those places in which Judaism and Christianity have prevailed, in a state of low, even if in some cases gilded, bondage, making her the mere toy, plaything, and instrument of man. Nothing can be more painful to contemplate than the humiliating condition in which Islamism still holds its so-called free women a condition of perpetual childhood child-hood of mind, while the passions receive constant incense; leaving the fine endowments of woman’s soul undeveloped and inert, or crushing them when in any case they may happen to germinate; and converting man into a capricious, haughty idol, for whose will and pleasure the other sex lives and suffers. In those parts of the East where the influence of the Bible has not prevailed, woman has been subjected to degradation, and viewed as little better than the slave of an imperious master. Being mainly immured within the harem, and prohibited from mingling in general society, their minds are left wholly uncultivated; and what time they can spare from their household duties is principally devoted to embroidery, dress, and smoking. This universal want of education, with the influence of polygamy, naturally disqualifies them from being the proper companions of their husbands. The state of morality in the higher circles, in some of the principal Eastern cities, consequent on this condition of society, is just what might be expected. Wherever the influence of Christianity prevails, woman is invariably elevated to her natural position in society the equal and companion of man.

It will assist the reader in forming a just conception of Hebrew women in the Biblical periods, if we add a few details respecting the actual condition of women in Syria. Mr. Bartlett (Walks about Jerusalem, page 291 sq.) visited the house of a rich. Jew in the metropolis of the Holy Land. We give the substance of his observations:

“On entering his dwelling we found him seated on the low divan, fondling his youngest child; and on our expressing a wish to draw the costume of the female members of his family, he commanded their attendance, but it was some time before they would come forward; when, however, they did present themselves, it was with no sort of reserve whatever. Their costume is chastely elegant. The prominent figure in the room was the married daughter, whose husband, a boy of fourteen or fifteen, as he seemed, wanted nearly a head of the stature of his wife, but was already chargeable with the onerous duties of a father. An oval head-dress of peculiar shape, from which was slung a long veil of embroidered muslin, admirably set off her brow and eyes: the neck was ornamented with jewels, and the bosom with a profusion of gold coins, partly concealed by folds of muslin; a graceful robe of striped silk, with long open sleeves, half-laced under the bosom, invested then whole person, over which was worn a jacket of green silk with short sleeves, leaving the white arm and braceleted hand at liberty.

An elderly person sat on the sofa, the mother, whose dress was more grave, her turban less oval, and of blue shawl, and the breast covered entirely to the neck with a kind of ornamented gold tissue, and over all was seen a jacket of fur; she was engaged in knitting, while her younger daughter bent over her in conversation; her dress was similar to that of her sister, but with no gold coins or light muslin folds, and, instead of large ear-rings, the vermilion blossom of the pomegranate formed an exquisite pendant, reflecting its glow upon the dazzling whiteness of her skin. We were surprised at the fairness and delicacy of their complexion, and the vivacity of their manner. Unlike the wives of Oriental Christians, who respectfully attend at a distance till invited to approach, these pretty Jewesses seemed on a perfect footing of equality, and chatted and laughed away without intermission.” Many of the daughters of Judah, here and at Hebron, are remarkable for their attractions. Mr. Wolff describes one of them with enthusiasm, and no small unconscious poetry “the beautiful Sarah,” whom his lady met at a “wedding-feast.”

“She was scarcely seated when she felt a hand upon hers, and heard a kind greeting. She turned to the voice and saw a most beautiful Jewess, whom I also afterwards saw, and I never beheld a more beautiful and well-behaved lady in my life, except the beautiful girl in the valley of Cashmere; she looked like a queen in Israel. A lovely lady she was; tall, of a fair complexion and blue eyes, and around her forehead and cheeks she wore several roses. No queen had a finer deportment than that Jewess had.”

Mr. Bartlett was also admitted into the abode of a Christian family in Jerusalem, of whom he thus speaks (pages 205, 206):

“The interior of their houses is similar to those of the Jews. In our intercourse with them we were received with more ceremony than among the former. The mistress of the family is in attendance with her children and servants, and besides pipes and coffee, the guest is presented with saucers of sweetmeats and small glasses of aniseed; which, when done with are taken from him by his fair hostess or her servant, who kiss his hand as they receive them. They are more reserved, often standing during the visit. Their dress is more gorgeous than that of the Jewish women, but not so chastely elegant; it suits well with the languor of their air, their dusky complexion, and large black eyes. The head-dress has a fantastic air, like that of a May- day queen in England, and the bust is a little in the style of

Beauties by sir Peter Lely,

Whose drapery hints we may admire freely.’

A heavy shawl is gracefully wreathed round the figure, and the dress, when open, displays long, loose trousers of muslin and small slippers. The ensemble, it must be admitted, is very fascinating, when its wearer is young and lovely.”

We now pass to the peasantry, and take from Lamartine a sketch of the Syrian women, as seen by him at the foot of Lebanon, on a Sunday. “After having with their families attended divine service, the latter return to their houses to enjoy a repast somewhat more sumptuous than on ordinary days; the women and girls, adorned in their richest clothes, their hair plaited, and all strewn with orange-flowers, scarlet wall-flowers, and carnations, seat themselves on mats before the doors of their dwellings, with their friends and neighbors. It is impossible to describe with the pen the groups so redolent of the picturesque, from the richness of their costume and their beauty, which these females then compose in the landscape. I see among them daily such countenances as Raphael had not beheld even in his dreams as an artist.

It is more than the Italian or Greek beauty; there is the nicety of shape, the delicacy of outline, in a word, all that Greek and Roman airt has left us as the most finished model; but it is rendered more bewitching still by a primitive artlessness of expression, by a serene and voluptuous languor, by a heavenly clearness, which the glances from the blue eyes, fringed with black eyelids, cast over the features, and by a smiling archness, a harmony of proportions, a rich whiteness of skin, an indescribable transparency of tint, a metallic gloss upon the hair, a gracefulness of movement, a novelty in the attitudes, and a vibrating silvery tone of voice, which render the young Syrian girl the very hour of the visual paradise. Such admirable and varied beauty is also very common; I never go into the country for an hour without meeting several such females going to the fountains or returning, with their Etruscan urns upon their shoulders, and their naked legs clasped with rings of silver.”

The ordinary dress of the women of Palestine is not, perhaps much fitted to enhance their natural charms, and yet it admits of ease and dignity in the carriage. Dr. Olin thus describes the customary appearance of both male and female:

“The people wear neither hats, bonnets, nor stockings; both sexes appear in loose, flowing dresses, and red or yellow slippers; the men wear red caps with or without turbans, the women are concealed by white veils, with the exception of the eyes ” (2:437).

The singular beauty of the Hebrew women, and the natural warmth of their affections, have conspired to throw gems of domestic loveliness over the pages of the Bible. In no history call there be found an equal number of charming female portraits. From Hagar down to Mary and Martha, the Bible presents pictures of womanly beauty that are unsurpassed and rarely paralleled. But we should very imperfectly represent in these general remarks the formative influence of the female character as seen in the Bible, did, not we refer these amiable traits of character to the original conceptions of which we have spoken, and to the pure and lofty religious ideas which the Biblical books in general present. If woman there appears as the companion and friend of man, if she rises above the condition of being a bearer of children to that noble position which is held by the mother of a family, she owes her elevation in the main to the religion of Moses and to that of Jesus.

The first system as a preparatory one did not and could not complete the emancipation of woman. The Oriental influence modified the religious so materially as to keep women generally in some considerable subjection. Yet the placing of the fondest desires and the glowing hopes of the nation on some child that was to be born, some son that was to be given, as it made every matron’s heart beat high with expectation, raised the tone of self-respect among the women of Israel, and caused them to be regarded by the other sex with lively interest, deep regard, and a sentiment which was akin to reverence.

There was, however, needed the finishing touch which the Great Teacher put to the Mosaic view of the relations between the sexes. Recognizing the fundamental truths which were as old as the creation of man, Jesus proceeded to restrain the much-abused facility of divorce, leaving only one cause why the marriage- bond should be broken, and at the same time teaching that as the origin of wedlock was divine, so its severance ought not to be the work of man. Still further bringing to bear on the domestic ties his own doctrine of immortality, he made the bond coexistent with the undying soul, only teaching that the connection would be refined with the refinement of our affections and our liberation from these tenements of clay in which we now dwell (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:3 sq.; Mat 22:23 sq.).

With views so elevated as these, and with affections of the tenderest benignity, the Savior may well have won the warm and gentle hearts of Jewish women. Accordingly, the purest and richest human light that lies on the pages of the New Test. comes from the band of high-minded, faithful, and affectionate women, who are found in connection with Christ from his cradle to his cross, his tomb, and his resurrection. These ennobling influences have operated on society with equal benefit and power. Woman, in the better portions of society, is now a new being. Yet her angelic career is only just begun. She sees what she may, and what under the gospel she ought to be; and ere very long, we trust, a way will be found to employ, in purposes of good, energies of the finest nature, which now waste away from want of scope, in the case and refinements of affluence, if not in the degradations of luxury a most precious offering made to the Moloch of fashion, but which ought to he consecrated to the service of that God who gave these endowments, and of that Saviour who has brought to light the rich capabilities, and exhibited the high and holy vocation, of the female sex. SEE WIFE.

IV. Literature. Atkinson, Women of Persia (Lond. n.d. 8vo); Jessup, Women of the Arabs (ibid. 1874); Lane, Modern Egyptians, part 1, chapter 6:Thomson, Land and Book, 1:174 sq. On special points, see Selden, Uxor Ebraica (ibid. 1646, and later); Schroder, De Vestitu Mulierum Hebr. (Leyden, 1745, 1776); Sporl, De Ornamentis Hebr. (1758); Srach, De Mulierum Morbis (Strasburg, 1597); Zipser, Ueb. d. Wirter Und (in the Jewish Chronicle, 7:16), and the monographs cited by Volbeding, Index Programmatum, page 105. SEE WIFE; SEE WOMEN.

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Woman

was “taken out of man” (Gen. 2:23), and therefore the man has the preeminence. “The head of the woman is the man;” but yet honour is to be shown to the wife, “as unto the weaker vessel” (1 Cor. 11:3, 8, 9; 1 Pet. 3:7). Several women are mentioned in Scripture as having been endowed with prophetic gifts, as Miriam (Ex. 15:20), Deborah (Judg. 4:4, 5), Huldah (2 Kings 22:14), Noadiah (Neh. 6:14), Anna (Luke 2:36, 37), and the daughters of Philip the evangelist (Acts 21:8, 9). Women are forbidden to teach publicly (1 Cor. 14:34, 35; 1 Tim. 2:11, 12). Among the Hebrews it devolved upon women to prepare the meals for the household (Gen. 18:6; 2 Sam. 13:8), to attend to the work of spinning (Ex. 35:26; Prov. 31:19), and making clothes (1 Sam. 2:19; Prov. 31:21), to bring water from the well (Gen. 24:15; 1 Sam. 9:11), and to care for the flocks (Gen. 29:6; Ex. 2:16).

The word “woman,” as used in Matt. 15:28, John 2:4 and 20:13, 15, implies tenderness and courtesy and not disrespect. Only where revelation is known has woman her due place of honour assigned to her.

Fuente: Easton’s Bible Dictionary

Woman

WOMAN.The relation of Christ to woman is one of the most interesting and one of the most difficult topics in the Gospels. In order to estimate it aright it will be necessary to say something of the position of woman at the time when our Lord was born. In the East generally, the penal code of Babylon well describes her abject humiliation: If a husband say unto his wife, Thou art not my wife, he shall pay half a mina and be free. But if a woman repudiate her husband, she shall be drowned in the river. And her position was not much better in Judaea, where any, even the most frivolous, pretext could be given for divorce. The Jewish Law unquestionably allowed divorce on almost any ground (Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 333). The school of Hillel declared it a sufficient ground for divorce if a woman had spoiled her husbands dinner. In Greece the dignity of married life was very inadequately appreciated; even Socrates invites the courtesan Aspasia to talk with him as to how she might ply her occupation with most profit. In Rome there were signs of better things. There was always a halo over the old Roman matron, and though time dissipated this, and divorce was so common that Seneca tells us that ladies reckoned their ages not by the consuls, but by the number of their husbands,* [Note: Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius. pp. 7780.] yet women were gradually acquiring more and more influence and being more widely educated. In parts of the Roman Empire, especially in Macedonia, her social position was higher than in most parts of the civilized world. At Philippi, at Thessalonica and Bera, the womenin some cases certainly, in all probably, ladies of birth and ranktake an active part with the Apostle (Paul). The extant Macedonian inscriptions seem to assign to the sex a higher social influence than is common among the civilized nations of antiquity. [Note: Lightfoot, Ep. to the Philippians, pp. 5556.] But however this position might vary in different parts of the Empire, it was clearly exceptional for the relation of woman to man to be other than a degrading one. The many exceptions only draw attention to the prevailing feeling.

This relation was necessarily profoundly modified by our Lords birth of the virgin Mother. This fact, though it could have been known to only a very few during His lifetime, had nevertheless its own particular bearing. It brought Mary into a prominence which otherwise would have been unaccountable. It is true that Joseph may have died when our Lord was a child or before He began His ministry, but even this does not fully account for the position the mother occupies in the Gospels. It is not much we learn, for we know it was her habit to ponder over and keep to herself the secrets connected with His early life (Luk 2:19; Luk 2:51), but that one scene at the village wedding (John 2) is sufficient to give us a clear conception of her importance. She alone knew how great He was, and how wonderful the destiny that was promised Him. And yet she was not so overwhelmed by its greatness as to lose her own personality. The ordinary Oriental mother would not have presumed to guide or direct the life of one so mysteriously born and whose future was so infinitely great. But she has so long been accustomed to suggest, if not to direct, that it is natural for her, when she sees an opportunity for the display of His power and the satisfaction of a need, to point it out. The reply, seemingly so harsh to us, only marks out her position the more clearly. The words, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come, could not have been said to one who had occupied but a subservient position in the home; on the contrary, they suggest that for many years she had been accustomed to speak freely as to her wishes for Him, and that this time was now over. From this it may be inferred that our Lord rejoiced in the true development of womanhood, was glad that the mother should not be a mere drudge or slave, but one occupying a definite position with definite duties and responsibilities. Further, it is clear from her question that He had not checked her interest in the wider events of the world and the Kingdom of God. A veil will always rest over the frequent communings between the Mother and the Son, but it is quite clear from the use of the expression mine hour, that she had been led to think of and desire that time of manifestation when His Personality should be revealed. From the beginning, even before His birth, her mind had often been occupied with that revelation from the spiritual world in which the angel had spoken of a throne and a kingdom (Luk 1:32-33). Her mind, then, was not to be confined to the limited sphere of the household duties of the peasants home. At the same time, it is clear that the natural desire, even in one so humble and lowly as she was, to have some share in the events which would lead to the bringing in of the Kingdom, was not to be gratified. Her part lay in the careful training, educating, and helping of that great Life which was entrusted to her.

It is singular, and some have thought that it was designed with a view to checking the Mariolatry which in the years to come was to dominate a large section of the Church, that Jesus refuses to allow the unique distinction which Mary certainly had in being the mother of the worlds Redeemer to weigh against the worth of religious character. It was natural that one who recognized the beauty of His character and the power of His words should say, Blessed be the womb that bare thee, and the breasts that thou didst suck (Luk 11:27); but the answer, whilst admitting the blessing, pointed to a higher one within the reach of all. Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God and keep it (v. 28). This teaching is akin to that He gave when some one directed His attention to the fact that His mother and brethren were waiting to see Him. Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?He criedand then stretching forth His hand towards His disciples, He said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother (Mat 12:47 ff.). From this it is clear that whilst He gave her, who was blessed indeed amongst women in being His mother, full opportunities for the development of her mind and spirit, never checking during those thirty years those natural desires to know all that He would tell her of the Kingdom of which the angel had spoken to her, yet He chiefly valued in her the growth of those spiritual graces which had led to her being selected for the high position she held. And nothing is more remarkable than the response she gave. During those three years she almost disappears from sight; and when at the very last she is seen beside the cross, her attitude expresses that dignity, reserve, and self-control which she had learned of Him. When the great tragedy is being enacted, and the greatest possible excitement prevails, she, like her Divine Son, maintains an attitude of quiet self-restraint. The Oriental, even the Jewish, mother would have been prostrate, with dishevelled hair and garments; Mary is found standing (Joh 19:25). There is no mention of words, not even of tears. Silently and quietly at the direction of her Son she leaves the cross, though we know that a sword was at the time piercing her through and through.

We have given much time to the study of the Virgin Mother because she was the only woman really educated by Christ, in the sense that St. John and St. Peter were, and we see in the little that is told of her what a true woman ought to be. The relation of Christ to the other women of the Gospels is just what we should expect from our knowledge of His relation to His mother. There is a freedom which surprises even His disciples (Joh 4:27), and a readiness to help which laid His character open to misconception (Luk 7:39). There is also the most delicate sensitiveness to the inner consciousness of shame in the sinner which at once wins confidence. His hatred of the sin never dominates over His love of the sinner. Simon was right in feeling that a prophet who knew the character of the woman who had intruded into his house would never have allowed her such close fellowship as the Saviour allowed. None but He, the sinless, could have done so. Again, none but He would have shown such patience as was seen in His treatment of the woman of Samaria (John 4). When He makes it plain that He knows her sin, and she changes the subject, He does not refuse to follow her, but makes the very controversy she introduces a means of spiritual help. It was this combination of strength and tenderness, of respect for the individuality of the soul and yet desire to disentangle it from its sins, that gave Him just that same pre-eminent place amongst the women as amongst the men of His day. They were glad to be of what assistance they could to His work, and ministered of their substance (Luk 8:3). It is characteristic that whilst they show a courage which surpasses that of the Twelve, they also show a wealth of devotion which is unintelligible to them. The presence of some near the cross, where they would be exposed to insults and rudeness, is as remarkable as St. Marys gift of the alabaster cruse of ointment in the last week of His life. They respond more readily and easily to the power of His words and Personality. From Martha our Lord obtains a confession, even fuller and more far-reaching than that of St. Peter (Joh 11:24-27). And from the heathen Canaanitish woman He received one of the most remarkable illustrations of faith, the womans insight penetrating beyond the words to the love which lay underneath them (Mat 15:22 ff., Mar 7:25 ff.).

The great respect in which Jesus held the position of woman, the high dignity He attached to it, is shown not only by His actions and words, but by the new sanctity which He gave to marriage. The words, The twain shall become one flesh (Mat 19:5 = Mar 10:3), placed the wife at once on a level with the husband, and made the divorces that were so common impossible. Directly this teaching was received, it was impossible that woman should be deprived of her right as wife on the flimsiest excuse, or without any excuse at all. The revolution such a declaration made is realized only when we hear the comment of the spiritually minded disciples, If the case of the man is so with his wife, it is not expedient to marry (Mat 19:10). That woman had a position in life of equal importance with that of man is made plain by the whole story of the Gospels: Anna, Elisabeth, the Virgin Mary, Martha, Mary, and Mary Magdalene rivalling in their own spheres St. Peter, St. John, St. James, St. Andrew. Without the part played by woman, that story would have been altogether incomplete.

One other suggestion as to the influence of woman which St. Matthew gives us is as interesting as it is unexpected. The dream of Pilates wife is an evidence of the power that Christs life and teaching exercised beyond the narrow circle of Jewish thought. Pilate, governor though he is, neither hears nor sees anything, and even when face to face with Christ is only puzzled not convinced. His wife, on the other hand, is deeply interested in all that she hears. Her mind is full of the doings of the Prophet of Nazareth. Her sleep is disturbed. She wakes frightened, and so convinced of the greatness of the issue her husband is trying, that she dares to interfere, though without success (Mat 27:19). Not too much can be made of this; but it is an indication, which the Gospel narrative emphasizes, that women are more susceptible to religious impressions than men, and are ready to make larger sacrifices. As women ministered at the Birth, the Presentation in the Temple, and during those early years when His mother was His chief teacher, so they ministered at the Entombment, when they anointed His body; at the Resurrection, when they carried the news to the frightened disciples; and at the Ascension, when they with the Apostles and the rest of His disciples received His blessing. Cf. next article.

Literature.Edersheim, LT [Note: T Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah [Edersheim].] ; Dill, Roman Society from Nero to Marcus Aurelius; PRE [Note: RE Real-Encyklopdie fur protest. Theologic und Kirche.] 3 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred] , art. Familie und Ehe; Brace, Gesta Christi; Church, Pascal, and other Serm. 264; Moore, God is Love, 184; Lightfoot, Serm. on Special Occasions, 220; Gunsaulus, Paths to the City of God, 232.

G. H. S. Walpole.

Fuente: A Dictionary Of Christ And The Gospels

Woman

WOMAN

1. In OT (ishshh, woman, wife; nqbh [Lev 15:33, Num 31:15, Jer 31:22], female) womans position is one of inferiority and subjection to man (Gen 3:13); and yet, in keeping with the view that ideally she is his companion and help meet (Gen 2:18-24), she never sinks into a mere drudge or plaything. In patriarchal times, Sarah, Rebekah, and Rachel stand side by side with their husbands. In the era of the deliverance from Egypt, Miriam is ranked with Moses and Aaron (cf. Mic 6:4). In the days of the judges, Deborah is not only a prophetess (wh. see), as other women in Israel were, but is herself a judge (Jdg 4:4). Under the monarchy, Jezebel in the Northern Kingdom and Athaliah in the Southern, afford illustrations of the political power and influence that a woman might wield. In religious matters, we find women attending the Feasts along with men (1Sa 1:1 ff. etc.), taking part with them in acts of sacrifice (Jdg 13:20; Jdg 13:23 etc.), combined with them in the choral service of the Temple (Ezr 2:65 etc.). And though in the Deut. code womans position is one of complete subordination, her rights are recognized and safeguarded in a way that prepares the soil for the growth of those higher conceptions which find utterance in Malachis declaration that divorce is hateful to Jehovah (Ezr 2:16), and in the picture of the virtuous wife with which the Book of Proverbs concludes (ch. 31). See, further, Family, Marriage.

2. In NT (gyn, woman, wife; thleia [Rom 1:26-27], female; gynaikarion [dimin. fr. gyn, 2Ti 3:6], EV [Note: English Version.] silly women).Owing to the influence of Rabbinism, Jewish women had lost some of their earlier freedom (ct. [Note: t. contrast.] with the scene at the well of Haran [Gen 24:10 ff.] the surprise of the disciples by the well of Sychar when they found Jesus speaking with a woman [Joh 4:27]). But Jesus wrought a wonderful change. He did this not only by His teaching about adultery (Mat 5:27 f.) and marriage and divorce (Mat 5:31 f., Mat 19:3 ff.), but still more by His personal attitude to women, whether good and pure like His own mother (there is nothing harsh or discourteous in the Woman of Joh 2:4; cf. Joh 19:26) and the sisters of Bethany, or sinful and outcast as some women of the Gospels were (Luk 7:37 ff; Luk 8:2, Joh 4:1-54). The work of emancipation was continued in the Apostolic Church. Women formed an integral part of the earliest Christian community (Act 1:14), shared in the gifts of Pentecost (Act 2:1 ff., cf. Act 2:17), engaged in tasks of unofficial ministry (Rom 16:1 f., Php 4:2 f.), and by and by appear (1Ti 3:11) as holding the office of the deaconess (wh. see), and possibly (1Ti 5:3) that of the widow (wh. see, and cf. Timothy [Epp. to], 5). St. Pauls conception of woman and of mans relation to her is difficult (1Co 7:1-40), but may be explained partly by his expectation of the Parousia (1Co 7:29-31), and partly by the exigencies of an era of persecution (1Co 7:26). In a later Pauline Epistle marriage becomes a type of the union between Christ and the Church (Eph 5:22-33). And if by his injunction as to the silence of women in the Church (1Co 14:34 ff.) the Apostle appears to limit the prophetic freedom of the first Christian days (Act 2:4; Act 2:17), we must remember that he is writing to a Church set in the midst of a dissolute Greek city, where Christian women had special reasons for caution in the exercise of their new privileges. Elsewhere he announces the far-reaching principle that in Christ Jesus there can be no male and female (Gal 3:28).

J. C. Lambert.

Fuente: Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible

Woman

wooman (, ‘ishshah, a woman (feminine of , ‘sh, a man; , gune, a woman wife):

I.IN THE CREATIVE PLAN

II.IN OLD TESTAMENT TIMES

1.Prominence of Women

2.Social Equality

3.Marriage Laws

4.Inheritance

5.Domestic Duties

6.Dress and Ornaments

7.Religious Devotion and Service

(1)in Idolatry and False Religion

(2)in Spiritual Religion

III.INTER-TESTAMENTAL ERA

IV.IN NEW TESTAMENT TIMES

1.Mary and Elisabeth

2.Jesus and Women

3.In the Early Church

4.Official Service

5.Widows

6.Deaconesses

V.LATER TIMES

1.Changes in Character and Condition

2.Notable Examples of Christian Womanhood

3.Woman in the 20th Century

The generic term man includes woman. In the narrative of the creation (Gen 1:26, Gen 1:27) Adam is a collective term for mankind. It may signify human being, male or female, or humanity entire. God said, Let us make man … and let them (Gen 1:26), the latter word them defining man in the former clause. So in Gen 1:27, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them, them being synonymous with him. See also ADAM; ANTHROPOLOGY.

I. In the Creative Plan.

Whatever interpretation the latest scholarship may give to the story of woman’s formation from the rib of man (Gen 2:21-24), the passage indicates, most profoundly, the inseparable unity and fellowship of her life with his. Far more than being a mere assistant, helper (, ezer help helper Gen 2:18), she is man’s complement, essential to the perfection of his being. Without her he is not man in the generic fullness of that term. Priority of creation may indicate headship, but not, as theologians have so uniformly affirmed, superiority. Dependence indicates difference of function, not inferiority. Human values are estimated in terms of the mental and spiritual. Man and woman are endowed for equality, and are mutually interdependent. Physical strength and prowess cannot be rated in the same category with moral courage and the capacity to endure ill-treatment, sorrow and pain; and in these latter qualities woman has always proved herself the superior. Man’s historic treatment of woman, due to his conceit, ignorance or moral perversion, has taken her inferiority for granted, and has thus necessitated it by her enslavement and degradation. The narrative of the Fall (Gen 3) ascribes to woman supremacy of influence, for through her stronger personality man was led to disobedience of God’s command. Her penalty for such ill-fated leadership was that her husband should rule over her (Gen 3:16), not because of any inherent superiority on his part, but because of her loss of prestige and power through sin. In that act she forfeited the respect and confidence which entitled her to equality of influence in family affairs. Her recovery from the curse of subjection was to come through the afflictive suffering of maternity, for, as Paul puts it, she shall be saved (from the penalty of her transgression) through her child-bearing (1Ti 2:15).

Sin, both in man and woman, has been universally the cause of woman’s degradation. All history must be interpreted in the light of man’s consequent mistaken estimate of her endowments, worth and rightful place. The ancient Hebrews never entirely lost the light of their original revelation, and, more than any other oriental race, held woman in high esteem, honor and affection. Christianity completed the work of her restoration to equality of opportunity and place. Wherever its teachings and spirit prevail, she is made the loved companion, confidante and adviser of her husband.

II. In Old Testament Times.

1. Prominence of Women:

Under the Hebrew system the position of woman was in marked contrast with her status in surrounding heathen nations. Her liberties were greater, her employments more varied and important, her social standing more respectful and commanding. The divine law given on Sinai (Exo 20:12) required children to honor the mother equally with the father. A similar esteem was accorded her in patriarchal times. Sarah held a position of favor and authority in Abraham’s household. Rebekah was not less influential than Isaac, and was evidently the stronger personality. The beautiful Rachel (Gen 29:17) won from Jacob a love that accepted her as an equal in the companionship and counsels of family life. Many Hebrew women rose to eminence and national leadership. Miriam and Deborah were each a prophetess and a poetess. The former led bands of women in triumphant song and procession, celebrating the overthrow of enemies (Exo 15:20); the latter, through her dominating personality and prophetic power, became the virtual judge of the nation and led armies to victory. Her military general, Barak, refused to advance against Sisera without her presence and commanding influence (Jdg 4:8). Her ode of victory indicates the intellectual endowment and culture of her sex in that unsettled and formative era (Jdg 5). No person in Israel surpassed Hannah, the mother of Samuel, in intelligence, beauty and fervor of religious devotion. Her spiritual exaltation and poetic gift found expression in one of the choicest specimens of early Hebrew lyric poetry (1Sa 2:1-10). Other women eminent as prophetesses were: Huldah, whose counsel was sought by high priest and king (2Ch 34:22; compare 2Ki 22:14); Noadiah (Neh 6:14); Anna (Luk 2:36). The power to which woman could attain in Israel is illustrated in the career of the wicked, merciless, murderous, idolatrous Jezebel, self-styled prophetess (Rev 2:20). Evidence of woman’s eminence in the kingdoms of Judah and Israel is seen in the influence she exercised as queen mother (1Ki 15:13) and queen (2Ki 8:18); in the beautiful honor shown by King Solomon to his mother, Bath-sheba (1Ki 2:19); in the filial devotion of the prophet Elisha (1Ki 19:20); in the constant mention of the mother’s name in the biographies of successive kings, making it evident that she was considered the important and determining factor in the life of her royal sons. Her teaching and authority were sufficiently eminent to find recognition in the proverbs of the nation: the law of thy mother (Pro 1:8; Pro 6:20) was not to be forsaken, while contempt for the same merited the curse of God (Pro 19:26; Pro 20:20; Pro 30:11, Pro 30:17).

2. Social Equality:

Additional evidence of woman’s social equality comes from the fact that men and women feasted together without restriction. Women shared in the sacred meals and great annual feasts (Deu 16:11, Deu 16:14); in wedding festivities (Joh 2:1-3); in the fellowship of the family meal (Joh 12:3). They could appear, as Sarah did in the court of Egypt, unveiled (Gen 12:11, Gen 12:14). Rebekah (Gen 24:16; compare Gen 24:65), Rachel (Gen 29:11), Hannah (1Sa 1:13) appeared in public and before suitors with uncovered faces. The secluding veil was introduced into Mohammedan and other oriental lands through the influence of the Koran. The custom was non-Jewish in origin, and the monuments make. It evident that it did not prevail, in early times, in Assyria and Egypt. Even Greece and Rome, at the time of their supreme culture, fell-far below the Hebrew conception of woman’s preeminent worth. The greatest hellenic philosophers declared that it would radically disorganize the state for wives to claim equality with their husbands. Aristotle considered women inferior beings, intermediate between freemen and slaves. Socrates and Demosthenes held them in like depreciation. Plato advocated community of wives. Substantially the same views prevailed in Rome. Distinguished men, like Metullus and Care, advocated marriage only as a public duty. More honor was shown the courtesan than the wife. Chastity and modesty, the choice inheritance of Hebrew womanhood, were foreign to the Greek conception of morality, and disappeared from Rome when Greek culture and frivolity entered. The Greeks made the shameless Phryne the model of the goddess Aphrodite, and lifted their hands to public prostitutes when they prayed in their temples. Under pagan culture and heathen darkness woman was universally subject to inferior and degrading conditions. Every decline in her status in the Hebrew commonwealth was due to the incursion of foreign influence. The lapses of Hebrew morality, especially in the court of Solomon and of subsequent kings, occurred through the borrowing of idolatrous and heathen customs from surrounding nations (1Ki 11:1-8).

3. Marriage Laws:

The Bible gives no sanction to dual or plural marriages. The narrative in Gen 2:18-24 indicates that monogamy was the divine ideal for man. The moral decline of the generations antedating the Flood seems to have been due, chiefly; to the growing disregard of the sanctity of marriage. Lamech’s taking of two wives (Gen 4:19) is the first recorded infraction of the divine ideal. By Noah’s time polygamy had degenerated into promiscuous inter-racial marriages of the most incestuous and illicit kind (Gen 6:1-4; see SONS OF GOD). The subsequent record ascribes marital infidelity and corruption to sin, and affirms that the destruction of the race by the Flood and the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah were God’s specific judgment on man’s immorality. The dual marriages of the Patriarchs were due, chiefly, to the desire for children, and are not to be traced to divine consent or approval. The laws of Moses regarding chastity protected the sanctity of marriage (see MARRIAGE), and indicated a higher regard for woman than prevailed in Gentile or other Semitic races (Lev 18:6-20). They sought to safeguard her from the sensual abominations prevalent among the Egyptians and Canaanites (Lev 18). Kings were forbidden to multiply wives (Deu 17:17). Concubinage in Israel was an importation from heathenism.

Divorce was originally intended to protect the sanctity of wedlock by outlawing the offender and his moral offense. Its free extension to include any marital infelicity met the stern rebuke of Jesus, who declared that at the best it was a concession to human infirmity and hardness of heart, and should be granted only in case of adultery (Mat 5:32). See DIVORCE.

Hebrew women were granted a freedom in choosing a husband not known elsewhere in the East (Gen 24:58). Jewish tradition declares that a girl over 12 1/2 years of age had the right to give herself in marriage. Vows made by a daughter, while under age, could be annulled by the father (Num 30:3-5) or by the husband (Num 30:6-16). Whenever civil law made a concession to the customs of surrounding nations, as in granting the father power to sell a daughter into bondage, it sought to surround her with all possible protection (Deu 22:16 ff).

4. Inheritance:

The Mosaic Law prescribed that the father’s estate, in case there were no sons, should pass to the daughters (Num 27:1-8). They were not permitted, however, to alienate the family inheritance by marrying outside their own tribe (Num 36:6-9). Such alien marriages were permissible only when the husband took the wife’s family name (Neh 7:63). Unmarried daughters, not provided for in the father’s will, were to be cared for by the eldest son (Gen 31:14, Gen 31:15). The bride’s dowry, at marriage, was intended as a substitute for her share in the family estate. In rabbinical law, a century or more before Christ, it took the form of a settlement upon the wife and was considered obligatory. Provision for woman under the ancient Mosaic Law was not inferior to her status under English law regarding landed estates.

5. Domestic Duties:

Among the Hebrews, woman administered the affairs of the home with a liberty and leadership unknown to other oriental peoples. Her domestic duties were more independent, varied and honorable. She was not the slave or menial of her husband. Her outdoor occupations were congenial, healthful, extensive. She often tended the flocks (Gen 29:6; Exo 2:16); spun the wool, and made the clothing of the family (Exo 35:26; Pro 31:19; 1Sa 2:19); contributed by her weaving and needlework to its income and support (Pro 31:14, Pro 31:24), and to charity (Act 9:39). Women ground the grain (Mat 24:41); prepared the meals (Gen 18:6; 2Sa 13:8; Joh 12:2); invited and received guests (Jdg 4:18; 1Sa 25:18 ff; 2Ki 4:8-10); drew water for household use (1Sa 9:11; Joh 4:7), for guests and even for their camels (Gen 24:15-20). Hebrew women enjoyed a freedom that corresponds favorably with the larger liberties granted them in the Christian era.

6. Dress and Ornaments:

That women were fond of decorations and display in ancient as in modern times is clear from the reproof administered by the prophet for their haughtiness and excessive ornamentation (Isa 3:16). He bids them remove (the) veil, strip off the train, that they may be better able to grind meal and attend to the other womanly duties of the home (Isa 47:2). These prophetic reproofs do not necessarily indicate general conditions, but exceptional tendencies to extravagance and excess. The ordinary dress of women was modest and simple, consisting of loose flowing robes, similar to those worn by men, and still in vogue among Orientals, chiefly the mantle, shawl and veil (Rth 3:15; Isa 3:22, Isa 3:23). The veil, however, was not worn for seclusion, as among the Moslems. The extensive wardrobe and jewelry of Hebrew women is suggested by the catalogue given in Isa 3:18-24 : anklets, cauls, crescents, pendants, bracelets, mufflers, headtires, ankle chains, sashes, perfume-boxes, amulets, rings, nose-jewels, festival robes, mantles, shawls, satchels, hand-mirrors, fine linen, turbans, veils. The elaborateness of this ornamentation throws light on the apostle Peter’s counsel to Christian women not to make their adornment external, e.g. the braiding of the hair, the wearing of jewels of gold, the putting on of showy apparel, but rather the apparel of a meek and quiet spirit (1Pe 3:3, 1Pe 3:4).

7. Religious Devotion and Service:

The reflections cast upon woman for her leadership in the first transgression (Gen 3:6, Gen 3:13, Gen 3:16; 2Co 11:3; 1Ti 2:14) do not indicate her rightful and subsequent place in the religious life of mankind. As wife, mother, sister, she has been preeminently devout and spiritual. history records, however, sad and striking exceptions to this rule.

(1) In Idolatry and False Religion

Often woman’s religious intensity found expression in idolatry and the gross cults of heathenism. That she everywhere participated freely in the religious rites and customs of her people is evident from the fact that women were often priestesses, and were often deified. The other Semitic religions had female deities corresponding to the goddesses of Greece and Rome. In the cult of Ishtar of Babylon, women were connected with the immoral rites of temple-worship. The women of heathen nations in the harem of Solomon (1Ki 11:1) turned the heart of the wise king to unaccountable folly in the worship of the Sidonian goddess Ashtoreth, and of Chemosh and Molech, in turn the abomination of Moab and Ammon (1Ki 11:5-8). The fatal speller Maacah morally blighted the reigns of her husband, son and grandson, until Asa the latter deposed her as queen and destroyed the obscene image of Asherah which she had set up (1Ki 15:13). As queen mother (gebhrah, leader) she was equivalent to the Turkish Sultana Valide.

Baal-worship was introduced into Israel by Jezebel (1Ki 16:31, 1Ki 16:32; 1Ki 18:19; 2Ki 9:22), and into Judah by her daughter Athaliah (2Ch 22:3; 2Ch 24:7). The prominence of women in idolatry and in the abominations of foreign religions is indicated in the writings of the prophets (Jer 7:18; Eze 8:14). Their malign influence appeared in the sorceress and witch, condemned to death by the Mosaic Law (Exo 22:18); yet continuing through the nation’s entire history. Even kings consulted them (1Sa 28:7-14). The decline and overthrow of Judah and Israel must be attributed, in large measure, to the deleterious effect of wicked, worldly, idolatrous women upon their religious life.

(2) In Spiritual Religion

The bright side of Hebrew history is an inspiring contrast to this dark picture. Prior to the Christian era no more luminous names adorn the pages of history than those of the devout and eminent Hebrew women. Jochebed, the mother of Moses, left upon him a religious impress so vital and enduring as to safeguard him through youth and early manhood from the fascinating corruptions of Pharaoh’s Egyptian court (Exo 2:1-10; Heb 11:23-26). In Ruth, the converted Moabitess, the royal ancestress of David and of Jesus, we have an unrivaled example of filial piety, moral beauty and self-sacrificing religious devotion (Rth 1:15-18). The prayers and piety of Hannah, taking effect in the spiritual power of her son Samuel, penetrated, purified and vitalized the religious life of the entire nation. Literature contains no finer tribute to the domestic virtues and spiritual qualities of woman than in the beautiful poem dedicated to his gifted mother by King Lemuel (Prov 31).

Women, as well as men, took upon themselves the self-renouncing vow of the Nazirite (Num 6:2), and shared in offering sacrifices, as in the vow and sacrifice of Manoah’s wife (Jdg 13:13, Jdg 13:14); were granted theophanies, e.g. Hagar (Gen 16:7; Gen 21:17), Sarah (Gen 18:9, Gen 18:10), Manoah’s wife (Jdg 13:3-5, Jdg 13:9); were even permitted to minister at the door of the sanctuary (Exo 38:8; 1Sa 2:22); rendered conspicuous service in national religious songs and dances (Exo 15:20; Jdg 11:34; 1Sa 18:6, 1Sa 18:7); in the great choirs and choruses and processionals of the Temple (Psa 68:25; Ezr 2:65; Neh 7:67); in religious mourning (Jer 9:17-20; Mar 5:38). They shared equally with men in the great religious feasts, as is indicated by the law requiring their attendance (Deu 12:18).

III. Inter-Testamental Era.

The women portrayed in the apocryphal literature of the Jews reveal all the varied characteristics of their sex so conspicuous in Old Testament history: devout piety, ardent patriotism, poetic fervor, political intrigue, worldly ambition, and sometimes a strange combination of these contradictory moral qualities. Whether fictitious, or rounded on fact, or historical, these portrayals are true to the feminine life of that era.

Anna is a beautiful example of wifely devotion. By her faith and hard toil she supported her husband, Tobit, after the loss of his property and in his blindness, until sight and prosperity were both restored (Tobit 1:9; 2:1-14).

Edna, wife of Raguel of Ecbatana and mother of Sarah, made her maternal love and piety conspicuous in the blessing bestowed on Tobias on the occasion of his marriage to her daughter, who had hitherto been cursed on the night of wedlock by the death of seven successive husbands (Tobit 7; 10:12).

Sarah, innocent of their death, which had been compassed by the evil spirit Asmodeus, at last had the reward of her faith in the joys of a happy marriage (Tobit 10:10; 14:13).

Judith, a rich young widow, celebrated in Hebrew lore as the savior of her nation, was devoutly and ardently patriotic. When Nebuchadnezzar sent his general Holofernes with an army of 132,000 men to subjugate the Jews, she felt called of God to be their deliverer. Visiting holofernes, she so captivated him with her beauty and gifts that he made a banquet in her honor. While he was excessively drunk with the wine of his own bounty, she beheaded him in his tent. The Assyrians, paralyzed by the loss of their leader, easily fell a prey to the armies of Israel. Judith celebrates her triumph in a song, akin in its triumphant joy, patriotic fervor and religious zeal, to the ancient songs of Miriam and Deborah (Judith 16:1-17).

Susanna typifies the ideal of womanly virtue. The daughter of righteous parents, well instructed in the sacred Law, the wife of a rich and honorable man, Joachim by name, she was richly blessed in position and person. Exceptionally modest, devout and withal very beautiful, she attracted the notice of two elders, who were also judges, and who took occasion frequently to visit Joachim’s house. She spurned their advances and when falsely charged by them with the sin which she so successfully resisted, she escapes the judgment brought against her, by the subtle skill of Daniel. As a result, his fame and her innocence became widely known. See SUSANNA, HISTORY OF.

Cleopatra, full of inherited intrigue, is influential in the counsels of kings. She married successively for political power; murdered her eldest son Seleucus, by Demetrius, and at last dies by the poison which she intended for her younger son, Antiochus VIII. Her fatal influence is a striking example of the perverted use of woman’s power (1 Macc 10:58; Josephus, Ant., XIII, iv, 1; ix, 3).

IV. In New Testament Times.

1. Mary and Elisabeth:

A new era dawned for woman with the advent of Christianity. The honor conferred upon Mary, as mother of Jesus, lifted her from her low estate, made after generations call her blessed (Luk 1:48), and carried its benediction to the women of all subsequent times. Luke’s narrative of the tivity (Lk 1; 2) has thrown about motherhood the halo of a new sanctity, given mankind a more exalted conception of woman’s character and mission, and made the world’s literature the vehicle of the same lofty reverence and regard. The two dispensations were brought together in the persons of Elisabeth and Mary: the former the mother of John the Baptist, the last of the old order of prophets; the latter the mother of the long-expected Messiah. Both are illustrious examples of Spirit-guided and Spirit-filled womanhood. The story of Mary’s intellectual gifts, spiritual exaltation, purity and beauty of character, and her training of her divine child, has been an inestimable contribution to woman’s world-wide emancipation, and to the uplift and ennoblement of family life. To her poetic inspiration, spiritual fervor and exalted thankfulness as expectant mother of the Messiah, the church universal is indebted for its earliest and most majestic hymn, the Magnificat. In her the religious teachings, prophetic hopes, and noblest ideals of her race were epitomized. Jesus’ reverence for woman and the new respect for her begotten by his teaching were well grounded, on their human side, in the qualities of his own mother. The fact that he himself was born of woman has been cited to her praise in the ecumenical creeds of Christendom.

2. Jesus and Women:

From the first, women were responsive to his teachings and devoted to his person. The sisters of Lazarus, Mary and Martha, made their home at Bethany, his dearest earthly refuge and resting-place. Women of all ranks in society found in him a benefactor and friend, before unknown in all the history of their sex. They accompanied him, with the Twelve, in his preaching tours from city to city, some, like Mary Magdalene, grateful because healed of their moral infirmities (Luk 8:2); others, like Joanna the wife of Chuzas, and Susanna, to minister to his needs (Luk 8:3). Even those who were ostracized by society were recognized by him, on the basis of immortal values, and restored to a womanhood of virtue and Christian devotion (Luk 7:37-50). Mothers had occasion to rejoice in his blessing their children (Mar 10:13-16); and in his raising their dead (Luk 7:12-15). Women followed him on his last journey from Galilee to Jerusalem; ministered to Him on the way to Calvary (Mat 27:55, Mat 27:56); witnessed his crucifixion (Luk 23:49); accompanied his body to the sepulcher (Mat 27:61; Luk 23:55); prepared spices and ointments for his burial (Luk 23:56); were first at the tomb on the morning of his resurrection (Mat 28:1; Mar 16:1; Luk 24:1; Joh 20:1); and were the first to whom the risen Lord appeared (Mat 28:9; Mar 16:9; Joh 20:14). Among those thus faithful and favored were Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, Salome (Mat 27:56), Joanna and other unnamed women (Luk 24:10). Women had the honor of being the first to announce the fact of the resurrection to the chosen disciples (Luk 24:9, Luk 24:10, Luk 24:22). They, including the mother of Jesus, were among the 120 who continued in prayer in the upper room and received the Pentecostal enduement (Act 1:14); they were among the first Christian converts (Act 8:12); suffered equally with men in the early persecutions of the church (Act 9:2). The Jewish enemies of the new faith sought their aid and influence in the persecutions raised against Paul and Barnabas (Act 13:50); while women of equal rank among the Greeks became ardent and intelligent believers (Act 17:12). The fidelity of women to Jesus during his three years’ ministry, and at the cross and sepulcher, typifies their spiritual devotion in the activities and enterprises of the church of the 20th century.

3. In the Early Church:

Women were prominent, from the first, in the activities of the early church. Their faith and prayers helped to make Pentecost possible (Act 1:14). They were eminent, as in the case of Dorcas, in charity and good deeds (Act 9:36); foremost in prayer, like Mary the mother of John, who assembled the disciples at her home to pray for Peter’s deliverance (Act 12:12). Priscilla is equally gifted with her husband as an expounder of the way of God, and instructor of Apollos (Act 18:26), and as Paul’s fellow-worker in Christ (Rom 16:3). The daughters of Philip were prophetesses (Act 21:8, Act 21:9). The first convert in Europe was a woman, Lydia of Thyatira, whose hospitality made a home for Paul and a meeting-place for the infant church (Act 16:14). Women, as truly as men, were recipients of the charismatic gifts of Christianity. The apostolic greetings in the Epistles give them a place of honor. The church at Rome seems to have been blessed with a goodly number of gifted and consecrated women, inasmuch as Paul in the closing salutations of his Epistles sends greetings to at least eight prominent in Christian activity: Phoebe, Prisca, Mary who bestowed much labor on you, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis, Julia, and the sister of Nereus (Rom 16:1, Rom 16:3, Rom 16:6, Rom 16:12, Rom 16:15). To no women did the great apostle feel himself more deeply indebted than to Lois and Eunice, grandmother and mother of Timothy, whose faith unfeigned and ceaseless instructions from the holy Scriptures (2Ti 1:5; 2Ti 3:14, 2Ti 3:15) gave him the most beloved child and assistant in his ministry. Their names have been conspicuous in Christian history for maternal love, spiritual devotion and fidelity in teaching the Word of God. See also CLAUDIA.

4. Official Service:

From the first, women held official positions of influence in the church. Phoebe (Rom 16:1) was evidently a deaconess, whom Paul terms a servant of the church, a helper of many and of himself also. Those women who labored with me in the gospel (Phi 4:3) undoubtedly participated with him in preaching. Later on, the apostle used his authority to revoke this privilege, possibly because some women had been offensively forward in usurping authority over the man (1Ti 2:12 the King James Version). Even though he bases his argument for woman’s keeping silence in public worship on Adam’s priority of creation and her priority in transgression (1Ti 2:13, 1Ti 2:14), modern scholarship unhesitatingly affirms that his prohibition was applicable only to the peculiar conditions of his own time. Her culture, grace, scholarship, ability, religious devotion and spiritual enduement make it evident that she is often as truly called of God to public address and instruction as man. It is evident in the New Testament and in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers that women, through the agency of two ecclesiastical orders, were assigned official duties in the conduct and ministrations of the early church.

5. Widows:

Their existence as a distinct order is indicated in 1Ti 5:9, 1Ti 5:10, where Paul directs Timothy as to the conditions of their enrollment. No widow should be enrolled (, katalego, catalogued, registered) under 60 years of age, or if more than once married. She must be well reported of for good works; a mother, having brought up children; hospitable, having used hospitality to strangers; Christlike in loving service, having washed the saints’ feet. Chrysostom and Tertullian make mention of this order. It bound its members to the service of God for life, and assigned them ecclesiastical duties, e.g. the superintendence of the rest of the women, and the charge of the widows and orphans supported at public expense. Dean Alford (see the Commentary in the place cited) says they were vowed to perpetual widowhood, clad in a vestis vidualis (widow’s garments), and ordained by the laying on of hands. This institution was abolished by the eleventh Canon of the council of Laodicea.

Other special duties, mentioned by the Church Fathers, included prayer and fasting, visiting the sick, instruction of women, preparing them for baptism, assisting in the administration of this sacrament, and taking them the communion. The spiritual nature of the office is indicated by its occupant being variously termed the intercessor of the church; the keeper of the door, at public service; the altar of God. See WIDOWS.

6. Deaconesses:

Many of these duties were transferred, by the 3rd century, to the deaconesses, an order which in recent history has been restored to its original importance and effectiveness. The women already referred to in Rom 16:1, Rom 16:6, Rom 16:12 were evidently of this order, the term , diakonos, being specifically applied to Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea. The women of 1Ti 3:11, who were to serve in like manner as the deacons of 1Ti 3:10, presumably held this office, as also the aged women of Tit 2:3 (= presbyters (feminine), , presbuterai, 1Ti 5:2). Virgins as well as widows were elected to this office, and the age of eligibility was changed from 60 to 40 by the Council of Chalcedon. The order was suppressed in the Latin church in the 6th century, and in the Greek church in the 12th. because of certain abuses that gradually became prevalent. Owing, however, to its exceptional importance and value it has been reinstated by nearly all branches of the modern church, the Methodists especially emphasizing its spiritual efficiency. Special training schools and courses in education now prepare candidates for this office. Even as early as the Puritan Reformation in England the Congregationalists recognized this order of female workers in their discipline. The spiritual value of woman’s ministry in the lay and official work of the church is evidenced by her leadership in all branches of ecclesiastical and missionary enterprise. This modern estimate of her capability and place revises the entire historic conception and attitude of mankind. See DEACONESS.

V. Later Times.

1. Changes in Character and Condition:

Tertullian mentions the modest garb worn by Christian women (De Cult. Fem. ii. 11) as indicating their consciousness of their new spiritual wealth and worthiness. They no longer needed the former splendor of outward adornment, because clothed with the beauty and simplicity of Christlike character. They exchanged the temples, theaters, and festivals of paganism for the home, labored with their hands, cared for their husbands and children, graciously dispensed Christian hospitality, nourished their spiritual life in the worship, service and sacraments of the church, and in loving ministries to the sick. Their modesty and simplicity were a rebuke to and reaction from the shameless extravagances and immoralities of heathenism. That they were among the most conspicuous examples of the transforming power of Christianity is manifest from the admiration and astonishment of the pagan Libanius who exclaimed, What women these Christians have!

The social and legal status of woman instantly improved when Christianity gained recognition in the Empire. Her property rights as wife were established by law, and her husband made subject to accusation for marital infidelity. Her inferiority, subjection and servitude among all non-Jewish and non-Christian races, ancient and modern, are the severest possible arraignment of man’s intelligence and virtue. Natural prudence should have discovered the necessity of a cultured and noble motherhood in order to a fine grade of manhood. Races that put blighting restrictions upon woman consign themselves to perpetual inferiority, impotence and final overthrow. The decline of Islam and the collapse of Turkey as a world-power are late striking illustrations of this fundamental truth.

2. Notable Examples of Christian Womanhood:

Woman’s activity in the early church came to its zenith in the 4th century. The type of feminine character produced by Christianity in that era is indicated by such notable examples as Eramelia and Macrina, the mother and sister of Basil; Anthusa, Nonna, Monica, respectively the mothers of Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen and Augustine. Like the mothers of Jerome and Ambrose they gave luster to the womanhood of the early Christian centuries by their accomplishments and eminent piety. As defenders of the faith women stand side by side with Ignatius and Polycarp in their capacity to face death and endure the agonies of persecution. The roll of martyrs is made luminous by the unrivaled purity, undaunted heroism, unconquerable faith of such Christian maidens as Blandina, Potamiaena, Perpetua and Felicitas, who, in their loyalty to Christ, shrank not from the most fiendish tortures invented by the diabolical cruelties and hatred of pagan Rome.

In the growing darkness of subsequent centuries women, as mothers, teachers, abbesses, kept the light of Christian faith and intelligence burning in medieval Europe. The mothers of Bernard and Peter the Venerable witness to the conserving and creative power of their devotion and faith. The apotheosis of the Virgin Mother, though a grave mistake and a perversion of Christianity by substituting her for the true object of worship, nevertheless served, in opposition to pagan culture, to make the highest type of womanhood the ideal of medieval greatness. The full glory of humanity was represented in her. She became universally dominant in religion. The best royalty of Europe was converted through her influence. Poland and Russia were added to European Christendom when their rulers accepted the faith of their Christian wives. Clotilda’s conversion of Clovis made France Christian. The marriage of Bertha, another Christian princess of France, to Ethelbert introduced Roman Christianity into England, which became the established religion when Edwin, in turn, was converted through the influence of his Christian wife. The process culminated, in the 19th century, in the long, prosperous, peaceful, Christian reign of Victoria, England’s noblest sovereign.

3. Woman in the 20th Century:

The opening decades of the 20th century are witnessing a movement among women that is one of the most remarkable phenomena in the history of mankind. It is world-wide and spontaneous, and aims at nothing less than woman’s universal education and enfranchisement. This new ideal, taking its rise in the teaching of Jesus regarding the value of the human soul, is permeating every layer of society and all races and religions. Woman’s desire for development and serf-expression, and better still for service, has given birth to educational, social, eleemosynary, missionary organizations and institutions, international in scope and influence. In 75 years after Mary Lyon inaugurated the higher education of woman at Mt. Holyoke College, in 1837, 60,000 women were students in the universities and colleges of the United States; nearly 40,000 in the universities of Russia; and increasingly proportionate numbers in every higher institution of learning for women in the world; 30,000 were giving instruction in the primary and secondary schools of Japan. Even Moslem leaders confessed that the historic subjection of woman to ignorance, inferiority, and servitude was the fatal mistake of their religion and social system. The striking miracle occurred when Turkey and China opened to her the heretofore permanently closed doors of education and social opportunity.

This universal movement for woman’s enlightenment and emancipation is significantly synchronous with the world-wide extension and success of Christian missions. The freedom wherewith Christ did set us free includes her complete liberation to equality of opportunity with man. In mental endowment, in practical ability, in all the higher ministries of life and even in statecraft, she has proved herself the equal of man. Christianity always tends to place woman side by side with man in all the great achievements of education, art, literature, the humanities, social service and missions. The entire movement of modern society toward her perfect enfranchisement is the distinct and inevitable product of the teaching of Jesus. The growing desire of woman for the right of suffrage, whether mistaken or not, is the incidental outcome of this new emancipation. The initial stages of this evolutionary. process are attended by many abnormal desires, crudities of experiment and conduct, but ultimately, under the guidance of the Spirit of God and the Christian ideal, woman will intelligently adjust herself to her new opportunity and environment, recognizing every God-ordained difference of function, and every complementary and cooperative relation between the sexes. The result of this latest evolution of Christianity will not only be a new womanhood for the race but, through her enlightenment, culture and spiritual leadership, a new humanity.

Fuente: International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

Woman

Fig. 345Syro-Arabian costume, indoor dress

Like our own term Woman, the Hebrew word now so translated is used of married and unmarried females. The derivation of the word shows that according to the conception of the ancient Israelites woman was man in a modified formone of the same race, the same genus, as man; a kind of female man. How slightly modified that form is, how little in original structure woman differs from man, physiology has made abundantly clear. Different in make as man and woman are, they differ still more in character; and yet the great features of their hearts and minds so closely resemble each other, that it requires no depth of vision to see that these twain are one. This most important fact is characteristically set forth in the Bible in the account given of the formation of woman out of one of Adam’s ribs (Gen 2:21-24). Those who have been pleased to make free with this simple narrative may well be required to show how a rude age could more effectually have been taught the essential unity of man and womana unity of nature which demands, and is perfected only in, a unity of soul. The conception of the Biblical writer goes beyond even this, but does not extend farther than science and experience unite to justify. There was solid reason why it was not good for Adam ‘to be alone.’ Without an help meet he would have been an imperfect being. The genus homo consists of man and woman. Both are necessary to the idea of man. The one supplements the qualities of the other. They are not two, but one flesh, and as one body so one, soul.

It will at once be seen that under the influence of a religion, at the bottom of which lay those ideas concerning the relations of the sexes one to another, slavery on the part of the woman was impossible. This fact is the more noticeable, and it speaks the more loudly in favor of the divine origin of the religion of the Bible, because the East has in all times, down to the present-day, kept woman everywhere, save in those places in which Judaism and Christianity have prevailed, in a state of low, even if in some cases gilded, bondage, making her the mere toy, plaything, and instrument of man.

Fig. 346Young lady in full dress

The singular beauty of the Hebrew women, and the natural warmth of their affections, have conspired to throw gems of domestic loveliness over the pages of the Bible. In no history can there be found an equal number of charming female portraits. From Hagar down to Mary and Martha, the Bible presents pictures of womanly beauty that are unsurpassed and rarely paralleled. But we should very imperfectly represent in these general remarks the formative influence of the female character as seen in the Bible, did not we refer these amiable traits of character to the pure and lofty religious ideas which the Biblical books present. If woman there appears as the companion and friend of man, she owes her elevation in the main to the religion of Moses and to that of Jesus. The first systemas a preparatory onedid not and could not complete the emancipation of woman. There was needed the finishing touch which the Great Teacher put to the Mosaic view of the relations between the sexes. Recognizing the fundamental truths which were as old as the creation of man, Jesus proceeded to restrain the much-abused facility of divorce, leaving only one cause why the marriage-bond should be broken, and at the same time teaching that as the origin of wedlock was divine, so its severance ought not to be the work of man. Still furtherbringing to bear on the domestic ties his own doctrine of immortality, he made the bond co-existent with the undying soul, only teaching that the connection would be refined with the refinement of our affections and our liberation from these tenements of clay in which we now dwell (Mat 5:32; Mat 19:3, sq.; 22:23, sq.). With views so elevated as these, and with affections of the tenderest benignity, the Savior may well have won the warm and gentle hearts of Jewish women. Accordingly, the purest and richest human light that lies on the pages of the New Testament, comes from the band of high-minded, faithful, and affectionate women, who are found in connection with Christ from His cradle to His cross, His tomb and His resurrection. These ennobling influences have operated on society with equal benefit and power. Woman, in the better portions of society, is now a new being. And yet her angelic career is only just begun. She sees what she may, and what under the Gospel she ought to be; and before very long, we trust, a way will be found to employ in purposes of good, energies of the finest nature which now waste away, from want of scope, in the ease and refinements of affluence, if not in the degradations of luxurya most precious offering made to the Moloch of fashion, but which ought to be consecrated to the service of that God who gave these endowments, and of that Savior who has brought to light the rich capabilities, and exhibited the high and holy vocation of the female sex.

Women appear to have enjoyed considerably more freedom among the Jews than is now allowed them in western Asia, although in other respects their condition and employments seem to have been not dissimilar.

The employments of the women were very various, and sufficiently engrossing. In the earlier or patriarchal state of society, the daughters of men of substance tended their fathers’ flocks (Gen 29:9; Exo 2:16). In ordinary circumstances the first labor of the day was to grind corn and bake bread, as already noticed. The other cares of the family occupied the rest of the day. The women of the peasantry and of the poor consumed much time in collecting fuel, and in going to the wells for water. The wells were usually outside the towns, and the labor of drawing water from them was by no means confined to poor women. This was usually, but not always, the labor of the evening; and the water was carried in earthen vessels borne upon the shoulder (Gen 24:15-20; Joh 4:7; Joh 4:28). Working with the needle also occupied much of their time, as it would seem that not only their own clothes but those of the men were made by the women. Some of the needlework was very fine, and much valued (Exo 26:36; Exo 28:39; Jdg 5:30; Psa 45:14). The women appear to have spun the yarn for all the cloth that was in use (Exo 35:25; Pro 31:19); and much of the weaving seems also to have been executed by them (Jdg 16:13-14; Pro 31:22). The tapestries for bed-coverings, mentioned in the last-cited text, were probably produced in the loom, and appear to have been much valued (Pro 7:16).

Fig. 347Matron in full dress

We have no certain information regarding the dress of the women among the poorer classes; but it was probably coarse and simple, and not materially different from that which we now see among the Bedouin women, and the female peasantry of Syria. This consists of drawers, and a long and loose gown of coarse blue linen, with some ornamental bordering wrought with the needle, in another color, about the neck and bosom. The head is covered with a kind of turban, connected with which, behind, is a veil, which covers the neck, back, and bosom [VEIL]. We may presume, with still greater certainty, that women of superior condition wore over their inner dress a frock or tunic like that of the men, but more closely fitting the person, with a girdle formed by an unfolded kerchief. Their headdress was a kind of turban, with different sorts of veils and wrappers used under various circumstances. The hair was worn long, and, as now, was braided into numerous tresses, with trinkets and ribbands (1Co 11:15; 1Ti 2:9; 1Pe 3:3). With the head-dress the principal ornaments appear to have been connected, such as a jewel for the forehead, and rows of pearls (Son 1:10; Eze 16:12). Earrings were also worn (Isa 3:20; Eze 16:12), as well as a nose-jewel, consisting, no doubt, as now, either of a ring inserted in the cartilage of the nose, or an ornament like a button attached to it. The nose-jewel was of gold or silver, and sometimes set with jewels (Gen 24:47; Isa 3:21). Bracelets were also generally worn (Isa 3:19 : Eze 16:11), and anklets, which, as now, were probably more like fetters than ornaments (Isa 3:16; Isa 3:20). The Jewish women possessed the art of staining their eye-lids black, for effect and expression (2Ki 9:30; Jer 4:30; Eze 23:40); and it is more than probable that they had the present practice of staining the nails, and the palms of their hands and soles of their feet, of an iron-rust color, by means of a paste made from the plant called henna. This plant appears to be mentioned in Son 1:14, and its present use is probably referred to in Deu 21:12; 2Sa 19:24.

Fig. 348Nose-jewel

The customs concerning marriage, and the circumstances which the relation of wife and mother involved, have been described in the article Marriage.

The Israelites eagerly desired children, and especially sons. Hence the messenger who first brought to the father the news that a son was born, was well rewarded (Job 3:3; Jer 20:15). The event was celebrated with music; and the father, when the child was presented to him, pressed it to his bosom, by which act he was understood to acknowledge it as his own (Gen 1:23; Job 3:12; Psa 22:10). On the eighth day from the birth the child was circumcised (Gen 17:10); at which time also a name was given to it (Luk 1:59). The first-born son was highly esteemed, and had many distinguishing privileges. He had a double portion of the estate (Deu 21:17); he exercised a sort of parental authority over his younger brothers (Gen 25:23, etc.; 27:29; Exo 12:29; 2Ch 21:3); and before the institution of the Levitical priesthood he acted as the priest of the family (Num 3:12-13; Num 8:18). The patriarchs exercised the power of taking these privileges from the firstborn, and giving them to any other son, or of distributing them among different sons; but this practice was overruled by the Mosaical law (Deu 21:15-17).

The child continued about three years at the breast of the mother, and a great festival was given at the weaning (Gen 21:8; 1Sa 1:22-24; 2Ch 31:6; Mat 21:16). He remained two years longer in charge of the women; after which he was taken under the especial care of the father, with a view to his proper training (Deu 6:20-25; Deu 11:19). It appears that those who wished for their sons better instruction than they were themselves able or willing to give, employed a private teacher, or else sent them to a priest or Levite, who had perhaps several others under his care. The principal object was, that they should be well acquainted with the law of Moses; and reading and writing were taught in subservience to this leading object.

The authority of a father was very great among the Israelites, and extended not only to his sons, but to his grandsonsindeed to all who were descended from him. His power had no recognized limit, and even if he put his son or grandson to death, there was, at first, no law by which he could be brought to account (Gen 21:14; Gen 38:24). But Moses circumscribed this power, by ordering that when a father judged his son worthy of death, he should bring him before the public tribunals. If, however, he had struck or cursed his father or mother, or was refractory or disobedient, he was still liable to capital punishment (Exo 21:15; Exo 21:17; Lev 20:9; Deu 21:18-21)Ed.

Fuente: Popular Cyclopedia Biblical Literature

Woman

It is evident from scripture that women were anciently held in much more honour and esteem in Eastern countries than they are now. Solomon, speaking of women, said that such as his soul sought for he did not find one in a thousand. Ecc 7:28. This tells of fallen human nature; but the true thought of woman is that she is the glory of the man, his true helpmeet. This is fulfilled in the relationship of the church to Christ.

In the N.T. the true place of the woman in subjection to the man is plainly stated, as indicated in creation; and in the assembly the woman is to be silent, and not to teach. Her bearing and deportment are expressive of what she learns as taught of Christ. 1Co 11:3-15; 1Co 14:34-35; 1Ti 2:11-12. Nevertheless women were greatly honoured in ministering to the Lord, and are accredited as helping on the work of the Lord in the gospel and among the saints. Luk 8:2-3; Luk 23:27; Luk 23:55-56; Rom 16:1; Rom 16:3; Rom 16:6; Php 4:2-3; 2Jn 1:1; 2Jn 1:10.

Fuente: Concise Bible Dictionary

WOMAN

Woman in the symbolical language, is frequently the symbol of a city or body politic, of a nation or kingdom. Thus in schylus, the monarchy of Persia and the republic of Greece are represented in a symbolical dream by two women.f1

They who are acquainted with medals and inscriptions, many of which were symbolical, know that cities, as even Rome frequently, were represented by women. And so in like manner, statues in the shape of women were made to represent cities.

In the ancient Prophets the symbol is very often used for the Church or nation he Jews. Thus in Ezek 16. there is a long description of that people under the symbol of a female child, growing up by several degrees to the stature of a woman, and then married to God by entering into covenant with him. And therefore when the Israelites acted contrary to that covenant, by forsaking God and following idols, then they became properly represented by the symbol of an adulteress,f2 or harlotf3 that offers herself to all corners. And adultery itself, or fornication in a married state, becomes the symbol of idolatry, as in Jer 3:8-9; Eze 23:37; and Eze 16:26; Eze 16:29.f4

Defilement with women, is the symbol of idolatry. The reason is, this species of impurity was the constant adjunct of idolatrous worship. Isidorus Hispal. says, ” Fornicatio carnis adulterium est; fornicatio anim, servitus idolorum est.”

F1 schyl. Pers. 181. L 2

F2 Eze 16:32; Eze 16:38; Eze 23:45; Hos 3:1.

F3 Isa 1:21; Jer 2:20; Eze 16:15-16; Eze 16:28; Eze 16:35, &c.; Hos 1:2.

F4 This symbol of a woman we find used in the New Testament, to represent both the true Church of Christ, and that of Antichrist. Gal 4:31; Rev 12:1; Rev 17.; Rev 18. This latter is considered as a filthy, drunken, and bloody harlot; but it is remarkable that she is never spoken of as an adulteress that hath broken her covenant, but only as a whore that committeth fornication. Nor can we suppose this to have happened without design. The Antichristian Church is not, as has lately become the fashion to teach, a Church which has only fallen into some errors and mistakes, but which continues a true Church of Christ still; that differs from us only in circumstantials, but remains united with us in the belief of the great Articles of Christianity, and in support of our common religion.

Fuente: A Symbolical Dictionary

Woman

for which see also WIFE, is used of a “woman” unmarried or married, e.g., Mat 11:11; Mat 14:21; Luk 4:26, of a “widow;” Rom 7:2; in the vocative case, used in addressing a “woman,” it is a term not of reproof or severity, but of endearment or respect, Mat 15:28; Joh 2:4, where the Lord’s words to His mother at the wedding in Cana, are neither rebuff nor rebuke. The question is, lit., “What to Me and to thee?” and the word “woman,” the term of endearment, follows this. The meaning is “There is no obligation on Me or you, but love will supply the need.” She confides in Him, He responds to her faith. There was lovingkindness in both hearts. His next words about “His hour” suit this; they were not unfamiliar to her. Cana is in the path to Calvary; Calvary was not yet, but it made the beginning of signs possible. See also Joh 4:21; Joh 19:26.

In Gal 4:4 the phrase “born of a woman” is in accordance with the subject there, viz., the real humanity of the Lord Jesus; this the words attest. They declare the method of His Incarnation and “suggest the means whereby that humanity was made free from the taint of sin consequent upon the Fall, viz., that He was not born through the natural process of ordinary generation, but was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit … To have written ‘born of a virgin’ would have carried the argument in a wrong direction … Since that man is born of woman is a universal fact, the statement would be superfluous if the Lord Jesus were no more than man” (Notes on Galatians, by Hogg and Vine, pp. 184f.).

a diminutive of No. 1, a “little woman,” is used contemptuously in 2Ti 3:6, “a silly woman.”

“elder, older,” in the feminine plural, denotes “elder women” in 1Ti 5:2. See ELDER, A, No. 1

the feminine of presbutes, “aged,” is used in the plural and translated “aged women” in Tit 2:3.

the feminine of the adjective thelus, denotes “female,” and is used as a noun, Rom 1:26-27. See FEMALE.

Fuente: Vine’s Dictionary of New Testament Words

Woman

Lam 1:17 (a) The city where GOD had placed His name had become a vile, filthy community. That which emanated from this city was offensive to GOD, and shameful in every aspect. Her manners and her ways were repulsive to the holy GOD who had chosen her. (See also Eze 16:30; Eze 23:44; Eze 36:17).

Zec 5:7 (b) This woman represents Israel from the commercial standpoint. The ephah, which was a measure, represents her business enterprises. It was the burden of the nation, as it still is. Their object in life was to make money, gain power, and rise to places of distinction.

Mat 13:33 (b) Here is a type of apostate Christendom, and false religions. They use much of the Word of GOD (the meal), but they mingle with it their false and evil explanations which poison the souls of those who partake of it. Every false religion, in so-called Christendom, uses much of the Bible in their writings and utterances. They poison these messages by interjecting their own explanation and false deductions which produce wrong conclusions. The result is that CHRIST JESUS is not honored and the Word of GOD is dishonored.

Rev 12:1 (b) This woman represents the nation of Israel with her twelve patriarchs (or tribes), and JESUS was the child born from Israel.

Fuente: Wilson’s Dictionary of Bible Types