hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
Americans 54 0 Browse Search
France (France) 30 0 Browse Search
Christmas 24 0 Browse Search
United States (United States) 22 0 Browse Search
George Eliot 22 0 Browse Search
William Shakespeare 20 0 Browse Search
Jane Austen 20 0 Browse Search
M. J. Emerson 19 1 Browse Search
English 18 0 Browse Search
Howells 18 4 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Women and Men. Search the whole document.

Found 14 total hits in 9 results.

United States (United States) (search for this): chapter 18
words of a husband whom she perhaps winds round her finger. But neither of these represents the ideal household. That is found only where the moral equivalence of the two partners is recognized through everything, and they learn to harmonize into one joint power, or else by mutual agreement assign to each a separate portion of the sway. This is now partially recognized by our courts, in regard to the custody of the children, for instance; and there are probably few judges within the United States who would go as far as that Canada judge who lately ruled that a mother had no legal right to the custody of her child so long as her husband lived, although that husband had long deserted both her and the child. It is more and more recognized also in respect to the management of property. This joint control of the two most important possessions is a recognition of the possibility of equal alliances where neither party shall have absolute sway. That this is perfectly practicable in th
Canada (Canada) (search for this): chapter 18
nds round her finger. But neither of these represents the ideal household. That is found only where the moral equivalence of the two partners is recognized through everything, and they learn to harmonize into one joint power, or else by mutual agreement assign to each a separate portion of the sway. This is now partially recognized by our courts, in regard to the custody of the children, for instance; and there are probably few judges within the United States who would go as far as that Canada judge who lately ruled that a mother had no legal right to the custody of her child so long as her husband lived, although that husband had long deserted both her and the child. It is more and more recognized also in respect to the management of property. This joint control of the two most important possessions is a recognition of the possibility of equal alliances where neither party shall have absolute sway. That this is perfectly practicable in the affairs of common life is shown by th
Emmanuel Kant (search for this): chapter 18
emale sex could lead to the thought of a patria potestas (paternal authority), which ascribed to the father the unconditional right over the child's life and death. He defines marriage as being a complete surrender of personality in respect to what is most peculiar to this personality, namely, the body; but instead of making this a wholly one-sided surrender, as has been too common with both civil and religious writers, he makes it distinctly and explicitly mutual. He finely says, following Kant in this, that this complete surrender works no detriment to personal honor only in case it is returned by just as complete and unreserved surrender of the other personality in relation to all the interests of life. From this he concludes, first, that marriage must be no temporary union, but a fellowship of the whole life, of all human and divine interests; and then that only monogamy corresponds to this ideal. All this is afterwards summed up by him as the perfect moral equivalence of th
G. T. Ladd (search for this): chapter 18
XVIII. the single will. In an interesting paper on Marriage and the family, by Hermann Lotzc, lately translated by Professor Ladd, of Yale University, there may be found some very liberal views, for a German, in regard to marriage. He readily admits that nothing but the ancient depreciation of the female sex could lead to the thought of a patria potestas (paternal authority), which ascribed to the father the unconditional right over the child's life and death. He defines marriage as being a complete surrender of personality in respect to what is most peculiar to this personality, namely, the body; but instead of making this a wholly one-sided surrender, as has been too common with both civil and religious writers, he makes it distinctly and explicitly mutual. He finely says, following Kant in this, that this complete surrender works no detriment to personal honor only in case it is returned by just as complete and unreserved surrender of the other personality in relation to a
Charles Dickens (search for this): chapter 18
must consent, as business partners do, to delegate t-he decision by the same mutual agreement to that one for whom it is most obviously fitting, or who has most at stake. In most families this is already done, so far as concerns the broad general method of letting the husband decide on the domicile, and the wife as to the care of children. Even here the two things intermingle, since in a proposed change of domicile the welfare of the children is one of the most important elements. It is difficult to think of anything, even the investment of money, in which the habits of modern life do not recognize that the wife as well as the husband has some concern. The main thing is to remember that marriage is, as Lotze points out, a mutual surrender, and that the two partners are morally equivalent. This should be the standard; and not that of Mr. Thomas Sapsea in Dickens's story, who recorded upon his wife's tombstone that he had never met with a spirit more capable of-looking up to him!
Hermann Lotze (search for this): chapter 18
e other. Now if two business partners, coming together with only material interests at stake, can thus work successfully on what may be called the two-headed plan, why is it not to be expected that two married persons can do it? They meet, as Lotze says, in perfect moral equivalence, as do the business partners; they have to unite them all the common interests which business partners share; but they have, unlike business partners, the whole realm of sentiment and association and parentage amportant elements. It is difficult to think of anything, even the investment of money, in which the habits of modern life do not recognize that the wife as well as the husband has some concern. The main thing is to remember that marriage is, as Lotze points out, a mutual surrender, and that the two partners are morally equivalent. This should be the standard; and not that of Mr. Thomas Sapsea in Dickens's story, who recorded upon his wife's tombstone that he had never met with a spirit more
Hermann Lotzc (search for this): chapter 18
XVIII. the single will. In an interesting paper on Marriage and the family, by Hermann Lotzc, lately translated by Professor Ladd, of Yale University, there may be found some very liberal views, for a German, in regard to marriage. He readily admits that nothing but the ancient depreciation of the female sex could lead to the thought of a patria potestas (paternal authority), which ascribed to the father the unconditional right over the child's life and death. He defines marriage as being a complete surrender of personality in respect to what is most peculiar to this personality, namely, the body; but instead of making this a wholly one-sided surrender, as has been too common with both civil and religious writers, he makes it distinctly and explicitly mutual. He finely says, following Kant in this, that this complete surrender works no detriment to personal honor only in case it is returned by just as complete and unreserved surrender of the other personality in relation to
William Shakespeare (search for this): chapter 18
interpreted; but this general proposition, heard so often from the lips of mediocre men, seems a little unworthy of the strength and fearlessness of Lotzc. It is my experience that the men who talk in this way, and who dwell on the companion conviction that a woman is never so well off as when she finds a strong man to rule her, do not belong in general to the strongest class of men. A man of really large and broad force likes to find some companion quality in the partner of his life, as Shakespeare's Brutus found it in Portia: O ye gods, Render me worthy of this nolle wife! It is rather the man failing to impress his own individuality on the world outside who insists on making the most of it by his own fireside, and at least posing as a little monarch there. A weak wife will sometimes be happy in being crushed by such a fireside despot; and a strong and good-natured wife will smile inwardly while she listens to the lofty words of a husband whom she perhaps winds round her fing
Thomas Sapsea (search for this): chapter 18
must consent, as business partners do, to delegate t-he decision by the same mutual agreement to that one for whom it is most obviously fitting, or who has most at stake. In most families this is already done, so far as concerns the broad general method of letting the husband decide on the domicile, and the wife as to the care of children. Even here the two things intermingle, since in a proposed change of domicile the welfare of the children is one of the most important elements. It is difficult to think of anything, even the investment of money, in which the habits of modern life do not recognize that the wife as well as the husband has some concern. The main thing is to remember that marriage is, as Lotze points out, a mutual surrender, and that the two partners are morally equivalent. This should be the standard; and not that of Mr. Thomas Sapsea in Dickens's story, who recorded upon his wife's tombstone that he had never met with a spirit more capable of-looking up to him!