Grand River times. [volume] (Grand Haven, Mich.) 1851-18??, 1854-07-05
DUTY VERSUS FAME.

A Southern lady, whose writings have gained
high approval among good judges of literary
talent in England as well as in this country, thus
records her opinions on very important matter.
She says:
"Woman was made for duty, not Cor fame.
So soon as she forgets this great law of her be-
ing, which consigns her to life of heroism, if
she wil-but quiet, unobtrusive hercism-she
throws herself from her position, and thus of
necessity, degrades herself This mistaken
hungering for the forbidden fruit, this grasping
at the notoriety belonging Gf, indeed, it proper
ly belongs to any by nature to man, is at the
root of all her debasement
"Look at the ballroom belle, for instance
Why is she fiirt, coquette, a heartless trfer
with hearts? Not because there is harm in the
ballroom enjoyment of youth; in the joy-wak-
ing music, or the spirit-rousing dance; but be-
cause she would be talked of, and forgets duty,
conscience, and heart in the love of notoriety.
"Why does the young mother forget the sick
baby in its cradle to listen to the whispered in
antics of those bewhiskered fops who surround
her? Why, but because she can not resign to
duty that petty fame to which she degrades her.
self
"Why does the gray and wrinked matron,
whom nature and duty would keep at her fire.
side corner to wake the young hearts round her
to the love Of God, nature, and virtue, rush out
with her be-rogued cheek and stained locks, to
try and play the belle little longer? Still she
grasps at her shame. 1t is her ambition that
degrades her.
"Why does the literary lady leave too often
her infant to the hireling? her sick and her poor
world with Harriet Martinneaus, George Sands,
nd I oI, D,luoro7 l. ~ b,r
ing love for notorety, the same misdirected am
bition; misdirected still, though in another
track? There is nothing unwomanish in the full
est exercise by woman of the thought and mind,
which, if God has given, he has given for use.
There is nothing unwomanish in the fullest ex-
ercise by woman of the thought and mind,
which, if God has given, he has given for use.
There is nothing unwomanish in the writing of
such thoughts; nothing unwomanish, even, we
think, in the publishing of. them. Society has
accordingly permitted, and does permit, unblam-
ed and unchecked, woman's fullest liberty in the
exercise of her literary powers in every line
and she has, equally with the man, as far as she
is able to use it, this theatre of effort open to
her. If she has not, equally with the man, dis
tinguished herself in it, it is because her talents
and disposition do not indicate this as the career
best suited to the fullest exercise of her facul-
ties and virtues. 1t is not her highest destiny.
1t is not her nobleSt life. Nevertheless, many
women, with great and true woman minds, have
written, have published, and have done good by
SO expanding the brighter developments Of wo-
man-thought. But SO soon as woman strives
with mans ambition so soon as she forgets
the ruling thought of duty, letting its theme be
usurped by the illegitimate hungering for fame
and notoriety which so fatally misleads her, her
writings, as her nature, become corrupted in the
struggle. She has resigned herself to an ignis-
fatuuS guide, which fails never TO plunge her in
to the mire of degradation.
Man, like woman, may fall, and does fall,
through similar causes, to similar degradation.
But as the woman's fall is from higher and a
purer elevation, even so grovels she lower in
her debasement, and closer and heavier clngs
to her its consequent soil. Because women
have thus sinned we behold their punishment.
Degraded they are, even in that proportion
wherein they have erred. The ballroom CO.
quette, in the midst of her triumph, is degraded
in heart and in her being. The brilliant Geo
Sand, bold in her impudence and her talent, is
degraded TO the dust before the blushing moth
er, who watches that her innocent child shall not
lay its hand upon the foul productions wherein
Frances brilliant novelist often competes in
obscenity with the nauseous filth spewed forth
by her compatriots, a Sue and Dumas, upon
n community sufficiently degraded to admire
them. In steady pursuit of duty, such names
would be perhaps entirely unknown. But dare
any one say that they are better for being thus
known? or is there anything but a sickly ap-