The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1884-12-07
Mary WOllatOnecrnft.

1t is scarcely possible to doubt that the
admiration and esteem extorted by Madame
Dudevants long life OF usefulness and the
partial conformation with which the world has
learned to view tho anomalous relation OF
Miss Evans to Mr.. G. II. Lewes have encour-
aged the earnest and measurably successful
effort to rehabilitate the character OF Mary
WoUstoneTdH. which has OF late been made by
Mr., C. Kegan Paul. by Miss Mathde Blind.
and still more recently by ELIZABETH ROBINS
PENNELL in the Famous Women Series"
tlioberts Brothers.. To us. indeed it seems
evident that this attempt to clear. in part at
least. name which hal long been mark
for oboIuy. should not BIO ascribed to any sem
sible relation of the opinion held in reputable
society rcgarCVn. the sanctity OF the marriage
tie. But whilo tho institution Of marriage Is
rs firmly based as ever. disse nters from the cur
rent creed are visited with more sober and dis
criminative reproval. the circumstances OF leach
case being fairly weighed and pleas in abate-
ment OF the normal sentence being heard with
candor. II not sympathy. This constitutes
decided advance toward the npportionment OF
even-handed justice to men and women. toward
an placement Of that cruel but from the point
Of view OF orspring) perhaps inc vtable dis
tinction BY which transgressions which are
venial and trivial in one sex are made
irretrievable and fatal in the, other.
Long before Mary Wollstonecraft had any
reason to suppose that she would
stand herself as an offender at the bar OF opin-
ion she made an eloquent appeal on behalf OF
her unhappy sisters who. unlike men that
might be less innocent than they. were doomed
to become social outcasts. cut of even from the
hope OF regeneration and reform. At first
sight her ideas seem to have made but little
progress in the century that has COMO by since
-, l., u
OF Women" but this at least has been gained,
that. were she living now. the recognition OF
her errors would not extingush. as 1t once did
her title upon other grounds to esteem and
gratitude. and she would have commanded the
respect which her life. in spite of certain bIem-
ishes. did. on the whole. unQuestionably de-
servo.
Tho author OF this sketch has somewhat
weakened the effect Of an advocacy which in
other ways is strkingly effective by the in
constituencies involved in her endeavor to OK
cuse Mary Wollstonccraft's living with Inlay
upon Illicit terms. She would have done more
wisely not to disconcert the sympathetic
reader and put q weapon in tho hand OF the
censorious by justifyng this dereiction upon
pretexts which are shown to be untena-
Bile In another part OF her own narrative. 1t
does not appear that Inlay objected to the
marriage ceremony and 1t is n pure assump-
ton OF her recent biographers that her own
convictions had been deliberately changed in
the short time supervening since her publica-
ton Of the Rights Of Women" in which she
had upheld the institution OF matrimony as an
Indispensable condition OF the maintenance OF
order in family relations. and OF tho welfare Of
society. She had insisted. indeed. that tho form
required by law would 10 u mockery unless tho
union were consecrated by Affection; but as
she loved Inlay !ervontly. this was one Of the
cases in which. according to her own theories
the rite should have been performed. 1t WAS
not. then, merely conventional morality which
she violated when she saw III 10 waive the cere-
mony OF marriage. but it was
sanction whose capital Importance to
society she herself had acknowledged.
Godwin's explanation. at all events. attested
the warmth Of her affection and her self-sacri-
doing character for he says that she objected
10 a marriage with Inlay for no other reason
than because she did not wish to involve him
In certain family embarrassments. which. as
this memoir shows she had found grievous
buEdAR or TO make him answsgsbls for the De-