the garden of her country palace, in the rigors of a Russian
winter, while young girls were stripped by her attendants and water
poured slowly over their bodies, thus giving them a death of enduring
agony and providing the countess with new, though unsubstantial, statues
for her grounds. This not more than two centuries ago, and in the
atmosphere of so-termed Christianity. The annals of the Spanish
Inquisition would be ransacked in vain for such ingenuity of torture;
and though the Inquisitors may have grown to love cruelty for its own
sake, they at least alleged reason for their deeds; the Russian countess
frankly sought amusement alone.

Yet in these things there is to be found no general accusation of women.
That cruelty should be carried by them to its extreme, that they should
love it for its own sake, is but the development of extremism, and is
isolated in examples, at least by periods. The Russian countess was not
cruel because she was a woman, but, being cruel of nature, she was the
more so because of her sex. The ladies of imperial Rome did not love the
sight of flowing blood because they were women, but, being women, they
carried their acquired taste to bounds unknown to the less impulsive and
less ardent nature of men.

Yet there comes a question. Is this lust for blood, this love of
cruelty; latent in every woman and but restrained, by the gentler
teachings and promptings of her more developed nature in its highest
presentation? So some psychists would have us believe; but they have
only slight ground for their sweeping assertion. That civilisation is
but restrained savagery may perhaps be conceded; but if the restraint
has grown to be the ever-dominant impulse, then has the savage been
slain. It is not, as some teach, that such isolated idiosyncrasies as we
have considered are glimpses of the tiger that sleeps in every human
heart and sometimes breaks its chain and runs riot. As a rule, these
things are matters of atmosphere. Setting aside such pure isolations as
that of the Russian countess, it will almost invariably be found that
the display of feminine cruelty, or of any vice, is of a time and place.
There has never been a universal rule of feminine depravity in any age.
Babylon, Carthage, Greece, Rome, and all the olden civilisations have
had their periods when female virtue was a matter of laughter, when
women outvied men in their moral degradation, when evil seemed
triumphant everywhere; but there always remained a few to "redeem the
time," and salvation always came from those few. Moreover, the sphere of
immorality and crime was always limited. The Roman world, when it was
the world indeed, might be given up to vice and sin, displayed in their
most atrocious forms by the women of the Empire; but there still stood
the North, calm, virtuous, patient, awaiting its opportunity to "root
out the evil thing" and to give the world once more a standard of purity
and righteousness. The leaven of Christianity was effective in its work
upon the moral degradation of the Roman Empire; but it was not until the
scourge of the Northmen was sent to the aid of the principle that
success was fully won. So the North was not of the same day with Rome in
civilised vice, and the reign of evil in the Latin Empire was but the
effect of conditions, not the instincts of humanity. Rome was taught
evil by long and steadfast evolution; it did not spring up in a day
with its deadly blight, but was the result of progressive causation.

It may be doubted if the feminine intellect has increased since the dawn
of civilisation. To-day woman stands on a different plane of
recognition, but by reason of assertiveness, not because of increased
mental ability. As with that of man, the possibilities of woman's
intellect were long latent; but they existed, and the result is
development, not creation of fibre. I repeat that I do not believe that
the feminine intellect has grown in power. I doubt if the present age
can show a mind superior in natural strength to that of Sappho; I do not
believe that the present Empress of China, strong woman as she is, is
greater than Semiramis, or that even Elizabeth of England was the equal
of the warrior-queen of Babylon. But there can be no doubt that there
exists a broader culture to-day than ever before and that thus the
intellectual sum of women is always growing, though there comes no
increase in the mental powers of the individual. It has been so with
man. We boast of the mighty achievements of our age; but we have not yet
built such a structure as that of the Temple of the Sun at Baalbec, or
the Pyramid of Cheops at Ghizeh. We pride ourselves upon our letters;
but the grandest poem ever written by man was also the first of which we
have record--the Book of Job, and we do not even know the name of the
poet who thus set a standard which has never since been reached. We may
claim Shakespeare as the equal of Homer in expression; but it requires
true hero worship among his admirers to place the Elizabethan singer
upon an equality with the old Greek in any other respect. There has been
no growth of individual intellect in either sex since the days of which
we first find record; but there has been an increase of average and a
definition of tendency which are productive of higher general result.
And the natural consequence of this state of things is found in the fact
that even a Sappho in the world of letters would not stand out so
prominently, would not be considered such a prodigy, were she to come in
these days. We should admire her genius and her powers without feeling
the sensation of wonder that these should be possessed by a woman. It is
in the recognition of this fact that we are better enabled to understand
the changing aspect in the relations of women to men during these latter
years. There has been no alteration in the possibilities within the
grasp of the individual, but great change within those which can be
claimed by the sex at large. Women can do no more now than in the olden
days when they were considered as almost inferior to animals; but woman
has profited by the opportunities of her time, and is every day
developing powers until now unsuspected.

[Illustration 12 _ASPASIA After the painting by Henry Holiday. Aspasia
was born in Miletus. At an early age, accompanied by another young girl,
Thargelia, she went to Athens. Their beauty and talents soon won them
distinction--Thargelia married a king of Thessaly, and Aspasia married
Pericles, "more than a king," says Plutarch. The home of Aspasia in
Athens was frequent by the_ йlite _of the city and state, attracted by
her beauty, her art of speaking, and her influence. Socrates valued her
great mind, and even called himself one of her disciples. Plato speaks
of her great reputation. She was born in the fifth century before
Christ. The date of her death is not known._]

The whole value of history is in teaching us to understand our own time
and to prognosticate the future with some degree of correctness. More
especially is this true of all class history, and the story of sex
development may be so rated. It is to find the reason of what is and the
nature of what is to come that we turn to the records of the past and
ask them concerning their message to us of these things. In our
retrospective view of woman, we shall, if we are alive to suggestion,
find steadfast tendencies of development. It is true that these
tendencies do not always remain in the light; like rivers, they
sometimes plunge underground and for a time find their paths in
subterranean channels where they are lost to sight; but they always
reлmerge, and at last they find their way to the central sea of the
present. Future ages will doubtless mark the course of those tendencies
not only up to but through our own age; for though I have spoken of a
central sea, the simile is hardly correct, inasmuch as the true ocean
which is the goal of these rivers is not yet in the sight of humanity.
But we at least find promise of that ocean in the steadfast and
determined course of the streams which flow toward it; progress has
always a goal, though it may be one long undiscerned by the abettors of
that progress. So it is with the story of woman. We know what she has
been; we see what she is; and it is possible dimly to forecast what she
will be. Yet I dare to assert that there will be no radical change;
there may be new direction for effort, new lines of development, but the
essential nature will remain unaltered. It is not, however, with this
informing spirit that we have to do in such a work as this. There have
been many misconceptions regarding woman; I would not venture to claim
that none now exist. Yet there is a general consensus of agreement
concerning her dominating and effective characteristics, and the
probability is that in these general laws so laid down the common
opinion is of truth.

Of course, I would not dare to make such an absurd claim that there
exists, or has ever existed, a man who could truthfully say that he knew
woman in the abstract; but that does not necessarily mean that knowledge
of the tendencies and characteristics of the sex is impossible. The
reason of the dense ignorance which prevails among men concerning women
is that the men attempt to apply general laws to particular cases; and
that is fatal. It is absolutely necessary, if we are to gather wisdom
and not merely knowledge from our researches in history, that we should
take into account the result of combination of traits. Otherwise we
should not only find nothing but inconsistency as a consequence of our
study, but we should utterly fail to understand the tendencies of that
which we learn. We must be broad in our judgments if we are to judge
truly. When we read of the Spartan women sending forth their sons to die
for their country, we must not believe that they were lacking in the
depth of maternal affection which is one of the most beautiful
characteristics of the feminine nature. Doubtless they suffered as
keenly as does the modern mother at the death of her son; but they were
trained to subordinate their feelings in this wise, and their training
stood them in stead of stoicism. Nay, even when we read of the
profligacy of the women of imperial Rome, we must not look upon these
women as by nature imbruted and degraded, but we must understand that
they but yielded to the spirit of their environment and their schooling.
They were not different at heart, those reckless Mжnads and votaries of
Venus, from the chaste Lucretias or holy Catherines of another day; they
simply lacked direction of impulse in right method, and so missed the
culmination of their highest possibilities.

There is an old saying which tells us that women are what men make them.
Thus generally stated, the saying may be summed up as a slander; but it
has an application in history. There can be no doubt that for
millenniums of the world's adolescence women were controlled and their
bearing and place in society modified by the thought of their times,
which thought was of masculine origin and formation. This state of
affairs has long since passed away, and it may be said that for at least
a thousand years, in adaptation of the saying which I have quoted, the
times have been what women have made them. It was the influence of women
which brought about the outgrowths of civilisation in the dawn of
Christianity that have survived until now. It was the influence, if not
the actual activity, of women that was responsible for the birth of
chivalry and the rise of the spirit of purity. It was the influence of
women that made possible such characters as those of Bayard and Sir
Philip Sydney. It was the influence of women that softened the roughness
and licentiousness of a past day into the refinement and virtue which
are the possessions of the present age.

There has always, in the worst days, been an undercurrent of good, and
its source and strength are to be found in the eternal feminine spirit,
which in its