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 descending order. Sort in ascending 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 18 total hits in 13 results.

1 2
Rosa Bonheur (search for this): chapter 51
h all the rest. When Mrs. Somerville wrote her Mechanism of the Heavens, critics of this description admitted that she had proved, indeed, that women could master astronomy after a fashion, but probably chemistry would be beyond them. When Rosa Bonheur painted cattle it was remarked that probably she could not have painted men as well if she had tried. Then came Elizabeth Thompson in England, and painted men fighting-actual battle-pieces-and the critics turned round and wondered if she coulrly be regarded as first-class intellectual work. Until within a century but one single instance of this success was recorded — that of Sappho, in lyric poetry. Within the last century other instances have followed-Rachel in dramatic art, Rosa Bonheur in animal painting, George Sand and George Eliot in prose fiction. These cases are unquestionable. Other women have at least reached a secondary place in other spheres — as Mrs. Somerville in science, Harriet Martineau in political economy,
Charles Egbert Craddock (search for this): chapter 51
pe contrive to console themselves, when a woman has done a good thing in literature, by pointing out the number of good things she has not yet done. To be sure, Miss Mary N. Murfree, when she was universally supposed to bear the name of Charles Egbert Craddock, was thought to have achieved creditable work; but this discovery only gives these critics opportunity to point out that had she tried various other things she might have failed in them. Can anybody positively say, for instance, that shBarrett Browning in poetry. The inference would seem natural that it is simply a case of slower development — a thing not at all discouraging in a world where evolution reigns, and the last comer generally wins. Meanwhile, as there is no profession — not even the stage — in which a woman is not still a little handicapped, it is natural that she should disguise her work as man's work; and that Miss Murfree should find complete shelter under the very misleading name of Charles Egbert Craddock
Harriet Martineau (search for this): chapter 51
o, here and there, what may fairly be regarded as first-class intellectual work. Until within a century but one single instance of this success was recorded — that of Sappho, in lyric poetry. Within the last century other instances have followed-Rachel in dramatic art, Rosa Bonheur in animal painting, George Sand and George Eliot in prose fiction. These cases are unquestionable. Other women have at least reached a secondary place in other spheres — as Mrs. Somerville in science, Harriet Martineau in political economy, Elizabeth Barrett Browning in poetry. The inference would seem natural that it is simply a case of slower development — a thing not at all discouraging in a world where evolution reigns, and the last comer generally wins. Meanwhile, as there is no profession — not even the stage — in which a woman is not still a little handicapped, it is natural that she should disguise her work as man's work; and that Miss Murfree should find complete shelter under the very
Chuckster (search for this): chapter 51
LI. why women authors write under the names of men. The dapper clerk, Mr. Chuckster, in the Old Curiosity shop, is quite dissatisfied when Kit Nubbles is proved innocent of theft; and remarks that although the boy did not happen to take that particular five-pound note, he is no doubt always up to something or other of that kind. It is in this way that critics of a certain type contrive to console themselves, when a woman has done a good thing in literature, by pointing out the number of good things she has not yet done. To be sure, Miss Mary N. Murfree, when she was universally supposed to bear the name of Charles Egbert Craddock, was thought to have achieved creditable work; but this discovery only gives these critics opportunity to point out that had she tried various other things she might have failed in them. Can anybody positively say, for instance, that she would have written a good essay on Quaternions, or developed any especially searching views on the Wages Fund? I
Kit Nubbles (search for this): chapter 51
LI. why women authors write under the names of men. The dapper clerk, Mr. Chuckster, in the Old Curiosity shop, is quite dissatisfied when Kit Nubbles is proved innocent of theft; and remarks that although the boy did not happen to take that particular five-pound note, he is no doubt always up to something or other of that kind. It is in this way that critics of a certain type contrive to console themselves, when a woman has done a good thing in literature, by pointing out the number of good things she has not yet done. To be sure, Miss Mary N. Murfree, when she was universally supposed to bear the name of Charles Egbert Craddock, was thought to have achieved creditable work; but this discovery only gives these critics opportunity to point out that had she tried various other things she might have failed in them. Can anybody positively say, for instance, that she would have written a good essay on Quaternions, or developed any especially searching views on the Wages Fund? I
Mary N. Murfree (search for this): chapter 51
mething or other of that kind. It is in this way that critics of a certain type contrive to console themselves, when a woman has done a good thing in literature, by pointing out the number of good things she has not yet done. To be sure, Miss Mary N. Murfree, when she was universally supposed to bear the name of Charles Egbert Craddock, was thought to have achieved creditable work; but this discovery only gives these critics opportunity to point out that had she tried various other things she Barrett Browning in poetry. The inference would seem natural that it is simply a case of slower development — a thing not at all discouraging in a world where evolution reigns, and the last comer generally wins. Meanwhile, as there is no profession — not even the stage — in which a woman is not still a little handicapped, it is natural that she should disguise her work as man's work; and that Miss Murfree should find complete shelter under the very misleading name of Charles Egbert Crad
Elizabeth Barrett Browning (search for this): chapter 51
garded as first-class intellectual work. Until within a century but one single instance of this success was recorded — that of Sappho, in lyric poetry. Within the last century other instances have followed-Rachel in dramatic art, Rosa Bonheur in animal painting, George Sand and George Eliot in prose fiction. These cases are unquestionable. Other women have at least reached a secondary place in other spheres — as Mrs. Somerville in science, Harriet Martineau in political economy, Elizabeth Barrett Browning in poetry. The inference would seem natural that it is simply a case of slower development — a thing not at all discouraging in a world where evolution reigns, and the last comer generally wins. Meanwhile, as there is no profession — not even the stage — in which a woman is not still a little handicapped, it is natural that she should disguise her work as man's work; and that Miss Murfree should find complete shelter under the very misleading name of Charles Egbert
Currer Bell (search for this): chapter 51
, and you will see some woman fail in something, never fear. One critic goes so far as to say that all high creative work still remains out of the reach of woman. Romola does not seem to such a critic to be high creative work, probably; that phrase should be reserved for men — for little Twiggs, perhaps, with his fine realistic study, The Trippings of Tom Popinjay. What a flood of light all this throws on the reasons why such very able women write under masculine names! George Sand, Currer Bell, George Eliot, are but the type of many others. They wrote in that way not because they wished to be men, but because they wished for an unbiassed judgment as artists; and in each case they got it. When it came, and in the form of triumphant success, all women were benefited by it, and were so much nearer to a time when no such experiment of disguise would be needed. The mere fact that women take men's names in writing, while no man takes a woman's, shows that an advantage is gained by
Mary Somerville (search for this): chapter 51
t; and even if she does, there is all the rest of the room The more rational inference would seem to be that if one point of the compass was not too much for her, it would only be a question of time when she would reach all the rest. When Mrs. Somerville wrote her Mechanism of the Heavens, critics of this description admitted that she had proved, indeed, that women could master astronomy after a fashion, but probably chemistry would be beyond them. When Rosa Bonheur painted cattle it was reother instances have followed-Rachel in dramatic art, Rosa Bonheur in animal painting, George Sand and George Eliot in prose fiction. These cases are unquestionable. Other women have at least reached a secondary place in other spheres — as Mrs. Somerville in science, Harriet Martineau in political economy, Elizabeth Barrett Browning in poetry. The inference would seem natural that it is simply a case of slower development — a thing not at all discouraging in a world where evolution reigns, a
George Eliot (search for this): chapter 51
served for men — for little Twiggs, perhaps, with his fine realistic study, The Trippings of Tom Popinjay. What a flood of light all this throws on the reasons why such very able women write under masculine names! George Sand, Currer Bell, George Eliot, are but the type of many others. They wrote in that way not because they wished to be men, but because they wished for an unbiassed judgment as artists; and in each case they got it. When it came, and in the form of triumphant success, all w Until within a century but one single instance of this success was recorded — that of Sappho, in lyric poetry. Within the last century other instances have followed-Rachel in dramatic art, Rosa Bonheur in animal painting, George Sand and George Eliot in prose fiction. These cases are unquestionable. Other women have at least reached a secondary place in other spheres — as Mrs. Somerville in science, Harriet Martineau in political economy, Elizabeth Barrett Browning in poetry. The infere<
1 2