Hannah More's Influence in Breaking the Oppression of Women in the 1800's

For centuries, the role of women has been vehemently debated. Boundaries, ever-changing, have been discussed and laid down time after time to keep the male-threatening gender in its male-designated place. Although present times have all but eradicated these ludicrous notions of yesterday, history has made its mark-and the scars of an oppressed gender are hard to erase.

However, it is with delight and pride that I bring to light one of many instances in which woman, despite her man-made chains, has risen to the occasion long enough to outwit her tormentors. As the eighteenth century progressed in England, the rights of women remained stagnant and next to null. They were banned from exercising any political rights. A married woman was, quite frankly, "property" of her husband. This included everything that she owned, even the clothing on her body. A married woman was stripped of her very existence. Her place, it was documented, was in the home and with her children, not in the "public sphere."

It was stated in writing by Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "Emile" that woman was "born to obey." He claimed that women were not as intelligent, physically weaker and that their contribution was only to raise children as patriotic potential for soldiers and politicians to fight for the country. Her power was in the home, and she had no place in politics or military. Woman was, in essence, hidden behind the curtain of her husband. Dehumanized.

But, though Rousseau's ideal woman was so ridiculously subordinate, she was essential, for her influence presided over her children-children who were needed for the safety and well being of their country. "Emile" stated that women were the authority on sensibility, a theory much more expanded upon through literature. Therefore, women found a way to break into the public sphere, waywardly easing out of their own, less volatile one. Unknowingly, Rousseau was the destroyer of his own theory.

Women found ways to intervene using their power in their authority over morality and sensibility. Much of this was through literature. The example I would like to use is a poem by Hannah More called "The Slave Trade." More was a spirited abolitionist and advocate for women's rights. Both of those traits are apparent in this poem that reminds us of the (then forgotten) humanity of slaves. More uses her "authority" on morality and sensibility to evoke emotions from the reader-guilt and sympathy.

"The Slave Trade" deals with the physical taking of a slave from Africa, emphasizing their humanity and the inhumanity of the traders and keepers. More is clever in the way she institutes this, evoking guilt and sympathy by dealing with the woman and child bond as the strongest emotion bond and its destruction and showing it torn asunder. She also brings patriotism into mind, illustrating the patriotism of the slaves for their country and linking it to British patriotism. Britain claimed to be a country of liberty, yet it exploited others'. In this fashion, More brings the reader into a slave's shoes; the strongest way to evoke emotion and to cause the reader to draw parallels to themselves. And then, if it was stated and affirmed by the bigwigs in Britain government that women were the authority in the matters of marality and sensibility, then the subject of this poem could not be ignored. Slaves, More argues virulently, are human beings- not commodities to be brought and sold like one would food or livestock. They are people-people that feel the same emotions that any other human would. They have nationality just like the Britons. Yet Britons asked them-forced them-to be stoic, to endure the physical and mental pain of it without complaint. More rages against this by using example after example of a slave's humanity. For instance:

"The fibres twisting round a parent's heart,

torn from their grasp and bleeding as they part."

What parent would not feel sympathy after reading that? But, if there is one couplet from which the whole sense of the poem can be compacted into, it is line 180 and 181.

"From heads to heart lies nature's plain appeal

Though few can reason, all mankind can feel."

This is, virtually, the theme of her entire poem. She is acting as an authority on compassion and is forcing the reader to this into account, and to reflect upon it. Lastly, More attacks Christianity, accusing the kidnappers of slaves of not being Christian, though they claim to be. Speaking from the slaves' point of view:

"Sullen, he mingles with his kindred dust

For he has learned to dread the Christian's trust.

To him, what mercy can that god display

Whose servants murder and whose son's betray?

Savage! Thy venial errors I deplore.

They are not Christians who infest thy shore."

But More, staying true to her own Christian upraising, brings Jesus into play for the slaves, reassuring them that he died for them all, no matter their race, and that their ignorance of him will be their reason to get into heaven.

"They mental night they savior will not blame

He died for those who never heard his name."

At the time that this poem came out, there was a great controversy over the ownership of slaves, and where the slaves themselves actually stood in society. Many regarded them as inferior, less intelligent beings that should be denied any civil right and freedom. Women were treated only slightly better than slaves. They, too, were denied freedom and any right toward government. Once they married, they were essentially slaves to their husbands. I believe that More used this poem to illustrate more than one example of injustice to a human being. Her vivid imagery tears the reader from his or her own world and forces them to look through the eyes of an oppressed and tormented people. And it is when people put themselves in anothers' shoes that they can see things a little more clearly. If they imagine themselves suffering, then perhaps they can feel sympathy. And from sympathy arises compassion. More was one of many women who took Rousseau's accepted standard of women and ran with it, all the way into the "public sphere".