Samantha on the Woman Question — Context and Discussion
Edition facts
Before opening Samantha on the Woman Question — Context and Discussion, the edition data offers a quick orientation: 33,195 words, 2 hr 25 min estimated reading time, and 11 detected text sections.
The text analysis averages about 24.0 words per sentence, while the detected sections provide another way to judge how the source is divided.
Project Gutenberg metadata also associates the work with “Feminism -- Fiction,” connecting these edition facts with the source record’s subject description.
Calculated from edition completeness, EPUB availability, text structure and catalogue metadata. Not a user rating.
How this score is calculated
- Description quality20 pts
- Title & short description10 pts
- Source metadata20 pts
- Text length15 pts
- Chapters / structure15 pts
- EPUB file integrity20 pts
Total of 100 points, scaled to a 2.5-5.0 range. Editions with an empty description or a missing EPUB file are not scored.
Read the Text
izens as their Pa wuz, and a protection to the Govermunt, and to be ready to man the new warships, if a war broke out. But her babies wuz real pretty and cunning, and she wuz so weak-minded she couldn’t enjoy the thought that if our male statesmen got to scrappin’ with some other nation’s male law-makers and made another war, of havin’ her grown-up babies face the cannons. I spoze it wuz when she wuz so awful tired she felt so.
You see she had to do every mite of her housework, and milk cows, and make butter and cheese, and cook and wash and scour, and take all the care of the children day and night in sickness and health, and make their clothes and keep ’em clean. And when there wuz so many of ’em and she enjoyin’ real poor health, I spoze she sometimes thought more of her own achin’ back than she did of the good of the Govermunt—and she would git kinder discouraged sometimes and be cross to him. And knowin’ his own motives wuz so high and loyal, he felt that he ort to whip her, so he did.
And what shows that Drusilly wuzn’t so bad after all and did have her good streaks and a deep reverence for the law is, that she stood his whippin’s first-rate, and never whipped him. Now she wuz fur bigger than he wuz, weighed eighty pounds the most, and might have whipped him if the law had been such. But they wuz both law-abidin’ and wanted to keep every preamble, so she stood it to be whipped, and never once whipped him in all the seventeen years they lived together. She died when her twelfth child wuz born. There wuz jest ten months difference between that and the one next older. And they said she often spoke out in her last sickness, and said, “Thank fortune, I’ve always kep’ the law!” And they said the same thought wuz a great comfort to him in his last moments. He died about a year after she did, leavin’ his second wife with twins and a good property.
Then there wuz Abagail Pester. She married a sort of a high-headed man, though one that paid his debts, wuz truthful, good lookin’, and played well on the fiddle. Why, it seemed as if he had almost every qualification for makin’ a woman happy, only he had this one little eccentricity, he would lock up Abagail’s clothes every time he got mad at her.
Of course the law give her clothes to him, and knowin’ that it wuz the law in the state where they lived, she wouldn’t have complained only when they had company. But it wuz mortifyin’, nobody could dispute it, to have company come and have nothin’ to put on. Several times she had to withdraw into the woodhouse, and stay most all day there shiverin’, and under the suller stairs and round in clothes presses. But he boasted in prayer meetin’s and on boxes before grocery stores that he wuz a law-abidin’ citizen, and he wuz. Eben Flanders wouldn’t lie for anybody.
But I’ll bet Abagail Flanders beat our old revolutionary four-mothers in thinkin’ out new laws, when she lay round under stairs and behind barrels in her night-gown. When a man hides his wife’s stockin’s and petticoats it is governin’ without the consent of the governed. If you don’t believe it you’d ort to peeked round them barrels and seen Abagail’s eyes, they had hull reams of by-laws in ’em and preambles, and Declarations of Independence, so I’ve been told. But it beat everything I ever hearn on, the lawful sufferin’s of them wimmen. For there wuzn’t nothin’ illegal about one single trouble of theirn. They suffered accordin’ to law, every one on ’em. But it wuz tuff for ’em, very tuff. And their bein’ so dretful humbly wuz another drawback to ’em, though that too wuz perfectly lawful, as everybody knows.
And Serepta looked as bad agin as she would otherwise on account of her teeth. It wuz after Lank had begun to git after this other woman, and wuz indifferent to his wife’s looks that Serepta had a new set of teeth on her upper jaw. And they sot out and made her look so bad it fairly made her ache to look at herself in the glass. And they hurt her gooms too, and she carried ’em back to the dentist and wanted him to make her another set, but he acted mean and wouldn’t take ’em back, and sued Lank for the pay. And they had a law-suit. And the law bein’ such that a woman can’t testify in court, in any matter that is of mutual interest to husband and wife, and Lank wantin’ to act mean, said that they wuz good sound teeth.
And there Serepta sot right in front of ’em with her gooms achin’ and her face all swelled out, and lookin’ like furiation, and couldn’t say a word. But she had to give in to the law. And ruther than go toothless she wears ’em to this day, and I believe it is the raspin’ of them teeth aginst her gooms and her discouraged, mad feelin’s every time she looks in the glass that helps embitter her towards men, and the laws men have made, so’s a woman can’t have control of her own teeth and her own bones.
Serepta went home about 5 P.M., I promisin’ sacred to do her errents for her.
And I gin a deep, happy sithe after I shot the door behind her, and I sez to Josiah I do hope that’s the very last errent we will have to carry to Washington, D.C., for the Jonesvillians.
“Yes,” says he, “an’ I guess I will get a fresh pail of water and hang on the tea kettle for you.”
“And,” I says, “it’s pretty early for supper, but I’ll start it, for I do feel kinder gone to the stomach. Sympathy is real exhaustin’. Sometimes I think it tires me more’n hard work. And Heaven knows I sympathized with Serepta. I felt for her full as much as if she was one of the relations on _his_ side.”
But if you’ll believe it, I had hardly got the words out of my mouth and Josiah had jest laid holt of the water pail, when in comes Philander Dagget, the President of the Jonesville Creation Searchin’ Society and, of course, he had a job for us to do on our tower. This Society was started by the leadin’ men of Jonesville, for the purpose of searchin’ out and criticizin’ the affairs of the world, an’ so far as possible advisin’ and correctin’ the meanderin’s an’ wrong-doin’s of the universe.
This Society, which we call the C.S.S. for short, has been ruther quiet for years. But sence woman’s suffrage has got to be such a prominent question, they bein’ so bitterly opposed to it, have reorganized and meet every once in a while, to sneer at the suffragettes and poke fun at ’em and show in every way they can their hitter antipathy to the cause.
Philander told me if I see anything new and strikin’ in the way of Society badges and regalia, to let him know about it, for he said the C.S.S. was goin’ to take a decided stand and show their colors. They wuz goin’ to help protect his women endangered sect, an’ he wanted sunthin’ showy and suggestive.
I thought of a number of badges and mottoes that I felt would be suitable for this Society, but dassent tell ’em to him, for his idees and mine on this subject are as fur apart as the two poles. He talked awful bitter to me once about it, and I sez to him:
“Philander, the world is full of good men, and there are also bad men in the world, and, sez I, did you ever in your born days see a bad man that wuzn’t opposed to Woman’s Suffrage? All the men who trade in, and profit by, the weakness and sin of men and women, they every one of ’em, to a man, fight agin it. And would they do this if they didn’t think that their vile trades would suffer if women had the right to vote? It is the great-hearted, generous, noble man who wants women to become a real citizen with himself—which she is not now—she is only a citizen just enough to be taxed equally with man, or more exhorbitantly, and be punished and executed by the law she has no hand in makin’.”
Philander sed, “I have always found it don’t pay to talk with women on matters they don’t understand.”
An’ he got up and started for the door, an’ Josiah sed, “No, it don’t pay, not a cent; I’ve always said so.”
But I told Philander I’d let him know if I see anything appropriate to the C.S.S. Holdin’ back with a almost Herculaneum effort the mottoes and badges that run through my mind as bein’ appropriate to their society; knowin’ it would make him so mad if I told him of ’em—he never would neighbor with us again. And in three days’ time we sot sail. We got to the depo about an hour too early, but I wuz glad we wuz on time, for it would have worked Josiah up dretfully ef we hadn’t been, for he had spent most of the latter part of the night in gittin’ up and walkin’ out to the clock seein’ if it wuz train time. Jest before we started, who should come runnin’ down to the depo but Sam Nugent wantin’ to send a errent by me to Washington. He wunk me out to one side of the waitin’ room, and ast “if I’d try to git him a license to steal horses.”
It kinder runs in the blood of the Nugents to love to steal, and he owned up it did, but he said he wanted the profit of it. But I told him I wouldn’t do any sech thing, an’ I looked at him in such a witherin’ way that I should most probable withered him, only he is blind in one side, and I wuz on the blind side, but he argued with me, and said that it wuz no worse than to give licenses for other kinds of meanness.
He said they give licenses now to steal—steal folkses senses away, and then they could steal everything else, and murder and tear round into every kind of wickedness. But he didn’t ask that. He wanted things done fair and square: he jest wanted to steal horses. He wuz goin’ West, and he thought he could do a good bizness, and lay up somethin’. If he had a license he shouldn’t be afraid of bein’ shet up or shot.
But I refused the job with scorn; and jest as I wuz refusin’, the cars snorted, and I wuz glad they did. They seemed to express in that wild snort something of the indignation I felt.
III. “POLLY’S EYES CROWED TENDER”
Lorinda wuz dretful glad to see us and so wuz her husband and Polly. But the Reunion had to be put off on account of a spell her husband wuz havin’. Lorinda said she could not face such a big company as she’d invited while Hiram wuz havin’ a spell, and I agreed with her.
Sez I, “Never, never, would I have invited company whilst Josiah wuz sufferin’ with one of his cricks.”
Men hain’t patient under pain, and outsiders hain’t no bizness to hear things they say and tell on ’em. So Polly had to write to the relations puttin’ off the Reunion for one week. But Lorinda kep’ on cookin’ fruit cake and such that would keep, she had plenty of help, but loved to do her company cookin’ herself. And seein’ the Reunion wuz postponed and Lorinda had time on her hands, I proposed she should go with me to the big out-door meetin’ of the Suffragists, which wuz held in a nigh-by city.
“Good land!” sez she, “nothin’ would tempt me to patronize anything so brazen and onwomanly as a out-door meetin’ of wimmen, and so onhealthy and immodest.” I see she looked reproachfully at Polly as she said it. Polly wuz arrangin’ some posies in a vase, and looked as sweet as the posies did, but considerable firm too, and I see from Lorinda’s looks that Polly wuz one who had to leave father and mother for principle’s sake.
But I sez, “You’re cookin’ this minute, Lorinda, for a out-door meetin’” (she wuz makin’ angel cake). “And why is this meetin’ any more onwomanly or immodest than the camp-meetin’ where you wuz converted, and baptized the next Sunday in the creek?”
“Oh, them wuz religious meetin’s,” sez she.
“Well,” sez I, “mebby these wimmen think their meetin’ is religious. You know the Bible sez, ‘Faith and works should go together,’ and some of the leaders of this movement have showed by their works as religious a sperit and wielded aginst injustice to young workin’ wimmen as powerful a weepon as that axe of the ’Postles the Bible tells about. And you said you went every day to the Hudson-Fulton doin’s and hearn every out-door lecture; you writ me that there wuz probable a million wimmen attendin’ them out-door meetin’s, and that wuz curosity and pleasure huntin’ that took them, and this is a meetin’ of justice and right.”
“Oh, shaw!” sez Lorinda agin, with her eye on Polly. “Wimmen have all the rights they want or need.” Lorinda’s husband bein’ rich and lettin’ her have her way she is real foot loose, and don’t feel the need of any more rights for herself, but I told her then and there some of the wrongs and sufferin’s of Serepta Pester, and bein’ good-hearted (but obstinate and bigoted) she gin in that the errents wuz hefty, and that Serepta wuz to be pitied, but she insisted that wimmen’s votin’ wouldn’t help matters.
But Euphrasia Pottle, a poor relation from Troy, spoke up. “After my husband died one of my girls went into a factory and gits about half what the men git for the same work, and my oldest girl who teaches in the public school don’t git half as much for the same work as men do, and her school rooms are dark, stuffy, onhealthy, and crowded so the children are half-choked for air, and the light so poor they’re havin’ their eyesight spilte for life, and new school books not needed at all, are demanded constantly, so some-one can make money.”
“Yes,” sez I, “do you spoze, Lorinda, if intelligent mothers helped control such things they would let their children be made sick and blind and the money that should be used for food for poor hungry children be squandered on _on_-necessary books they are too faint with hunger to study.”
“But wimmen’s votin’ wouldn’t help in such things,” sez Lorinda, as she stirred her angel cake vigorously.
But Euphrasia sez, “My niece, Ellen, teaches in a state where wimmen vote and she gits the same wages men git for the same work, and her school rooms are bright and pleasant and sanitary, and the pupils, of course, are well and happy. And if you don’t think wimmen can help in such public matters just go to Seattle and see how quick a bad man wuz yanked out of his public office and a good man put in his place, mostly by wimmen’s efforts and votes.”
“Yes,” sez I, “it is a proved fact that wimmen’s votes do help in these matters. And do you think, Lorinda, that if educated, motherly, thoughtful wimmen helped make the laws so many little children would be allowed to toil in factories and mines, their tender shoulders bearin’ the burden of constant labor that wears out the iron muscles of men?”
Polly’s eyes growed tender and wistful, and her little white hands lingered over her posies, and I knowed the hard lot of the poor, the wrongs of wimmen and children, the woes of humanity, wuz pressin’ down on her generous young heart. And I could see in her sweet face the brave determination to do and to dare, to try to help ondo the wrongs, and try to lift the burdens from weak and achin’ shoulders. But Lorinda kep’ on with the same old moth-eaten argument so broke down and feeble it ort to be allowed to die in peace.
“Woman’s suffrage would make women neglect their homes and housework and let their children run loose into ruin.”
I knowed she said it partly on Polly’s account, but I sez in surprise, “Why, Lorinda, it must be you hain’t read up on the subject or you would know wherever wimmen has voted they have looked out first of all for the children’s welfare. They have raised the age of consent, have closed saloons and other places of licensed evil, and in every way it has been their first care to help ’em to safer and more moral surroundin’s, for who has the interest of children more at heart than the mothers who bore them, children who are the light of their eyes and the hope of the future.”
Lorinda admitted that the state of the children in the homes of the poor and ignorant wuz pitiful. “But,” sez she, “the Bible sez ‘ye shall always have the poor with you,’ and I spoze we always shall, with all their sufferin’s and wants. But,” sez she, “in well-to-do homes the children are safe and well off, and don’t need any help from woman legislation.”
“Why, Lorinda,” sez I, “did you ever think on’t how such mothers may watch over and be the end of the law to their children with the father’s full consent during infancy when they’re wrastlin’ with teethin’, whoopin’-cough, mumps, etc., can be queen of the nursery, dispensor of pure air, sunshine, sanitary, and safe surroundin’s in every way, and then in a few years see ’em go from her into dark, overcrowded, unsanitary, carelessly guarded places, to spend the precious hours when they are the most receptive to influence and pass man-made pitfalls on their way to and fro, must stand helpless until in too many cases the innocent healthy child that went from her care returns to her half-blind, a physical and moral wreck. The mother who went down to death’s door for ’em, and had most to do in mouldin’ their destiny during infancy should have at least equal rights with the father in controllin’ their surroundin’s during their entire youth, and to do this she must have equal legal power or her best efforts are wasted. That this is just and right is as plain to me as the nose on my face and folks will see it bom-bye and wonder they didn’t before.
“And wimmen who suffer most by the lack on’t, will be most interested in openin’ schools to teach the fine art of domestic service, teachin’ young girls how to keep healthy comfortable homes and fit themselves to be capable wives and mothers. I don’t say or expect that wimmen’s votin’ will make black white, or wash all the stains from the legislative body at once, but I say that jest the effort to git wimmen’s suffrage has opened hundreds of bolted doors and full suffrage will open hundreds more. And I’m goin’ to that woman’s suffrage meetin’ if I walk afoot.”
But here Josiah spoke up, I thought he wuz asleep, he wuz layin’ on the lounge with a paper over his face. But truly the word, “Woman’s Suffrage,” rousts him up as quick as a mouse duz a drowsy cat, so, sez he, “I can’t let you go, Samantha, into any such dangerous and onwomanly affair.”
“Let?” sez I in a dry voice; “that’s a queer word from one old pardner to another.”
Marietta Holley opens Samantha on the Woman Question with a cascade of practical motives: Samantha Allen agrees to a family reunion near Washington, D.C., partly out of reciprocity, partly to visit her cousin Diantha, but chiefly to attend a suffragist meeting and see the Capitol. The narrator’s voice is established at once—colloquial, wry, and given to homely metaphors like “hit two birds with one stun.” The opening chapter introduces Samantha’s husband Josiah, whose self-regard is gently mocked, and sets up a journey that will expose the couple to competing views on women’s roles. Holley’s humor depends on Samantha’s deadpan observations and the gap between her plain sense and the pretensions around her.
A Voice Thick with Dialect and Irony
Samantha’s narration is the book’s engine. Holley writes in a rustic vernacular—“wuz,” “sez,” “gin her,” “sot store by her”—that signals regional authenticity and comic distance. Samantha herself is no fool; her malapropisms and tangled syntax often sharpen her critique. When she describes the Capitol as “sendin’ out beams of power and wisdom and law and order, and justice and injustice, and money and oratory, and talk and talk,” the repetition undercuts grandiosity. The dialect is consistent, not a mere ornament: it shapes how arguments land. A politician who mistakes “Galatians” for “Gulliver’s Epistle to the Liliputians” is exposed not by Samantha’s erudition but by her plain recall of the Bible. The reader must attend to the rhythm of her speech—its pauses, its sudden leaps—to catch the full weight of her rebuttals.
Biblical Argument as Political Weapon
Holley grounds Samantha’s feminism in scripture, not secular theory. In the excerpted debate, Samantha counters a politician’s claim that men alone are chosen for great undertakings by invoking the Virgin Mary: “the one great theme of the New Testament—the salvation of the world through the birth of Christ—no man had anything to do with.” She argues that God called woman into the work of redemption, and that the “womanly element in our Lord’s nature” makes Christ approachable. This is not a throwaway piety; it is the core of her case. The politician’s ignorance of the Bible—he has “never read further than Gulliver’s Epistle to the Liliputians”—is both a joke and a serious indictment. Holley uses scripture to reclaim authority for women, turning a conservative text into a radical one. Readers should watch how Samantha wields biblical examples (Miriam, Deborah) alongside domestic analogies.
The Comic Pair: Samantha and Josiah
Josiah Allen, Samantha’s husband, is a foil whose complacency generates much of the humor. He agrees to the trip because he is “one of the best lookin’ and influential Allens on earth now,” a boast Samantha reports without comment. Later, he asks of a suffragist, “Does that thing know enough to vote?”—a line that reveals his condescension and his wife’s patience. Holley does not make Josiah a villain; he is a well-meaning but limited man, and Samantha’s affection for him is clear. Their exchanges dramatize the domestic negotiation of the “woman question.” Samantha’s strategy is not confrontation but persistence: she states her views, then lets Josiah’s discomfort speak for itself. The reader is invited to see both sides, but the weight of evidence—and wit—tilts toward Samantha.
Structure: A Journey as Argument
The book’s eleven chapters follow a travelogue pattern: the Allens leave home, visit relatives, attend a suffragist meeting, and tour Washington. Each stop introduces a new interlocutor—a cousin, a politician, a parade of women—who embodies a facet of the debate. Holley uses the journey to vary the setting and the terms of argument. The chapter titles, such as “Concerning Moth-Millers and Minny Fish” and “Old Mom Nater Listenin’,” hint at her method: she yokes the trivial and the cosmic. The suffragist meeting (Chapter IX) and the “Creation Searchin’ Society” (Chapter X) suggest that the book builds toward collective action, but the excerpts do not reveal the ending. Readers should note how Holley balances set-piece debates with domestic scenes, and how the physical movement from home to capital mirrors the expansion of Samantha’s concerns.
Satire of Political Ignorance
Holley’s sharpest satire targets male politicians who oppose women’s rights while knowing little about the Bible or governance. The politician who confuses Gulliver with Galatians is a caricature, but his ignorance is plausible in a world where “the Bible wuzn’t popular” in political circles. Samantha’s patient correction—“That hain’t Bible, there hain’t no Gulliver in it, and you mean Galatians”—exposes the hollow authority of such men. Holley does not need to invent villains; she lets them reveal themselves through their own words. The humor is gentle but pointed, and it invites the reader to share Samantha’s exasperation. This satirical thread runs through the excerpts, suggesting that the book’s target is not just sexism but the broader culture of superficial learning and unearned confidence.
Holley’s novel rewards attention to its verbal texture: the dialect is not a barrier but a key to character and argument. Read the debates aloud to catch the timing of Samantha’s retorts. Note how domestic details—a reunion, a visit, a husband’s grumbling—anchor the political content. The excerpts suggest a work that is both comic and earnest, and that uses humor to make its case without sacrificing conviction. Approach the book as a performance of vernacular intelligence, and let Samantha’s voice guide you.
That rainy afternoon, Samantha’s blunt, homespun arguments about justice stayed with me long after the tea went cold. There was something in her plain spokenness that felt honest, like a hand on a shoulder. Later, browsing shelves, I stumbled upon a quieter, sharper voice in The Visits of Elizabeth — Reading Notes, and found the same unvarnished observation of the world, just from a different chair.
Michael Harris
1 week agoWhat was your reading experience?
Capture what you thought, learned, and would like to remember.
Madison Robinson
1 month ago