In France, women have played a prominent political role through their involvement with the salons. To rise in society, one needed to please the women who served as guardians of the salons; and to rise politically one needed to rise in society.
England, by contrast, was a nation of men’s clubs, men’s colleges, men’s sports, men’s debates. Women were excluded from social life, and hence from politics.
Rosenstock-Huessy summarizes: “The clubs of England, the counterparts of the French salons, excluded women from all political influence. In France, nothing was Salic (i.e., excluding females) except the throne; in England everything is ‘Salic’ except the throne.”
France needed no suffrage movement because women were already influential politically; but in England feminists “had to shock the frequenters of clubs and taverns into restoring, by the poor means of external, political measures, what the Puritan revolution had stolen from the women of England.”
Peter Leithart
Peter J. Leithart is President of Theopolis Institute. He is the author of numerous books on theology, literature, and culture, including Theopolitan, Defending Constantine, and Baptized Body.
More from History
Continue reading related articles
Realness of Things Past
Greg Anderson began thinking about the thesis of his Realness of Things Past while working on a book on the “state” in classical Greece. He discovered there was no such thing as an Athenian “state,” and that conclusion led him to question the way historians do history. Instead of running…
The Power of the Margins
David Martin (1929-2019) was a secularization skeptic. He acknowledged that modern societies typically undergo a process of "differentiation," in which various sectors of social and political life free themselves from the oversight of religious authority. He acknowledged that in many modern societies religious institutions and values are "marginalized." But he…
Zwinglian Symbolism
Nathan Mitchell (writing in the Oxford History of Christian Worship , 324) denies that Zwingli taught a "mere symbolist" according to which the Supper "simply served to remind believers of the great benefits bestowed on them through Christ's passion and death." Zwingli wasn't a symbolist "in any modern sense." Mitchell…
In Medias Res
Your weekly digest for all things Theopolis.