Friday, August 26, 2011

Mary Wollstonecraft on Primogeniture

There is much speculation on the origins of revolt. Yes, it is true that the French Revolution was not a spontaneous event but rather a carefully planned and well-orchestrated movement by those who had long wanted to overturn the social order. However, we cannot blame everything on a handful of evil conspirators plotting in dark corners. The Revolution was fed by those in positions of authority who abused their power and failed to care for those whom they were duty bound to protect. Nancy Means Wright explores the injustices endured by Mary Wollstonecraft which contributed to her devotion to revolutionary politics.
No doubt Mary was, in part, vindicating the abuses of her own life in her rebuttal to conservative Edmund Burke who considered primogeniture an anchor of social order, but she had known the “demon of property…to encroach on the sacred rights” of legions of unhappy men and women.

“I glow,” she cried, “with indignation!” (Read entire post.)

More on Mary Wollstonecraft, HERE. Share

7 comments:

Clovis said...

What is missing from this critique of primogeniture is any consideration of its option.

Consider for a moment how primogeniture protects a farm.

The English crushed the Irish families by mandatory division of property. Every generation the farm was split into smaller and smaller plots, which quickly became too small to support a farmer.

"Equal" division of property by no means eliminates rivalry between siblings. Rather, it frequently foments such disgraceful rivalry to the point of irreconcilable hatred.

If the farm is to be divided "equally" to all children, who gets the house? Who gets the barn? Who gets the most fertile fields and who gets the grassland?

Primogeniture means that the second son onwards will have to conquer his land and fortune for himself. It lead to the historically rapid expansion of the Christian West.

elena maria vidal said...

I agree. I think primogeniture is good. I agree with Edmund Burke. The problem is the cases when men who inherited the bulk of the property would not take care of the women in the family, who were left to fend for themselves. It also happened in many Jane Austen novels.

Julygirl said...

...and the inheritors were spoiled narcissistic wastrels while younger children who were more capable of controlling the property were left with virtually nothing.

Unknown said...

I agree Primogeniture is good and disagree with many other forms but am rather confused what would happen to the women. Presumably the eldest would help his mother and sister, probably to be married off or go to a Convent, and his brother would seek fortune elsewhere, by the way Christian Expansion was not driven by Second Sons.
Thank You for the blog I was confused why this woman would support such a violent revolution.

elena maria vidal said...

It was the duty of the father or brother or main male relative to make sure the women of the family had adequate dowries so they could marry. Women could not marry or even become nuns without a dowry. One of Marie-Antoinette's charities was to give dowries to poor girls so they could marry or enter a convent. As for younger sons, it was the military or the church, unless they were lucky enough to find a wealthy bride.

Unknown said...

Oh yes you enlighten me, that is not sarcasm. Thank You, I have heard that second or third daughters tended to be sent to the Church as the dowry for being a Nun was considerably cheaper than getting married. Yes I am also aware of this, I was listening to lectures about Field Marshal Eugene of Savoy and he was destined for the Church, too ugly and insignificant, the King would not even look upon him. He turned into quite the fortune seeker, richest man of his day and a brilliant General. Them darn Habsburgs getting lucky. The nobility being so militaristic is why so many noble families ended up in poverty, King Louis XIV's wife did open an institute for daughters of poor nobles.
Well since I consider you a reputable historian I would like to ask a question:
"What was the inheritance law like in the Austrian Empire?"
I am reading a book on Austria written in 1840 By Peter Evan Turnbull (Volume II) regarding the state of things in the Austrian Empire, the german territories are surprisingly egalitarian with serfdom seemingly gone, though given how King Louis XVI could have done things this is not surprising, as the power of the Sovereign increases, and the nobles' decreases, the support for the Monarchy by peasant populations rise as emancipation is enacted. Anyway the law seems to be equal distribution among legitimate heirs but this makes no sense to me, I cannot picture happy Austria mine to be so careless with it's inheritance laws. The book is also a contemporary guide so many aspects are set in iron while modern papers acknowledge the peasants role more. I can link the resources I refer to if you want.

elena maria vidal said...

Thank you for the info!