Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:43:22.013Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Florence Nightingale and J.S. Mill Debate Women's Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Evelyn L. Pugh
Evelyn L. Pugh*
Affiliation:
George Mason University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In Florence Nightingale's correspondence a series of letters to and from J.S. Mill treat a different subject than her usual correspondence with government officials, health and sanitation reformers, and hospital administrators in many parts of the world. Although it was never her intention when she initiated the exchange of letters, she and Mill quickly became involved in a controversy concerning the role of women.

Interwoven with some religious and philosophical matters, the Nightingale-Mill correspondence which falls into two periods, 1860 and 1867, is essentially a debate on women's rights. One debate concerns terminology and hinges on the entire validity of the question of publicity for the women's movement, then in its infancy, as well as the opening of the medical profession to women. The other focuses on differing perceptions of the role of women in political action. The exchange never became public during the lifetime of the participants, emerging with little notice only in the twentieth century with the complete publication of their correspondence in the journal Hospitals in 1936.

J.S. Mill's views on women's rights were public knowledge in his own day and have continued to be studied exhaustively. Florence Nightingale has been studied as the remarkable woman responsible for opening a respected profession for women. The point is often made that she refused to sign the women's petition Mill presented to the House of Commons in 1866 and would not at first become a member of the London National Society for Women's Suffrage.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982 , pp. 118 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 “Florence Nightingale as a Leader in the Religious and Civic thought of her Times,” Hospitals, X (July, 1936), 78–84Google Scholar. There are a total often letters, five from each, in the correspondence. Three of Mill's letters to Nightingale, with some omissions and two of them identified only as “To a Correspondent,” were published in Elliot, Hugh S. R., Letters of John Stuart Mill, (London, 1910)Google Scholar. Some of her letters to him with portions of his replies were published in SirCook's, Edward official biography, Life of Florence Nightingale, (London, 1913)Google Scholar. (The edition of Cook used in this essay is the 1914 printing).

2 The clearest expression of Mill's views on women appears in his 1869 Subjection of Women. Comments on the women's question are scattered throughout earlier works including his “Periodical Literature: Edinburgh Review,” Westminster Review, I (April, 1824), 505–41Google Scholar: “Rationale of Political Representation,” Ibid, XXIX (July, 1835), 341-71. Of particular interest is his discussion in the Principles of Political Economy on the social independence of women, the question of women and wages and the population problem. See Robson, John M. (ed.), Principles of Political Economy, (Toronto, 1965)Google Scholar in Robson, John M. (gen. ed.), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill (Toronto, 1963—), II, 372–73, 393–96Google Scholar; III, 952-53. The special legislative interest of women is referred to in “Thoughts on Parliamentary Reform,” (1859) in Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Essays on Politics and Culture by John Stuart Mill, (New York, 1963), p. 328Google Scholar. See also the discussion of women and the suffrage in Hayek, F.A. (ed.), Considerations on Representative Government, (Chicago, 1962), pp. 187–92Google Scholar. For recent commentaries see Himmelfarb, Gertrude, On Liberty and Liberalism: The Case of John Stuart Mill (New York, 1974), especially pp. 169–275Google Scholar, and the chapter on Mill in Okin, Susan Moller, Women in Western Political Thought (Princeton, 1979), pp. 197–230Google Scholar.

3 Only a selection of the numerous studies are mentioned here. Aside from the standard Cook biography (1913) and Woodham-Smith's, CecilFlorence Nightingale (New York, 1951)Google Scholar see also Strachey's, Lytton acerbic portrait of her in his Eminent Victorians (London, 1918), pp. 135–200Google Scholar and Strachey's, Rachel sympathetic account in The Cause: A Short History of the Women's Movement in Great Britain (London, 1928), pp. 18–29Google Scholar. Other accounts include Tooley, Sarah, Life of Florence Nightingale (London, 1913)Google Scholar; O'Malley, Ida B., Florence Nightingale: A Study of Her Life Down to the End of the Crimean War (London, 1931)Google Scholar and Goldsmith, Margaret, Florence Nightingale: the Woman and the Legend (London, 1937)Google Scholar. For the nursing profession see Seymer, Lucy, Florence Nightingale's Nurses: The Nightingale Training School, 1860-1960 (London, 1960)Google Scholar; Harmelink, Barbara, Florence Nightingale: Founder of Modern Nursing (New York, 1965)Google Scholar; Abel-Smith, Brian, A History of the Nursing Profession (London, 1960)Google Scholar and Vern, L. and Bullough, Bonnie, The Care of the Sick: the Emergence of Modern Nursing (New York, 1978)Google Scholar. See also Berry, F.L., “Florence Nightingale's Influence on Military Medicine,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, XXXII (1957), 451–553Google Scholar. Her own writings as well as some accounts by others are extensively annotated in Bishop, William John and Goldie, Sue, A Bio-Bibliography of Florence Nightingale (London, 1962)Google Scholar.

4 Mill to Edwin Chadwick, Feb. 7, 1860, in Mineka, Francis E. and Lindley, Dwight W. (eds.), The Later Letters of John Stuart Mill (Toronto, 1972)Google Scholar, in Robson (ed.) (hereafter Later Letters: Collected Works), Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, XVII, 2009. An account of Mill's life is in Packe, Michael St. John, The Life of John Stuart Mill (New York, 1954)Google Scholar. For Mill's long friendship with Chadwick see Finer, Samuel E., The Life and Times of Sir Edwin Chadwick (1952; rpt. New York, 1970)Google Scholar. See also Lewis, R. A., Edwin Chadwick and the Public Health Movement, 1832-1854 (London, 1952)Google Scholar. Chadwick along with Nassau W. Senior drafted the report which became the Poor Law of 1834 and was secretary to the Poor Law Commissioners. He was later Commissioner of the Board of Health, 1848-54, Miss Nightingale's ally in health reform, and was consulted on details of the Crimean Sanitary Commission.

5 Nightingale, Florence, Notes on Nursing: What it is and What it is Not (London, 1859), p. 79Google Scholar.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Nightingale, Florence, Notes on Nursing, foreword by Dunbar, Virginia (1860; rpt. New York, 1969), p. xviiiGoogle Scholar. By 1946 the book had been printed at least fifty times.

9 Martineau, Harriet, “Miss Nightingale's ‘Notes on Nursing,’” Quarterly Review, LVII (April, 1860), 392–422Google Scholar. See also “A Reverie after Reading Miss Nightingale's Notes on Nursing,” Fraser's Magazine, CXI (June, 1860), 753–57Google Scholar.

10 Ibid., p. 412.

11 Mill to Chadwick, Aug. 27, 1860 in Later Letters: Collected Works, XVII, 2010Google Scholar.

12 Mill to Nightingale, Sept. 10, 1860 in Hospitals, X, 79Google Scholar; Later Letters: Collected Works, XV, 706–07Google Scholar.

13 Ibid.

14 Nightingale to Mill, Sept. 12, 1860 in Hospitals, X, 79Google Scholar.

15 Cook, , Life of Nightingale, II, 14Google Scholar.

16 Ibid., p. 142.

17 Nightingale, Florence, Notes on Nursing: What it is and What it is Not (rev. ed., London, 1860), pp. 219–20Google Scholar.

18 Cook, , Life of Nightingale, II, 315Google Scholar.

19 Webb, Robert K., Harriet Martineau: A Radical Victorian (London, 1960), p. 353Google Scholar. For her articles in the Daily News on women see Webb, 's Handlist of Contributions to the Daily News by Harriet Martineau (Typescript, Library of Congress, 1959)Google Scholar. See also Pichanick, Valerie Kossew, “An Abominable Submission: Harriet Martineau's Views on the Role and Place of Women,” Women's Studies, V (1977), 13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 Cook, , Life of Nightingale, I, 285Google Scholar.

21 Strachey, , The Cause, p. 25Google Scholar.

22 Nightingale, , Notes (rev. ed., 1860), p. 192Google Scholar.

23 Ibid., pp. 66-68.

24 Ibid. p. 67.

25 Nightingale to Mill, Sept. 12, 1860, in Hospitals, X, 79Google Scholar.

26 The precise authorship of the article originally published in the Westminster Review, LV (July 1851), 289–311Google Scholar, is still questioned. Mill did not acknowledge publicly Harriet Taylor's authorship until after her death when he reprinted the essay in his Dissertations and Discussions (1859). This question is part of the complex problem of her influence on Mill about which an extensive literature has developed. See Hayek, F. A., John Stuart Mill and Harriet Tyalor: Their Friendship and Subsequent Marriage (Chicago, 1951)Google Scholar; Anschutz, R. P., “J.S. Mill, Carlyle and Mrs. Taylor,” Political Science, VII (March, 1955), 65–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; H.O. Pappe, “The Mills and Harriet Taylor,” Ibid., (March, 1956), 19-30; Pappe, H.O., John Stuart Mill and the Harriet Taylor Myth (Melbourne, 1960)Google Scholar; Mineka, F.E., “The Autobiography and the Lady,” University of Toronto Quarterly, XXXII (April, 1963), 301–06Google Scholar; Robson, J.M., “Harriet Taylor and John Stuart Mill: Artist and Scientist, “Queen's Quarterly LXXIII (Summer, 1966), 167-86, and Glenn K. S. Man,” John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor,” Antigonish Review, XIV (Summer, 1973), 43–50Google Scholar. For an analysis of the question see Robson, John M., The Improvement of Mankind: The Social and Political Thought of John Stuart Mill (Toronto, 1968), pp. 50–68Google Scholar. The essay is reprinted in Rossi, Alice, Essays on Sex Equality (Chicago, 1970)Google Scholar with an introduction which credits Taylor rather than Mill with the authorship of the article.

27 For a brief account of these lectures see Blackwell, Elizabeth, Opening the Medical Profession to Women (London, 1895), pp. 216–19Google Scholar. For Fancout, Mary St. John For Dr. Blackwell see , They Dared to be Doctors: Elizabeth Blackwell and Elizabeth Garrett Anderson (London, 1965)Google Scholar; Lopate, Carol, Women in Medicine (Baltimore, 1968)Google Scholar, and Marks, Geoffrey and and Beatty, William K., Women in White (New York, 1972)Google Scholar.

28 See the accounts of Mrs. Anderson by her daughter Anderson, Louisa Garrett, Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, 1836-1917 (London, 1939)Google Scholar and Manton, Jo, Elizabeth Garrett, M.D. (London, 1960)Google Scholar.

29 Blackwell, Anna, “Elizabeth Blackwell,” Englishwoman's Journal, I (April, 1858), 80–100Google Scholar; Elizabeth and Emily Blackwell, “Medicine as a Profession for Women,” Ibid., V (May 1, 1860), 145-60; Elizabeth Blackwell, “Letter to Young Ladies Desirous of Studying Medicine,” Ibid.,” IV (Jan., 1860) 329-32; “Harriot K. Hunt: A Sanitary Reformer,” Ibid., (Feb., 1860) 375-86; By a Physician of Twenty Years Standing, “Female Physicans,” Ibid., IX (April, 1862), 138-41; “Letters of Female Physicians,” Ibid., IX (May, 1862), 195-200.

30 By a Physician, “Medical Education for Ladies,” Ibid., V (July, 1860), 320.

31 Nightingale to Mill, Sept. 12, 1860 in Hospitals, X, 79Google Scholar.

32 Ibid. A more favorable view of her attitude toward the medical profession as well as a discussion of her friendship with Dr. Blackwell is given in SirCope, Zachary, Florence Nightingale and the Doctors (London, 1958)Google Scholar.

33 For the development of the movement in Great Britain to admit women to the medical profession see Anderson, Elizabeth Garrett, “The History of a Movement,” Fortnightly Review, LIX (March, 1893), 404–17Google Scholar; Jex-Blake, Sophia, “Medical Women,” Nineteenth Century, XXII (Nov., 1877), 692–707Google Scholar; Miller, Florence F., “Pioneer Medical Women: A Record and Remembrance,” Fortnightly Review, CXX (Nov., 1924) 692–706Google Scholar; Wallstein, Martha, History of Women in Medicine (London, 1908)Google Scholar; Todd, Margaret, Life of Sophia Jex-Blake (London, 1918)Google Scholar and Bell, Enid, Storming the Citadel: Rise of the Woman Doctor (London, 1953)Google Scholar.

34 See statistical data drawn primarily from Penny, Virginia, The Employment of Women: A Cyclopedia of Woman's Work (Boston, 1863)Google Scholar and U.S. Bureau of Census in Walsh, Mary Rath, “Doctors Wanted No Women Need Apply”: Sexual Barriers in the Medical Profession (New Haven, 1977), p. 186Google Scholar.

35 Mill to Nightingale, Sept. 23, 1860 in Hospitals, X, 80Google Scholar; Later Letters: Collected Works, XV, 708–11Google Scholar.

36 Quoted in Woodham-Smith, , Nightingale, p. 305Google Scholar. For a discussion of the problems associated with establishment of schools for midwives see Donnison, Jean, “Medical Women and Lady Midwives: A Case Study in Medical and Feminist Politics,” Women's Studies, III (1976, 229–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and her Midwives and Medical Men: A History of the Inter-Professional Rivalries and Women's Rights (New York, 1977)Google Scholar.

37 Nightingale, “Cassandra,” in Strachey, , The Cause, p. 396Google Scholar.

38 Ibid., p. 398.

39 Ibid., p. 401.

40 Ibid., p. 403.

41 Ibid., p. 404.

42 Mill to Nightingale, Oct. 4, 1860 in Hospitals, X, 81Google Scholar; Later Letters: Collected Works, XV, 711–12Google Scholar.

43 Cook, , Life of Nightingale, I, 471Google Scholar.

44 “Cassandra,” p. 399.

45 Mill, J.S., The Subjection of Women (New York, 1870), p. 136Google Scholar.

46 Ibid., p. 139.

47 Ibid.; “Cassandra,” p. 402.

48 Ibid., p. 137.

49 “Cassandra,” p. 408.

50 Mill, , Subjection, p. 111Google Scholar.

51 Ibid.

52 Ibid., p. 114.

53 Ibid., p. 139.

54 Ibid.

55 Ibid., p. 81.

56 Ibid., p. 91.

57 “Cassandra,” p. 415.

58 For the Subjection of Women see Tatalovich, Anne, “John Stuart Mill— The Subjection of Women: An Analysis,” Southern Quarterly Review, XII (Oct., 1973), 87–105Google Scholar; Okin, Susan M., “John Stuart Mill's Feminism: The Subjection of Women and the Improvement of Mankind,” New Zealand Journal of History, VII (Oct., 1973), 105–27Google Scholar; Kornberg, Jacques, “Feminism and the Liberal Dialectic: John Stuart Mill on Women's Rights,” Historical Papers, 1974 (Canadian Historical Association, 1974), 37–63Google Scholar; and Annas, Julia, “Mill and the Subjection of Women,” Philosophy, LII (April, 1977), 179–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 See Caine, Barbara, “John Stuart Mill and the English Women's Movement,” Historical Studies: Australia and New Zealand, XIX (April, 1978), 52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Pugh, Evelyn L., “John Stuart Mill and the Women's Question in Parliament, 1865-1868,” The Historian, XLII (May, 1980), 399–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

60 Mill to Nightingale, August 9, 1867 in Hospitals, X, 82Google Scholar; Later Letters: Collected Works, XVI, 1302–03Google Scholar.

61 Ibid.

62 Nightingale to Mill, August 11, 1867, ibid.

63 Cf. Mill's letters of August 4, 1867 to Mary Thompson and August 9, 1867 to Carpenter, Mary in Later Letters Collected Works, XVI, 1300; 1302Google Scholar. In letters to influential men of his acquaintance he usually asked the support of their wives for the new Society. For an account of the early years of that organization see Robson, A.P.W., “The Founding of the National Society for Women's Suffrage, 1866-1867,” Canadian Journal of History, XIII (March, 1973), 1–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Mill to Nightingale, December 31, 1867 in Hospitals, X, 83Google Scholar; Later Letters: Collected Works, XVI, 1343–46Google Scholar. Contemporaries noticed how difficult it was to find out about her work but one commentator said that her “toils must be known in due time.” See “Something of What Florence Nightingale Has Done and Is Doing,” St. James Magazine, I (April, 1861), 22–40Google Scholar. Her secretiveness in keeping her work hidden for which she seldom received credit is discussed in both the Cook and Woddham-Smith biographies. As only one example, Woodham-Smith, , Nightingale, p. 266Google Scholar notes that her system of cost-accounting for the Army Medical Services remained in effect until after World War II.

65 Ibid. See similar statements on this question in Subjection of Women, p. 144.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid.

68 Text of her opinion printed in Bishop, and Goldie, , Bio-Bibliography, p. 110Google Scholar.

69 Anthony, Susan B. and Stanton, Elizabeth Cadyet al., History of Woman Suffrage (1881–1922, rpt., New York, 1969), V., 461Google Scholar. See resolution of 1915 convention of North American Woman's Suffrage Association.

70 Quoted in Woodham-Smith, , Nightingale, p. 312Google Scholar. For her friendship with Jowett see Faber, Geoffrey C., Jowett: A Portrait with Background (London, 1959), pp. 306–13; 332–36Google Scholar.

71 Two of the articles were published: “A ‘Note’ of Interrogation,” Fraser's Magazine, n.s. VII (May, 1873), 567–77Google Scholar; “A Sub-note of Interrogation: What Will Our Religion be in 1999?” Ibid. n.s. VIII (July, 1873), 25-36. The third one, “On What Government Night will Mr. Lowe Bring Out Our New Moral Budget? Another Sub-Note of Interrogation,” was rejected by Froude and never published. See Bishop, and Goldie, , A Bio-Bibliography, pp. 121–22Google Scholar.

72 Cook, , Nightingale, II, 222Google Scholar.

73 Quoted in Bishop, and Goldie, , Bio-Bibliography, p. 43Google Scholar. Some of her letters to nurses are in Nash, Roaslind (ed.), Florence Nightingale to her Nurses: A Selection from Miss Nightingale's Addresses to Probationers and Nurses of the Nightingale School at St. Thomas's Hospital (London, 1914)Google Scholar.

74 Elaine Showalter reveals that the copy of “Cassandra” which was printed in Suggestions for Thought and published in Strachey's The Cause was a considerably truncated version of a manuscript originally designed as a novel which went through a great many changes and revisions. Her examination of the different versions of the manuscript indicates that even after the plan of the novel was abandoned it was ruthlessly cut in a number of places and that some of Miss Nightingale's strongest feminist pronouncements do not appear in the printed volume. She says that the “suppression of Suggestions for Thought which included her best-known feminist essay, Cassandra, is one of the most unfortunate sagas of Victorian censorship of female anger, protest, and passion.” Showalter, , “Florence Nightingale,” Signs, VI, 396Google Scholar. My own comments on “Cassandra” are based solely on the version Miss Nightingale sent to Mill in Suggestions for Thought as it appeared in Strachey's The Cause.

75 Mill to Nightingale, October 4, 1860 in Hospitals, X, 81Google Scholar; Later Letters: Collected Works, XV, 711–12Google Scholar.

76 It has recently been reprinted with an introduction by Stark, Myra, Florence Nightingale's Cassandra (Old Westbury, N.Y., 1979)Google Scholar.

77 Mill, , Subjection, p. 131Google Scholar.

78 Ibid., p. 132.

79 Ibid., p. 49.

80 Cook, , Nightingale, II, 221Google Scholar.

81 Blackwell, , Opening the Medical Profession to Women, p. 218Google Scholar.

82 “Cassandra,” p. 400.

83 Quoted in Woodham-Smith, , Nightingale, p. 32Google Scholar.

84 Quoted in Bishop, and Goldie, , Bio-Bibliography, p. 47Google Scholar.

85 Cope, , Nightingale and the Doctors, p. 147Google Scholar. May Thorne was the daughter of Mrs. Isabel Thorne who along with Sophia Jex-Blake and three other women first attended the Medical School of the University of Edinburgh. She continued her mother's tradition of long association with the London School of Medicine for Women. See Thorne, Isabel, A Sketch of the Foundation of the London Medical School for Women (London, 1905)Google Scholar and Lutzker, Edythe, Women Gain a Place in Medicine (New York, 1969)Google Scholar.

86 Speech of Bright, Jacob to Annual Meeting [1870] of Edinburgh Branch of the National Society for Women's Suffrage (Edinburgh, 1870), p. 15Google Scholar.