Erhalten Sie Zugang zu diesem und mehr als 300000 Büchern ab EUR 5,99 monatlich.
- Herausgeber: Musaicum Books
- Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
- Sprache: Englisch
Elizabeth Cady Stanton's 'The Woman's Bible (Complete Edition)' boldly tackles the patriarchal interpretations of religious texts, particularly those that suppress female voices and experiences. Stanton presents a comprehensive analysis of various passages from the Bible, challenging the traditional reading of such scriptures. Her literary style is powerful and assertive, aimed at reshaping the perception of women's roles in society and religion. Published in 1895, this book sparked significant controversy and debate within the feminist movement of the time. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a prominent suffragist and women's rights activist, was driven by a deep commitment to challenging gender inequality and advocating for women's rights. Her historical background as a key figure in the women's suffrage movement provides invaluable insight into her motivation for writing 'The Woman's Bible.' Stanton's blending of biblical analysis with feminist critique demonstrates her revolutionary thinking and unwavering dedication to gender equality. I highly recommend 'The Woman's Bible (Complete Edition)' to readers interested in feminist literature, religious studies, and women's history. Stanton's groundbreaking work delves into the intersections of faith and feminism, making it a seminal text for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of the ongoing struggle for gender equality. In this enriched edition, we have carefully created added value for your reading experience: - A succinct Introduction situates the work's timeless appeal and themes. - The Synopsis outlines the central plot, highlighting key developments without spoiling critical twists. - A detailed Historical Context immerses you in the era's events and influences that shaped the writing. - An Author Biography reveals milestones in the author's life, illuminating the personal insights behind the text. - A thorough Analysis dissects symbols, motifs, and character arcs to unearth underlying meanings. - Reflection questions prompt you to engage personally with the work's messages, connecting them to modern life. - Hand‐picked Memorable Quotes shine a spotlight on moments of literary brilliance. - Interactive footnotes clarify unusual references, historical allusions, and archaic phrases for an effortless, more informed read.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 757
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2018
Das E-Book (TTS) können Sie hören im Abo „Legimi Premium” in Legimi-Apps auf:
Ähnliche
The Woman's Bible (Complete Edition)
Published by
Books
Table of Contents
Introduction
At the crossroads of scripture and suffrage, a fierce argument erupts over who gets to speak for half the human race. The Woman’s Bible confronts that struggle with uncommon boldness, insisting that the stories and laws used to define women’s lives deserve scrutiny equal to their authority. It is a work that brings the heat of public controversy into the cool margins of commentary, where verse and note quietly contest habit and hierarchy. Read today, it still vibrates with the urgency of questions that begin in the text and end in everyday life: Who interprets? On what grounds? To whose benefit?
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, a principal architect of the nineteenth‑century American women’s rights movement, conceived and edited The Woman’s Bible. First issued in two parts—Part I in 1895 and Part II in 1898—the project gathers a committee of collaborators to examine passages relating to women throughout the Bible. This Complete Edition brings those installments together, presenting a sustained critique rather than a new translation. Its central premise is straightforward and radical: interpretations long used to subordinate women should be measured against historical context, ethical reasoning, and lived experience. The resulting commentary invites readers to test familiar teachings and to claim responsibility for meaning.
The book emerged in a moment when religious arguments shaped public policy and private conscience, and when the demand for women’s civil and political rights was gaining momentum. In late nineteenth‑century America, sermons, catechisms, and devotional literature circulated widely, reinforcing gender hierarchies that opponents of suffrage frequently cited. Stanton recognized that legal and social reforms would falter if their theological underpinnings went unchallenged. The Woman’s Bible answers that challenge by moving debate from the pulpit to the printed page, where readers could examine sources directly. It is both a document of its time and a calculated intervention into wider cultural authority.
Formally, the work proceeds by selection and response. It presents biblical passages concerning women—stories, laws, proverbs, instructions—and places beside them commentary that interrogates traditional readings. Essays and notes consider language, historical circumstances, and moral implications, often contrasting inherited doctrines with alternative possibilities. Multiple voices contribute, but Stanton’s editorial hand sustains a recognizable purpose: to open interpretation rather than to close it. The commentary does not claim to erase the past; it asks how the past has been used. That method, clear in outline and flexible in practice, makes the book accessible to general readers and stimulating to specialists.
Its classic status rests first on audacity. Few nineteenth‑century works confronted the interpretive foundations of gender hierarchy with such directness, or brought exegetical tools to a broad, non‑clerical audience. But its endurance also owes to craft: a prose that pairs reasoned analysis with pointed wit, an organization that moves briskly from text to principle, and a tone that balances indignation with invitation. The Woman’s Bible helped establish a mode of public argument in which literary reading, ethical inquiry, and political advocacy reinforce one another. As feminist criticism matured, this early example stood as a landmark, showing how engagement with canon can catalyze social thought.
The book’s reception was lightning in a dry summer. Clergy and commentators attacked its premises and conclusions, while newspapers amplified the controversy. The debate reached the women’s movement itself, where leaders feared that theological critique might distract from or jeopardize the campaign for suffrage. In 1896, the National American Woman Suffrage Association formally distanced itself from the work, a decision that exposed real tensions about strategy and scope. Yet the furor also ensured that the questions it raised could not be quietly set aside. Whether praised or condemned, The Woman’s Bible forced public attention to the politics of interpretation.
Its influence is felt less as a set of doctrinal answers than as a model of intellectual posture. By insisting that sacred texts can be read critically by laypeople, it helped prepare the ground for later feminist approaches to theology and biblical studies. Scholars and writers in the twentieth century, across disciplines, drew courage and precedent from the idea that canon is not immune to ethical evaluation. The book’s example encouraged readers to revisit not only scripture but also law, history, and literature with newly sharpened questions about voice, power, and tradition. In that sense, its reach extends well beyond its immediate subject.
The Woman’s Bible is also distinctive as writing. The commentary is brisk, pointed, and often satirical, but it is rarely obscure. Its collaborative framework produces a chorus of perspectives held together by editorial purpose; disagreements sometimes appear, and those tensions give the volume texture. The work’s cumulative effect emerges especially clearly in the Complete Edition, where the two parts can be read as a single, sustained inquiry. What begins as marginal notes becomes, over pages, an anatomy of how narratives and laws circulate into custom. The ordinary apparatus of exegesis thus becomes a stage for public reasoning.
A set of themes guides this inquiry. Authority—who has it, how it is claimed, and how it is tested—sits at the center. So do conscience and equality, the conviction that moral interpretation should not be ceded to a closed clerical class. Tradition appears as both burden and resource: binding when it narrows women’s possibilities, liberating when it is read generously and critically. Education, self‑trust, and collective deliberation recur as practical means by which readers might break patterns of deference. Through these themes, the book frames interpretation not as private speculation but as civic labor.
Stanton’s project treats scripture as a cultural force that shapes law, family life, and public expectation. Accordingly, her methods draw on history, philology as then available to her audience, and common‑sense ethics. She grants that texts acquire authority through centuries of use, but she refuses to treat that authority as final or unanswerable. The result is neither a simple rejection nor a passive acceptance; it is an argument for responsibility. If readings have consequences in courts, classrooms, and households, then reading is a public act. The Woman’s Bible makes that claim with unmistakable clarity.
New readers might approach this volume as both archive and provocation. As archive, it preserves a record of how a leading advocate for women’s rights addressed the religious foundations of inequality in her era. As provocation, it invites anyone—believer or skeptic—to test assumptions, to compare interpretations, and to consider the ethics of explanation. Some references and idioms bear the stamp of the 1890s, yet the underlying questions remain lucid. Engage the work as an argument conducted in good faith about contested texts. Agree or disagree, one emerges with sharper tools for reading and for public speech.
Its contemporary relevance is unmistakable. Debates about gender roles, religious authority, and the interpretation of foundational documents continue to shape policy and private life. The Woman’s Bible endures because it refuses resignation; it insists that meaning is not fixed by custom or by decree, and that readers share in the making of a just inheritance. As controversies over scripture, law, and tradition renew themselves in each generation, Stanton’s project offers both caution and encouragement. It cautions against the quiet power of received readings, and it encourages the courage to read again. That double lesson sustains its lasting appeal.
Synopsis
Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s The Woman’s Bible (Complete Edition) gathers the two parts first published in the 1890s into a single volume that examines how biblical interpretation has shaped women’s status. Written amid campaigns for women’s rights, the project challenges readings that have justified female subordination in home, church, and state. Rather than producing a new translation, it compiles selected passages and commentary to interrogate the assumptions behind them. The book’s purpose is not to settle doctrinal disputes but to open debate, urging readers to reconsider long-inherited interpretations and the authority structures that disseminated them. Its appearance sparked controversy, reflecting the high stakes of scriptural meaning in public life.
The volume’s method is to pair biblical excerpts with notes, observations, and historical references that question the neutrality of established exegesis. Stanton and collaborators emphasize that interpretation is shaped by context, including the predominance of male clerical voices. They highlight how translation choices and traditional glosses can direct readers toward particular conclusions about women’s nature and role. The commentary ranges from linguistic remarks to cultural comparisons, while continually asking whether prescriptive conclusions arise from the text itself or from later social custom. This approach frames the work as a corrective lens, seeking to distinguish between enduring moral principles and historically contingent practices.
The first section concentrates on the early books of the Bible, where creation narratives and origin stories have often been used to define gender hierarchy. The commentary reexamines the accounts of human creation and the story commonly invoked to explain women’s supposed culpability and subordination. It scrutinizes the language associated with temptation, punishment, and rule, arguing that subsequent readings frequently amplified themes of female inferiority. The analysis invites readers to consider whether the narratives necessarily establish a permanent hierarchy or whether later theology and social structures retroactively imposed that meaning. Throughout, the text underscores the moral responsibility and agency of both sexes within the foundational stories.
Turning to law codes and social regulations, the book surveys ordinances on purity, marriage, inheritance, and personal status. It notes how these provisions often granted men decisive legal control and recognizes practices such as polygamy and unilateral divorce privileges within the historical setting. The commentary contends that such norms reflected ancient social conditions more than universal mandates. By isolating tensions among passages—such as differing standards of accountability or compensation—it questions the consistency of rules that have been invoked to confine women’s choices. The emphasis is on discerning between descriptive records of custom and prescriptive ideals, encouraging a cautious use of legal texts in moral argument.
Narrative portraits of women across the Hebrew Scriptures receive sustained attention. Figures such as matriarchs and leaders are presented as complex actors whose initiative, counsel, and courage shape communal outcomes. The commentary highlights episodes in which women negotiate power, secure family fortunes, or influence public affairs, including legal cases that expand daughters’ rights. It also observes how later tradition sometimes minimized these contributions or interpreted them mainly through male perspectives. By collecting and commenting on these stories, the work argues that the record of women’s leadership, creativity, and moral reasoning is broader than standard readings admit, and that ambivalent portrayals have often been resolved to women’s disadvantage.
Wisdom and prophetic literature are examined for their metaphors and moral judgments about women. The text notes how contrasting images—ranging from the lauded household manager to the figure used as a warning—shape attitudes toward female character and capability. It critiques prophetic rhetoric that employs feminine imagery to symbolize communal unfaithfulness, suggesting that such metaphors can stigmatize women beyond their literary purpose. At the same time, the personification of wisdom as feminine is flagged as evidence of elevated capacities. The commentary thus traces a tension between reverence and reproach, urging readers to weigh literary devices carefully before drawing conclusions about women’s social and spiritual status.
In addressing the New Testament, the book studies women’s presence in the life of Jesus and the early assemblies. It observes that women appear as patrons, witnesses, and committed followers, and it treats these roles as indicators of recognized capacity. The commentary then engages passages that seem to restrict women’s speech or leadership, placing them within situational contexts and highlighting potential translation ambiguities concerning authority and service. It points to acknowledgments of women’s labor in the movement’s formation while questioning whether later ecclesiastical practice narrowed what the texts depict. The discussion aims to reconcile narrative evidence of participation with prescriptive lines often used to exclude.
Beyond the biblical texts, the work surveys how post-biblical tradition consolidated hierarchies through theology, church governance, and civil law. It argues that appeals to scripture underwrote rules on marriage, property, education, dress, and public participation that limited women’s autonomy. The commentary scrutinizes these developments, contending that institutional authority frequently overrode the more varied scriptural record. It encourages women to claim interpretive agency, to study the sources for themselves, and to challenge applications that perpetuate inequality. The goal is to separate enduring ethical commitments—such as justice and mutual respect—from customs rooted in historical privilege and clerical control.
The Woman’s Bible closes by reaffirming its central project: to reevaluate sacred texts so they cannot be wielded uncritically against women’s rights and dignity. Without proposing a final creed, it models a posture of inquiry, urging readers to measure interpretations against reason, conscience, and the full breadth of the record. Its legacy lies in opening space for feminist biblical criticism and expanding lay participation in theological debate. As a landmark in the history of reform literature, it invites continuing scrutiny of how authoritative texts shape social norms, insisting that moral progress requires both reverence for truth and vigilance against inherited bias.
Historical Context
The Woman’s Bible emerged from the United States in the late nineteenth century, a period defined by rapid industrialization, urban growth, and the predominance of Protestant Christianity in public life. Churches, denominational colleges, and voluntary societies shaped civic norms, while the Bible—especially the King James Version—was read at home, in Sunday schools, and often in public institutions. At the same time, railroads connected regions, newspapers circulated widely, and immigration diversified religious landscapes. Despite expanding literacy and reform movements, law and custom preserved patriarchal authority in marriage, employment, and politics. Within this matrix of religious authority and social hierarchy, Elizabeth Cady Stanton set out to interrogate the scriptural foundations of women’s subordinate status.
Stanton, born in 1815 in New York State, became a principal architect of the American women’s rights movement. Her early activism grew out of abolitionist circles and was shaped by experiences such as the 1840 World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, where women delegates were barred from full participation. In 1848 she helped organize the Seneca Falls Convention, which issued the Declaration of Sentiments demanding legal and political equality for women. From the outset Stanton’s feminism included a critique of religious teachings she believed sanctioned inequality. Over decades she refined arguments that would later underpin The Woman’s Bible, positioning scriptural interpretation as a decisive arena of reform.
The Civil War and Reconstruction transformed the nation’s legal framework while leaving questions of women’s citizenship unresolved. The Fourteenth Amendment introduced the word “male” into the Constitution’s apportionment clause, and the Fifteenth Amendment prohibited disenfranchisement on the basis of race but not sex. Debates over these measures fractured the suffrage movement in 1869 into two organizations with differing strategies. In these disputes, scriptural citations were frequently invoked both to defend and oppose women’s political rights. Stanton’s insistence that religious arguments sustained civil inequality deepened, eventually leading her to challenge the authority of biblical interpretations themselves.
American religious life in the late nineteenth century was dynamic and contested. Protestant denominations sustained revival traditions, vast missionary enterprises, and extensive networks of schools and charities. Simultaneously, “higher criticism”—historical and literary analysis of biblical texts—gained a foothold in seminaries and public discourse, sparking debate about authorship, translation, and doctrine. English-language revisions of the Bible appeared in the 1880s, signaling a willingness to reconsider textual tradition. These developments opened space for lay readers to query inherited interpretations. The Woman’s Bible drew upon that expanding critical climate, redirecting attention to passages concerning women and to the interpretive power historically monopolized by male scholars and clergy.
Women’s status in law and custom was in flux. Married women’s property acts, passed in many states from the mid-nineteenth century onward, granted limited control over assets and earnings, but coverture’s legacy persisted in guardianship, wage inequality, and limited access to juries and public office. Higher education opportunities grew, yet professional pathways remained obstructed. Many opponents of women’s civic equality appealed to scripture to justify domestic subordination. By the 1890s, activists recognized that legal reforms alone did not overturn theological rationales for hierarchy. Stanton sought to expose how religious exegesis reinforced restraints on women’s bodies, labor, speech, and public presence.
Parallel reform movements shaped the book’s context. The temperance campaign, institutionalized in 1874 with the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, mobilized millions of women around moral reform and “home protection,” often in explicitly Christian language. Antivice campaigns and laws against the circulation of contraceptive information, enacted nationally in 1873 and in many states thereafter, expanded a moral regulatory apparatus. While many reformers cited the Bible to ground their activism, Stanton contended that the same text, read through patriarchal traditions, sustained the legal and moral strictures they confronted. The Woman’s Bible offered an alternative interpretive framework to disentangle reform from male-centered scriptural authority.
Electoral battles further heightened the stakes of religious argument. After setbacks during Reconstruction, suffragists pursued state campaigns and court challenges. The Supreme Court’s 1875 decision in Minor v. Happersett rejected the claim that the Constitution already enfranchised women, pushing reformers toward state referenda and federal amendment strategies. Successes in the West—Wyoming statehood in 1890, Colorado in 1893, and Utah and Idaho in 1896—were closely watched. In these contests, clergy and politicians frequently cited biblical injunctions regarding women’s submission, motherhood, and public silence. The Woman’s Bible addressed precisely those texts that opponents used to resist women’s political claims.
Against this backdrop, Stanton assembled a committee to produce The Woman’s Bible, Part I, published in 1895. Organized as commentaries and notes on selected passages, it surveyed narratives and laws involving women, especially in the Hebrew Bible. The work emphasized that scriptural texts were historically produced and transmitted through male institutions. While contributors differed in tone, the overarching aim was to challenge interpretations that stigmatized women—most famously those deriving from the creation and fall narratives. The book did not present itself as a new translation; rather, it argued that long-standing readings arose from social prejudice rather than divine mandate.
A second volume, Part II, appeared in 1898, extending attention to additional texts, including the New Testament. The combined “complete” text encompassed comments on a wide range of passages about women’s speech, authority, marriage, and ministry. By insisting that interpretation is a human enterprise, the volumes invited lay readers—especially women—to weigh doctrine, tradition, and language against lived experience and emerging scholarship. This broadened the conversation from clerical exegesis to public debate. The two-part publication schedule kept The Woman’s Bible in the news over several years, sustaining discussion within reform circles and church communities alike.
Reception was intense and polarized. Clergy denounced the project as impious or destabilizing to faith, while some reformers praised its boldness in naming religious roots of inequality. Within organized suffrage, leaders worried that association with biblical criticism would alienate religious supporters and harm legislative campaigns. In 1896 the National American Woman Suffrage Association passed a resolution declaring that it had no connection with The Woman’s Bible, an effort to mark the organization as nonsectarian and politically focused. Susan B. Anthony publicly defended Stanton’s right to speak while prioritizing movement unity. The episode revealed strategic divides over how directly to confront religious authority.
The Woman’s Bible resonated with broader intellectual currents reframing knowledge and belief. Scientific theories of natural history, popularized after 1859, unsettled literal readings of Genesis. Anthropologists and historians debated family structures across cultures, prompting reconsideration of patriarchy’s origins. Freethought associations, liberal Protestants, and some Unitarians and Universalists urged open inquiry into doctrine. Feminist critics such as Matilda Joslyn Gage, in works of the early 1890s, mounted comprehensive indictments of ecclesiastical control over women. Stanton’s commentary shared this milieu’s confidence that exposing historical contingencies in sacred texts could undermine claims that subordination was divinely ordained.
Print culture and adult education expanded the audience for religious debate. Newspapers, inexpensive pamphlets, and subscription libraries multiplied; periodicals routinely covered lectures and controversies. The Chautauqua movement, begun in the 1870s, popularized Bible study and general learning for laypeople, many of them women. Women’s clubs organized reading circles and civic projects, fostering interpretive communities outside the pulpit and seminary. The Woman’s Bible entered these spaces as both object of study and provocation, encouraging readers to revisit familiar passages with new questions about translation, context, and authority, and to consider how religious ideas circulated in everyday domestic and civic life.
Women’s religious leadership was also changing. Though most denominations barred ordination, some—such as the Universalists and Unitarians—licensed or ordained women in the later nineteenth century, and women regularly preached in reform gatherings and missionary societies. Antoinette Brown Blackwell’s controversial ordination in 1853 had already raised questions about women’s scriptural status as ministers. The Woman’s Bible supplied arguments for women’s public speech and authority by scrutinizing texts historically used to impose silence. By highlighting inconsistencies and cultural specificity, it offered resources to women pressing for roles in congregational life, theological education, and public moral discourse.
Racial politics complicated every reform arena. Black women such as Sojourner Truth and Frances Ellen Watkins Harper had long articulated theological visions of equality shaped by antislavery and Reconstruction struggles. Tensions over priorities and strategies persisted within the women’s movement, particularly after Reconstruction’s collapse and the entrenchment of Jim Crow laws. The Woman’s Bible primarily targeted the gendered authority of scripture rather than racial hierarchy, reflecting both the particular aim of its commentary and the often segregated nature of reform organizations. Its focus illustrates how different axes of inequality were contested on related but not always convergent fronts.
Transatlantic connections amplified the book’s reach and context. British and American reformers exchanged letters, publications, and speakers, and women’s suffrage campaigns advanced across the British Empire. New Zealand enfranchised women in 1893, drawing international attention to arguments for and against the vote. Biblical reasoning featured prominently in debates abroad as well as in the United States. The Woman’s Bible thus participated in a wider Anglophone conversation about scripture and civic rights, traveling through periodical reprints and lecture circuits even where it met resistance from ecclesiastical authorities.
Technology and infrastructure made such arguments hard to ignore. Railroads and lecture bureaus enabled reformers to tour widely; the telegraph and an expanding press accelerated controversy. Stereotype plates and improved typesetting lowered printing costs, facilitating rapid editions and rebuttals. Women’s colleges produced graduates adept at public speaking and research, while postal networks connected clubwomen, missionaries, and suffragists who shared reading lists and clippings. In this bustling public sphere, The Woman’s Bible functioned as both a text and an event—its arguments inseparable from the debates, resolutions, and editorials it provoked.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton’s broader oeuvre contextualizes the book’s aims. Her 1892 address “Solitude of Self” emphasized individual autonomy and education as prerequisites for citizenship, themes echoed in The Woman’s Bible’s insistence that women claim interpretive authority. Her collaboration on multi-volume histories of the movement cataloged legal and political barriers that, she believed, were shored up by theology. In the late 1890s she continued to write and lecture, framing religious critique as integral to women’s emancipation. The scriptural commentary thus extended a lifetime of argument: equality required dismantling both civil and ecclesiastical supports of subordination, not merely winning a ballot line by line of statute law. The Woman’s Bible also responded to contemporary debates over education, family, and the economy. Industrial labor drew women into factories and offices, provoking disputes over wages, hours, and workplace roles that churches and reformers addressed from divergent theological premises. Divorce and custody laws, uneven across states, were contested on moral and religious grounds. Stanton had long advocated more liberal divorce laws, a stance that alienated some allies. By reading texts about marriage, obedience, and property through historical lenses, the book sought to separate enduring ethical principles from culturally contingent rules, urging reforms consistent with women’s lived realities in a modern economy. At the level of method, the commentary reflected and demystified scholarly tools becoming familiar to lay readers. It noted translation choices, variant interpretations, and the social contexts of law codes and letters, particularly in passages used to define women’s nature or role. While not a technical academic treatise, it modeled skeptical inquiry and compared authorities, inviting readers to ask who interprets and to what end. This approach paralleled liberal theological trends that prized conscience and reason, even as it challenged many clergy. In doing so, The Woman’s Bible positioned women not only as subjects of scripture but as competent interpreters of it. Even those who condemned the book acknowledged its disruptive power. By compelling suffrage leaders to clarify organizational boundaries and strategies, it revealed the movement’s balancing act between coalition politics and radical critique. By eliciting ecclesiastical rebuttals, it exposed where churches perceived threats to doctrine and authority. And by circulating among clubwomen and readers outside formal theological networks, it broadened the constituency for religious debate. The controversy underscored a central dynamic of the period: reforms advanced through both institutional accommodation and intellectual challenges to the narratives that legitimated inequality. Viewed within its time, The Woman’s Bible is less a departure from the women’s rights movement than a crystallization of one of its driving insights: that social hierarchies are maintained by stories about origins, nature, and duty. In the United States of the 1890s—marked by religious pluralization, scientific inquiry, and uneven legal change—the book interrogated those stories at their most authoritative source. As a critique, it sought to unbind conscience from inherited exegesis; as a mirror, it reflected reformers’ hopes and anxieties about public respectability, coalition-building, and the costs of candor. Its legacy endures in ongoing conversations about gender, scripture, and democratic life.
Author Biography
Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815–1902) was a leading American reformer, writer, and strategist of the nineteenth-century women’s rights movement. Best known as a principal organizer of the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848 and drafter of its Declaration of Sentiments, she articulated a broad agenda that joined legal, political, religious, and social critiques of women’s subordination. Across more than five decades, Stanton’s speeches, essays, and organizational leadership helped transform women’s rights from scattered grievances into a sustained national campaign for suffrage and civil equality. Her voice—at once philosophical, combative, and practical—shaped debates over citizenship, marriage, education, and labor, leaving a durable imprint on American reform.
Raised in upstate New York, Stanton received an uncommon formal education for a girl of her era. She studied a rigorous curriculum at the Troy Female Seminary, where she encountered both advanced subjects and intense religious revivalism that she later criticized. She also read law informally in a judge’s office, gaining first-hand exposure to doctrines such as coverture and the legal disabilities of married women. Abolitionist ideas and natural-rights philosophy strongly influenced her, as did the example of reformers she met in antislavery circles. A formative experience came in London in 1840, where the exclusion of women from the World Anti-Slavery Convention sharpened her resolve.
In 1848, Stanton helped convene the women’s rights meeting at Seneca Falls, New York, collaborating with allies such as Lucretia Mott. She drafted the Declaration of Sentiments, modeled on the U.S. Declaration of Independence, enumerating civil, political, and social injuries and asserting women’s equal rights, including the then-controversial demand for the vote. The convention’s resolutions sparked wide public attention, eliciting both ridicule and support, and set a template for subsequent women’s rights gatherings. Seneca Falls marked Stanton’s emergence as a central theorist and orator of the movement, pairing moral argument with pragmatic proposals for legal reform and public activism.
Through the 1850s and 1860s, Stanton lectured widely and campaigned for changes to property, divorce, and guardianship laws, aligning women’s legal status with principles of individual rights. After the Civil War, she and Susan B. Anthony launched the weekly newspaper The Revolution, using it to debate labor, suffrage, and reconstruction policy. Stanton opposed adoption of the Fifteenth Amendment because it enfranchised men while leaving women without the vote, a stance that drew sharp criticism and revealed fractures with some abolitionist allies. In 1869 she and Anthony co-founded the National Woman Suffrage Association, advocating a federal constitutional amendment and a broad platform of women’s rights.
In the decades that followed, Stanton served as a leading voice of the suffrage campaign. When rival suffrage organizations united in 1890, she became the first president of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Alongside Anthony and Matilda Joslyn Gage, she co-edited the multivolume History of Woman Suffrage, assembling documents and narratives that preserved the movement’s record. She continued to craft influential addresses, notably Solitude of Self, which framed women’s rights as an issue of individual development and autonomy rather than solely of civic participation. Her rhetoric combined appeals to natural rights, practical reform, and a vigorous critique of legal and cultural traditions.
Stanton’s intellectual independence led her beyond suffrage to critique religious authority in The Woman’s Bible, a two-volume work challenging biblical interpretations used to justify women’s subordination. The book provoked significant controversy; prominent suffrage leaders publicly distanced the organization from it, and her standing within formal leadership circles diminished. She remained active as a writer and lecturer, publishing her autobiography, Eighty Years and More, which reflected on the movement’s strategies and goals. Scholars and contemporaries have noted the breadth of her vision as well as serious limitations, including exclusionary and racially insensitive arguments during postwar debates, which complicated alliances and continue to prompt critical reassessment.
In her final years, Stanton focused on writing, research, and correspondence, while younger organizers took on day-to-day leadership. She died in 1902, nearly two decades before women’s suffrage was secured nationwide in the United States. Nevertheless, her ideas, organizations, and texts helped lay the groundwork for that achievement and for broader claims to legal and social equality. The Declaration of Sentiments, Solitude of Self, History of Woman Suffrage, and The Woman’s Bible remain central reference points for understanding nineteenth-century feminism’s aspirations and tensions. Stanton’s legacy endures in ongoing debates over citizenship, family law, secularism, and the meaning of equality in public and private life.
The Woman's Bible (Complete Edition)
Part I.
Comments on Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.
"In every soul there is bound up some truth and some error, and each gives to the world of thought what no other one possesses."—Cousin.
Revising Committee.
"We took sweet counsel together."—Ps. Iv., 14.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Lillie Devereux Blake,
Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
Matilda Joslyn Gage,
Clara Bewick Colby,
Rev. Olympia Brown,
Rev. Augusta Chapin,
Frances Ellen Burr,
Ursula N. Gestefeld,
Clara B. Neyman,
Mary Seymour Howell,
Helen H. Gardener,
Josephine K. Henry,
Charlotte Beebe: Wilbour,
Mrs. Robert G. Ingersoll,
Lucinda B. Chandler,
Sarah A. Underwood,
Catharine F. Stebbins,
Ellen Battelle Dietrick,1
Louisa Southworth.
Foreign Members.
Baroness Alexandra Gripenberg, Finland,
Ursula M. Bright, England,
Irma Von Troll-Borostyant, Austria,
Priscilla Bright Mclaren, Scotland,
Isabelle Bogelot, France
1 Deceased.
Preface.
So many letters are daily received asking questions about the Woman's Bible,—as to the extent of the revision, and the standpoint from which it will be conducted—that it seems best, though every detail is not as yet matured, to state the plan, as concisely as possible, upon which those who have been in consultation during the summer, propose to do the work.
I. The object is to revise only those texts and chapters directly referring to women, and those also in which women are made prominent by exclusion. As all such passages combined form but one-tenth of the Scriptures, the undertaking will not be so laborious as, at the first thought, one would imagine. These texts, with the commentaries, can easily be compressed into a duodecimo volume of about four hundred pages.
II. The commentaries will be of a threefold character, the writers in the different branches being selected according to their special aptitude for the work:
1. Two or three Greek and Hebrew scholars will devote themselves to the translation and the meaning of particular words and texts in the original.
2. Others will devote themselves to Biblical history, old manuscripts, to the new version, and to the latest theories as to the occult meaning of certain texts and parables.
3. For the commentaries on the plain English version a committee of some thirty members has been formed. These are women of earnestness and liberal ideas, quick to see the real purport of the Bible as regards their sex. Among them the various books of the Old and New Testament will be distributed for comment.
III. There will be two or more editors to bring the work of the various committees into one consistent whole.
IV. The completed work will be submitted to an advisory committee assembled at some central point, as London, New York, or Chicago, to sit in final judgment on "The Woman's Bible."
As to the manner of doing the practical work:
Those who have been engaged this summer have adopted the following plan, which may be suggestive to new members of the committee. Each person purchased two Bibles, ran through them from Genesis to Revelations, marking all the texts that concerned women. The passages were cut out, and pasted in a blank book, and the commentaries then written underneath.
Those not having time to read all the books can confine their labors to the particular ones they propose to review.
It is thought best to publish the different parts as soon as prepared so that the Committee may have all in print in a compact form before the final revision.
E. C. S.
August 1st, 1895.
Introduction.
From the inauguration of the movement for woman's emancipation the Bible has been used to hold her in the "divinely ordained sphere," prescribed in the Old and New Testaments.
The canon and civil law; church and state; priests and legislators; all political parties and religious denominations have alike taught that woman was made after man, of man, and for man, an inferior being, subject to man. Creeds, codes, Scriptures and statutes, are all based on this idea[1q]. The fashions, forms, ceremonies and customs of society, church ordinances and discipline all grow out of this idea.
Of the old English common law, responsible for woman's civil and political status, Lord Brougham[1] said, "it is a disgrace to the civilization and Christianity of the Nineteenth Century." Of the canon law, which is responsible for woman's status in the church, Charles Kingsley said, "this will never be a good world for women until the last remnant of the canon law is swept from the face of the earth."
The Bible teaches that woman brought sin and death into the world, that she precipitated the fall of the race, that she was arraigned before the judgment seat of Heaven, tried, condemned and sentenced. Marriage for her was to be a condition of bondage, maternity a period of suffering and anguish, and in silence and subjection, she was to play the role of a dependent on man's bounty for all her material wants, and for all the information she might desire on the vital questions of the hour, she was commanded to ask her husband at home. Here is the Bible position of woman briefly summed up.
Those who have the divine insight to translate, transpose and transfigure this mournful object of pity into an exalted, dignified personage, worthy our worship as the mother of the race, are to be congratulated as having a share of the occult mystic power of the eastern Mahatmas.
The plain English to the ordinary mind admits of no such liberal interpretation. The unvarnished texts speak for themselves. The canon law, church ordinances and Scriptures, are homogeneous, and all reflect the same spirit and sentiments.
These familiar texts are quoted by clergymen in their pulpits, by statesmen in the halls of legislation, by lawyers in the courts, and are echoed by the press of all civilized nations, and accepted by woman herself as "The Word of God." So perverted is the religious element in her nature, that with faith and works she is the chief support of the church and clergy; the very powers that make her emancipation impossible. When, in the early part of the Nineteenth Century, women began to protest against their civil and political degradation, they were referred to the Bible for an answer. When they protested against their unequal position in the church, they were referred to the Bible for an answer.
This led to a general and critical study of the Scriptures. Some, having made a fetish of these books and believing them to be the veritable "Word of God," with liberal translations, interpretations, allegories and symbols, glossed over the most objectionable features of the various books and clung to them as divinely inspired. Others, seeing the family resemblance between the Mosaic code, the canon law, and the old English common law, came to the conclusion that all alike emanated from the same source; wholly human in their origin and inspired by the natural love of domination in the historians. Others, bewildered with their doubts and fears, came to no conclusion. While their clergymen told them on the one hand, that they owed all the blessings and freedom they enjoyed to the Bible, on the other, they said it clearly marked out their circumscribed sphere of action: that the demands for political and civil rights were irreligious, dangerous to the stability of the home, the state and the church. Clerical appeals were circulated from time to time, conjuring members of their churches to take no part in the anti-slavery or woman suffrage movements, as they were infidel in their tendencies, undermining the very foundations of society. No wonder the majority of women stood still, and with bowed heads, accepted the situation.
Listening to the varied opinions of women, I have long thought it would be interesting and profitable to get them clearly stated in book form. To this end six years ago I proposed to a committee of women to issue a Woman's Bible, that we might have women's commentaries on women's position in the Old and New Testaments. It was agreed on by several leading women in England and America and the work was begun, but from various causes it has been delayed, until now the idea is received with renewed enthusiasm, and a large committee has been formed, and we hope to complete the work within a year.
Those who have undertaken the labor are desirous to have some Hebrew and Greek scholars, versed in Biblical criticism, to gild our pages with their learning. Several distinguished women have been urged to do so, but they are afraid that their high reputation and scholarly attainments might be compromised by taking part in an enterprise that for a time may prove very unpopular. Hence we may not be able to get help from that class.
Others fear that they might compromise their evangelical faith by affiliating with those of more liberal views, who do not regard the Bible as the "Word of God," but like any other book, to be judged by its merits. If the Bible teaches the equality of Woman, why does the church refuse to ordain women to preach the gospel, to fill the offices of deacons and elders, and to administer the Sacraments, or to admit them as delegates to the Synods, General Assemblies and Conferences of the different denominations? They have never yet invited a woman to join one of their Revising Committees, nor tried to mitigate the sentence pronounced on her by changing one count in the indictment served on her in Paradise.
The large number of letters received, highly appreciative of the undertaking, is very encouraging to those who have inaugurated the movement, and indicate a growing self-respect and self-assertion in the women of this generation. But we have the usual array of objectors to meet and answer. One correspondent conjures us to suspend the work, as it is "ridiculous" for "women to attempt the revision of the Scriptures." I wonder if any man wrote to the late revising committee of Divines to stop their work on the ground that it was ridiculous for men to revise the Bible. Why is it more ridiculous for women to protest against her present status in the Old and New Testament, in the ordinances and discipline of the church, than in the statutes and constitution of the state? Why is it more ridiculous to arraign ecclesiastics for their false teaching and acts of injustice to women, than members of Congress and the House of Commons? Why is it more audacious to review Moses than Blackstone, the Jewish code of laws, than the English system of jurisprudence? Women have compelled their legislators in every state in this Union to so modify their statutes for women that the old common law is now almost a dead letter. Why not compel Bishops and Revising Committees to modify their creeds and dogmas? Forty years ago it seemed as ridiculous to timid, time-serving and retrograde folk for women to demand an expurgated edition of the laws, as it now does to demand an expurgated edition of the Liturgies and the Scriptures. Come, come, my conservative friend, wipe the dew off your spectacles, and see that the world is moving. Whatever your views may be as to the importance of the proposed work, your political and social degradation are but an outgrowth of your status in the Bible. When you express your aversion, based on a blind feeling of reverence in which reason has no control, to the revision of the Scriptures, you do but echo Cowper, who, when asked to read Paine's "Rights of Man," exclaimed "No man shall convince me that I am improperly governed while I feel the contrary."
Others say it is not politic to rouse religious opposition.
This much-lauded policy is but another word for cowardice. How can woman's position be changed from that of a subordinate to an equal, without opposition, without the broadest discussion of all the questions involved in her present degradation? For so far-reaching and momentous a reform as her complete independence, an entire revolution in all existing institutions is inevitable.
Let us remember that all reforms are interdependent, and that whatever is done to establish one principle on a solid basis, strengthens all. Reformers who are always compromising, have not yet grasped the idea that truth is the only safe ground to stand upon. The object of an individual life is not to carry one fragmentary measure in human progress, but to utter the highest truth clearly seen in all directions, and thus to round out and perfect a well balanced character. Was not the sum of influence exerted by John Stuart Mill on political, religious and social questions far greater than that of any statesman or reformer who has sedulously limited his sympathies and activities to carrying one specific measure? We have many women abundantly endowed with capabilities to understand and revise what men have thus far written. But they are all suffering from inherited ideas of their inferiority; they do not perceive it, yet such is the true explanation of their solicitude, lest they should seem to be too self- asserting.
Again there are some who write us that our work is a useless expenditure of force over a book that has lost its hold on the human mind. Most intelligent women, they say, regard it simply as the history of a rude people in a barbarous age, and have no more reverence for the Scriptures than any other work. So long as tens of thousands of Bibles are printed every year, and circulated over the whole habitable globe, and the masses in all English-speaking nations revere it as the word of God, it is vain to belittle its influence. The sentimental feelings we all have for those things we were educated to believe sacred, do not readily yield to pure reason. I distinctly remember the shudder that passed over me on seeing a mother take our family Bible to make a high seat for her child at table. It seemed such a desecration. I was tempted to protest against its use for such a purpose, and this, too, long after my reason had repudiated its divine authority.
To women still believing in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, we say give us by all means your exegesis in the light of the higher criticism learned men are now making, and illumine the Woman's Bible, with your inspiration.
Bible historians claim special inspiration for the Old and New Testaments containing most contradictory records of the same events, of miracles opposed to all known laws, of customs that degrade the female sex of all human and animal life, stated in most questionable language that could not be read in a promiscuous assembly, and call all this "The Word of God."
The only points in which I differ from all ecclesiastical teaching is that I do not believe that any man ever saw or talked with God, I do not believe that God inspired the Mosaic code, or told the historians what they say he did about woman, for all the religions on the face of the earth degrade her, and so long as woman accepts the position that they assign her, her emancipation is impossible. Whatever the Bible may be made to do in Hebrew or Greek, in plain English it does not exalt and dignify woman. My standpoint for criticism is the revised edition of 1888. 1 will so far honor the revising committee of wise men who have given us the best exegesis they can according to their ability, although Disraeli said the last one before he died, contained 150,000 blunders in the Hebrew, and 7,000 in the Greek.
But the verbal criticism in regard to woman's position amounts to little. The spirit is the same in all periods and languages, hostile to her as an equal.
There are some general principles in the holy books of all religions that teach love, charity, liberty, justice and equality for all the human family, there are many grand and beautiful passages, the golden rule has been echoed and re-echoed around the world. There are lofty examples of good and true men and women, all worthy our acceptance and imitation whose lustre cannot be dimmed by the false sentiments and vicious characters bound up in the same volume. The Bible cannot be accepted or rejected as a whole, its teachings are varied and its lessons differ widely from each other. In criticising the peccadilloes of Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, we would not shadow the virtues of Deborah, Huldah and Vashti. In criticising the Mosaic code, we would not question the wisdom of the golden rule and the fifth Commandment. Again the church claims special consecration for its cathedrals and priesthood, parts of these aristocratic churches are too holy for women to enter, boys were early introduced into the choirs for this reason, woman singing in an obscure corner closely veiled. A few of the more democratic denominations accord women some privileges, but invidious discriminations of sex are found in all religious organizations, and the most bitter outspoken enemies of woman are found among clergymen and bishops of the Protestant religion.2
The canon law, the Scriptures, the creeds and codes and church discipline of the leading religions bear the impress of fallible man, and not of our ideal great first cause, "the Spirit of all Good," that set the universe of matter and mind in motion, and by immutable law holds the land, the sea, the planets, revolving round the great centre of light and heat, each in its own elliptic, with millions of stars in harmony all singing together, the glory of creation forever and ever.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton.
2 See the address of Bishop Doane, June 7th, 1895, in the closing exercises of St. Agnes School, Albany.
The Book of Genesis.
Chapter I.
Genesis I: 26, 27, 28.
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him: male and female image, created he them.
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Here is the sacred historian's first account of the advent of woman; a simultaneous creation of both sexes, in the image of God. It is evident from the language that there was consultation in the Godhead, and that the masculine and feminine elements were equally represented. Scott in his commentaries says, "this consultation of the Gods is the origin of the doctrine of the trinity." But instead of three male personages, as generally represented, a Heavenly Father, Mother, and Son would seem more rational.
The first step in the elevation of woman to her true position, as an equal factor in human progress, is the cultivation of the religious sentiment in regard to her dignity and equality, the recognition by the rising generation of an ideal Heavenly Mother, to whom their prayers should be addressed, as well as to a Father.
If language has any meaning, we have in these texts a plain declaration of the existence of the feminine element in the Godhead, equal in power and glory with the masculine. The Heavenly Mother and Father! "God created man in his own image, male and female." Thus Scripture, as well as science and philosophy, declares the eternity and equality of sex—the philosophical fact, without which there could have been no perpetuation of creation, no growth or development in the animal, vegetable, or mineral kingdoms, no awakening nor progressing in the world of thought. The masculine and feminine elements, exactly equal and balancing each other, are as essential to the maintenance of the equilibrium of the universe as positive and negative electricity, the centripetal and centrifugal forces, the laws of attraction which bind together all we know of this planet whereon we dwell and of the system in which we revolve.
In the great work of creation the crowning glory was realized, when man and woman were evolved on the sixth day, the masculine and feminine forces in the image of God, that must have existed eternally, in all forms of matter and mind. All the persons in the Godhead are represented in the Elohim[2] the divine plurality taking counsel in regard to this last and highest form of life. Who were the members of this high council, and were they a duality or a trinity? Verse 27 declares the image of God male and female. How then is it possible to make woman an afterthought? We find in verses 5-16 the pronoun "he" used. Should it not in harmony with verse 26 be "they," a dual pronoun? We may attribute this to the same cause as the use of "his" in verse 11 instead of "it." The fruit tree yielding fruit after "his" kind instead of after "its" kind. The paucity of a language may give rise to many misunderstandings.
The above texts plainly show the simultaneous creation of man and woman, and their equal importance in the development of the race. All those theories based on the assumption that man was prior in the creation, have no foundation in Scripture.
As to woman's subjection, on which both the canon and the civil law delight to dwell, it is important to note that equal dominion is given to woman over every living thing, but not one word is said giving man dominion over woman.
Here is the first title deed to this green earth giving alike to the sons and daughters of God. No lesson of woman's subjection can be fairly drawn from the first chapter of the Old Testament.
E. C. S.
The most important thing for a woman to note, in reading Genesis, is that that portion which is now divided into "the first three chapters" (there was no such division until about five centuries ago), contains two entirely separate, and very contradictory, stories of creation, written by two different, but equally anonymous, authors. No Christian theologian of to-day, with any pretensions to scholarship, claims that Genesis was written by Moses. As was long ago pointed out, the Bible itself declares that all the books the Jews originally possessed were burned in the destruction of Jerusalem, about 588 B. C., at the time the people were taken to Babylonia as slaves too the Assyrians, (see II Esdras, ch. xiv, V. 21, Apocrypha). Not until about 247 B. C. (some theologians say 226 and others; 169 B. C.) is there any record of a collection of literature in the re-built Jerusalem, and, then, the anonymous writer of II Maccabees briefly mentions that some Nehemiah "gathered together the acts of the kings and the prophets and those of David" when "founding a library" for use in Jerusalem. But the earliest mention anywhere in the Bible of a book that might have corresponded to Genesis is made by an apocryphal writer, who says that Ezra wrote "all that hath been done in the world since the beginning," after the Jews returned from Babylon, under his leadership, about 450 B. C. (see II Esdras, ch. xiv, v. 22, of the Apocrypha).
When it is remembered that the Jewish books were written on rolls of leather, without much attention to vowel points and with no division into verses or chapters, by uncritical copyists, who altered passages greatly, and did not always even pretend to understand what they were copying, then the reader of Genesis begins to put herself in position to understand how it can be contradictory. Great as were the liberties which the Jews took with Genesis, those of the English translators, however, greatly surpassed them.
The first chapter of Genesis, for instance, in Hebrew, tells us, in verses one and two, "As to origin, created the gods (Elohim) these skies (or air or clouds) and this earth. . . And a wind moved upon the face of the waters." Here we have the opening of a polytheistic fable of creation, but, so strongly convinced were the English translators that the ancient Hebrews must have been originally monotheistic that they rendered the above, as follows: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. . . . And the spirit of God (!) moved upon the face of the waters."
It is now generally conceded that some one (nobody pretends to know who) at some time (nobody pretends to know exactly when), copied two creation myths on the same leather roll, one immediately following the other. About one hundred years ago, it was discovered by Dr. Astruc, of France, that from Genesis ch. i, v. 1 to Genesis ch. ii, v. 4, is given one complete account of creation, by an author who always used the term "the gods" (Elohim), in speaking of the fashioning of the universe, mentioning it altogether thirty-four times, while, in Genesis ch. ii, v. 4, to the end of chapter iii, we have a totally different narrative, by an author of unmistakably different style, who uses the term "Iahveh of the gods" twenty times, but "Elohim" only three times. The first author, evidently, attributes creation to a council of gods, acting in concert, and seems never to have heard of Iahveh. The second attributes creation to Iahveh, a tribal god of ancient Israel, but represents Iahveh as one of two or more gods, conferring with them (in Genesis ch. xiii, V. 22) as to the danger of man's acquiring immortality.
Modern theologians have, for convenience sake, entitled these two fables, respectively, the Elohistic and the Iahoistic stories. They differ, not only in the point I have mentioned above, but in the order of the "creative acts;" in regard to the mutual attitude of man and woman, and in regard to human freedom from prohibitions imposed by deity. In order to exhibit their striking contradictions, I will place them in parallel columns:
ELOHISTIC. —- IAHOISTIC.
Order of Creation: —- Order of Creation: First—Water. —- First—Land. Second—Land. —- Second—Water. Third—Vegetation. —- Third—Male Man, only. Fourth—Animals. —- Fourth—Vegetation. Fifth—Mankind; male and female. —- Fifth—Animals. —- Sixth—Woman.
In this story male and female man are created simultaneously, both alike, in the image of the gods, after animals have been called into existence. —- In this story male man is sculptured out of clay, before any animals are created, and before female man has been constructed.
Here, joint dominion over the earth is given to woman and man, without limit or prohibition. —- Here, woman is punished with subjection to man for breaking a prohibitory law.
Everything, without exception, is pronounced "very good." —- There is a tree of evil, whose fruit, is said by Iahveh to cause sudden death, but which does not do so, as Adam lived 930 years after eating it.
Man and woman are told that "every plant bearing seed upon the face of the earth and every tree. . . To you it shall be for meat." They are thus given perfect freedom. —- Man is told there is one tree of which he must not eat, "for in the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die."
Man and woman are given special dominion over all the animals-"every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth." —- An animal, a "creeping thing," is given dominion over man and woman, and proves himself more truthful than Iahveh Elohim. (Compare Genesis chapter ii, verse 17, with chapter iii, verses 4 and 22.)
