492 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



his domestic relations. His wife possessed rare qualifications, as a 

 helpmeet to her husband, and had a large share in the success of his 

 career ; for, although, as far as we can learn, she did not participate in 

 his special studies, yet it appears that, but for her, he never could 

 have carried through his numerous and formidable undertakings. His 

 testimony to this is explicit. He says : " My wife was a woman of 

 excellent understanding, much improved by reading, of great fortitude 

 and strength of mind, of a temper in the highest degree affectionate 

 and generous, feeling strongly for others and little for herself. Also, 

 greatly excelling in every thing relating to household affairs, she en- 

 tirely relieved me of all concern of that kind, which allowed me to 

 give all my time to the prosecution of my studies, and the other duties 

 of my station." His son states that his father used to say that he 

 was merely a lodger, and had all his time to devote to his own 

 pursuits. 



All honor, then, to the wife to whose womanly devotion the world 

 is indebted for whatever is great and good in the achievements of the 

 husband ! We have lately heard much of a great man who attributes 

 all his profoundest thoughts to the genius of his wife, he being really 

 only a scribe and editor ; but we here see how a great man may owe 

 his intellectual eminence to his wife, even though she be not so gifted 

 as to be able to furnish all his best ideas. Of the two methods, this is 

 certainly the most encouraging for woman, as it assigns the highest 

 office to her acknowledged capacities, and precludes all question of 

 rivalry. The united pair work in separate spheres and different ways 

 to the same end ; and the wife's affections become as indispensable to 

 the result as the husband's intellect. Had Mrs. Priestley been ani- 

 mated by modern views, and essayed to carve out her own separate 

 fortune in the field of science or theology, it is eminently probable 

 that she would have failed to do any great thing herself, and quite 

 certain that she would have effectually defeated her husband. This 

 must have been the result, if what Dr. Priestley says is true, that her 

 efficient domestic aid and her sympathetic support in his trials and 

 sufferings were among the indispensable conditions of his own suc- 

 cess. And thus, in the seclusion of her own family, absorbed in social 

 cares, forgetting herself in instinctive solicitude for others, and prob- 

 ably with no ambition beyond, this true woman and model wife was 

 really joint-partner with her illustrious husband in the good he ac- 

 complished, if not in the fame he won. And who shall say that hers 

 was not, after all, the nobler and happier share of the work ? 



