MOASIC ESSAY

This course text was created from the free e-text at:http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/3420/pg3420-images.html A VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OFWOMAN, WITH STRICTURES ONPOLITICAL AND MORAL SUBJECTS, BYMARY WOLLSTONECRAFT.WITH A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OFTHE AUTHOR.CONTENTS.INTRODUCTION.CHAPTER 1. THE RIGHTS ANDINVOLVED DUTIES OF MANKINDCONSIDERED.CHAPTER 2. THE PREVAILINGOPINION OF A SEXUAL CHARACTERDISCUSSED.CHAPTER 3. THE SAME SUBJECTCONTINUED.CHAPTER 4. OBSERVATIONS ON THESTATE OF DEGRADATION TO WHICHWOMAN IS REDUCED BY VARIOUSCAUSES.CHAPTER 5. ANIMADVERSIONS ONSOME OF THE WRITERS WHO HAVERENDERED WOMEN OBJECTS OF PITY,BORDERING ON CONTEMPT.CHAPTER 6. THE EFFECT WHICH ANEARLY ASSOCIATION OF IDEAS HASUPON THE CHARACTER.CHAPTER 7. MODESTY.COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERED,AND NOT AS A SEXUAL VIRTUE.CHAPTER 8. MORALITY UNDERMINEDBY SEXUAL NOTIONS OF THEIMPORTANCE OF A GOODREPUTATIONCHAPTER 9. OF THE PERNICIOUSEFFECTS WHICH ARISE FROM THEUNNATURAL DISTINCTIONSESTABLISHED IN SOCIETY.CHAPTER 10. PARENTAL AFFECTION.CHAPTER 11. DUTY TO PARENTSCHAPTER 12. ON NATIONALEDUCATIONCHAPTER 13. SOME INSTANCES OFTHE FOLLY WHICH THE IGNORANCEOF WOMEN GENERATES; WITHCONCLUDING REFLECTIONS ON THEMORAL IMPROVEMENT THAT AREVOLUTION IN FEMALE MANNERSMAY NATURALLY BE EXPECTED TOPRODUCE. 1 8 April, 2001A BRIEF SKETCH OF THE LIFE OFMARY WOLLSTONECRAFT.M. Wollstonecraft was born in 1759. Her fatherwas so great a wanderer, that the place of herbirth is uncertain; she supposed, however, it wasLondon, or Epping Forest: at the latter place shespent the first five years of her life. In early youthshe exhibited traces of exquisite sensibility,soundness of understanding, and decision ofcharacter; but her father being a despot in hisfamily, and her mother one of his subjects, Mary,derived little benefit from their parental training.She received no literary instructions but such aswere to be had in ordinary day schools. Before hersixteenth year she became acquainted with Mr.Clare a clergyman, and Miss Frances Blood; thelatter, two years older than herself; whopossessing good taste and some knowledge of thefine arts, seems to have given the first impulse tothe formation of her character. At the age ofnineteen, she left her parents, and resided with aMrs. Dawson for two years; when she returned tothe parental roof to give attention to her mother,whose ill health made her presence necessary. Onthe death of her mother, Mary bade a final adieuto her father's house, and became the inmate of F.Blood; thus situated, their intimacy increased, anda strong attachment was reciprocated. In 1783 shecommenced a day school at Newington green, inconjunction with her friend, F. Blood. At thisplace she became acquainted with Dr. Price, towhom she became strongly attached; the regardwas mutual.It is said that she became a teacher from motivesof benevolence, or rather philanthropy, andduring the time she continued in the profession,she gave proof of superior qualification for theperformance of its arduous and important duties.Her friend and coadjutor married and removed toLisbon, in Portugal, where she died of apulmonary disease; the symptoms of which werevisible before her marriage. So true was Mary'sattachment to her, that she entrusted her schoolto the care of others, for the purpose of attendingFrances in her closing scene. She aided, as did Dr.Young, in "Stealing Narcissa a grave." Her mindwas expanded by this residence in a foreigncountry, and though clear of religious bigotrybefore, she took some instructive lessons on theevils of superstition, and intolerance.On her return she found the school had sufferedby her absence, and having previously decided toapply herself to literature, she now resolved tocommence. In 1787 she made, or received,proposals from Johnson, a publisher in London,who was already acquainted with her talents as anauthor. During the three subsequent years, shewas actively engaged, more in translating,condensing, and compiling, than in theproduction of original works. At this time shelaboured under much depression of spirits, for theloss of her friend; this rather increased, perhaps,by the publication of "Mary, a novel," which wasmostly composed of incidents and reflectionsconnected with their intimacy.The pecuniary concerns of her father becomingembarrassed, Mary practised a rigid economy inher expenditures, and with her savings wasenabled to procure her sisters and brotherssituations, to which without her aid, they couldnot have had access; her father was sustained atlength from her funds; she even found means totake under her protection an orphan child.She had acquired a facility in the arrangement andexpression of thoughts, in her avocation oftranslator, and compiler, which was no doubt ofgreat use to her afterward. It was not long untilshe had occasion for them. The eminent Burkeproduced his celebrated "Reflections on the2 Revolution in France." Mary full of sentiments ofliberty, and indignant at what she thoughtsubversive of it, seized her pen and produced thefirst attack upon that famous work. It succeededwell, for though intemperate and contemptuous, itwas vehemently and impetuously eloquent; andthough Burke was beloved by the enlightenedfriends of freedom, they were dissatisfied anddisgusted with what they deemed an outrage uponit.It is said that Mary, had not wanted confidence inher own powers before, but the reception thiswork met from the public, gave her anopportunity of judging what those powers were,in the estimation of others. It was shortly afterthis, that she commenced the work to which theseremarks are prefixed. What are its merits will bedecided in the judgment of each reader; suffice itto say she appears to have stept forth boldly, andsingly, in defence of that half of the human race,which by the usages of all society, whether savageor civilized, have been kept from attaining theirproper dignity—their equal rank as rationalbeings. It would appear that the disguise used inplacing on woman the silken fetters which bribedher into endurance, and even love of slavery, butincreased the opposition of our authoress: shewould have had more patience with rude, brutecoercion, than with that imposing gallantry,which, while it affects to consider woman as thepride, and ornament of creation, degrades her to atoy—an appendage—a cypher. The work wasmuch reprehended, and as might well beexpected, found its greatest enemies in the prettysoft creatures—the spoiled children of her ownsex. She accomplished it in six weeks.In 1792 she removed to Paris, where she becameacquainted with Gilbert Imlay, of the UnitedStates. And from this acquaintance grew anattachment, which brought the parties together,without legal formalities, to which she objected onaccount of some family embarrassments, in whichhe would thereby become involved. Theengagement was however considered by her ofthe most sacred nature, and they formed the planof emigrating to America, where they should beenabled to accomplish it. These were the days ofRobespierrean cruelty, and Imlay left Paris forHavre, whither after a time Mary followed him.They continued to reside there, until he left Havrefor London, under pretence of business, and witha promise of rejoining her soon at Paris, whichhowever he did not, but in 1795 sent for her toLondon. In the mean time she had become themother of a female child, whom she calledFrances in commemoration of her earlyfriendship.Before she went to England, she had somegloomy forebodings that the affections of Imlay,had waned, if they were not estranged from her;on her arrival, those forebodings were sorrowfullyconfirmed. His attentions were too formal andconstrained to pass unobserved by herpenetration, and though he ascribed his manner,and his absence, to business duties, she saw hisaffection for her was only something to beremembered. To use her own expression, "Love,dear delusion! Rigorous reason has forced me toresign; and now my rational prospects are blasted,just as I have learned to be contented withrational enjoyments." To pretend to depict hermisery at this time would be futile; the best ideacan be formed of it from the fact that she hadplanned her own destruction, from which Imlayprevented her. She conceived the idea of suicide asecond time, and threw herself into the Thames;she remained in the water, until consciousnessforsook her, but she was taken up andresuscitated. After divers attempts to revive theaffections of Imlay, with sundry explanations andprofessions on his part, through the lapse of twoyears, she resolved finally to forgo all hope of3 reclaiming him, and endeavour to think of him nomore in connexion with her future prospects. Inthis she succeeded so well, that she afterwards hada private interview with him, which did notproduce any painful emotions.In 1796 she revived or improved an acquaintancewhich commenced years before with Wm.Godwin, author of "Political Justice," and otherworks of great notoriety. Though they had notbeen favourably impressed with each other ontheir former acquaintance, they now met undercircumstances which permitted a mutual and justappreciation of character. Their intimacyincreased by regular and almost imperceptibledegrees. The partiality they conceived for eachother was, according to her biographer, "In themost refined style of love. It grew with equaladvances in the mind of each. It would have beenimpossible for the most minute observer to havesaid who was before, or who after. One sex didnot take the priority which long establishedcustom has awarded it, nor the other overstep thatdelicacy which is so severely imposed. Neitherparty could assume to have been the agent or thepatient, the toil-spreader or the prey in the affair.When in the course of things the disclosure came,there was nothing in a manner for either todisclose to the other."Mary lived but a few months after her marriage,and died in child-bed; having given birth to adaughter who is now known to the literary worldas Mrs. Shelly, the widow of Percy Bysche Shelly.We can scarcely avoid regret that one of suchsplendid talents, and high toned feelings, should,after the former seemed to have been fullydeveloped, and the latter had found an object inwhom they might repose, after their eccentric andpainful efforts to find a resting place—that suchan one should at such a time, be cut off from lifeis something which we cannot contemplatewithout feeling regret; we can scarcely repress themurmur that she had not been removed ereclouds darkened her horizon, or that she hadremained to witness the brightness and serenitywhich might have succeeded. But thus it is; wemay trace the cause to anti-social arrangements; itis not individuals but society which must changeit, and that not by enactments, but by a change inpublic opinion.The authoress of the "Rights of Woman," wasborn April 1759, diedSeptember 1797.That there may be no doubt regarding the facts inthis sketch, they are taken from a memoir writtenby her afflicted husband. In addition to many kindthings he has said of her, (he was not blinded toimperfections in her character) is, that she was"Lovely in her person, and in the best and mostengaging sense feminine in her manners."4 TOM. TALLEYRAND PERIGORD,LATE BISHOP OF AUTUN.Sir:—Having read with great pleasure a pamphlet,which you have lately published, on NationalEducation, I dedicate this volume to you, the firstdedication that I have ever written, to induce youto read it with attention; and, because I think thatyou will understand me, which I do not supposemany pert witlings will, who may ridicule thearguments they are unable to answer. But, sir, Icarry my respect for your understanding stillfarther: so far, that I am confident you will notthrow my work aside, and hastily conclude that Iam in the wrong because you did not view thesubject in the same light yourself. And pardon myfrankness, but I must observe, that you treated itin too cursory a manner, contented to consider itas it had been considered formerly, when therights of man, not to advert to woman, weretrampled on as chimerical. I call upon you,therefore, now to weigh what I have advancedrespecting the rights of woman, and nationaleducation; and I call with the firm tone ofhumanity. For my arguments, sir, are dictated by adisinterested spirit: I plead for my sex, not formyself. Independence I have long considered asthe grand blessing of life, the basis of every virtue;and independence I will ever secure bycontracting my wants, though I were to live on abarren heath.It is, then, an affection for the whole human racethat makes my pen dart rapidly along to supportwhat I believe to be the cause of virtue: and thesame motive leads me earnestly to wish to seewoman placed in a station in which she wouldadvance, instead of retarding, the progress ofthose glorious principles that give a substance tomorality. My opinion, indeed, respecting the rightsand duties of woman, seems to flow so naturallyfrom these simple principles, that I think itscarcely possible, but that some of the enlargedminds who formed your admirable constitution,will coincide with me.In France, there is undoubtedly a more generaldiffusion of knowledge than in any part of theEuropean world, and I attribute it, in a greatmeasure, to the social intercourse which has longsubsisted between the sexes. It is true, I utter mysentiments with freedom, that in France the veryessence of sensuality has been extracted to regalethe voluptuary, and a kind of sentimental lust hasprevailed, which, together with the system ofduplicity that the whole tenor of their political andcivil government taught, have given a sinister sortof sagacity to the French character, properlytermed finesse; and a polish of manners thatinjures the substance, by hunting sincerity out ofsociety. And, modesty, the fairest garb of virtuehas been more grossly insulted in France thaneven in England, till their women have treated asPRUDISH that attention to decency which brutesinstinctively observe.Manners and morals are so nearly allied, that theyhave often been confounded; but, though theformer should only be the natural reflection of thelatter, yet, when various causes have producedfactitious and corrupt manners, which are veryearly caught, morality becomes an empty name.The personal reserve, and sacred respect forcleanliness and delicacy in domestic life, whichFrench women almost despise, are the gracefulpillars of modesty; but, far from despising them, ifthe pure flame of patriotism have reached theirbosoms, they should labour to improve themorals of their fellow-citizens, by teaching men,not only to respect modesty in women, but toacquire it themselves, as the only way to merittheir esteem.5 Contending for the rights of women, my mainargument is built on this simple principle, that ifshe be not prepared by education to become thecompanion of man, she will stop the progress ofknowledge, for truth must be common to all, or itwill be inefficacious with respect to its influenceon general practice. And how can woman beexpected to co-operate, unless she know why sheought to be virtuous? Unless freedom strengthenher reason till she comprehend her duty, and seein what manner it is connected with her realgood? If children are to be educated tounderstand the true principle of patriotism, theirmother must be a patriot; and the love ofmankind, from which an orderly train of virtuesspring, can only be produced by considering themoral and civil interest of mankind; but theeducation and situation of woman, at present,shuts her out from such investigations.In this work I have produced many arguments,which to me were conclusive, to prove, that theprevailing notion respecting a sexual character wassubversive of morality, and I have contended, thatto render the human body and mind more perfect,chastity must more universally prevail, and thatchastity will never be respected in the male worldtill the person of a woman is not, as it were,idolized when little virtue or sense embellish itwith the grand traces of mental beauty, or theinteresting simplicity of affection.Consider, Sir, dispassionately, these observations,for a glimpse of this truth seemed to open beforeyou when you observed, "that to see one half ofthe human race excluded by the other from allparticipation of government, was a politicalphenomenon that, according to abstractprinciples, it was impossible to explain." If so, onwhat does your constitution rest? If the abstractrights of man will bear discussion and explanation,those of woman, by a parity of reasoning, will notshrink from the same test: though a differentopinion prevails in this country, built on the veryarguments which you use to justify the oppressionof woman, prescription.Consider, I address you as a legislator, whether,when men contend for their freedom, and to beallowed to judge for themselves, respecting theirown happiness, it be not inconsistent and unjustto subjugate women, even though you firmlybelieve that you are acting in the manner bestcalculated to promote their happiness? Who mademan the exclusive judge, if woman partake withhim the gift of reason?In this style, argue tyrants of every denominationfrom the weak king to the weak father of a family;they are all eager to crush reason; yet always assertthat they usurp its throne only to be useful. Doyou not act a similar part, when you FORCE allwomen, by denying them civil and political rights,to remain immured in their families groping in thedark? For surely, sir, you will not assert, that aduty can be binding which is not founded onreason? If, indeed, this be their destination,arguments may be drawn from reason; and thusaugustly supported, the more understandingwomen acquire, the more they will be attached totheir duty, comprehending it, for unless theycomprehend it, unless their morals be fixed on thesame immutable principles as those of man, noauthority can make them discharge it in a virtuousmanner. They may be convenient slaves, butslavery will have its constant effect, degrading themaster and the abject dependent.But, if women are to be excluded, without havinga voice, from a participation of the natural rightsof mankind, prove first, to ward off the charge ofinjustice and inconsistency, that they want reason,else this flaw in your NEW CONSTITUTION,the first constitution founded on reason, will evershow that man must, in some shape, act like a6 tyrant, and tyranny, in whatever part of society itrears its brazen front, will ever underminemorality.I have repeatedly asserted, and produced whatappeared to me irrefragable arguments drawnfrom matters of fact, to prove my assertion, thatwomen cannot, by force, be confined to domesticconcerns; for they will however ignorant,intermeddle with more weighty affairs, neglectingprivate duties only to disturb, by cunning tricks,the orderly plans of reason which rise above theircomprehension.Besides, whilst they are only made to acquirepersonal accomplishments, men will seek forpleasure in variety, and faithless husbands willmake faithless wives; such ignorant beings,indeed, will be very excusable when, not taught torespect public good, nor allowed any civil right,they attempt to do themselves justice byretaliation.The box of mischief thus opened in society, whatis to preserve private virtue, the only security ofpublic freedom and universal happiness?Let there be then no coercion ESTABLISHED insociety, and the common law of gravity prevailing,the sexes will fall into their proper places. And,now that more equitable laws are forming yourcitizens, marriage may become more sacred; youryoung men may choose wives from motives ofaffection, and your maidens allow love to root outvanity.The father of a family will not then weaken hisconstitution and debase his sentiments, by visitingthe harlot, nor forget, in obeying the call ofappetite, the purpose for which it was implanted;and the mother will not neglect her children topractise the arts of coquetry, when sense andmodesty secure her the friendship of her husband.But, till men become attentive to the duty of afather, it is vain to expect women to spend thattime in their nursery which they, "wise in theirgeneration," choose to spend at their glass; forthis exertion of cunning is only an instinct ofnature to enable them to obtain indirectly a littleof that power of which they are unjustly denied ashare; for, if women are not permitted to enjoylegitimate rights, they will render both men andthemselves vicious, to obtain illicit privileges.I wish, sir, to set some investigations of this kindafloat in France; and should they lead to aconfirmation of my principles, when yourconstitution is revised, the rights of woman maybe respected, if it be fully proved that reason callsfor this respect, and loudly demands JUSTICE forone half of the human race.I am, sir,Yours respectfully,M. W.7 INTRODUCTION.After considering the historic page, and viewingthe living world with anxious solicitude, the mostmelancholy emotions of sorrowful indignationhave depressed my spirits, and I have sighed whenobliged to confess, that either nature has made agreat difference between man and man, or thatthe civilization, which has hitherto taken place inthe world, has been very partial. I have turnedover various books written on the subject ofeducation, and patiently observed the conduct ofparents and the management of schools; but whathas been the result? a profound conviction, thatthe neglected education of my fellow creatures isthe grand source of the misery I deplore; and thatwomen in particular, are rendered weak andwretched by a variety of concurring causes,originating from one hasty conclusion. Theconduct and manners of women, in fact, evidentlyprove, that their minds are not in a healthy state;for, like the flowers that are planted in too rich asoil, strength and usefulness are sacrificed tobeauty; and the flaunting leaves, after havingpleased a fastidious eye, fade, disregarded on thestalk, long before the season when they ought tohave arrived at maturity. One cause of this barrenblooming I attribute to a false system ofeducation, gathered from the books written onthis subject by men, who, considering femalesrather as women than human creatures, have beenmore anxious to make them alluring mistressesthan rational wives; and the understanding of thesex has been so bubbled by this specious homage,that the civilized women of the present century,with a few exceptions, are only anxious to inspirelove, when they ought to cherish a noblerambition, and by their abilities and virtues exactrespect.In a treatise, therefore, on female rights andmanners, the works which have been particularlywritten for their improvement must not beoverlooked; especially when it is asserted, in directterms, that the minds of women are enfeebled byfalse refinement; that the books of instruction,written by men of genius, have had the sametendency as more frivolous productions; and that,in the true style of Mahometanism, they are onlyconsidered as females, and not as a part of thehuman species, when improvable reason isallowed to be the dignified distinction, whichraises men above the brute creation, and puts anatural sceptre in a feeble hand.Yet, because I am a woman, I would not lead myreaders to suppose, that I mean violently to agitatethe contested question respecting the equality andinferiority of the sex; but as the subject lies in myway, and I cannot pass it over without subjectingthe main tendency of my reasoning tomisconstruction, I shall stop a moment to deliver,in a few words, my opinion. In the government ofthe physical world, it is observable that the female,in general, is inferior to the male. The malepursues, the female yields—this is the law ofnature; and it does not appear to be suspended orabrogated in favour of woman. This physicalsuperiority cannot be denied—and it is a nobleprerogative! But not content with this natural pre-eminence, men endeavour to sink us still lower,merely to render us alluring objects for a moment;and women, intoxicated by the adoration whichmen, under the influence of their senses, paythem, do not seek to obtain a durable interest intheir hearts, or to become the friends of thefellow creatures who find amusement in theirsociety.I am aware of an obvious inference: from everyquarter have I heard exclamations againstmasculine women; but where are they to befound? If, by this appellation, men mean toinveigh against their ardour in hunting, shooting,and gaming, I shall most cordially join in the cry;but if it be, against the imitation of manly virtues,8 or, more properly speaking, the attainment ofthose talents and virtues, the exercise of whichennobles the human character, and which raisefemales in the scale of animal being, when theyare comprehensively termed mankind—all thosewho view them with a philosophical eye must, Ishould think, wish with me, that they may everyday grow more and more masculine.This discussion naturally divides the subject. Ishall first consider women in the grand light ofhuman creatures, who, in common with men, areplaced on this earth to unfold their faculties; andafterwards I shall more particularly point out theirpeculiar designation.I wish also to steer clear of an error, which manyrespectable writers have fallen into; for theinstruction which has hitherto been addressed towomen, has rather been applicable to LADIES, ifthe little indirect advice, that is scattered throughSandford and Merton, be excepted; but,addressing my sex in a firmer tone, I payparticular attention to those in the middle class,because they appear to be in the most naturalstate. Perhaps the seeds of false refinement,immorality, and vanity have ever been shed by thegreat. Weak, artificial beings raised above thecommon wants and affections of their race, in apremature unnatural manner, undermine the veryfoundation of virtue, and spread corruptionthrough the whole mass of society! As a class ofmankind they have the strongest claim to pity! theeducation of the rich tends to render them vainand helpless, and the unfolding mind is notstrengthened by the practice of those duties whichdignify the human character. They only live toamuse themselves, and by the same law which innature invariably produces certain effects, theysoon only afford barren amusement.But as I purpose taking a separate view of thedifferent ranks of society, and of the moralcharacter of women, in each, this hint is, for thepresent, sufficient; and I have only alluded to thesubject, because it appears to me to be the veryessence of an introduction to give a cursoryaccount of the contents of the work it introduces.My own sex, I hope, will excuse me, if I treatthem like rational creatures, instead of flatteringtheir FASCINATING graces, and viewing themas if they were in a state of perpetual childhood,unable to stand alone. I earnestly wish to pointout in what true dignity and human happinessconsists—I wish to persuade women toendeavour to acquire strength, both of mind andbody, and to convince them, that the soft phrases,susceptibility of heart, delicacy of sentiment, andrefinement of taste, are almost synonymous withepithets of weakness, and that those beings whoare only the objects of pity and that kind of love,which has been termed its sister, will soonbecome objects of contempt.Dismissing then those pretty feminine phrases,which the men condescendingly use to soften ourslavish dependence, and despising that weakelegancy of mind, exquisite sensibility, and sweetdocility of manners, supposed to be the sexualcharacteristics of the weaker vessel, I wish toshow that elegance is inferior to virtue, that thefirst object of laudable ambition is to obtain acharacter as a human being, regardless of thedistinction of sex; and that secondary viewsshould be brought to this simple touchstone.This is a rough sketch of my plan; and should Iexpress my conviction with the energeticemotions that I feel whenever I think of thesubject, the dictates of experience and reflectionwill be felt by some of my readers. Animated bythis important object, I shall disdain to cull myphrases or polish my style—I aim at being useful,and sincerity will render me unaffected; forwishing rather to persuade by the force of my9 arguments, than dazzle by the elegance of mylanguage, I shall not waste my time in roundingperiods, nor in fabricating the turgid bombast ofartificial feelings, which, coming from the head,never reach the heart. I shall be employed aboutthings, not words! and, anxious to render my sexmore respectable members of society, I shall try toavoid that flowery diction which has slided fromessays into novels, and from novels into familiarletters and conversation.These pretty nothings, these caricatures of the realbeauty of sensibility, dropping glibly from thetongue, vitiate the taste, and create a kind of sicklydelicacy that turns away from simple unadornedtruth; and a deluge of false sentiments and over-stretched feelings, stifling the natural emotions ofthe heart, render the domestic pleasures insipid,that ought to sweeten the exercise of those severeduties, which educate a rational and immortalbeing for a nobler field of action.The education of women has, of late, been moreattended to than formerly; yet they are stillreckoned a frivolous sex, and ridiculed or pitiedby the writers who endeavour by satire orinstruction to improve them. It is acknowledgedthat they spend many of the first years of theirlives in acquiring a smattering ofaccomplishments: meanwhile, strength of bodyand mind are sacrificed to libertine notions ofbeauty, to the desire of establishing themselves,the only way women can rise in the world—bymarriage. And this desire making mere animals ofthem, when they marry, they act as such childrenmay be expected to act: they dress; they paint, andnickname God's creatures. Surely these weakbeings are only fit for the seraglio! Can theygovern a family, or take care of the poor babeswhom they bring into the world?If then it can be fairly deduced from the presentconduct of the sex, from the prevalent fondnessfor pleasure, which takes place of ambition andthose nobler passions that open and enlarge thesoul; that the instruction which women havereceived has only tended, with the constitution ofcivil society, to render them insignificant objectsof desire; mere propagators of fools! if it can beproved, that in aiming to accomplish them,without cultivating their understandings, they aretaken out of their sphere of duties, and maderidiculous and useless when the short lived bloomof beauty is over*, I presume that RATIONALmen will excuse me for endeavouring to persuadethem to become more masculine and respectable.(*Footnote. A lively writer, I cannot recollect hisname, asks what business women turned of fortyhave to do in the world.)Indeed the word masculine is only a bugbear:there is little reason to fear that women willacquire too much courage or fortitude; for theirapparent inferiority with respect to bodilystrength, must render them, in some degree,dependent on men in the various relations of life;but why should it be increased by prejudices thatgive a sex to virtue, and confound simple truthswith sensual reveries?Women are, in fact, so much degraded bymistaken notions of female excellence, that I donot mean to add a paradox when I assert, that thisartificial weakness produces a propensity totyrannize, and gives birth to cunning, the naturalopponent of strength, which leads them to playoff those contemptible infantile airs thatundermine esteem even whilst they excite desire.Do not foster these prejudices, and they willnaturally fall into their subordinate, yet respectablestation in life.It seems scarcely necessary to say, that I nowspeak of the sex in general. Many individuals havemore sense than their male relatives; and, as10 nothing preponderates where there is a constantstruggle for an equilibrium, without it hasnaturally more gravity, some women govern theirhusbands without degrading themselves, becauseintellect will always govern.VINDICATION OF THE RIGHTS OFWOMAN.CHAPTER 1.THE RIGHTS AND INVOLVED DUTIESOF MANKIND CONSIDERED.In the present state of society, it appears necessaryto go back to first principles in search of the mostsimple truths, and to dispute with some prevailingprejudice every inch of ground. To clear my way, Imust be allowed to ask some plain questions, andthe answers will probably appear as unequivocalas the axioms on which reasoning is built; though,when entangled with various motives of action,they are formally contradicted, either by the wordsor conduct of men.In what does man's pre-eminence over the brutecreation consist?The answer is as clear as that a half is less than thewhole; in Reason.What acquirement exalts one being aboveanother? Virtue; we spontaneously reply.For what purpose were the passions implanted?That man by struggling with them might attain adegree of knowledge denied to the brutes:whispers Experience.Consequently the perfection of our nature andcapability of happiness, must be estimated by thedegree of reason, virtue, and knowledge, thatdistinguish the individual, and direct the lawswhich bind society: and that from the exercise ofreason, knowledge and virtue naturally flow, isequally undeniable, if mankind be viewedcollectively.The rights and duties of man thus simplified, itseems almost impertinent to attempt to illustratetruths that appear so incontrovertible: yet such11 deeply rooted prejudices have clouded reason, andsuch spurious qualities have assumed the name ofvirtues, that it is necessary to pursue the course ofreason as it has been perplexed and involved inerror, by various adventitious circumstances,comparing the simple axiom with casualdeviations.Men, in general, seem to employ their reason tojustify prejudices, which they have imbibed, theycannot trace how, rather than to root them out.The mind must be strong that resolutely forms itsown principles; for a kind of intellectualcowardice prevails which makes many men shrinkfrom the task, or only do it by halves. Yet theimperfect conclusions thus drawn, are frequentlyvery plausible, because they are built on partialexperience, on just, though narrow, views.Going back to first principles, vice skulks, with allits native deformity, from close investigation; buta set of shallow reasoners are always exclaimingthat these arguments prove too much, and that ameasure rotten at the core may be expedient.Thus expediency is continually contrasted withsimple principles, till truth is lost in a mist ofwords, virtue in forms, and knowledge rendered asounding nothing, by the specious prejudices thatassume its name.That the society is formed in the wisest manner,whose constitution is founded on the nature ofman, strikes, in the abstract, every thinking beingso forcibly, that it looks like presumption toendeavour to bring forward proofs; though proofmust be brought, or the strong hold ofprescription will never be forced by reason; yet tourge prescription as an argument to justify thedepriving men (or women) of their natural rights,is one of the absurd sophisms which daily insultcommon sense.The civilization of the bulk of the people ofEurope, is very partial; nay, it may be made aquestion, whether they have acquired any virtuesin exchange for innocence, equivalent to themisery produced by the vices that have beenplastered over unsightly ignorance, and thefreedom which has been bartered for splendidslavery. The desire of dazzling by riches, the mostcertain pre-eminence that man can obtain, thepleasure of commanding flattering sycophants,and many other complicated low calculations ofdoting self-love, have all contributed tooverwhelm the mass of mankind, and make libertya convenient handle for mock patriotism. Forwhilst rank and titles are held of the utmostimportance, before which Genius "must hide itsdiminished head," it is, with a few exceptions, veryunfortunate for a nation when a man of abilities,without rank or property, pushes himself forwardto notice. Alas! what unheard of misery havethousands suffered to purchase a cardinal's hat foran intriguing obscure adventurer, who longed tobe ranked with princes, or lord it over them byseizing the triple crown!Such, indeed, has been the wretchedness that hasflowed from hereditary honours, riches, andmonarchy, that men of lively sensibility havealmost uttered blasphemy in order to justify thedispensations of providence. Man has been heldout as independent of his power who made him,or as a lawless planet darting from its orbit to stealthe celestial fire of reason; and the vengeance ofheaven, lurking in the subtile flame, sufficientlypunished his temerity, by introducing evil into theworld.Impressed by this view of the misery and disorderwhich pervaded society, and fatigued with jostlingagainst artificial fools, Rousseau becameenamoured of solitude, and, being at the sametime an optimist, he labours with uncommoneloquence to prove that man was naturally asolitary animal. Misled by his respect for the12 goodness of God, who certainly for what man ofsense and feeling can doubt it! gave life only tocommunicate happiness, he considers evil aspositive, and the work of man; not aware that hewas exalting one attribute at the expense ofanother, equally necessary to divine perfection.Reared on a false hypothesis, his arguments infavour of a state of nature are plausible, butunsound. I say unsound; for to assert that a stateof nature is preferable to civilization in all itspossible perfection, is, in other words, to arraignsupreme wisdom; and the paradoxicalexclamation, that God has made all things right,and that evil has been introduced by the creaturewhom he formed, knowing what he formed, is asunphilosophical as impious.When that wise Being, who created us and placedus here, saw the fair idea, he willed, by allowing itto be so, that the passions should unfold ourreason, because he could see that present evilwould produce future good. Could the helplesscreature whom he called from nothing, breakloose from his providence, and boldly learn toknow good by practising evil without hispermission? No. How could that energeticadvocate for immortality argue so inconsistently?Had mankind remained for ever in the brutal stateof nature, which even his magic pen cannot paintas a state in which a single virtue took root, itwould have been clear, though not to the sensitiveunreflecting wanderer, that man was born to runthe circle of life and death, and adorn God'sgarden for some purpose which could not easilybe reconciled with his attributes.But if, to crown the whole, there were to berational creatures produced, allowed to rise inexcellency by the exercise of powers implanted forthat purpose; if benignity itself thought fit to callinto existence a creature above the brutes, whocould think and improve himself, why should thatinestimable gift, for a gift it was, if a man was socreated as to have a capacity to rise above thestate in which sensation produced brutal ease, becalled, in direct terms, a curse? A curse it might bereckoned, if all our existence was bounded by ourcontinuance in this world; for why should thegracious fountain of life give us passions, and thepower of reflecting, only to embitter our days, andinspire us with mistaken notions of dignity? Whyshould he lead us from love of ourselves to thesublime emotions which the discovery of hiswisdom and goodness excites, if these feelingswere not set in motion to our nature, of whichthey make a part, and render us capable ofenjoying a more godlike portion of happiness?Firmly persuaded that no evil exists in the worldthat God did not design to take place, I build mybelief on the perfection of God.Rousseau exerts himself to prove, that all WASright originally: a crowd of authors that all IS nowright: and I, that all WILL BE right.But, true to his first position, next to a state ofnature, Rousseau celebrates barbarism, and,apostrophizing the shade of Fabricius, he forgetsthat, in conquering the world, the Romans neverdreamed of establishing their own liberty on afirm basis, or of extending the reign of virtue.Eager to support his system, he stigmatizes, asvicious, every effort of genius; and uttering theapotheosis of savage virtues, he exalts those todemigods, who were scarcely human—the brutalSpartans, who in defiance of justice and gratitude,sacrificed, in cold blood, the slaves that hadshown themselves men to rescue their oppressors.Disgusted with artificial manners and virtues, thecitizen of Geneva, instead of properly sifting thesubject, threw away the wheat with the chaff,without waiting to inquire whether the evils,which his ardent soul turned from indignantly,were the consequence of civilization, or the13 vestiges of barbarism. He saw vice trampling onvirtue, and the semblance of goodness takingplace of the reality; he saw talents bent by powerto sinister purposes, and never thought of tracingthe gigantic mischief up to arbitrary power, up tothe hereditary distinctions that clash with themental superiority that naturally raises a manabove his fellows. He did not perceive, that theregal power, in a few generations, introducesidiotism into the noble stem, and holds out baitsto render thousands idle and vicious.Nothing can set the regal character in a morecontemptible point of view, than the variouscrimes that have elevated men to the supremedignity. Vile intrigues, unnatural crimes, and everyvice that degrades our nature, have been the stepsto this distinguished eminence; yet millions ofmen have supinely allowed the nerveless limbs ofthe posterity of such rapacious prowlers, to restquietly on their ensanguined thrones.What but a pestilential vapour can hover oversociety, when its chief director is only instructedin the invention of crimes, or the stupid routine ofchildish ceremonies? Will men never be wise? willthey never cease to expect corn from tares, andfigs from thistles?It is impossible for any man, when the mostfavourable circumstances concur, to acquiresufficient knowledge and strength of mind todischarge the duties of a king, entrusted withuncontrolled power; how then must they beviolated when his very elevation is an insuperablebar to the attainment of either wisdom or virtue;when all the feelings of a man are stifled byflattery, and reflection shut out by pleasure! Surelyit is madness to make the fate of thousandsdepend on the caprice of a weak fellow creature,whose very station sinks him NECESSARILYbelow the meanest of his subjects! But one powershould not be thrown down to exalt another—forall power intoxicates weak man; and its abuseproves, that the more equality there is establishedamong men, the more virtue and happiness willreign in society. But this, and any similar maximdeduced from simple reason, raises anoutcry—the church or the state is in danger, iffaith in the wisdom of antiquity is not implicit;and they who, roused by the sight of humancalamity, dare to attack human authority, arereviled as despisers of God, and enemies of man.These are bitter calumnies, yet they reached oneof the best of men, (Dr. Price.) whose ashes stillpreach peace, and whose memory demands arespectful pause, when subjects are discussed thatlay so near his heart.After attacking the sacred majesty of kings, I shallscarcely excite surprise, by adding my firmpersuasion, that every profession, in which greatsubordination of rank constitutes its power, ishighly injurious to morality.A standing army, for instance, is incompatiblewith freedom; because subordination and rigourare the very sinews of military discipline; anddespotism is necessary to give vigour toenterprises that one will directs. A spirit inspiredby romantic notions of honour, a kind of moralityfounded on the fashion of the age, can only befelt by a few officers, whilst the main body mustbe moved by command, like the waves of the sea;for the strong wind of authority pushes the crowdof subalterns forward, they scarcely know or carewhy, with headlong fury.Besides, nothing can be so prejudicial to themorals of the inhabitants of country towns, as theoccasional residence of a set of idle superficialyoung men, whose only occupation is gallantry,and whose polished manners render vice moredangerous, by concealing its deformity under gayornamental drapery. An air of fashion, which isbut a badge of slavery, and proves that the soul14 has not a strong individual character, awes simplecountry people into an imitation of the vices,when they cannot catch the slippery graces ofpoliteness. Every corps is a chain of despots, who,submitting and tyrannizing without exercisingtheir reason, become dead weights of vice andfolly on the community. A man of rank orfortune, sure of rising by interest, has nothing todo but to pursue some extravagant freak; whilstthe needy GENTLEMAN, who is to rise, as thephrase turns, by his merit, becomes a servileparasite or vile pander.Sailors, the naval gentlemen, come under the samedescription, only their vices assume a differentand a grosser cast. They are more positivelyindolent, when not discharging the ceremonials oftheir station; whilst the insignificant fluttering ofsoldiers may be termed active idleness. Moreconfined to the society of men, the former acquirea fondness for humour and mischievous tricks;whilst the latter, mixing frequently with well-bredwomen, catch a sentimental cant. But mind isequally out of the question, whether they indulgethe horse-laugh or polite simper.May I be allowed to extend the comparison to aprofession where more mind is certainly to befound; for the clergy have superior opportunitiesof improvement, though subordination almostequally cramps their faculties? The blindsubmission imposed at college to forms of belief,serves as a noviciate to the curate who mostobsequiously respects the opinion of his rector orpatron, if he means to rise in his profession.Perhaps there cannot be a more forcible contrastthan between the servile, dependent gait of a poorcurate, and the courtly mien of a bishop. And therespect and contempt they inspire render thedischarge of their separate functions equallyuseless.It is of great importance to observe, that thecharacter of every man is, in some degree, formedby his profession. A man of sense may only have acast of countenance that wears off as you trace hisindividuality, whilst the weak, common man, hasscarcely ever any character, but what belongs tothe body; at least, all his opinions have been sosteeped in the vat consecrated by authority, thatthe faint spirit which the grape of his own vineyields cannot be distinguished.Society, therefore, as it becomes moreenlightened, should be very careful not toestablish bodies of men who must necessarily bemade foolish or vicious by the very constitutionof their profession.In the infancy of society, when men were justemerging out of barbarism, chiefs and priests,touching the most powerful springs of savageconduct—hope and fear—must have hadunbounded sway. An aristocracy, of course, isnaturally the first form of government. Butclashing interests soon losing their equipoise, amonarchy and hierarchy break out of theconfusion of ambitious struggles, and thefoundation of both is secured by feudal tenures.This appears to be the origin of monarchial andpriestly power, and the dawn of civilization. Butsuch combustible materials cannot long be pentup; and getting vent in foreign wars and intestineinsurrections, the people acquire some power inthe tumult, which obliges their rulers to gloss overtheir oppression with a show of right. Thus, aswars, agriculture, commerce, and literature,expands the mind, despots are compelled, tomake covert corruption hold fast the power whichwas formerly snatched by open force.* And thisbaneful lurking gangrene is most quickly spreadby luxury and superstition, the sure dregs ofambition. The indolent puppet of a court firstbecomes a luxurious monster, or fastidioussensualist, and then makes the contagion whichhis unnatural state spreads, the instrument of15 tyranny.(*Footnote. Men of abilities scatter seeds thatgrow up, and have a great influence on theforming opinion; and when once the publicopinion preponderates, through the exertion ofreason, the overthrow of arbitrary power is notvery distant.)It is the pestiferous purple which renders theprogress of civilization a curse, and warps theunderstanding, till men of sensibility doubtwhether the expansion of intellect produces agreater portion of happiness or misery. But thenature of the poison points out the antidote; andhad Rousseau mounted one step higher in hisinvestigation; or could his eye have piercedthrough the foggy atmosphere, which he almostdisdained to breathe, his active mind would havedarted forward to contemplate the perfection ofman in the establishment of true civilization,instead of taking his ferocious flight back to thenight of sensual ignorance.CHAPTER 2.THE PREVAILING OPINION OF ASEXUAL CHARACTER DISCUSSED.To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man,many ingenious arguments have been broughtforward to prove, that the two sexes, in theacquirement of virtue, ought to aim at attaining avery different character: or, to speak explicitly,women are not allowed to have sufficient strengthof mind to acquire what really deserves the nameof virtue. Yet it should seem, allowing them tohave souls, that there is but one way appointed byprovidence to lead MANKIND to either virtue orhappiness.If then women are not a swarm of ephemerontriflers, why should they be kept in ignoranceunder the specious name of innocence? Mencomplain, and with reason, of the follies andcaprices of our sex, when they do not keenlysatirize our headstrong passions and grovelingvices. Behold, I should answer, the natural effectof ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable thathas only prejudices to rest on, and the current willrun with destructive fury when there are nobarriers to break its force. Women are told fromtheir infancy, and taught by the example of theirmothers, that a little knowledge of humanweakness, justly termed cunning, softness oftemper, OUTWARD obedience, and a scrupulousattention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtainfor them the protection of man; and should theybe beautiful, every thing else is needless, for atleast twenty years of their lives.Thus Milton describes our first frail mother;though when he tells us that women are formedfor softness and sweet attractive grace, I cannotcomprehend his meaning, unless, in the trueMahometan strain, he meant to deprive us ofsouls, and insinuate that we were beings only16 designed by sweet attractive grace, and docileblind obedience, to gratify the senses of manwhen he can no longer soar on the wing ofcontemplation.How grossly do they insult us, who thus advise usonly to render ourselves gentle, domestic brutes!For instance, the winning softness, so warmly, andfrequently recommended, that governs byobeying. What childish expressions, and howinsignificant is the being—can it be an immortalone? who will condescend to govern by suchsinister methods! "Certainly," says Lord Bacon,"man is of kin to the beasts by his body: and if hebe not of kin to God by his spirit, he is a base andignoble creature!" Men, indeed, appear to me toact in a very unphilosophical manner, when theytry to secure the good conduct of women byattempting to keep them always in a state ofchildhood. Rousseau was more consistent whenhe wished to stop the progress of reason in bothsexes; for if men eat of the tree of knowledge,women will come in for a taste: but, from theimperfect cultivation which their understandingsnow receive, they only attain a knowledge of evil.Children, I grant, should be innocent; but whenthe epithet is applied to men, or women, it is but acivil term for weakness. For if it be allowed thatwomen were destined by Providence to acquirehuman virtues, and by the exercise of theirunderstandings, that stability of character which isthe firmest ground to rest our future hopes upon,they must be permitted to turn to the fountain oflight, and not forced to shape their course by thetwinkling of a mere satellite. Milton, I grant, wasof a very different opinion; for he only bends tothe indefeasible right of beauty, though it wouldbe difficult to render two passages, which I nowmean to contrast, consistent: but into similarinconsistencies are great men often led by theirsenses:—"To whom thus Eve with perfect beauty adorned:My author and disposer, what thou bidstUnargued I obey; so God ordains;God is thy law, thou mine; to know no moreIs woman's happiest knowledge and her praise."These are exactly the arguments that I have usedto children; but I have added, "Your reason isnow gaining strength, and, till it arrives at somedegree of maturity, you must look up to me foradvice: then you ought to THINK, and only relyon God."Yet, in the following lines, Milton seems tocoincide with me, when he makes Adam thusexpostulate with his Maker:—"Hast thou not made me here thy substitute,And these inferior far beneath me set?Among unequals what societyCan sort, what harmony or delight?Which must be mutual, in proportion dueGiven and received; but in disparityThe one intense, the other still remissCannot well suit with either, but soon proveTedious alike: of fellowship I speakSuch as I seek fit to participateAll rational delight."In treating, therefore, of the manners of women,let us, disregarding sensual arguments, trace whatwe should endeavour to make them in order toco-operate, if the expression be not too bold, withthe Supreme Being.By individual education, I mean—for the sense ofthe word is not precisely defined—such anattention to a child as will slowly sharpen thesenses, form the temper, regulate the passions, asthey begin to ferment, and set the understandingto work before the body arrives at maturity; sothat the man may only have to proceed, not tobegin, the important task of learning to think andreason.17 To prevent any misconstruction, I must add, thatI do not believe that a private education can workthe wonders which some sanguine writers haveattributed to it. Men and women must beeducated, in a great degree, by the opinions andmanners of the society they live in. In every agethere has been a stream of popular opinion thathas carried all before it, and given a familycharacter, as it were, to the century. It may thenfairly be inferred, that, till society be differentlyconstituted, much cannot be expected fromeducation. It is, however, sufficient for my presentpurpose to assert, that, whatever effectcircumstances have on the abilities, every beingmay become virtuous by the exercise of its ownreason; for if but one being was created withvicious inclinations—that is, positively bad—what can save us from atheism? or if we worship aGod, is not that God a devil?Consequently, the most perfect education, in myopinion, is such an exercise of the understandingas is best calculated to strengthen the body andform the heart; or, in other words, to enable theindividual to attain such habits of virtue as willrender it independent. In fact, it is a farce to callany being virtuous whose virtues do not resultfrom the exercise of its own reason. This wasRousseau's opinion respecting men: I extend it towomen, and confidently assert that they havebeen drawn out of their sphere by falserefinement, and not by an endeavour to acquiremasculine qualities. Still the regal homage whichthey receive is so intoxicating, that, till themanners of the times are changed, and formed onmore reasonable principles, it may be impossibleto convince them that the illegitimate power,which they obtain by degrading themselves, is acurse, and that they must return to nature andequality, if they wish to secure the placidsatisfaction that unsophisticated affections impart.But for this epoch we must wait—wait, perhaps,till kings and nobles, enlightened by reason, and,preferring the real dignity of man to childish state,throw off their gaudy hereditary trappings; and ifthen women do not resign the arbitrary power ofbeauty, they will prove that they have LESS mindthan man. I may be accused of arrogance; still Imust declare, what I firmly believe, that all thewriters who have written on the subject of femaleeducation and manners, from Rousseau to Dr.Gregory, have contributed to render women moreartificial, weaker characters, than they wouldotherwise have been; and, consequently, moreuseless members of society. I might haveexpressed this conviction in a lower key; but I amafraid it would have been the whine of affectation,and not the faithful expression of my feelings, ofthe clear result, which experience and reflectionhave led me to draw. When I come to thatdivision of the subject, I shall advert to thepassages that I more particularly disapprove of, inthe works of the authors I have just alluded to;but it is first necessary to observe, that myobjection extends to the whole purport of thosebooks, which tend, in my opinion, to degrade onehalf of the human species, and render womenpleasing at the expense of every solid virtue.Though to reason on Rousseau's ground, if mandid attain a degree of perfection of mind when hisbody arrived at maturity, it might be proper inorder to make a man and his wife ONE, that sheshould rely entirely on his understanding; and thegraceful ivy, clasping the oak that supported it,would form a whole in which strength and beautywould be equally conspicuous. But, alas!husbands, as well as their helpmates, are oftenonly overgrown children; nay, thanks to earlydebauchery, scarcely men in their outward form,and if the blind lead the blind, one need not comefrom heaven to tell us the consequence.Many are the causes that, in the present corruptstate of society, contribute to enslave women by18 cramping their understandings and sharpeningtheir senses. One, perhaps, that silently does moremischief than all the rest, is their disregard oforder.To do every thing in an orderly manner, is a mostimportant precept, which women, who, generallyspeaking, receive only a disorderly kind ofeducation, seldom attend to with that degree ofexactness that men, who from their infancy arebroken into method, observe. This negligent kindof guesswork, for what other epithet can be usedto point out the random exertions of a sort ofinstinctive common sense, never brought to thetest of reason? prevents their generalizing mattersof fact, so they do to-day, what they did yesterday,merely because they did it yesterday.This contempt of the understanding in early lifehas more baneful consequences than is commonlysupposed; for the little knowledge which womenof strong minds attain, is, from variouscircumstances, of a more desultory kind than theknowledge of men, and it is acquired more bysheer observations on real life, than fromcomparing what has been individually observedwith the results of experience generalized byspeculation. Led by their dependent situation anddomestic employments more into society, whatthey learn is rather by snatches; and as learning iswith them, in general, only a secondary thing, theydo not pursue any one branch with thatpersevering ardour necessary to give vigour to thefaculties, and clearness to the judgment. In thepresent state of society, a little learning is requiredto support the character of a gentleman; and boysare obliged to submit to a few years of discipline.But in the education of women the cultivation ofthe understanding is always subordinate to theacquirement of some corporeal accomplishment;even while enervated by confinement and falsenotions of modesty, the body is prevented fromattaining that grace and beauty which relaxed half-formed limbs never exhibit. Besides, in youththeir faculties are not brought forward byemulation; and having no serious scientific study,if they have natural sagacity it is turned too soonon life and manners. They dwell on effects, andmodifications, without tracing them back tocauses; and complicated rules to adjust behaviourare a weak substitute for simple principles.As a proof that education gives this appearance ofweakness to females, we may instance theexample of military men, who are, like them, sentinto the world before their minds have beenstored with knowledge or fortified by principles.The consequences are similar; soldiers acquire alittle superficial knowledge, snatched from themuddy current of conversation, and, fromcontinually mixing with society, they gain, what istermed a knowledge of the world; and thisacquaintance with manners and customs hasfrequently been confounded with a knowledge ofthe human heart. But can the crude fruit of casualobservation, never brought to the test ofjudgment, formed by comparing speculation andexperience, deserve such a distinction? Soldiers, aswell as women, practice the minor virtues withpunctilious politeness. Where is then the sexualdifference, when the education has been the same;all the difference that I can discern, arises fromthe superior advantage of liberty which enablesthe former to see more of life.It is wandering from my present subject, perhaps,to make a political remark; but as it was producednaturally by the train of my reflections, I shall notpass it silently over.Standing armies can never consist of resolute,robust men; they may be well disciplinedmachines, but they will seldom contain men underthe influence of strong passions or with veryvigorous faculties. And as for any depth ofunderstanding, I will venture to affirm, that it is as19 rarely to be found in the army as amongst women;and the cause, I maintain, is the same. It may befurther observed, that officers are also particularlyattentive to their persons, fond of dancing,crowded rooms, adventures, and ridicule. Like theFAIR sex, the business of their lives is gallantry.They were taught to please, and they only live toplease. Yet they do not lose their rank in thedistinction of sexes, for they are still reckonedsuperior to women, though in what theirsuperiority consists, beyond what I have justmentioned, it is difficult to discover.The great misfortune is this, that they bothacquire manners before morals, and a knowledgeof life before they have from reflection, anyacquaintance with the grand ideal outline ofhuman nature. The consequence is natural;satisfied with common nature, they become a preyto prejudices, and taking all their opinions oncredit, they blindly submit to authority. So that ifthey have any sense, it is a kind of instinctiveglance, that catches proportions, and decides withrespect to manners; but fails when arguments areto be pursued below the surface, or opinionsanalyzed.May not the same remark be applied to women?Nay, the argument may be carried still further, forthey are both thrown out of a useful station by theunnatural distinctions established in civilized life.Riches and hereditary honours have made cyphersof women to give consequence to the numericalfigure; and idleness has produced a mixture ofgallantry and despotism in society, which leads thevery men who are the slaves of their mistresses, totyrannize over their sisters, wives, and daughters.This is only keeping them in rank and file, it istrue. Strengthen the female mind by enlarging it,and there will be an end to blind obedience; but,as blind obedience is ever sought for by power,tyrants and sensualists are in the right when theyendeavour to keep women in the dark, becausethe former only want slaves, and the latter a play-thing. The sensualist, indeed, has been the mostdangerous of tyrants, and women have beenduped by their lovers, as princes by theirministers, whilst dreaming that they reigned overthem.I now principally allude to Rousseau, for hischaracter of Sophia is, undoubtedly, a captivatingone, though it appears to me grossly unnatural;however, it is not the superstructure, but thefoundation of her character, the principles onwhich her education was built, that I mean toattack; nay, warmly as I admire the genius of thatable writer, whose opinions I shall often haveoccasion to cite, indignation always takes place ofadmiration, and the rigid frown of insulted virtueeffaces the smile of complacency, which hiseloquent periods are wont to raise, when I readhis voluptuous reveries. Is this the man, who, inhis ardour for virtue, would banish all the soft artsof peace, and almost carry us back to Spartandiscipline? Is this the man who delights to paintthe useful struggles of passion, the triumphs ofgood dispositions, and the heroic flights whichcarry the glowing soul out of itself? How are thesemighty sentiments lowered when he describes theprettyfoot and enticing airs of his little favourite!But, for the present, I waive the subject, and,instead of severely reprehending the transienteffusions of overweening sensibility, I shall onlyobserve, that whoever has cast a benevolent eyeon society, must often have been gratified by thesight of humble mutual love, not dignified bysentiment, nor strengthened by a union inintellectual pursuits. The domestic trifles of theday have afforded matter for cheerful converse,and innocent caresses have softened toils whichdid not require great exercise of mind, or stretchof thought: yet, has not the sight of this moderatefelicity excited more tenderness than respect? Anemotion similar to what we feel when children are20 playing, or animals sporting, whilst thecontemplation of the noble struggles of sufferingmerit has raised admiration, and carried ourthoughts to that world where sensation will giveplace to reason.Women are, therefore, to be considered either asmoral beings, or so weak that they must beentirely subjected to the superior faculties of men.Let us examine this question. Rousseau declares,that a woman should never, for a moment feelherself independent, that she should be governedby fear to exercise her NATURAL cunning, andmade a coquetish slave in order to render her amore alluring object of desire, a SWEETERcompanion to man, whenever he chooses to relaxhimself. He carries the arguments, which hepretends to draw from the indications of nature,still further, and insinuates that truth and fortitudethe corner stones of all human virtue, shall becultivated with certain restrictions, because withrespect to the female character, obedience is thegrand lesson which ought to be impressed withunrelenting rigour.What nonsense! When will a great man arise withsufficient strength of mind to puff away the fumeswhich pride and sensuality have thus spread overthe subject! If women are by nature inferior tomen, their virtues must be the same in quality, ifnot in degree, or virtue is a relative idea;consequently, their conduct should be founded onthe same principles, and have the same aim.Connected with man as daughters, wives, andmothers, their moral character may be estimatedby their manner of fulfilling those simple duties;but the end, the grand end of their exertionsshould be to unfold their own faculties, andacquire the dignity of conscious virtue. They maytry to render their road pleasant; but ought neverto forget, in common with man, that life yieldsnot the felicity which can satisfy an immortal soul.I do not mean to insinuate, that either sex shouldbe so lost, in abstract reflections or distant views,as to forget the affections and duties that liebefore them, and are, in truth, the meansappointed to produce the fruit of life; on thecontrary, I would warmly recommend them, evenwhile I assert, that they afford most satisfactionwhen they are considered in their true subordinatelight.Probably the prevailing opinion, that woman wascreated for man, may have taken its rise fromMoses's poetical story; yet, as very few it ispresumed, who have bestowed any seriousthought on the subject, ever supposed that Evewas, literally speaking, one of Adam's ribs, thededuction must be allowed to fall to the ground;or, only be so far admitted as it proves that man,from the remotest antiquity, found it convenientto exert his strength to subjugate his companion,and his invention to show that she ought to haveher neck bent under the yoke; because she as wellas the brute creation, was created to do hispleasure.Let it not be concluded, that I wish to invert theorder of things; I have already granted, that, fromthe constitution of their bodies, men seem to bedesigned by Providence to attain a greater degreeof virtue. I speak collectively of the whole sex; butI see not the shadow of a reason to conclude thattheir virtues should differ in respect to theirnature. In fact, how can they, if virtue has onlyone eternal standard? I must, therefore, if I reasonconsequentially, as strenuously maintain, that theyhave the same simple direction, as that there is aGod.It follows then, that cunning should not beopposed to wisdom, little cares to great exertions,nor insipid softness, varnished over with the nameof gentleness, to that fortitude which grand views21 alone can inspire.I shall be told, that woman would then lose manyof her peculiar graces, and the opinion of a wellknown poet might be quoted to refute myunqualified assertions. For Pope has said, in thename of the whole male sex,"Yet ne'er so sure our passions to create,As when she touch'd the brink of all we hate."In what light this sally places men and women, Ishall leave to the judicious to determine;meanwhile I shall content myself with observing,that I cannot discover why, unless they are mortal,females should always be degraded by being madesubservient to love or lust.To speak disrespectfully of love is, I know, hightreason against sentiment and fine feelings; but Iwish to speak the simple language of truth, andrather to address the head than the heart. Toendeavour to reason love out of the world, wouldbe to out Quixote Cervantes, and equally offendagainst common sense; but an endeavour torestrain this tumultuous passion, and to prove thatit should not be allowed to dethrone superiorpowers, or to usurp the sceptre which theunderstanding should ever coolly wield, appearsless wild.Youth is the season for love in both sexes; but inthose days of thoughtless enjoyment, provisionshould be made for the more important years oflife, when reflection takes place of sensation. ButRousseau, and most of the male writers who havefollowed his steps, have warmly inculcated thatthe whole tendency of female education ought tobe directed to one point to render them pleasing.Let me reason with the supporters of this opinion,who have any knowledge of human nature, dothey imagine that marriage can eradicate thehabitude of life? The woman who has only beentaught to please, will soon find that her charmsare oblique sun-beams, and that they cannot havemuch effect on her husband's heart when they areseen every day, when the summer is past andgone. Will she then have sufficient native energyto look into herself for comfort, and cultivate herdormant faculties? or, is it not more rational toexpect, that she will try to please other men; and,in the emotions raised by the expectation of newconquests, endeavour to forget the mortificationher love or pride has received? When the husbandceases to be a lover—and the time will inevitablycome, her desire of pleasing will then growlanguid, or become a spring of bitterness; andlove, perhaps, the most evanescent of all passions,gives place to jealousy or vanity.I now speak of women who are restrained byprinciple or prejudice; such women though theywould shrink from an intrigue with realabhorrence, yet, nevertheless, wish to beconvinced by the homage of gallantry, that theyare cruelly neglected by their husbands; or, daysand weeks are spent in dreaming of the happinessenjoyed by congenial souls, till the health isundermined and the spirits broken by discontent.How then can the great art of pleasing be such anecessary study? it is only useful to a mistress; thechaste wife, and serious mother, should onlyconsider her power to please as the polish of hervirtues, and the affection of her husband as one ofthe comforts that render her task less difficult, andher life happier. But, whether she be loved orneglected, her first wish should be to make herselfrespectable, and not rely for all her happiness on abeing subject to like infirmities with herself.The amiable Dr. Gregory fell into a similar error. Irespect his heart; but entirely disapprove of hiscelebrated Legacy to his Daughters.He advises them to cultivate a fondness for dress,because a fondness for dress, he asserts, is natural22 to them. I am unable to comprehend what eitherhe or Rousseau mean, when they frequently usethis indefinite term. If they told us, that in a pre-existent state the soul was fond of dress, andbrought this inclination with it into a new body, Ishould listen to them with a half smile, as I oftendo when I hear a rant about innate elegance. Butif he only meant to say that the exercise of thefaculties will produce this fondness, I deny it. It isnot natural; but arises, like false ambition in men,from a love of power.Dr. Gregory goes much further; he actuallyrecommends dissimulation, and advises aninnocent girl to give the lie to her feelings, and notdance with spirit, when gaiety of heart wouldmake her feet eloquent, without making hergestures immodest. In the name of truth andcommon sense, why should not one womanacknowledge that she can take more exercise thananother? or, in other words, that she has a soundconstitution; and why to damp innocent vivacity,is she darkly to be told, that men will drawconclusions which she little thinks of? Let thelibertine draw what inference he pleases; but, Ihope, that no sensible mother will restrain thenatural frankness of youth, by instilling suchindecent cautions. Out of the abundance of theheart the mouth speaketh; and a wiser thanSolomon hath said, that the heart should be madeclean, and not trivial ceremonies observed, whichit is not very difficult to fulfill with scrupulousexactness when vice reigns in the heart.Women ought to endeavour to purify their hearts;but can they do so when their uncultivatedunderstandings make them entirely dependent ontheir senses for employment and amusement,when no noble pursuit sets them above the littlevanities of the day, or enables them to curb thewild emotions that agitate a reed over which everypassing breeze has power? To gain the affectionsof a virtuous man, is affectation necessary?Nature has given woman a weaker frame thanman; but, to ensure her husband's affections, musta wife, who, by the exercise of her mind and body,whilst she was discharging the duties of adaughter, wife, and mother, has allowed herconstitution to retain its natural strength, and hernerves a healthy tone, is she, I say, to condescend,to use art, and feign a sickly delicacy, in order tosecure her husband's affection? Weakness mayexcite tenderness, and gratify the arrogant pride ofman; but the lordly caresses of a protector will notgratify a noble mind that pants for and deserves tobe respected. Fondness is a poor substitute forfriendship!In a seraglio, I grant, that all these arts arenecessary; the epicure must have his palate tickled,or he will sink into apathy; but have women solittle ambition as to be satisfied with such acondition? Can they supinely dream life away inthe lap of pleasure, or in the languor of weariness,rather than assert their claim to pursue reasonablepleasures, and render themselves conspicuous, bypractising the virtues which dignify mankind?Surely she has not an immortal soul who canloiter life away, merely employed to adorn herperson, that she may amuse the languid hours,and soften the cares of a fellow-creature who iswilling to be enlivened by her smiles and tricks,when the serious business of life is over.Besides, the woman who strengthens her bodyand exercises her mind will, by managing herfamily and practising various virtues, become thefriend, and not the humble dependent of herhusband; and if she deserves his regard bypossessing such substantial qualities, she will notfind it necessary to conceal her affection, nor topretend to an unnatural coldness of constitutionto excite her husband's passions. In fact, if werevert to history, we shall find that the womenwho have distinguished themselves have neither23 been the most beautiful nor the most gentle oftheir sex.Nature, or to speak with strict propriety God, hasmade all things right; but man has sought him outmany inventions to mar the work. I now allude tothat part of Dr. Gregory's treatise, where headvises a wife never to let her husband know theextent of her sensibility or affection. Voluptuousprecaution; and as ineffectual as absurd. Love,from its very nature, must be transitory. To seekfor a secret that would render it constant, wouldbe as wild a search as for the philosopher's stone,or the grand panacea; and the discovery would beequally useless, or rather pernicious to mankind.The most holy band of society is friendship. It hasbeen well said, by a shrewd satirist, "that rare astrue love is, true friendship is still rarer."This is an obvious truth, and the cause not lyingdeep, will not elude a slight glance of inquiry.Love, the common passion, in which chance andsensation take place of choice and reason, is insome degree, felt by the mass of mankind; for it isnot necessary to speak, at present, of the emotionsthat rise above or sink below love. This passion,naturally increased by suspense and difficulties,draws the mind out of its accustomed state, andexalts the affections; but the security of marriage,allowing the fever of love to subside, a healthytemperature is thought insipid, only by those whohave not sufficient intellect to substitute the calmtenderness of friendship, the confidence ofrespect, instead of blind admiration, and thesensual emotions of fondness.This is, must be, the course of nature—friendshipor indifference inevitably succeeds love. And thisconstitution seems perfectly to harmonize withthe system of government which prevails in themoral world. Passions are spurs to action, andopen the mind; but they sink into mere appetites,become a personal momentary gratification, whenthe object is gained, and the satisfied mind rests inenjoyment. The man who had some virtue whilsthe was struggling for a crown, often becomes avoluptuous tyrant when it graces his brow; and,when the lover is not lost in the husband, thedotard a prey to childish caprices, and fondjealousies, neglects the serious duties of life, andthe caresses which should excite confidence in hischildren are lavished on the overgrown child, hiswife.In order to fulfil the duties of life, and to be ableto pursue with vigour the various employmentswhich form the moral character, a master andmistress of a family ought not to continue to loveeach other with passion. I mean to say, that theyought not to indulge those emotions whichdisturb the order of society, and engross thethoughts that should be otherwise employed. Themind that has never been engrossed by one objectwants vigour—if it can long be so, it is weak.A mistaken education, a narrow, uncultivatedmind, and many sexual prejudices, tend to makewomen more constant than men; but, for thepresent, I shall not touch on this branch of thesubject. I will go still further, and advance,without dreaming of a paradox, that an unhappymarriage is often very advantageous to a family,and that the neglected wife is, in general, the bestmother. And this would almost always be theconsequence, if the female mind was moreenlarged; for, it seems to be the commondispensation of Providence, that what we gain inpresent enjoyment should be deducted from thetreasure of life, experience; and that when we aregathering the flowers of the day and revelling inpleasure, the solid fruit of toil and wisdom shouldnot be caught at the same time. The way liesbefore us, we must turn to the right or left; and hewho will pass life away in bounding from onepleasure to another, must not complain if he24 neither acquires wisdom nor respectability ofcharacter.Supposing for a moment, that the soul is notimmortal, and that man was only created for thepresent scene; I think we should have reason tocomplain that love, infantine fondness, ever grewinsipid and palled upon the sense. Let us eat,drink, and love, for to-morrow we die, would bein fact the language of reason, the morality of life;and who but a fool would part with a reality for afleeting shadow? But, if awed by observing theimprovable powers of the mind, we disdain toconfine our wishes or thoughts to such acomparatively mean field of action; that onlyappears grand and important as it is connectedwith a boundless prospect and sublime hopes;what necessity is there for falsehood in conduct,and why must the sacred majesty of truth beviolated to detain a deceitful good that saps thevery foundation of virtue? Why must the femalemind be tainted by coquetish arts to gratify thesensualist, and prevent love from subsiding intofriendship or compassionate tenderness, whenthere are not qualities on which friendship can bebuilt? Let the honest heart show itself, andREASON teach passion to submit to necessity;or, let the dignified pursuit of virtue andknowledge raise the mind above those emotionswhich rather imbitter than sweeten the cup of life,when they are not restrained within due bounds.I do not mean to allude to the romantic passion,which is the concomitant of genius. Who can clipits wings? But that grand passion notproportioned to the puny enjoyments of life, isonly true to the sentiment, and feeds on itself. Thepassions which have been celebrated for theirdurability have always been unfortunate. Theyhave acquired strength by absence andconstitutional melancholy. The fancy has hoveredround a form of beauty dimly seen—butfamiliarity might have turned admiration intodisgust; or, at least, into indifference, and allowedthe imagination leisure to start fresh game. Withperfect propriety, according to this view of things,does Rousseau make the mistress of his soul,Eloisa, love St. Preux, when life was fading beforeher; but this is no proof of the immortality of thepassion.Of the same complexion is Dr. Gregory's advicerespecting delicacy of sentiment, which he advisesa woman not to acquire, if she has determined tomarry. This determination, however, perfectlyconsistent with his former advice, he callsINDELICATE, and earnestly persuades hisdaughters to conceal it, though it may govern theirconduct: as if it were indelicate to have thecommon appetites of human nature.Noble morality! and consistent with the cautiousprudence of a little soul that cannot extend itsviews beyond the present minute division ofexistence. If all the faculties of woman's mind areonly to be cultivated as they respect herdependence on man; if, when she obtains ahusband she has arrived at her goal, and meanlyproud, is satisfied with such a paltry crown, let hergrovel contentedly, scarcely raised by heremployments above the animal kingdom; but, ifshe is struggling for the prize of her high calling,let her cultivate her understanding withoutstopping to consider what character the husbandmay have whom she is destined to marry. Let heronly determine, without being too anxious aboutpresent happiness, to acquire the qualities thatennoble a rational being, and a rough, ineleganthusband may shock her taste without destroyingher peace of mind. She will not model her soul tosuit the frailties of her companion, but to bearwith them: his character may be a trial, but not animpediment to virtue.If Dr. Gregory confined his remark to romanticexpectations of constant love and congenial25 feelings, he should have recollected, thatexperience will banish what advice can nevermake us cease to wish for, when the imaginationis kept alive at the expence of reason.I own it frequently happens, that women whohave fostered a romantic unnatural delicacy offeeling, waste their lives in IMAGINING howhappy they should have been with a husband whocould love them with a fervid increasing affectionevery day, and all day. But they might as well pinemarried as single, and would not be a jot moreunhappy with a bad husband than longing for agood one. That a proper education; or, to speakwith more precision, a well stored mind, wouldenable a woman to support a single life withdignity, I grant; but that she should avoidcultivating her taste, lest her husband shouldoccasionally shock it, is quitting a substance for ashadow. To say the truth, I do not know of whatuse is an improved taste, if the individual be notrendered more independent of the casualties oflife; if new sources of enjoyment, only dependenton the solitary operations of the mind, are notopened. People of taste, married or single, withoutdistinction, will ever be disgusted by variousthings that touch not less observing minds. Onthis conclusion the argument must not be allowedto hinge; but in the whole sum of enjoyment istaste to be denominated a blessing?The question is, whether it procures most pain orpleasure? The answer will decide the propriety ofDr. Gregory's advice, and show how absurd andtyrannic it is thus to lay down a system of slavery;or to attempt to educate moral beings by anyother rules than those deduced from pure reason,which apply to the whole species.Gentleness of manners, forbearance, and longsuffering, are such amiable godlike qualities, thatin sublime poetic strains the Deity has beeninvested with them; and, perhaps, norepresentation of his goodness so strongly fastenson the human affections as those that representhim abundant in mercy and willing to pardon.Gentleness, considered in this point of view, bearson its front all the characteristics of grandeur,combined with the winning graces ofcondescension; but what a different aspect itassumes when it is the submissive demeanour ofdependence, the support of weakness that loves,because it wants protection; and is forbearing,because it must silently endure injuries; smilingunder the lash at which it dare not snarl. Abject asthis picture appears, it is the portrait of anaccomplished woman, according to the receivedopinion of female excellence, separated byspecious reasoners from human excellence. Or,they (Vide Rousseau, and Swedenborg) kindlyrestore the rib, and make one moral being of aman and woman; not forgetting to give her all the"submissive charms."How women are to exist in that state where thereis to be neither marrying nor giving in marriage,we are not told. For though moralists have agreed,that the tenor of life seems to prove that MAN isprepared by various circumstances for a futurestate, they constantly concur in advisingWOMAN only to provide for the present.Gentleness, docility, and a spaniel-like affectionare, on this ground, consistently recommended asthe cardinal virtues of the sex; and, disregardingthe arbitrary economy of nature, one writer hasdeclared that it is masculine for a woman to bemelancholy. She was created to be the toy of man,his rattle, and it must jingle in his ears, whenever,dismissing reason, he chooses to be amused.To recommend gentleness, indeed, on a broadbasis is strictly philosophical. A frail being shouldlabour to be gentle. But when forbearanceconfounds right and wrong, it ceases to be avirtue; and, however convenient it may be foundin a companion, that companion will ever be26 considered as an inferior, and only inspire a vapidtenderness, which easily degenerates intocontempt. Still, if advice could really make a beinggentle, whose natural disposition admitted not ofsuch a fine polish, something toward theadvancement of order would be attained; but if, asmight quickly be demonstrated, only affectationbe produced by this indiscriminate counsel, whichthrows a stumbling block in the way of gradualimprovement, and true melioration of temper, thesex is not much benefited by sacrificing solidvirtues to the attainment of superficial graces,though for a few years they may procure theindividual's regal sway.As a philosopher, I read with indignation theplausible epithets which men use to soften theirinsults; and, as a moralist, I ask what is meant bysuch heterogeneous associations, as fair defects,amiable weaknesses, etc.? If there is but onecriterion of morals, but one archetype for man,women appear to be suspended by destiny,according to the vulgar tale of Mahomet's coffin;they have neither the unerring instinct of brutes,nor are allowed to fix the eye of reason on aperfect model. They were made to be loved, andmust not aim at respect, lest they should behunted out of society as masculine.But to view the subject in another point of view.Do passive indolent women make the best wives?Confining our discussion to the present momentof existence, let us see how such weak creaturesperform their part? Do the women who, by theattainment of a few superficial accomplishments,have strengthened the prevailing prejudice, merelycontribute to the happiness of their husbands? Dothey display their charms merely to amuse them?And have women, who have early imbibednotions of passive obedience, sufficient characterto manage a family or educate children? So farfrom it, that, after surveying the history ofwoman, I cannot help agreeing with the severestsatirist, considering the sex as the weakest as wellas the most oppressed half of the species. Whatdoes history disclose but marks of inferiority, andhow few women have emancipated themselvesfrom the galling yoke of sovereign man? So few,that the exceptions remind me of an ingeniousconjecture respecting Newton: that he wasprobably a being of a superior order, accidentallycaged in a human body. In the same style I havebeen led to imagine that the few extraordinarywomen who have rushed in eccentrical directionsout of the orbit prescribed to their sex, wereMALE spirits, confined by mistake in a femaleframe. But if it be not philosophical to think ofsex when the soul is mentioned, the inferioritymust depend on the organs; or the heavenly fire,which is to ferment the clay, is not given in equalportions.But avoiding, as I have hitherto done, any directcomparison of the two sexes collectively, orfrankly acknowledging the inferiority of woman,according to the present appearance of things, Ishall only insist, that men have increased thatinferiority till women are almost sunk below thestandard of rational creatures. Let their facultieshave room to unfold, and their virtues to gainstrength, and then determine where the whole sexmust stand in the intellectual scale. Yet, let it beremembered, that for a small number ofdistinguished women I do not ask a place.It is difficult for us purblind mortals to say towhat height human discoveries and improvementsmay arrive, when the gloom of despotismsubsides, which makes us stumble at every step;but, when morality shall be settled on a more solidbasis, then, without being gifted with a propheticspirit, I will venture to predict, that woman will beeither the friend or slave of man. We shall not, asat present, doubt whether she is a moral agent, orthe link which unites man with brutes. But, shouldit then appear, that like the brutes they were27 principally created for the use of man, he will letthem patiently bite the bridle, and not mock themwith empty praise; or, should their rationality beproved, he will not impede their improvementmerely to gratify his sensual appetites. He will notwith all the graces of rhetoric, advise them tosubmit implicitly their understandings to theguidance of man. He will not, when he treats ofthe education of women, assert, that they oughtnever to have the free use of reason, nor would herecommend cunning and dissimulation to beingswho are acquiring, in like manner as himself, thevirtues of humanity.Surely there can be but one rule of right, ifmorality has an eternal foundation, and whoeversacrifices virtue, strictly so called, to presentconvenience, or whose DUTY it is to act in sucha manner, lives only for the passing day, andcannot be an accountable creature.The poet then should have dropped his sneerwhen he says,"If weak women go astray,The stars are more in fault than they."For that they are bound by the adamantine chainof destiny is most certain, if it be proved that theyare never to exercise their own reason, never to beindependent, never to rise above opinion, or tofeel the dignity of a rational will that only bows toGod, and often forgets that the universe containsany being but itself, and the model of perfectionto which its ardent gaze is turned, to adoreattributes that, softened into virtues, may beimitated in kind, though the degree overwhelmsthe enraptured mind.If, I say, for I would not impress by declamationwhen reason offers her sober light, if they arereally capable of acting like rational creatures, letthem not be treated like slaves; or, like the bruteswho are dependent on the reason of man, whenthey associate with him; but cultivate their minds,give them the salutary, sublime curb of principle,and let them attain conscious dignity by feelingthemselves only dependent on God. Teach them,in common with man, to submit to necessity,instead of giving, to render them more pleasing, asex to morals.Further, should experience prove that they cannotattain the same degree of strength of mind,perseverance and fortitude, let their virtues be thesame in kind, though they may vainly struggle forthe same degree; and the superiority of man willbe equally clear, if not clearer; and truth, as it is asimple principle, which admits of no modification,would be common to both. Nay, the order ofsociety, as it is at present regulated, would not beinverted, for woman would then only have therank that reason assigned her, and arts could notbe practised to bring the balance even, much lessto turn it.These may be termed Utopian dreams. Thanks tothat Being who impressed them on my soul, andgave me sufficient strength of mind to dare toexert my own reason, till becoming dependentonly on him for the support of my virtue, I viewwith indignation, the mistaken notions thatenslave my sex.I love man as my fellow; but his sceptre real orusurped, extends not to me, unless the reason ofan individual demands my homage; and even thenthe submission is to reason, and not to man. Infact, the conduct of an accountable being must beregulated by the operations of its own reason; oron what foundation rests the throne of God?It appears to me necessary to dwell on theseobvious truths, because females have beeninsulted, as it were; and while they have beenstripped of the virtues that should clothehumanity, they have been decked with artificial28 graces, that enable them to exercise a short livedtyranny. Love, in their bosoms, taking place ofevery nobler passion, their sole ambition is to befair, to raise emotion instead of inspiring respect;and this ignoble desire, like the servility inabsolute monarchies, destroys all strength ofcharacter. Liberty is the mother of virtue, and ifwomen are, by their very constitution, slaves, andnot allowed to breathe the sharp invigorating airof freedom, they must ever languish like exotics,and be reckoned beautiful flaws in nature; let italso be remembered, that they are the only flaw.As to the argument respecting the subjection inwhich the sex has ever been held, it retorts onman. The many have always been enthralled bythe few; and, monsters who have scarcely shownany discernment of human excellence, havetyrannized over thousands of their fellowcreatures. Why have men of superior endowmentssubmitted to such degradation? For, is it notuniversally acknowledged that kings, viewedcollectively, have ever been inferior, in abilitiesand virtue, to the same number of men takenfrom the common mass of mankind—yet, havethey not, and are they not still treated with adegree of reverence, that is an insult to reason?China is not the only country where a living manhas been made a God. MEN have submitted tosuperior strength, to enjoy with impunity thepleasure of the moment—WOMEN have onlydone the same, and therefore till it is proved thatthe courtier, who servilely resigns the birthright ofa man, is not a moral agent, it cannot bedemonstrated that woman is essentially inferior toman, because she has always been subjugated.Brutal force has hitherto governed the world, andthat the science of politics is in its infancy, isevident from philosophers scrupling to give theknowledge most useful to man that determinatedistinction.I shall not pursue this argument any further thanto establish an obvious inference, that as soundpolitics diffuse liberty, mankind, includingwoman, will become more wise and virtuous.29